PDA

View Full Version : Landing bay pod FRONT ends?


spcglider
November 9th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Its always been in the back of my mind that they never really showed the front ends of the Galactica's landing bay pods.

Now, a lot of people assume they look pretty similar to the rear end of the pod and perfrom a similar function, but recently I looked at some images of the filming miniature and they are VERY different (front to back).

In fact, the filming miniature looks as though it has absoluetly NO ingress/egress port whatsoever. The front end appears to be just filled in with greeblies.

Anybody else notice this?

If this were "reality", what effect does that put on previous assumptions about the launch/land/squadron dispersal previously accepted?

Lets discuss.

-G :salute:

WarMachine
November 9th, 2006, 01:10 PM
Well, I noticed it right off. I've never had an issue with it, though.

Opening the front end will only do two things: give the Cylons another place to fly suicide ships in, and it would confuse the landing profile -- landing from the rear may be dangerous due to the engine-wash from the Gal, but just imagine the nightmare if someone gets confused, and tries to play "odd man out" in the landing stick :eek: (The USN has this problem, from time to time.)

Another thing to consider: flying into the Gal's bays from the front means that both craft are approaching each other, rather than matching speeds -- and since both ships are speeding up and slowing down out of sync with each other.....ewwwwwww. A rear-approach avoids this problem.

My ¤0.02 cubits,

gmd3d
November 9th, 2006, 01:51 PM
I have always thought that "If I was designing it" ... that were the shuttles should exit the landing bay through smaller launch bays .... rather then the way we see it on screen ......

spcglider
November 9th, 2006, 02:33 PM
The original Monogram kit had them wide open...you could look through from the front to the back. That may have added to or been the genesis of the confusion on my part as a kid.

I've just never had this conversation with anyone else before. Huh...how about THAT? A Galactica conversation I've never had before? Now THAT's a rare thing! LOL!!

-G

gmd3d
November 9th, 2006, 03:04 PM
I may some time try out a few ideas in 3d someday ..... Silentbob has inspired me to look again at these details

martok2112
November 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Although I agree with the closed front ends of the pods, I think open ends would provide one safety feature that you would find on a modern day aircraft carrier...the wave off.

In real-life, fighters making carrier landings are doing so at full power...that way, if there is a need to abort the landing, even after making physical touchdown with the flight deck, the fighter can accelerate off the deck.

Same thing with Colonial Vipers. A bad angle of approach, or maybe the landing tractor beams have malfunctioned. The Viper can power up and wave off out into space again.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

CBSG4ever
November 9th, 2006, 08:00 PM
I noticed the closed off front landing bays as well. While the Revell/Monogram Galactica kit was the ONLY thing available, aside from some home-builds and the actual 6 ft original, it is REPLETE with flaws and inaccuracies. I, personally, tried to correct some of those on the model kits that I bought.

I agree with WarMachine. His reasoning sounds logical. Also, something else to consider. There must be some sort of asteroid or small particle avoidance system on board the "Big G". Traveling in space does have it's hazards. If one collides with an object, the ship could loose atmospheric and/or structural integrity. Mounting an avoidance device (gravity field?) would seem to be wise. One would also infer that it would be mounted on the FORWARD facing surfaces of the ship. The front landing pods could contain such a device. Just a thought. Comments? :salute:

gmd3d
November 10th, 2006, 12:22 AM
I noticed the closed off front landing bays as well. While the Revell/Monogram Galactica kit was the ONLY thing available, aside from some home-builds and the actual 6 ft original, it is REPLETE with flaws and inaccuracies. I, personally, tried to correct some of those on the model kits that I bought.

I agree with WarMachine. His reasoning sounds logical. Also, something else to consider. There must be some sort of asteroid or small particle avoidance system on board the "Big G". Traveling in space does have it's hazards. If one collides with an object, the ship could loose atmospheric and/or structural integrity. Mounting an avoidance device (gravity field?) would seem to be wise. One would also infer that it would be mounted on the FORWARD facing surfaces of the ship. The front landing pods could contain such a device. Just a thought. Comments? :salute:

A defector for want of a Star Trek Word :) I would have that on the main body or forward of the bridge for Hyper light speeds ..(but that just personal taste)
but I would have devices for Combat situations there ..
ECCM
ECM
Long range scanners.
structural integrity..

This is what I love about BSG .. you can have fun trying to figure out what thing are :) I think more on it when I get back from work

KJ
November 11th, 2006, 06:13 PM
When you reall think about it. Vipers were never seen launching from the front of the pods on the Galactica, always the sides mainly. Except for that side shot of 2 or 3 Vipers in several SFX shots on occasions. That makes it look as if the colonial Vipers do indeed launch from the front. But we never saw them launch and some out from the front of the pods with a full wide angle frame shot of the Galactica with Vipers coming out though?

