Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - Standalone => Diaspora => Topic started by: Felix 039 on February 11, 2010, 05:58:56 am

Title: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Felix 039 on February 11, 2010, 05:58:56 am
Is it just me or does Valkyrie class battlestars have a pointy "head"?
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 11, 2010, 06:01:37 am
It's not just you.

http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/f/f2/Bsg-ambush_fleet.jpg

I'm really glad "the Plan" showed the ship class in more detail, because a lot of people had very wrong ideas on what the ship really looks like or what it's size really is.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FraktuRe on February 11, 2010, 06:37:19 am
Yeah she's a small pointy beast. Pretty sexy though.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on February 11, 2010, 06:37:34 am
And so doesn't the Harrier
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Felix 039 on February 11, 2010, 06:51:56 am
I just thought its weird because Galactica and Mercury class are both pretty "roundish"
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 11, 2010, 07:49:07 am
Galactica and Mercury are both extremely large ships. The Valkyrie is some 600-700m long (despite wrong conclusions on battlestar wiki which have since been removed). Her overall length is about the same as a Galactica flight pod. This is the reason she only has 6 launch tubes facing forward running along the bottom of the flight pods (3 under each). Smaller size dictates design differences.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Aardwolf on February 11, 2010, 01:17:46 pm
The original ("old") battlestar looked like a Y-Wing grafted onto some fighterbays.  :nervous:
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FreespacePilot2010 on February 11, 2010, 02:45:07 pm
Will the Valkyrie class be in Diaspora?Perhaps even the Valkyrie herself?Shes smaller than the Galactica class or Mercury(Pegasus) class battlestars but she is cool looking.

Also mabey the old Galactica style ship could be used a new ship class in Diaspora.You know how the basestars evolved from the orignial series style two circles on top of each other?Well mabey the battlestars evolved from the original series design.Perhaps the very first Battlestar prototype had that deisign but was changed from having the bridge in front to the middle because of Cylon suicide attacks.They were also refitted with heavy armor to survive nukes.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Felix 039 on February 11, 2010, 02:48:19 pm
I wish I have a hax computer that can run a mission with maximum number of ships in Diaspora
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on February 11, 2010, 02:53:56 pm
I wish I have a hax computer that can run a mission with maximum number of ships in Diaspora

I wish i had the same computer now, but with Diaspora already installed :p


The Valk is already part of the Diaspora fleet, although not ready for ingame use or something.

EDIT: The entry for the Valk is still in the "Our Rag Tag Fleet" thread, but the pic has been removed.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 11, 2010, 04:21:09 pm
Will the Valkyrie class be in Diaspora?Perhaps even the Valkyrie herself?Shes smaller than the Galactica class or Mercury(Pegasus) class battlestars but she is cool looking.

The Valkyrie class will make her first appearance in our second release (most likely). She has already been modeled and about half way textured by yours truly. I had to put the work on her on pause to deal with stuff needed for R1.
About the Valkyrie herself appearing, we were even considering it but her appearance in orbit of Caprica as seen in "the Plan" makes that unlikely (obviously, she was shut down and destroyed with the rest of the fleet so there's little room in the story to actually make her actively fight the Cylons). A ship of that class will definitely appear and she'll definitely come with a set of "Valkyrie" nameplates as well, so either fans or us can maybe make the Valkyrie herself appear somewhere in a timeframe between the failed stealthstar mission and the attack on the colonies.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FreespacePilot2010 on February 11, 2010, 04:48:18 pm
Mabey you could recreate that scene from the plan with the Valkyrie as an in game cutscene.Im not talking about a rendered scene but a real time scene like how they have in Blue Planet.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 11, 2010, 06:51:27 pm
If we ever deal with that particular scene, sure. If not, well.. you'll still get to see a ship of this class in action, just won't be named the "Valkyrie".
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on February 11, 2010, 07:56:56 pm
EDIT: The entry for the Valk is still in the "Our Rag Tag Fleet" thread, but the pic has been removed.

