Talk:FTL (Battlestar Galactica)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wormholes
Can wormholes be added under a Fannon or similar heading?
perfectblue 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I dont think anything regarding wormholes should be added, they just have not been mentioned in the series and so it i purely speculative. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scattered
Does anybody have the script for 'scattered'? It has a lot of useful informaiton about navigation at FLT. Right now I don't have anything accurate enough here to weed out cannon from fannon and WP:OR mascerading as fact in this topic.
perfectblue 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly I do not know of any places providing transcripts, but if you doubt something is accurate please bring it up here and we can work together to cite it . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- In answer to both of the above, I have a second hand source for scattered, but it's littered with fan interpritations about wormholes. It's Tigh's dialog about navigation that I need a clear transcript of as it tells us about how they plot their course (it's not A-B flight).
-
- perfectblue 06:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pegasus Extended Cut
The version of Pegasus on the 2.5 DVDs begin with an extended discussion between Starbuck, Adama, and Roslin. There's lot's of information about FTL jumps in that secquence, including a rough explnation of the Red Line. I don't know if this is considered "canon" per se. Save that it probably has its origins in notes made by some member of the Galactica production staff, and the scene appears in several "previously on BattleStar Galactica" segments through the second half of season 2.Spidersense215 15:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- If it's in an extended version (rather than a deleted scene) and you reference it as such then this is EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR. Put it all in with a citation. The worst that can happen is that somebody will disagree and delete it, but you'll never know until until you try/
- Well done that man.
- perfectblue 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll make sure to get around to watch it - exactly the sort of information we need ;-) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Going to watch today/tonight.. I'll see what I get. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ftl Red Line
hi everybody, Can i just make a quick point.
The Wiki reads...
"The safe limit of an FTL drive is known as the "Red Line". A ship jumping beyond this limit risks damaging its FTL drive or going off course due to compound errors in its jump calculation."
I only ever heard Adama refer to this once, When they where leaving Colonial space for the last time. I believe the red line, is actually a huge virtual sphere around colonial space. A lot like the celestial sphere around earth. The purpose of this would allow for safe FTL jumps using known star fixes, So that you know where you are, And know where you are going to.
Once you have traveled beyond the red line, Navigation becomes dangerous, And raptor recon flights are needed, To gather navigation information, So the fleet can jump safely. I don't believe it is reference to an individual ships safe FTL range.
AlexRyder 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I was hedging my bets when I wrote that because I didn't have a copy of the script in front of me. It can mean either depending on how you read it. In the end, the red line is the safety line, whether it is an arbitrary line on the map depicting known space, or a moving line depicting the maximum safe distance that you can jump. If you think that it implies the latter more than the former, feel free to re-write it.
perfectblue 09:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jumping
I think this technology works much like Dune's ftl travels, in that it instantly relocates the vessel from one point in space to another. Not much proof, but I remember in the Raptor mission to Caprica they lost one ship in the final jump, due to it reappearing a few hundred feet under the mountain. Can someone verify?
- The Raptor jumped inside the mountain. The jump coordinates were probably "corrupt", ships can jump in/out of an atmosphere safely if calculated properly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] categories
Could users please refraim from changing the category to fictional vehicles, FTL drives are components of vehicles, not vehicles themselves.
Would you put "V8 engine" in the catagory for automobiles?
perfectblue 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, you might in certain cases. There are times when a category may be intended to include all things related to the subject, not just specific examples of the subject. I could see where someone might reasonably want "automobiles" to include "automobile engines", though the best solution would be to just remove the ambiguity from the category name (i.e. create something like "automobile components" instead). In this case, I agree with you and Matthew. I think it belongs under technologies, not vehicles. --Fru1tbat 13:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- While there are often exceptions, in this case I don't believe that there is any justification for putting this in the vehicle category. Especially since most of the page deals with things like the faux physics and navigation etc, which are concepts relating to FTL travel.
-
- perfectblue 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another problem putting it in that category would be this: Vehicle defines one as a "non-living means of transportation." -- Basestars and Raiders are alive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the writer had sci-fi in mind when that narrow definition was written. I'm sure it was meant to exclude horses and such, not bio-mechanical spacecraft... :) At any rate, given what's already included in Category:Fictional vehicles, I agree that technology like FTL, which is only somewhat peripherally related, should not be included. --Fru1tbat 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh :-\? It should or should not? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. While composing, I changed my wording at the beginning of the sentence without editing the end to match. It's fixed now. I must not be thinking clearly today... --Fru1tbat 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Me neither - I'm having to reread like at least six times before I'm confident my message is acceptable English - I blame it on to many late nights on Wikipedia personally Template:Emot thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. While composing, I changed my wording at the beginning of the sentence without editing the end to match. It's fixed now. I must not be thinking clearly today... --Fru1tbat 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Eh :-\? It should or should not? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the writer had sci-fi in mind when that narrow definition was written. I'm sure it was meant to exclude horses and such, not bio-mechanical spacecraft... :) At any rate, given what's already included in Category:Fictional vehicles, I agree that technology like FTL, which is only somewhat peripherally related, should not be included. --Fru1tbat 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another problem putting it in that category would be this: Vehicle defines one as a "non-living means of transportation." -- Basestars and Raiders are alive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- perfectblue 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Course Corrections Mid-Jump
Article reads "The series does not reveal whether a ship can correct its course mid jump, but likely not". I'm always uncomfortable with 'likely not' and similar, and I'd like to make this statement a little firmer. I agree it's likely that ships can't correct during an FTL jump, simply because the article already establishes that the jump takes the ship from A to C without going through B - in other words it arrives the moment it leaves, at least from the crew's perspective. The question is, is that reasoning sufficient for me to make the above statement read, "a ship cannot correct its course during a jump because etc etc"? After all, there's no actual source for that - only logic, based on what's already been said; so would it be better to excise the sentence altogether? - Shrivenzale (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The words "likely not" shouldn't even be used anyway because it indicates an assumption, and there shouldn't be assumptions on Wikipedia, only facts. Plus the ships travel between two points - A and B, there is no C. They just pop from place to another. In your statement you're calling B a point in itself "traveling from A to C through B. C is not the destination, B is. There is no C. You don't count the space through which the vessel travels as a point. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- 'C' was the destination in my statement because that's how I defined 'C' for the purposes of my statement, whereas 'B' represented any point in space between the origin (A) and destination (C) points. I'd assumed that would be clear, but perhaps I should have declared the variables first. "A to B" would have implied that the two points were next to each other - in which case travelling there can be done simply by moving from one to the other. I used "A to C without B" to indicate precisely what you said: that the ship disappears at the origin point and reappears at the destination without going through the points in between. Anyway, this aside, I see you've removed the sentence in question - thank you. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)