quote:Originally posted by machf: Earlier tonight I made a graphic comparing both by superimposing schematics of the old one on renderings of the new one. You may find it here.
Is it just a comparison of shape, or of size as well? And if the latter, what source did you base the dimensions on?
Apologies if you answered this in the thread. My Spanish is not so good.
posted
I dont think there's enough scale shots on the new version to make a definite size-comparison yet, but that's a nicely done image.
...but there's the debate on the length of the original version as well. THe Viper launch tubes place the ship at only 600-640 meters while the series creators say it's a nautical mile long (that's darn big!).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: If you don't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say? Jason, the edit button is not that scary. You can do it! Marian
I do but I'm at work and not paying too much attention to spelliing while here (multi-tasking and slacking all at once).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
@Jason: The retracting landing bays bug me too, for the exact same reason.
Though it hasn't been shown onscreen yet, IIRC someone pointed out some heavy turrets on the forward 'head' section. But heavy enough to take out a basestar? I dunno, I'd prefer to use nukes for that, even if there's only four left.
(Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
EDIT: the site with the comparison pic doesn't seem to be loading for me...
-------------------- Fell deeds await. Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and a Red Dawn... -Theoden, TTT
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants!
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Something that confused me. There is a line from the mini-series where they move the vipers from the port side to the starboard side (or vice-versa) because the launch tubes on the one sider were now blocked by a gift shop.
How did they move the vipers from the port to the starboard side? It's not like the two landing tubes are connected.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I've seen the debates about the original ship's length. As for the new version, Sci-Fi's website has a cool section showing stats on several of the ships. My only beef is that it's missing the stats for the Mark II.
quote:Originally posted by machf: Earlier tonight I made a graphic comparing both by superimposing schematics of the old one on renderings of the new one. You may find it here.
Is it just a comparison of shape, or of size as well? And if the latter, what source did you base the dimensions on?
Apologies if you answered this in the thread. My Spanish is not so good.
Marian
Well, basically, the whole thing started about a week ago when a friend claimed to have seen some graphic or schematic that proved to him that both were one and the same ship, only that the new one has been refitted with the retractable landing bays, armor plating on the hull, and FTL drive added on the aft. Unfortunately, neither did he save the picture nor could he find the page where he had seen it. I started looking for some comparison online, but didn't find any, so yesterday I decided to try to make a comparison myself. I resized both graphics so that certain details would more or less be of the same size, just to see if that theory was plausible to some degree, and that's how I made that picture. Seeing that it had ended being 1000x800, I also changed it a bit and made it into a 1024x768 wallpaper...
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Manticore: (Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
Well, I've only seen the miniseries, but I didn't see anything to suggest Ragnar didn't have nukes, or that Galactica didn't take them.
If I were in Adama's shoes, I wouldn't have used them either. Galactica didn't need to destroy the base stars, just endure them long enough for everyone to escape, and heavy weapons that could have been fired could also be saved for when they're really needed.
Even if some of the ships have a manufacturing ability, it can't be all that much. Galactica needs to expend as little ordnance as possible to accomplish any given mission.
But those pylon landing docks only take up, maybe, half the length of the ship. So you've still got the whole front of the ship to house people. And as we've seen, this isn't Star Trek, where every junior enlisted guy gets a two-bedroom apartment -- the pilots rack six to a room, and for all we know, many of the enlisted crew hot-bunk.
I think the size of the military force was given at about 2,500 to 3,000. Galactica seems more than big enough to hold everything.
Herb:
I was under the impression that they'd torn or knocked down the gift shop to get the Vipers through. Were they talking about launch tubes, though? I was under the impression there was some sort of connection shaft between the hanger decks.
quote:Originally posted by Manticore: {Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
Nobody on Ragnar to maintain them. Nukes are precision instruments, not something that can be left unattended for long periods.
Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Blogger Snay: Jason,
But those pylon landing docks only take up, maybe, half the length of the ship. So you've still got the whole front of the ship to house people. And as we've seen, this isn't Star Trek, where every junior enlisted guy gets a two-bedroom apartment -- the pilots rack six to a room, and for all we know, many of the enlisted crew hot-bunk.
It just seems a huge waste of space for minimal defensive gain. THey could have just made blast doors over the launchbay entrances.
It reminds me of the silly way the USS Typhon contracts during battle in the PS1 game ST: Invasion.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not for defense. They only retract just before a jump, meaning it's somehow necessary to do so in order to jump, kinda like Voyager's warp nacelles. I'm on the fence on this one - it looks cool, but seems contrived. Then of course, what would happen if the machinery that retacts the bays got knocked out? (And if this has happened already in the shows broadcast outside the US, please don't tell me!!!)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Jason, the edit button is not that scary. You can do it!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