It's assumed like the back that the front was a launch bay as well? The Marvel and Maximum press comics always showed and assumed this as much as fans have. But its kinda interesting that thats being questioned now. God knows of how many model shots show the front of the pods with no such launch bay caperability at all.

Interesting thread subject!

KJ

martok2112
November 12th, 2006, 02:04 AM
Indeed, amigo. The first few times I saw Galactica, for some reason, I thought the Vipers were launching out the front of the landing pods. It wasn't until way later when I reconciled that they were launching out the sides of the pods. :)

spcglider
November 12th, 2006, 09:22 AM
Indeed, amigo. The first few times I saw Galactica, for some reason, I thought the Vipers were launching out the front of the landing pods. It wasn't until way later when I reconciled that they were launching out the sides of the pods. :)

Well, the graphic on the toy packaging from Mattel didn't help the impression...

The Viper looks like it is launching straight out the front.

-G :rolleyes:

martok2112
November 12th, 2006, 01:33 PM
Perhaps they were under that same impression. :) Back in that day, there probably wasn't as much creative cooperation between the company and the property holders.

jewels
November 12th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Actually, back in the day: the toys and the FX models would have been developed nearlly simultaneously so the FX models might not have been finalized when the toy designs were prototyped for production. Also, plastic molding techniques have advanced quite a bit in the last 30 years: that's why the toys can be more detailled now.

Titon
November 13th, 2006, 04:13 AM
First thing, for my sake please PLEASE do not call the original Galactica's landing bays pods!

:D

Rant over.

There probably wasn't any reason for closing off the front of the bays but it makes and interesting conversation piece. Repair facilities could be centered around that section as well as any other concept you may come up with.

martok2112
November 13th, 2006, 04:35 AM
Pods...pods..pods..pods...pods.....


(runs and hides)


:D

Irreverently,
Martok2112

gmd3d
November 13th, 2006, 05:10 AM
:music: Run Martok , Run Martok :music: Run Run :music: RUN here comes's Titon with his Gun, Gun, Gun, :music:

Titon (Elmer Fudd Characterization) Where's that Raabbit (Martok )?? :rotf: :rotf:

gmd3d
November 13th, 2006, 05:19 AM
First thing, for my sake please PLEASE do not call the original Galactica's landing bays pods!

:D

Rant over.

There probably wasn't any reason for closing off the front of the bays but it makes and interesting conversation piece. Repair facilities could be centered around that section as well as any other concept you may come up with.
Titon
Do you have any more shot of the Galactica.. I can use a much details myself of the one I plan to build .. ?

Titon
November 13th, 2006, 05:50 AM
Titon
Do you have any more shot of the Galactica.. I can use a much details myself of the one I plan to build

I'm not even close to finishing it yet. Unfortunately in order to build an accurate ship you have to do years of research. To this day i still am doing just that. One thing you should remember is that there is no way to accurately reacreate her in cg. You can get very close but she carries to many detail parts to load into lightwave. Not to mention the nightmare in rendering her.

The only way to really do it is to build here in sections, render each section and composite.

gmd3d
November 13th, 2006, 07:12 AM
Cold chills already..I want to get as close as possible .. I will do as you say and do it in sections . infact the Celestra I built is in layers . 6 layers :)

dilbertman
November 13th, 2006, 08:11 PM
http://www.leestringer.com/Images/BSG/bsg_21_hd.jpg

Jim :eek:

CaptShade
November 14th, 2006, 01:30 AM
Hey there. Still new to the site. But a long time fan.

Mayhaps the closed, and open bay theories are correct. Could they be "positive shields" similar to the ones used on the bridge? If we're comparing to the US Navy, repair decks would be below the main flight deck. Having them forward in the bay would be a bad idea. One suicide Raider into the repair bay/fuel storage would be the death nell for the entire pod the landing bay is in.

They could also be the TOS version of retracting the landing bays. Even energy shields to keep the atmosphere in the landing bay wouldn't be enough to hold up to FTL speeds. Remember, even the Enterprise-D used both energy shields, and doors on their shuttle bays.

gmd3d
November 14th, 2006, 08:02 AM
Oh the headaches , the details are great even looking at the launch bays you can see the rails the Vipers travel on.. that would be to much for me .. given that an expert like Titon has yet to finish his .. But I still want to give it a go :)

Titon
November 14th, 2006, 01:32 PM
given that an expert like Titon has yet to finish his

Hehe, well thanks but i'm far from an expert but it's appreciated.

As you can a ways to go yet but getting there.

:)

peter noble
November 14th, 2006, 02:25 PM
Landing Bay Alpha's coming on I see. ;)

Titon
November 14th, 2006, 02:50 PM
Landing Bay Alpha's coming on I see

Slowly but surely.

:)

martok2112
November 14th, 2006, 03:10 PM
NNNNNNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!!! :D :salute:

Damocles
November 15th, 2006, 09:54 PM
There are sound reasons for the Alligator's "outriggers"

I call them outriggers.