Looks like the link changed. I'll see if I can fix that.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FraktuRe on February 11, 2010, 09:47:40 pm
Also mabey the old Galactica style ship could be used a new ship class in Diaspora.You know how the basestars evolved from the orignial series style two circles on top of each other?Well mabey the battlestars evolved from the original series design.Perhaps the very first Battlestar prototype had that deisign but was changed from having the bridge in front to the middle because of Cylon suicide attacks.They were also refitted with heavy armor to survive nukes.

No. In TNS, the Galactica IS the original style battlestar. Please don't go and mix and match with TOS. It makes baby jesus cry.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on February 11, 2010, 10:36:42 pm
Also mabey the old Galactica style ship could be used a new ship class in Diaspora.You know how the basestars evolved from the orignial series style two circles on top of each other?Well mabey the battlestars evolved from the original series design.Perhaps the very first Battlestar prototype had that deisign but was changed from having the bridge in front to the middle because of Cylon suicide attacks.They were also refitted with heavy armor to survive nukes.

No. In TNS, the Galactica IS the original style battlestar. Please don't go and mix and match with TOS. It makes baby jesus cry.

Every non-canon First Cylon War Colonial capital design for Diaspora is based off the aesthetics of the Galactica (BSG-75 version) .  In Release 1 the Bolitho and Sobek classes are both First Cylon War era vessels, the Sobek being perhaps the latest and most advanced class deployed before the end of hostilities.  In later releases you may see other 1CW designs such as the Dauntless, Chrysaor and Pacifica all of which should be recognizable as being stable mates to the Galactica types.  Likewise non canon modern designs like the Thanatos, Harrier and Taurus will all appear to fit in with Mercs and Valkyries.  The only force thats probably going to harken back to the TOS design philosophies will be the 1CW era Cylons as seen in Razor. 
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on February 11, 2010, 11:34:47 pm
He he. Stop teasing them with the names of ships they won't see for a while Starslayer. :p
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FreespacePilot2010 on February 11, 2010, 11:38:44 pm
Thanks for the list!I cant wait to see pics of the models once you all get started on them!

But you could still also have the original series battlestar design as a prototype battlestar.It may have never even been in combat.It would obviously be non cannon because as of yet they havnt shown a protype battlestar.Mabey theyll show one in Caprica.Remember most prototypes are never the final version.Just like R1 of Diaspora is not its final release.Also prototypes usally dont look like the final product either.So it is very possible that the very first battlestar prototype design was almost identical to that of the original series one.

If one isnt going to be made I could always just add one myself when Diaspora is released.If I can find a low poly tos galactica model that is.

Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 12, 2010, 04:36:10 am
The TOS Galactica would be problematic even as a prototype. Even if we ignore the other arguments (which are still valid) we'd still have a hell of a time explaining why the colonials had a battlestar with fixed flight pods and then made a technological step back and built the Galactica which needs to retract her pods to jump, an obvious design disadvantage... Anyway it's all been discussed already and iirc the answer was no.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on February 12, 2010, 04:36:44 am
But you could still also have the original series battlestar design as a prototype battlestar.It may have never even been in combat.It would obviously be non cannon because as of yet they havnt shown a protype battlestar.Mabey theyll show one in Caprica.Remember most prototypes are never the final version.Just like R1 of Diaspora is not its final release.Also prototypes usally dont look like the final product either.So it is very possible that the very first battlestar prototype design was almost identical to that of the original series one.

Sorry but I just don't buy that. It's like trying to say a 10 year old SUV could be the prototype for a sports car. It makes no sense. The two ships are obviously hugely different. It's just trying to crowbar the TOS Galactica into the game for the sake of having it in there. Nevermind that it makes no sense, breaks immersion and is completely contradictory to everything else we've seen in the show.

So it's just simply not going to happen.

Quote
If one isnt going to be made I could always just add one myself when Diaspora is released.If I can find a low poly tos galactica model that is.

Feel free to. I've got no objection to including a model of the TOS Galactica in the game. But it simply can't be part of any serious nBSG plot line.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 12, 2010, 04:41:40 am
Feel free to. I've got no objection to including a model of the TOS Galactica in the game. But it simply can't be part of any serious nBSG plot line.

