USS Galactica in Star Trek

[Mars]

Maybe keep the starship, dispense with the BSG crew, I think the Federation could really use a starship like that in Star Trek Online.

[aelius]

tighr wrote:

---

The Galaxy-class ships and the Battlestars are not easily comparable. The Galactica is a heavy battle cruiser, with fighters and an on-board Marine compliment. Galaxy-class ships are exploratory vessels with science equipment.

As I mentioned in your other thread, there are no real fighters in the Star Trek universe, as nearly all battles take place between large ships. For Lee and Kara to be shuttle pilots would probably be a step-down from what they're used to. So it'd be interesting to see a "Battlestar-class" ship in Star Trek, complete with Vipers and a launch bay.

In "Sacrifice of Angels" Sisko threw Fighter Wing after Fighter Wing at the Dominion fleet to blow a hole in their lines.
You can argue over their effectiveness, but I get tired of the desperate insistence that there are no fighters in Star Trek.
I agree they do not operate like fighters in the modern world, but they must be good at doing something or Starfleet wouldn't build them. They are entirely too vulnerable for the feds to throw them out there, with all of the casualties that entails, for no return.
I always figured they were good at weakening shields before the battle lines met. But I freely admit that is just my own interpretation.

[Mars]

I liked that picture of the "Trekified Battlestar submitted in the second or third post, I think that would fit in fine in the Trek Universe, but I have to admit, it looks more like a warship than an exploritory vessel, with four warp nacelles no less, it could probably tear a Galaxy class ship apart and take on seven Klingon Battlecruisers all at once, especially with its fighter wings!

[Ar-Pharazon]

Back in the late 70's - early 80's, we made a Battlestar SSD for Star Fleet Battles.

We tried to stay true to the concept. No shields but lots of armor, no phasers, but lots of lasers (or at least lots of low end phasers, type 3's maybe).

I really can't remember the outcome.

[Mars]

Ar-Pharazon wrote:

---

Back in the late 70's - early 80's, we made a Battlestar SSD for Star Fleet Battles.

We tried to stay true to the concept. No shields but lots of armor, no phasers, but lots of lasers (or at least lots of low end phasers, type 3's maybe).

I really can't remember the outcome.

What exactly is the difference between a phaser and a laser anyway? A laser could be set on stun too, its called an electrolaser, a low intensity laser beam ionizes a path through the air to the target, then an electric current is run from the laser to target of sufficient intensity to stun him but not kill.

[Ar-Pharazon]

If I remember correctly, SFB had "lasers" and they were weaker than phasers. But it has been a long time since I played.

As far as real world difference, ya got me.

[aelius]

Mars wrote:

---

What exactly is the difference between a phaser and a laser anyway? A laser could be set on stun too, its called an electrolaser, a low intensity laser beam ionizes a path through the air to the target, then an electric current is run from the laser to target of sufficient intensity to stun him but not kill.

I assume you know how a laser works.
Phasers are particle weapons using imaginary particles called Nadions. Applying an electrical charge to a crystal with an odd name I can't remember right now causes it to generate "rapid nadions" creating a very flexible weapon that can do all the things phasers can do. Whereas lasers pretty much just transfer heat to things very rapidly so they are limited to cutting and blasting, phasers can also slowly heat things and disintegrate them as well.
The description of phasers is from the TNG Tech Manual.

[T'Girl]

Mars wrote:

---

Of course Saul Tigh would be first officer, I wonder what Star Fleet command would think of his drinking habits?

Chief Engineer Scott's drinking habits did not seem to bother anyone.

But (for the obvious reason) TOS had a 1960's vibe, and engineers were almost expected to be power drinkers and even to be slightly "buzzed" on duty.

[G2309]

I like the picture of uss Galataca. But I'd hate to imagine the series with the no human conflict rule. No doubt the'd be synthacigarettes too.

[Mars]

G2309 wrote:

---

I like the picture of uss Galataca. But I'd hate to imagine the series with the no human conflict rule. No doubt the'd be synthacigarettes too.

real utopias are boring.

[BillJ]

Mars wrote:

---

I liked that picture of the "Trekified Battlestar submitted in the second or third post, I think that would fit in fine in the Trek Universe, but I have to admit, it looks more like a warship than an exploritory vessel, with four warp nacelles no less, it could probably tear a Galaxy class ship apart and take on seven Klingon Battlecruisers all at once, especially with its fighter wings!

Did you get a "woody" when you typed that?

[Wereghost]

Mars wrote:

---

What if the Galactica was a Galaxy Class Starship, imagine the same sort of characters in BSG as the crew of a Federation ship, starting with Bill Adama as captain, what would the other crew positions for significant characters be in the Star Trek World, and how would Kara Thrace and Lee Adama fit in? Would they be shuttle pilots or something else?

To be frank, that would be a little bit like giving the characters of Deadwood or The Sopranos their own starship. It simply wouldn't happen in the (non-MU) Federation as we know it, bar some crazy facilitating event like a Laura Roslin gaining power and authorising it.

The NuBSG colonial military is, in my opinion, conceptually descended from RDM's take on the Klingon Empire. They've eschewed progress, seemingly letting an atavistic culture of violence and honour take hold. The decisions they make suggest that a violent death is to be in some way coveted, perhaps as a means of reaching the fields of Elysium. Altruism, reason and philanthropy are to be distrusted and even abominated, as they repeatedly demonstrate in their approach to certain characters.

Mars wrote:

---

In fact all the crew does a lot of drinking, now that I mention it, and a Chief Medical officer who smokes in front of his patients, seems this would be a most unusual starship in the fleet.

Well, the 23rd Century did have at least one somewhat curmudgeonly sawbones of its own.

Mars wrote:

---

We got to make Number Six a crew member too, she would be a tall female version of commander Data with her emotion chip intact. Can you picture this?

Number Six would also need her ethical subroutines enabled, as would Athena . Sharon, on the other hand, would fit right in with minor adjustments if any.

Ar-Pharazon wrote:

---

USS Galactica:

That's highly impressive, though it reminds me more of The Beast (Pegasus) than The Bucket (Galactica).

[Mars]

^ It looks deadlier than a Galaxy class, if the Federation was serious about fighting a war, it would build and deploy these. The various Enterprises all look like cowboys with big hats riding a rocket. I think it would take at least 10 Klingon Battlecruisers to take on this bad dude. I think if the Terran Empire lasted into the 24th century it might build a ship that looks like that, it was War written all over it.

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Reminds me of a Trek/TOS BSG crossover story from many years ago, when Galactica encounters the 24th century Federation. A random Klingon commander visiting Spacedock on Earth sees Galactica for the first time and responds with a mix of surprise, awe and maybe even a little apprehension, "Humans built THAT??" It was a cool moment.

[FPAlpha]

aelius wrote:

---

In "Sacrifice of Angels" Sisko threw Fighter Wing after Fighter Wing at the Dominion fleet to blow a hole in their lines.
You can argue over their effectiveness, but I get tired of the desperate insistence that there are no fighters in Star Trek.
I agree they do not operate like fighters in the modern world, but they must be good at doing something or Starfleet wouldn't build them. They are entirely too vulnerable for the feds to throw them out there, with all of the casualties that entails, for no return.
I always figured they were good at weakening shields before the battle lines met. But I freely admit that is just my own interpretation.

Or.. the writers didn't have a clue about naval tactics, didn't really think profoundly about what a realistic Trek space battle should look like but went with what looks cool and what people can relate to.

Realistically fighters in Starfleet make absolutely no sense.. main weaponry of a starship are energy weapons meaning that once they lock on a fighter they will hit it. No fighter can evade being shot at with weapons at light speed. Additionally they are too small to be equipped with shields and armor to withstand a capital class weapon and they are also too small to carry weapons that would have a meaningful impact on a capital ship.

So anything below a scout class vessel makes no sense in Trek when it comes to battle because they'd just be wasting personell and material for no effective gain.