Why?

Because they are intended to be scrapeoffs in the event of a hanger catastrophe.

If the hanger is about to go to glory, you use seperation charges, and cast off that member before it chains off and takes the rest of the Alligator with it.

Now why close the front end, and use an open rear end for launch and recovery?

Imagine that you are trying to land your small rocket on the Alligator, and you are moving at 10,000 meters per second. Imagine the Alligator is moving at 9,900 meters per second.

At what relative rate of closure would you wish to rendevous and land; 19,900 meters per second (head approach), or 100 meters per second (tail approach)?

Makes a difference.

In the classic Galactica canon, there is mention of a point diverter. I speculated that the device is useful for asteroid deflection.

Why would you close the front of the outriggers on the Alligator?

At 10,000 meters per second, you need a closed nose to prevent solar wind, or nebulae gas from setting up a "wind" inside the outriggers. At those velocities even a wispy near vacuum "windtunnel effect" will make landing a rocket impossible.

Why the Viper launch tubes?

The best way to kick out a stick of fighters free of a rocket carrier's exhaust plume, is either to let the fighters "fall" astern by launching off the rear of the outrigger, or to kick the Vipers clear by EM catapult to port and starboard.

Whoever the CBSG modellers are, that we can finally credit with the Alligator, they THOUGHT about what you needed to do, to make a rocket fighter carrier workable.

Even down to a landing circuit they thought about it, where you can use a barrier trap to catch an out of control Viper or shuttle. At a hundred meters per second closure you can barrier net the hot bolters, and trap them, and keep a landing circuit operating port and starboard, aft of the Alligator by simply having the Vipers and shuttles match velocity, and follow in trail, and only speeding up slightly to land when their turn comes to trap. Doesn't need to be that fast. You could land at walking speed. The Vipers don't circle. They follow astern like beads on a string and push themselves aboard linearly by rocket thrust to land in single file. No orbit circuits needed.

We appreciate the Alligator, because it has that intuitive rightness (as far as a television production model can have), that is more correct to us than the ridiculous saucer and pylon shapes of Star Trek, or the nonsensical asymmetric cheesewedges of Star Wars.

The Alligator works as I describe it, and it makes sense.

As always.

gmd3d
November 16th, 2006, 12:57 AM
I WOULD NOT DARE DISPUTE YOU .. works for me

Titon
November 16th, 2006, 04:10 AM
okie dokie.

:D

jewels
November 16th, 2006, 11:26 AM
Works for me, too, Damocles. :D I like the bit about matching speeds to land especially, it makes total sense.

Wildcard
November 24th, 2006, 05:50 AM
I agree with everything Damocles has stated, but truthfully I have always considered the "outriggers" a bit of a design compromise given how vulnerable they are to attack. The internal launch/recoverey system of say a Stardestroyer(or a BASESTAR for that matter) is far more preferable and less vulnerable but also far less feasible or realistic.

Damocles
November 24th, 2006, 05:24 PM
I agree with everything Damocles has stated, but truthfully I have always considered the "outriggers" a bit of a design compromise given how vulnerable they are to attack. The internal launch/recoverey system of say a Stardestroyer(or a BASESTAR for that matter) is far more preferable and less vulnerable but also far less feasible or realistic.

Quite a defendable observation. I just look at the star destroyer and imagine myself as a TIE pilot trying to merge with my baseship. I have to aim myself at a hole in her belly. My angle of approach is well in excess of thirty degrees off of its, the star destroyer's, baseline vector and my relative merge rate can't be much greater than a couple of hundred meters per second absolute on account of that approach angle, otherwise my potential energy that I carry as inertial momentum in My TIE is going to smear me across that baseship hanger deck resulting in a very beautiful brief explosion that should, considering how well the Imperials build things send that star destroyer promptly straight to the next hereafter, as she chains off; hanger to fuel tanks to engines a>b>c; BOOM.

That physical limitation on merge rates paradoxically restricts my baseship to a velocity that cannot exceed more than a couple of hundred meters per second so I can thread the needle of that hole from a crossing approach as well(human reflex limitation), or it will result in the same sort of noiseless KABOOM.

Now imagine the poor Double Decker Sanddollar with six simultaneous opportunities to get it wrong in fifty repetitions, with three hundred total Raiders; especially with Cylons as pilots!

As always,

Wildcard
November 27th, 2006, 06:23 AM
:salute:

between the lack of shielding on the TIE's and the landing procedure the Empire surely goes through a fair number of TIE's and TIE pilots, and cleaning supplies as well! I assume in order to make that system work they must use some form of tractor beam control to guide the TIE's in, though that seems both very time and energy intensive.

At least the Cylons have the advantage of centralised computer control to aid them in thier landing procedures, though how Apollo and Starbuck managed to land a Raider on a Basestar in the "Hand of God" ep is somewhat beyond me!