Speaking of not serious, maybe we could join forces with the FoTG dudes at some point and do a "TOS BSG vs Star Wars" mod :D
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on February 12, 2010, 04:48:51 am
Only if we get to throw Buck Rogers into the mix too. :p
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Thaeris on February 12, 2010, 10:42:37 am
I can get in touch with the guy who made this Starfighter model...

 :nervous:

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on February 12, 2010, 10:55:12 am
I can get in touch with the guy who made this Starfighter model...

 :nervous:

Nice model, but no need though.
I'm certainly not going to approve the appearence of Buck Rogers ships in Diaspora...well, maybe if "Lexx- the Darkzone" ships are also added. :p
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Hotdog on February 12, 2010, 01:15:27 pm
Freespacepilot2010 Heres a link to download a tos bsg mod.It just doesnt have an old Galactica though.

http://swc.fs2downloads.com/files/bsgalpha/ (http://swc.fs2downloads.com/files/bsgalpha/)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FreespacePilot2010 on February 12, 2010, 01:33:23 pm
Speaking of other series in game im in the middle of making a mini campaign set in the freespace 2 universe thats heavily inspired by the original BSG epiosde Experiment on Terra.Its about the fate of Earth which has it in a civil war with two sides going at it.The Eastern and Western alliances.However im only about 5% of the way done.

When Diaspora is released I may try and do a campaign thats also in the Freespace universe but is a continuation of the nBSG.A spoiler.The Shivans are Cylons.

By the way thanks for the link Hotdog.

Also please no Buck Rogers.Ive seen episodes of it on Hulu and its worse than Galactica 1980!
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on February 12, 2010, 01:47:02 pm
Shut yo mouth foo!
 
Erin Gray was the hottest sci-fi girl on the planet. Except barbarella.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 12, 2010, 01:47:59 pm
We weren't exactly serious about either Buck Rogers or SW in Diaspora :)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on February 12, 2010, 01:51:14 pm
Shut yo mouth foo!
 
Erin Gray was the hottest sci-fi girl on the planet...

 :yes: , but even she, in her tight flightsuit, was not able to save the plot of most of the episodes.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on February 12, 2010, 01:57:06 pm
Eh? What plot. I just watched it for the tight flightsuit or miniskirt. The only two recurring outfits. Twiggy was annoying as hell.
 
 
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FreespacePilot2010 on February 12, 2010, 02:00:44 pm
What was that noise Twiggy made?Tweedle tweedle tweedle?lol.Plus a lot of the scenes you could see the boom mike.And they were so cheap they used footage from BSG rather than making new ones.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on February 12, 2010, 02:16:56 pm
Eh? What plot. I just watched it for the tight flightsuit or miniskirt. The only two recurring outfits. Twiggy was annoying as hell.
 
 


 :lol:
me too actually, but the show could have been sooooooo much better if there was a halfway decent plot.
But hey, at least there have been some lolomgwtf moments, the guy with feathers on his head and shoulders for instance.


back on topic:

Has the Valkyrie been also retconned? The Original ( ep. "Hero" ) didn't has the spoiler-thing on the engine section, like the Valkyrie class vessel in Razor. Or is it a sub-class? Didn't check the BS Wiki, since most ( relativly spoken ) explantions there are just fan-fic or based on assumptions.
Would be cool to have both, though.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Snagger on February 12, 2010, 02:27:12 pm
What was that noise Twiggy made?Tweedle tweedle tweedle?lol.Plus a lot of the scenes you could see the boom mike.And they were so cheap they used footage from BSG rather than making new ones.
Wasn't it "boogie boogie".  I'm amazed the censors allowed the shape of his head, but it sums up the character.

Now, Erin Gray was the one redeeming feature of the show...  mmmm...
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on February 12, 2010, 02:34:27 pm
Surgeon General's Warning:

Asking newman about adding the rollbar to his Valkyrie is not conducive to living.  Assume it was something specific to it being docked and let the matter drop.  In the words of Yojimbo "a long life eating mush is best"
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on February 12, 2010, 03:15:15 pm
We saw the ship in "the plan" again without the rollbars. Actually, we saw multiple ships of the class there and none of them had it. So now we have the situation where every time the ship is in flight (as opposed to being in dock) the art department chooses not to use the rollbar version, even on the most recent BSG made (definitely made after "Razor" which featured the supposed rollbar variant). The only time we ever saw the ridiculous cocktail bar mounted on the engines was when the ship was in dock in "Razor". The way I see it the theory that it's some part of the dock or some engine diagnostic package they mount when the ship is docked makes most sense.
Secondly, that's the single most ridiculous looking detail put on a bsg vessel. I'm not having it on my ship :)
Also, what Slayer said.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: headdie on February 12, 2010, 03:18:17 pm
/me hands newman his big stick and stands at a safe distance
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Snagger on February 23, 2010, 01:26:12 pm

Secondly, that's the single most ridiculous looking detail put on a bsg vessel. I'm not having it on my ship :)

So, no Valk with purple neon tubes along the undersides of the pods, chromed detailing and fluffy dice/Magic Tree air freshner hanging from the over-head DRADIS console, then? ;7
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Felix 039 on February 23, 2010, 03:02:27 pm
Speaking of weird, we might as well throw in a Valentines Day Battlestar
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Jangiri on March 05, 2010, 12:23:48 am
just to be slightly off topic was anyone else slightly disappointed with the fact that in the whole of razor we didn't see any rediculous battlestars four times the size the pegasus? cmon the atlantia was supposed to be gigantic
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on March 05, 2010, 02:57:22 am
Who said that it was any bigger than the Pegasus? Hell who said it wasn't the same class as the Pegasus?
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 05, 2010, 03:07:51 am
4 times the length of pegasus would make it almost 8 km long. It would be a logistical and tactical nonsense. And nobody ever said the Atlantia was 4 times bigger then the Pegasus - or even bigger at all. Mercury class was gigantic already and obviously constructed as a flagship/task force leader type of ship. And if they had shown 8 km long ships someone would complain because they haven't shown any 20km long ones :)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Meleardil on March 05, 2010, 09:07:42 am
I think some compromise would be good. A roughly Pegasus size ship, but equipped with something unique could be Atlantia. A fleet wide comm system, unbalanced weaponry 90% focused on protecting the Admiral for example. It can have a special look to make it more "flagship" like. One thing should not be. An uber-giga battlesuperstar. Somewhere at the 2km length are drawn the limit of acceptable and believable ship size.  Pegasus and Stardestroyers are perfectly sized from that point of view. Over 10 km superstructures are in the fairytale category, far from sci-fi. Cylon Colony was the most ridiculous and the ugliest "ship" in the whole series, and it is very hard to find something more stupid even in other stories. So, the small p**is frustration shall be compensated by something else, the "who's got bigger battlestar contest" will not happen here.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on March 05, 2010, 09:41:57 am
We already have two fleet command ship classes designed.  For both the modern Fleet and 1CW respectively.  And before anybody asks, no they are not four times larger then a Merc.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 05, 2010, 09:46:04 am
I noticed a lot of sci-fi fan's brains got really badly calibrated on what's big and what isn't. If it's not miles long it's not cool, let reason out the airlock. I mean people didn't want to believe the Valkyrie was about as long as the Galactica flight pod because that's "too small". Some even said the flight pods would be too small to be useful. Never mind the ship is still more then twice the length of a Nimitz class carrier :)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: karajorma on March 05, 2010, 06:40:07 pm
One of these days I'll add the Boeing 747 pof to Diaspora again and take some shots.

Then again people tend to forget how big a 747 is compared to other planes.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Snagger on March 06, 2010, 02:25:08 pm
Anything bigger than a Mercury class would be ridiculous - even they are larger than credibility allows.  The sheer amount of resources required to build, maintain, fuel and operate something that size would make it impossible, and the size of the crew would be crippling.  A Nimitz class carrier has about 6,000, so the idea that Galactica has about 2,000 and a Mercury 1,000 is completely wrong - a battlestar (or star destroyer) of 1-mile scale would need a maintenance and engineering crew of 10,000 just to keep it running before you even consider operational and combat staff, logistics staff and so on.

Why would you tie so much up in one basket, when you can have more flexible capability by having smaller ships?  Putting all your eggs in one basket means a loss is more devastating and more likely; how do you conduct pincer movements or covering tactics with one massive ship?

The puerile "big is cool" attitude just has to stop. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on March 06, 2010, 03:01:17 pm
Yeah, bigger is not better/ cooler.
IIRC, the Stardestroyer from SW, with a length of ( iirc ) 1600m, has a crew of 35000 ( source: T. Zahns Thrawn trilogy ).

I doubt that the 2000+ crew on the Galactica was it's full crew complement, rather the minimum crew to run the ship in a time of peace, not to mention the fact that one Landing pod was turned into a souvenir shop, so there was no need to keep all the deckhands from that pod on the ship. Also the ol' Lady was about to get decommisioned, so half the wing was already re-deployed to other ships/ bases.

The reason that the Pegasus had only around ~1700 crew on board was:

a) it was docked at Scorpion Shipyards for refit, me thinks that's a good time to send most of the crew to RnR
b) most of it's systems are run by advanced Computer systems, which would allow it to operate the ship with appr. the same crew like a
    older Galactica class vessel ( <----with full crew )
c) over 700 people were killed during the attack on the Scorpion shipyards

Also, remember the HUGE Deathstar ( iirc 120km diameter ) was destroyed by a tiny X-Wing fighter. Size doesn't matter, search your feelings, you know it's true. :P
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Revan on March 06, 2010, 03:05:09 pm
Also, remember the HUGE Deathstar ( iirc 120km diameter ) was destroyed by a tiny X-Wing fighter. Size doesn't matter, search your feelings, you know it's true. :P
Jedi doesn't count. ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Angelus on March 06, 2010, 03:10:33 pm
Also, remember the HUGE Deathstar ( iirc 120km diameter ) was destroyed by a tiny X-Wing fighter. Size doesn't matter, search your feelings, you know it's true. :P
Jedi doesn't count. ;) ;) ;)

Skywalker wasn't a Jedi by that time, he could have used the targeting computer. It was only done for dramatic purpose.


And the force thing, but he wasn't a Jedi.

 :P
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 06, 2010, 03:56:16 pm
Do NOT use the Force! Use the targeting computer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9cLu63RHM
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Felix 039 on March 07, 2010, 09:45:23 am
I think some compromise would be good. A roughly Pegasus size ship, but equipped with something unique could be Atlantia. A fleet wide comm system, unbalanced weaponry 90% focused on protecting the Admiral for example. It can have a special look to make it more "flagship" like. One thing should not be. An uber-giga battlesuperstar. Somewhere at the 2km length are drawn the limit of acceptable and believable ship size.  Pegasus and Stardestroyers are perfectly sized from that point of view. Over 10 km superstructures are in the fairytale category, far from sci-fi. Cylon Colony was the most ridiculous and the ugliest "ship" in the whole series, and it is very hard to find something more stupid even in other stories. So, the small p**is frustration shall be compensated by something else, the "who's got bigger battlestar contest" will not happen here.

The Cylon Colony... IS a colony tho... Not exactly a ship, more like a space station... but you are right, it IS UGLY.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 07, 2010, 09:51:44 am
The Colony was ugly but the worst part of it was it really felt out of place, didn't have a look consistent with everything else. Looked more like some Shadows base from B5 then something built by the same race who built the basestars.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Sushi on March 08, 2010, 09:28:25 am
Do NOT use the Force! Use the targeting computer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9cLu63RHM

 :lol:
That was pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Snagger on March 09, 2010, 03:54:34 am
Yeah, bigger is not better/ cooler.
IIRC, the Stardestroyer from SW, with a length of ( iirc ) 1600m, has a crew of 35000 ( source: T. Zahns Thrawn trilogy ).

I doubt that the 2000+ crew on the Galactica was it's full crew complement, rather the minimum crew to run the ship in a time of peace, not to mention the fact that one Landing pod was turned into a souvenir shop, so there was no need to keep all the deckhands from that pod on the ship. Also the ol' Lady was about to get decommisioned, so half the wing was already re-deployed to other ships/ bases.

The reason that the Pegasus had only around ~1700 crew on board was:

a) it was docked at Scorpion Shipyards for refit, me thinks that's a good time to send most of the crew to RnR
b) most of it's systems are run by advanced Computer systems, which would allow it to operate the ship with appr. the same crew like a
    older Galactica class vessel ( <----with full crew )
c) over 700 people were killed during the attack on the Scorpion shipyards

Also, remember the HUGE Deathstar ( iirc 120km diameter ) was destroyed by a tiny X-Wing fighter. Size doesn't matter, search your feelings, you know it's true. :P
I know the G was being decommissioned and the Peg was in drydock, but even so, ships of that size could not be run with such pitifully low crews.  I seem to recall a reference to the Galactica having a crew of about 4000 during the war and the deleted scenes of Adama and Tigh discussing the war disclosed that 2,000 were lost aboard the Galactica when Centurions boarded her in the last week of the war and depressrised the ship (refernced in the intitial meeting between Adama and Roslin in the mini, but without any numbers given).  The scene was a flashback for Tigh in the Scattered episode of S2, and is the explaination of why tigh knows the Centurions are going for the Aft Damage Control and Aux Fire Control stations rather than the reactors or CIC.

Anyway, the SW Star Destroyer crew numbers back my estimate for a large Battlestar, remembering that Battlestars have much less automation than ISDs, especially the original BSs.

Given that the entire Royal Navy comprises about 45,000 personnel, and that includes all the dock workers, admin staff in London and so on, a single ship with that size crew is unrealistic for any military force.  It's too unwieldy and too much of a drain, so bigger ships are plain stupid.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 09, 2010, 10:33:40 am
Keep in mind the Colonies have a much greater population base than we on Earth do.  They have twelve planets' worth of potential crewmen.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 09, 2010, 11:15:10 am
It's not just a matter of crew. It's still a matter of going over a certain size making no sense. For the resources to build and maintain that thing you could have had 4 very capable smaller ships (but still pretty large) that give you a lot more tactical options. Also if you lose one of them you still have 3, you haven't lost the entire task force and 10000 crew and officers with it.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 09, 2010, 11:29:03 am
So newman, assuming that is true, why does the United States spend so much money building supercarriers when it could just build multiple smaller ones for the same cost?
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 09, 2010, 11:38:02 am
They're not supercarriers, they're just the standard.
 
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 09, 2010, 11:44:15 am
Point still stands.  Why isn't the U.S. building lots of smaller carriers instead of the ones we build now?
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Sushi on March 09, 2010, 11:52:49 am
Can you make them any smaller? They seem pretty compact for what they need to accomplish: room to take off, room to land, room to move jets around on deck. Their minimum size is somewhat constrained. :)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on March 09, 2010, 11:58:18 am
Point still stands.  Why isn't the U.S. building lots of smaller carriers instead of the ones we build now?

Steam (from nuclear power) catapults
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 09, 2010, 12:00:51 pm
If you make something smaller, you limit it's self sufficiency and the operational range not to mention the amount of power it can project.
 
Also if you divide a vessel by three you triple the amount of admin staff needed, logistical resupply runs needed. And command staff turnover.
 
I suppose they're both right choices. But they're both compromises as well. 
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 09, 2010, 12:15:40 pm
U.S. carriers have just gotten bigger and bigger since they were introduced.  From Wikipedia, it says the Gerald R. Ford is 112,000 short tons (100,000 long tons or 224,000,000 pounds) and is 1,092 feet long.  The Essex-class of carriers used in WWII were only 872 feet long and 27,200 long tons (27,600 short tons).
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: General Battuta on March 09, 2010, 12:17:27 pm
Yeah but the aircraft flying off of them have gotten much larger and heavier.

Same with the stuff they're carrying.

I completely fail to see how this is relevant to any point being made, though.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: StarSlayer on March 09, 2010, 01:09:21 pm
I probably should cut in right now and say so far as available Diaspora non canon designs the Pacifica types which will be the largest class deployed in the First Cylon War will probably be about the same tonnage as a Mercury.  The Taurus class, which will be part of the same program that built the Mercury class battlestars and Thanatos dreadstars will at most be a quarter to third again as large as a Merc, and the majority of that tonnage will be taken up by heavier armor, essentially just a beefed up Merc.  Both of these classes are limitedly deployed flagships numbering in the low single digits. 

If you wish to continue arguing the plausibility of four plus kilometer Gigantistars power to ya; but this store won't be selling any. :P
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 09, 2010, 01:14:04 pm
U.S. carriers have just gotten bigger and bigger since they were introduced.  From Wikipedia, it says the Gerald R. Ford is 112,000 short tons (100,000 long tons or 224,000,000 pounds) and is 1,092 feet long.  The Essex-class of carriers used in WWII were only 872 feet long and 27,200 long tons (27,600 short tons).

We're hardly talking about the same thing here, the analogy doesn't work so well - a 300m long carrier can't really be compared to a ship "4 times the size of a mercury class" - as the mercury class is iirc almost 2 km long. See, a Nimitz class carrier is 332.8 m long. The upcoming Gerald Ford class will be almost the same length, sources on the net say 333 m so that's pretty much that. The old Yorktown class carriers were some 250m long. Keep in mind that the ww2 carrier classes like the Lexington, Yorktown and Essex had to operate with much smaller aircraft. An F-4U Corsair was about 10m long - roughly the size of a Viper. Planes like the recently retired f-14 or the f/a-18 super hornet are nearly double the length of a corsair. They also move somewhat faster which is a factor when you're landing :)
So, does the US have the technology and resources to build much larger carriers? Sure. Can they build a 500m long one? Hell yes, they had 250m long ones before ww2 began.. So why don't they?
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying large ships aren't useful. But at some point going bigger stops making sense - and battlestars 4 times the size of a Mercury class would have crossed that line a long time ago.
Extremely large miles long starships can be pretty cool in a fitting sci-fi. Heck I'm sure we all love the Executor from SW.. but BSG is a different type of sci-fi, needs less fairytale in it :)
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: SpardaSon21 on March 09, 2010, 01:59:11 pm
I wasn't arguing at all for anything larger than 2km in length, especially anything "4 times the size of a Mercury", I was primarily trying to say that a 2km long ship can carry more and do more than a 500m ship.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: newman on March 09, 2010, 03:12:30 pm
That was never in question :) The whole debate was spawned when somebody wanted a battlestar that was 4 times the size of a mercury class. Again, I never meant that large ships are useless - only that there is such a thing as a ridiculously shaped ship that stops making sense after reaching a certain size. I can live with mercury class or star destroyer sized vessels just fine..
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 09, 2010, 06:08:09 pm
Before I even see it or hear more details, the Taurus is my new favourite as, i'm a Taurus :D
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: FraktuRe on March 09, 2010, 09:05:39 pm
I'd say the lower crew capacity of a Battlestar compared to our ships is that despite the huge size of the ship, very little of it is used by/for crew. The ship has HUGEEEEEEEE storage for water/fuel, the engines take up a third or so of the ship. The ships themselves probably require a smaller crew because the humans have been building starships for some centuries, if not millennia. I'd say they're pretty damn good at it. Case in point: No ship in the show ever lost it's gravity, no matter how much damage she took.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Snagger on March 11, 2010, 01:44:51 pm
As Newman said, the USN carriers only grew because the size of the aircraft aboard them grew.  they are still made as small as possible to do the job.  Compare them with the RN or USMC carriers, and you'll see the point - those carriers are much smaller, and as a consequence can only carry a small compliment of VSTOL aircraft, which have limited capabilities because of the VSTOL requirements.

Making ships larger than they need to be is folly, not just because of the expense and difficulty in manufacture, and not just because you are reducing the tactical and strategic flexibility of the number oof crew, smaller embarked craft and armaments fitted by not being able to split the unit, but they become impossible to manouever - the linear speeds involved in a rotational movement become enormous, and the ships an crew simply would not cope with it.  Look at how the Galactica manouevers on exiting the Ragnar storm to present its armed side to the Basestars; it's just not concievable that a 1-mile ship weighing millions of tons could pitch, yaw or roll that fast without breaking up.  Now imagine a much bigger ship - it'd be a sitting duck.
Title: Re: Battlestar Shape
Post by: Colonol Dekker on March 11, 2010, 01:52:21 pm
Oil tankers have to start applying the brakes days in advance.
 
True story.