The landing bays are ilogical....

[thomas7g]

why have such big holes in the fore and aft? They look like serious weaknesses. YOu could fly in a kamikaze easier than in the old show.

And even worse-

The landing bays are suppose to move inwards to protect them right? This would require huge amounts of structural machinery not to mention the arms would need alot of structural reinforcement to overcome the weakpoints a moving linkage would create.


But the only time they moved it in was to spatial jump. During battle they were wide open. Even assuming its worth all the mechanics to move the landing bays in and out, why would you have them extended during battle? Especially the start since you can launch all your vipers without opening the sucker up. And those AWACS raptors aren't needed when you got the galactica herself to do any electronic warfare and can coordinate the attack.

The only time the galactica moved the pods in was to jump, and there were alot more funky shaped ships that jumped.

[Oenone]

I was going to address this as part of another thread but I'll address this specific issue here.

The method of FTL travel the writers have chosen is called Zero Temporal Transit where an object instantly moves from one point in space to another. I believe this idea is based on EE Doc Smith's Lensman books. The larger an object is the more energy is required to jump from one location to another. To reduce their energy requirements and increase their jump range ships pull in their ancillary components to reduce size before making the jump.

I suspect the Galactica may be able to jump with it's bays open but will have a greatly reduced range. The cost of maintaining large equipment to move the bays is made up for in increased range. All this however is just speculation.

EE Doc Smith also seems to point out a requirement for the ships to be symmetrical but I've got no idea why this is necessary.

Basically the reason the launch bays have to be retracted is give more realistic physics and as an extra plot tool if they decide on a series.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by Oenone
I was going to address this as part of another thread but I'll address this specific issue here.

The method of FTL travel the writers have chosen is called Zero Temporal Transit where an object instantly moves from one point in space to another. I believe this idea is based on EE Doc Smith's Lensman books. The larger an object is the more energy is required to jump from one location to another. To reduce their energy requirements and increase their jump range ships pull in their ancillary components to reduce size before making the jump.

I suspect the Galactica may be able to jump with it's bays open but will have a greatly reduced range. The cost of maintaining large equipment to move the bays is made up for in increased range. All this however is just speculation.

EE Doc Smith also seems to point out a requirement for the ships to be symmetrical but I've got no idea why this is necessary.

Basically the reason the launch bays have to be retracted is give more realistic physics and as an extra plot tool if they decide on a series.

Um, No.

"Doc" Smith postulated the "Inertialess" Drive in the Lensman novels. A device known as a "Bergenholm" neutralized inertia, which allowed a ship to exceed the speed of light. It was not instantaneous travel.

Also, the ships were first spherical, then tear-drop shaped - streamlined, not symmetrical - because there is matter in space and at speeds greater than light even atoms would be an issue.

Of course, I think he overlooked some basic physics, and failed miserably to consider advances in technology after the 1940s and 50s, but they're fun to read still.

I am
Dawg

[Oenone]

"Doc" Smith postulated the "Inertialess" Drive in the Lensman novels. A device known as a "Bergenholm" neutralized inertia, which allowed a ship to exceed the speed of light. It was not instantaneous travel.

I stand corrected. ZTT is used in the Peter F Hamilton novels who's technology is supposedly based on the Lensmen series. The symmetrical shape of the ships was a restriction of the technology. I think the ill fated Event Horizon used a similar system (the gravity drive).

The light huggers in the Alistair Reynolds revelation space universe are more conical shaped and covered in an ice shield to reduce drag close to light speed. Similar to the aerodynamics of a jet fighter.

[thomas7g]

doesn't make sense... why have them expand at all? just keep them in and put a opening on the side.

[Oenone]

Basically that would mean a completly different design of ship.

[dec5]

I liked Macross....and they had moving parts all over the place.....not to mention space fold capability.....so I have no problem with the new design.

The old design was more a Star Wars Star destroyer solid design......but I always wondered why didn't they just have the vipers self launch on the suface of BG....that way all the surfaces of BG could be used as a landing area. And even if the landing bays are hit....the main body can also serve as a landing plat form..... the vipers are all vtol anyway.

[dilbertman]

Hey I don't know if anyone saw this, but when they where going to do the first jump in the mini they retracted the bays. But when the ship makes the jump after a very long count down the bays are extended. WTF?

Jim:confused:

[Orrin_73]

Originally posted by Oenone
I was going to address this as part of another thread but I'll address this specific issue here.

The method of FTL travel the writers have chosen is called Zero Temporal Transit where an object instantly moves from one point in space to another. I believe this idea is based on EE Doc Smith's Lensman books. The larger an object is the more energy is required to jump from one location to another. To reduce their energy requirements and increase their jump range ships pull in their ancillary components to reduce size before making the jump.

I suspect the Galactica may be able to jump with it's bays open but will have a greatly reduced range. The cost of maintaining large equipment to move the bays is made up for in increased range. All this however is just speculation.

EE Doc Smith also seems to point out a requirement for the ships to be symmetrical but I've got no idea why this is necessary.

Basically the reason the launch bays have to be retracted is give more realistic physics and as an extra plot tool if they decide on a series.

If Im not wrong I read somewhere that you need more then the energy of the sun to make such a jump. Still its "Impossible"

[Westy]

It's interesting that the original nonelization of BSG had the Galactica with retractable bays too.

"It's launching decks could be activated within minutes, emerging as long extensions from the cylindrical core of the vehicle...." - page 11, Battlestar Galactica, 1978

[SpyOne]

I'm not sure that was the only time the bays were retracted, either.

They seemed to be making do without the "force field" at the ends to hold the atmosphere in. Thus, the Landing Bay was open to space, and full of vacuum.
However, there is a scene before the Cylon assault (but after Apollo lands) set in a landing bay with atmosphere. Looking down the bay at the opening, it was covered by something that looked surprisingly like the outer hull of the ship, but angled. "Ah," I thought, "The bays can be retracted. And when retracted, the hull of the ship blocks the opening, allowing the bay to be pressureized. Cool."

of course, having had a moment to think about it I realize the seal would not be tight enough.

OTOH, if it's been 20+ years since the Glactic used a jump, how can they be sure the pods still retract?

Lastly, I doubt the range thing could be a big deal. I mean, compared to the "jump into uncharted space", Galactica's little trip to Ragnar was a field trip, so she could have done a hundred things to reduce her "jump range" and still made it easilly.