Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Battlestar Galactica poorly designed?
slowball    2/15/2005 3:37:59 AM
After watching the new Battlestar Galactica series I cruised by some fan websites. I saw a facetious comment that the landing bays of the Battlestar Galactica have giant signs on them saying 'attack here'. It went on to say that this major design defect should have been corrected from the original series design. I smiled at first having thought the same thing for years but upon further thought believe the design to be both sound and innovative. My take is that the design, with the landing bays being on struts away from the main hull, allows for the isolation of damage. Much like the engine pod design of the A-10. Landing bays/decks are always going to be a prime target no matter where you put them. They will always be more vulnerable than the rest of the hull since they need to allow access for fighters to land. By isolating the landing bays from the rest of the ship (and each other) you provide greater protection for the main hull and the other landing bay. Better to have fuel and munitions kept away from the main hull. This also allows guns on the main hull to cover the landing bays and flight path of fighters on final approach.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Treadgar       7/1/2007 8:46:17 AM
First there was the movie, then came the TV series. I thought the evil queen (can't remember her name) was hot, especially those form fitting suits she wore. The movie was kind of funny. There's Buck Rogers flying around in a space shuttle when he gets frozen. Time goes by and they find him frozen in space. Somehow he gets revived (I can't remember how) and he's flying the shuttle around with these space fighters escorting him back to Earth. The shuttle seems to fly like the fighters, I'm talking powered flight after reentry into Earth's atomosphere. I thought the ship designs were really cool, but I hated the little robot Twiggy. Sometimes I feel insulted by the kinds of stuff Hollywood puts together for scifi movies, and that was one of those instances, but then the queen walks into the room and I keep watching like the damned libidnous fool I am. I guess you can figure out one of the reasons I faithfully watched Wonder Women with Susan Carter as our star spangled heroine.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    Battlestar Design   7/2/2007 7:36:06 PM
The Galactica has taken numerous direct hits from high-yield nuclear warheads without severe damage - it is constructed of advanced materials.  Granted they did nearly destroy it when they took on four Cylon Basestars at the battle of New Caprica, but the scene where they take the Galactica into the atmosphere and then conduct an FTL jump right above the city - holy smokes - that was a good episode.  Even watching Sci-Fi, few times am I sitting there with my jaw open thinking "now this is a new concept of crazy."
 
Too bad they've noodled the plot to nothingness in season 3.  Next season is confirmed to be the last - here's to redemption.
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       7/5/2007 9:56:19 AM
The Galactia needs advanced materials to do the things it does in the series, but an atomic blast in space isn't as deadly as it is in the atmosphere where you have the over pressure component. Still, didn't one of them actually penetrate the hull before it went off? That would hurt no matter where you are.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       7/5/2007 12:00:57 PM

The Galactia needs advanced materials to do the things it does in the series, but an atomic blast in space isn't as deadly as it is in the atmosphere where you have the over pressure component. Still, didn't one of them actually penetrate the hull before it went off? That would hurt no matter where you are.

Treadgar


big as galactica is even a few kt warhead going off inside the ship would gut her.  given the different mechanics of damage from nukes in space i really doubt anyone is going to bother throwing sub megaton warheads around.
 
Quote    Reply

rudebadger       7/10/2007 1:58:06 PM

First there was the movie, then came the TV series. I thought the evil queen (can't remember her name) was hot, especially those form fitting suits she wore. The movie was kind of funny. There's Buck Rogers flying around in a space shuttle when he gets frozen. Time goes by and they find him frozen in space. Somehow he gets revived (I can't remember how) and he's flying the shuttle around with these space fighters escorting him back to Earth. The shuttle seems to fly like the fighters, I'm talking powered flight after reentry into Earth's atomosphere. I thought the ship designs were really cool, but I hated the little robot Twiggy. Sometimes I feel insulted by the kinds of stuff Hollywood puts together for scifi movies, and that was one of those instances, but then the queen walks into the room and I keep watching like the damned libidnous fool I am. I guess you can figure out one of the reasons I faithfully watched Wonder Women with Susan Carter as our star spangled heroine.

Treadgar
OK, I'm forced to expose my inner geek here.  

"Evil queen" no but evil sexy princess - Pamela Hensley.

"Twiggy" is really "Twiki" and I hated it too but it was also nice to hear Mel Blanc as the voice of the little tin turd.

Wonder Woman was Lynda Carter not Susan, and she was and still is extremely watchable.

 
Quote    Reply

andyf    minimum nuke size   7/13/2007 10:07:21 PM
im sure that theres a minimum physical warhead dimension for a certain megatonage
those ASM that the cylons fired at galactica looked to be amraam sized.- maybe up to 1 KT?
the w54 warhead was similar in size
 
true a large nuke in contact would obliterate the vessel- but getting to impact with a large missile would be hard
even a 1KT warhead would ruin your day
 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       7/14/2007 10:10:56 AM
Yeah it'd be hard to hit Galactica with just one missile, those of us who've watched the show have seen those gun turrets that poor out an incredible volume of whatever kind of ammo they're using (CIWS Galactica style). You'd have to saturate the defenses. I wonder what that detection system is they use, you know the one that makes those erie sounds as it scans? What do they call it?

Anyways I have to apologize to Linda Carter for getting her name wrong. The same for Pam. Don't much care about the little gold robot.

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

andyf       7/15/2007 4:43:47 PM
dradus or something like that.
I reckon an Aegis radar would do at least as good a job
in some ways our tech is better
whack a couple of ABL sized lasers on the ships hull and task em for missile popping
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       7/16/2007 12:29:37 PM

im sure that theres a minimum physical warhead dimension for a certain megatonage

those ASM that the cylons fired at galactica looked to be amraam sized.- maybe up to 1 KT?

the w54 warhead was similar in size

 

true a large nuke in contact would obliterate the vessel- but getting to impact with a large missile would be hard

even a 1KT warhead would ruin your day


the ones off the attack ships are only dubiously likely to be nukes i think.  even a one kt explosion would be way overkill on a fighter.  we see on a number of occasions direct hits on vipers that result in a pretty conventional bang and viper bits heading for the horizon.  if those were baby nukes it's not likely there would be any viper bits left.
the ship mounted anti ship missiles seem to be icbm sized things so they have plenty of room to carry a heck of a bang.
 
Quote    Reply

ker       7/16/2007 5:21:46 PM
The show hard a problem of uneven tec development.  Once you up the text so that you can move large populations of people through space it implys certain improvements in other areas like weapons and their guidance systems.  But you are trying to tell a story.  Real space combat of an intergalactic sort would be insufficiently heroic for fiction TV.  We want WWI fighter aces and WWII submarine combat with all the same people in it.  Then they use the viper pilots as a police force in easy episodes.  Drama trumps hard siencefiction speculation over space combat.  Watching people sit and talk about how much weight to carry in fuel and weapons and then talk about weather to take more short range or fewer long range missiles is not made for TV fun.  The exciting improvisation of a pilot in danger is more TV fodder but burns to much fuel to be real. 
 
Wars don't look like war movies because so much of the important stuff in wars sense the invention smokeless powder happens where it won't be seen.  War movies need the drama to be visible and big.  War movies put people where they can be seen as a group and are there fore a example of what exactly not to do when getting shot at.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics