|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 21st, 2005, 02:52 PM
|
#1
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Galactica Landing bays TOS
The landing bay, Internal layout what do you think.
Tha landing bay is based on Westys autocad design, from the launch tubes the outer shell is all his. the internal areas with vipers and shuttles etc is what I think it should be like. the scales expressed are westys and mine for a ship a mile long.
what do you think???
Edit: Removed extra IMG tags
BST
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 21st, 2005, 10:27 PM
|
#2
|
Warrior Ace
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Roseville, MI
Posts: 848
|
COOL! I like it.
Jim
|
|
|
|
January 23rd, 2005, 08:55 AM
|
#3
|
Guest
|
thats alotta work! nice job!!
|
|
|
|
January 24th, 2005, 10:41 AM
|
#4
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis
The landing bay, Internal layout what do you think.
Tha landing bay is based on Westys autocad design, from the launch tubes the outer shell is all his. the internal areas with vipers and shuttles etc is what I think it should be like. the scales expressed are westys and mine for a ship a mile long.
|
Way cool. I happen to like that scale, and love the layout.
I have a question and two observations.
So the launch deck is on level 3, while the landing deck is on level 2?
Observations: 1) If the launch deck is on level 3, why not extend the length of the tubes, and make the bay on the inside of the pods as opposed to the outside. This keeps more with the amount of time we see Vipers in the tubes during launch (not by much, but some). 2) Primary fuel and prep is probably done in bays beside the tubes, and some form of conveyer moves those Vipers into line with the tubes. This is seen in the backdrop to the launch bay set.
Overall, it rocks.
JJR
|
|
|
|
January 24th, 2005, 02:06 PM
|
#5
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
The Idea I had was.......The Viper land as always on the landing deck and then in the openings on the Inner wall enter (without the launch tubs) and an elevator take them down a deck to Level 1. where they are refueled or rearmed, repaired or what ever.
Then when they are needed an other evevator on the other side lifts the viper into position to be launched....
The shuttles/landrams on the other travel up into the larger area for storage, and anyother equipment you can think off.
I never got to complete this or work on it more.....westy who autocad the launchtubs and the surounding hull did a fantastic job on it and has the most
detailed drawing of the Galactica.. https://www.mortalstorm.com/ check it out you will be very impressed.
I you have ideas of you own please share them??
This was only my concept of the layout, westy may be differant??
anyway thank I hope to get back to it sometime..
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 24th, 2005, 04:06 PM
|
#6
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis
The Idea I had was.......The Viper land as always on the landing deck and then in the openings on the Inner wall enter (without the launch tubs) and an elevator take them down a deck to Level 1. where they are refueled or rearmed, repaired or what ever.
Then when they are needed an other evevator on the other side lifts the viper into position to be launched....
The shuttles/landrams on the other travel up into the larger area for storage, and anyother equipment you can think off.
I never got to complete this or work on it more.....westy who autocad the launchtubs and the surounding hull did a fantastic job on it and has the most
detailed drawing of the Galactica.. https://www.mortalstorm.com/ check it out you will be very impressed.
I you have ideas of you own please share them??
This was only my concept of the layout, westy may be differant??
anyway thank I hope to get back to it sometime..
|
I really like it. I've been looking at it more closely, and like a number of features you have included. One of the most valuable things you've done here is set the scale, which to me was always a sticky point.
Really very cool...
JJR
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 08:21 AM
|
#7
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
justjackrandom.. thanks.. the man that worked it out is, westy who is a wonder with Autocad and better at math than I ..Having said that it took me day to get the best scaling possible.
and like you the scale was alwas a sticky point. there are differant accounts to..but the designer and Mr Larson wanted the Galactica to be about a mile long the landing bay above fits in with that ..
It was one of the first things I asked when I joined last march?! .. what size is the BSG and with westy help thats what came out of it.. I would love to back into it some time in the future
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 08:42 AM
|
#8
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,280
|
Looks good!
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 09:18 AM
|
#9
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Wa USA
Posts: 1,874
|
Taranis,
Your work is first rate, absolutely first rate. I like the way you laid it out and scaled it.
I tried to do something similar a couple of years ago but lacked the tools. Paint is the best I had then. You might check out a web site I started to construct back then. I’ve kept it hoping I would have the time to go back and finish it some day.
https://www.starcmd.com/BSG/index.html
At some point I would like to feature your work on my site, I also think you should add it to the gallery here, this is the sort of thing we need.
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 09:41 AM
|
#10
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
No problem... but as i said Its also Westys...
I use paint too , Then I got Turbocad (its like Autocad) but I never used it properly
I think that the launch bays are a open book for some designs and while I like mine I think it can be improved alot. but westy is very busy these day and a hard man to catch...
westy did so great mesurments, I will try to find them and post them here?
I like your version and it has its possibilitys,
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 09:49 AM
|
#11
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
I don't remember where I got this from
Quote:
"There was never an exact length quoted for the Galactica on
screen, in Colonial _or_ Earth units. Various fan and modelling
publications have quoted lengths of 2000 feet or "one mile", but
these have no firm basis in the series.
!!! Recently, [forgotten his
name], one of the three men who own the Galactica Archives, a
collection of BG props, costumes and related material, wrote in a
British modelling magazine that he estimated the scale of the
original 76-inch Galactica miniature to be around 1/960, based on
the size of the landing bay entrance. This would make the
full-size ship 6080 feet (1853 metres) long!!! -- by coincidence,
exactly (pre-SI) one nautical mile. This is as definitive a value
as we are likely to get, barring pronouncements from Glen
Larson."
|
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 11:46 AM
|
#12
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Wa USA
Posts: 1,874
|
The folks who built the model said they used 1/960 scale, that is about as close to cannon as you can get, short of building the real thing! I used 6080 feet for my calcs.
|
|
|
|
January 25th, 2005, 02:18 PM
|
#13
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Quote:
At some point I would like to feature your work on my site, I also think you should add it to the gallery here, this is the sort of thing we need.
|
that would be cool, I will be doing more on the internal working on the BSG in the next few weeks...how do I add it to the Gallery???
Quote:
I used 6080 feet for my calcs
|
Thats the scale i think it is..
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2005, 05:33 PM
|
#14
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 880
|
On the topic of the Galactica's size, I thought I'd share the most comprehensive study I've seen done on this topic. It's very interesting if you're in to this sort of thing.
The article is here:
https://www.merzo.net/
but the site does not allow me to link directly to the article. so there are steps.
Go there, click on the 2X scale option,
find the Galactica and click the link beneath it....
|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2005, 11:31 PM
|
#15
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Wa USA
Posts: 1,874
|
It is interesting that Glen Larson (Producer) and John Dykstra (VFX supervisor and designer of the Model) both say it is a mile long. Others, not from the production staff say differently.
|
|
|
|
January 28th, 2005, 12:35 AM
|
#16
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Quote:
It is interesting that Glen Larson (Producer) and John Dykstra (VFX supervisor and designer of the Model) both say it is a mile long
|
Personly I think that...if Larson and Dykstra say it a mile long...it should be viewed
as canon..It's a mile long.....
Fragmentary:: Thats a cool site...But I disagree with the scale of 610m, and I think many fans think the same thing..if it was 610m it would be shorter than the USS ENTERPRISE galaxy class by 20m???
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
January 28th, 2005, 01:07 AM
|
#17
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
An intresting findedhttps://ravensbranch.allen.com/galacticasize.html:
Quote:
In a related note and one that I will use eventually to do some measurements, The Battlestar Galactica Scrapbook mentions that Dykstra's team extrapolated the length of a the shuttle from the size of the windows to be 110 feet. For practical purposes, the art director arbitrarily cut the scale in half and a 33 foot long section of the shuttle was built.
|
MY PROBLEM with that is .. if the shuttle is supposed to be 110 ft long it won't fit into the landing bays??
If the shuttle is 110ft long ...how tall would it be???? anyone care to work it out??
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 10:15 AM
|
#18
|
On Vacation...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 93
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis
MY PROBLEM with that is .. if the shuttle is supposed to be 110 ft long it won't fit into the landing bays??
If the shuttle is 110ft long ...how tall would it be???? anyone care to work it out??
|
I can't find a good profile shot of the shuttle.
However, I'd hazard the guess that it is less than 50' high.
Using the 6080' measure for Galactica, and the schematic as shipschematics.net, I get the height of the landing bay opening at around 280 feet wide and 90 feet high.
While it would fit, the shuttle would not have nearly as much room as it does when shown landing. And the Viper would have much more.
|
|
|
|
March 19th, 2005, 02:53 PM
|
#19
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Quote:
While it would fit, the shuttle would not have nearly as much room as it does when shown landing. And the Viper would have much more.
|
I tend to argree spyone anyone like to speculate a revised height for the shuttle or the bay ?
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
March 20th, 2005, 09:15 AM
|
#20
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Wa USA
Posts: 1,874
|
Very little attention was paid to the interior scale of the Galactica. For the interior of the landing bay, many background immages were mat paintings. These were not done to any scale but simply to what looked good.
Some fans have tried using the interior images to estmate the Galacticas size.
|
|
|
|
April 28th, 2005, 03:21 PM
|
#21
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis
I tend to argree spyone anyone like to speculate a revised height for the shuttle or the bay ?
|
I'm late coming to this thread, but I'm getting ready to tackle the subject again, so I'll post what I find here.
Something else I've been skulling over:
The aft set of launch tubes are too far back to be as long as the ones in front (if the forward ones are more than a few viper-lenghs long). Here what I'm thinking. The forward three sets are for getting the squadrons launched from the maintenance and launch bay. They provide additional acceleration through some mechanism (magnetic or gravitic acceleration?) to get the fighters out at a higher relative velocity than they could achieve with turbos alone. Otherwise, why have the long launch tubes at all?
But the back tubes are different. These are rapid reload launch tubes. Pilots who need to refuel or re-arm in a hotly contested area might not want to take the time to take his ship all the way in, and have it moved into position to launch in the traditional way. Instead, they land, and taxi directly into one of these tubes, where they are quickly refueled and rearmed while they remain in the cockpit, and then they punch out at full turbo only (no assist). The only reason for the tube at all is to make sure that during combat all craft are launching along roughly the same vector, which eases traffic management.
Just a thought.
--JJR
|
|
|
|
April 29th, 2005, 01:26 AM
|
#22
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 880
|
That a pretty cool bit o' reasoning there JJR
|
|
|
|
April 29th, 2005, 01:31 AM
|
#23
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Nice thinking as always JJR. and it make a lot of sence to ..I noted in the second comming (I think) the aft launch tubes were moved a little bit forward ..
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
September 19th, 2005, 08:41 PM
|
#24
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8
|
Nice, I like!
|
|
|
|
September 20th, 2005, 03:38 AM
|
#25
|
Major
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,115
|
Thanks Zinjo. I hope to return to this some day and improve on it..
__________________
Formally Taranis
My Blog
"The world is my country, science my religion.”
|
|
|
|
May 23rd, 2006, 01:22 AM
|
#26
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 158
|
Very interesting indeed. I had always wondered about the relationship between the launch tubes and the landing area. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2006, 07:11 AM
|
#27
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11
|
Link
I liked the link to the videos
|
|
|
|
June 6th, 2006, 12:32 PM
|
#28
|
Squadron Leader
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,207
|
This is VERY cool indeed. And the scale you've established is right in line with what I'd always imagined.
Thanks for sharing it with us!
-Gordon
__________________
Liberal, Atheist, and just as Patriotic as you.
|
|
|
|
September 5th, 2006, 12:34 PM
|
#29
|
Warrior
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 146
|
Interesting. I once encountered someone who thought the Vipers launched out of the back of the ship. I guess he never saw the launch tubes.
|
|
|
|
September 10th, 2006, 09:56 AM
|
#30
|
Warrior
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 146
|
Hey Taranis, I got a question. On your drawing, you have red circles around most of the vipers in the staging area on level 1. My question is, are every one of those red circles an elevator to take the viper up to level 2?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For fans of the Classic Battlestar Galactica series
|
|
|