I bought Season 1 at Best Buy last night. (Yes, I read the "boycott" thread; but I've waited a year already and was happy not to wait another two months.)

This is my first time seeing Season 1 (not having cable or satelite). I watched the first two episodes last night. Great stuff!

However, there's one thing about "water" that really bugs me. Well, three things really.

1. Why did the water vent out into space? The doors to the tanks were closed, so it wasn't air blasting the water out. The ship wasn't under acceleration, so it wasn't acceleration force spilling it out. (If it had been under acceleration, instead of venting straight out, the stream would curve back toward the stern. Actually, surface tension would probably keep the stream stuck to the outside of the hull as it flows along the side of the ship toward the stern. Also, the water would only drain to a certain level: it would be like a glass with a hole in the side of it (the bottom being toward the stern (assuming forward acceleration of the ship); the water will drain only until the level is below the hole.)
Anyway, it wasn't acceleration or air; so what the heck forced the water out? Every last drop?

2. Adama ordered the ship to veer STARBOARD (the holes were on the port side)! He's the one that made the water spill out by creating an acceleration TOWARD the hole! If he'd veered to PORT, the force would push the water INTO the tanks. (But the surface tension should keep the water happily in the tank with no force needed.)

3. Why not fly over to the water and suck pump it back into the newly-repaired tanks? The droplets would coalesce as they bump into each other making the spill one or several large spheres of water, right? Easy to stick a hose in and start pumping.

Oh, wait. I guess the water might boil out! Zero pressure means low boiling point. (Of course it's very cold in space, too. But there was the heat of the explosion, part of which would be captured by the water.) If it would boil, the pressure would indeed cause it to spill out of the tank. And the escaped water would be a big cloud rather than a huge ball, much harder to collect back into the tanks. I guess I'll have to do a bit of research (properties of water, Boyles law (I think), etc.)

Anyway, very enjoyable episodes. I can't wait to watch the others!

Here's an interesting link on the subject of water as vapor and ice in space. http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=142

And here's a Q/A addressing this very BSG issue (guess I should have googled first :) http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/States_of_Matter_and_Energy/Boiling_Evaporating_and_Condensing/20050118093609.htm
Of course when Mike says "leaving nothing," he means leaving no solid or liquid water. It most certainly leaves the water vapor. So the issue for the fugitive fleet is how best to harvest the big cloud and ice to get it back into the tanks (in parallel with looking for alternative water sources, natch).

Edit: one more interesting link: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_127.html

So it seems the answer is that the water will boil out and form a big cloud of ice crystals. I picture a big fine-mesh net and three or four shuttles to do the recovery trick. :)

SO as you can see, in addition to raping the original, the show suffers major logical fallicies. Wait till you get to the botanical garden not growing food in a fleet with a water shortage


Anyway, it wasn't acceleration or air; so what the heck forced the water out? Every last drop?

Because Moore doesn't bother to do any research. That's why he wrote the miniseries after only watching one episode, and based many of his changes on assumptions.

Space is a vacuum so water would be sucked out.the water tanks would be pressurized if only to the atmospheric pressure inside the ship.Hence the water venting into space,forming Ice crystals as its vented.Thats just my elementary knowledge of science but it sounds good to me :wave:

SO as you can see, in addition to raping the original, the show suffers major logical fallicies. Wait till you get to the botanical garden not growing food in a fleet with a water shortage



Because Moore doesn't bother to do any research. That's why he wrote the miniseries after only watching one episode, and based many of his changes on assumptions.

Yeah, because the original was soooooo scientifically accurate! What a joke! You really got to get over this obsession......

Jesh, on the original Galactica they shot water thru the turbo lasers thru a vacuum to put out a fire!!!, for crissake!! And science has still failed to discover that planet of Britt Eklands. ..........Thank God

I haven't done any fluid mechanics since my undergraduate days, but I used to be pretty good at it. Its perfectly reasonable that the water in Galactica's tanks would vent into space. Here's why.

First, assume that there is a uniform atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere throughout Galactica internally to minimize issues of personel access etc. Nominally, the water storage area would also be pressurized to 1 atmosphere. Pressure outside the ship is zero. When the tanks are ruptured and open to space, the 1 atmosphere pressure inside the ship and tank area will drive the water out of the hull.

Two, it is evident that Galactica has some form of artificial gravity which seems to exist uniformly throughout the ship. Some of you may be familiar with the fact that water pressure increases the deeper you go. "Crush depth" for submarines for example. To get a better idea, next time you buy a dozen beer, stack one can with the sharp edge on your big too. Add another. See if you can build a dozen beer tower with the sharp edge of the botom can still on your toe. That is water pressure due to gravity. It exists even when there is no atmospheric pressure difference. You may hear this idea referred to as feet of water or "static head". So, if Galactica's tanks ruptured, the water would come out of the tank due to that static head alone. I don't have my handy-dandy fluids handbooks here, but note that a block of water a mere 3 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet (1 cubic metre) weighs 1000 kiolgrams or 2,200 pounds. There is a lot of weight in those big tanks!

Static pressure P = fluid density (pounds per cubic foot) x Tank depth (feet)

Water has a density of 62.4 pounds per cubic foot. Assume Galactica's tanks are only 20 feet high.

P = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot x 20 feet = 1248 pounds per square foot. Ouch!

Third, Glactica is moving in space. Any course change would cause the water to want to remain travelling in its original path due to inertia. Depending on the ship's course adjustments during the battle to avoid being hit, the water venting problems could be exacerbated. I would think that Adama, faced with conserving water or getting his ship blown up by an enemy hit, would choose a maneuver designed to survive the battle and be satisfied to be able to search for a place to get more water.

Huzz

I haven't done any fluid mechanics since my undergraduate days, but I used to be pretty good at it. Its perfectly reasonable that the water in Galactica's tanks would vent into space. Here's why.

First, assume that there is a uniform atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere throughout Galactica internally to minimize issues of personel access etc. Nominally, the water storage area would also be pressurized to 1 atmosphere. Pressure outside the ship is zero. When the tanks are ruptured and open to space, the 1 atmosphere pressure inside the ship and tank area will drive the water out of the hull.

Two, it is evident that Galactica has some form of artificial gravity which seems to exist uniformly throughout the ship. Some of you may be familiar with the fact that water pressure increases the deeper you go. "Crush depth" for submarines for example. To get a better idea, next time you buy a dozen beer, stack one can with the sharp edge on your big too. Add another. See if you can build a dozen beer tower with the sharp edge of the botom can still on your toe. That is water pressure due to gravity. It exists even when there is no atmospheric pressure difference. You may hear this idea referred to as feet of water or "static head". So, if Galactica's tanks ruptured, the water would come out of the tank due to that static head alone. I don't have my handy-dandy fluids handbooks here, but note that a block of water a mere 3 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet (1 cubic metre) weighs 1000 kiolgrams or 2,200 pounds. There is a lot of weight in those big tanks!

Static pressure P = fluid density (pounds per cubic foot) x Tank depth (feet)

Water has a density of 62.4 pounds per cubic foot. Assume Galactica's tanks are only 20 feet high.

P = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot x 20 feet = 1248 pounds per square foot. Ouch!

Third, Glactica is moving in space. Any course change would cause the water to want to remain travelling in its original path due to inertia. Depending on the ship's course adjustments during the battle to avoid being hit, the water venting problems could be exacerbated. I would think that Adama, faced with conserving water or getting his ship blown up by an enemy hit, would choose a maneuver designed to survive the battle and be satisfied to be able to search for a place to get more water.

Huzz

Well, that....and because it looked cool :cool:

Yeah, because the original was soooooo scientifically accurate! What a joke! You really got to get over this obsession......

Jesh, on the original Galactica they shot water thru the turbo lasers thru a vacuum to put out a fire!!!, for crissake!! And science has still failed to discover that planet of Britt Eklands. ..........Thank God
Comparing the two Battlestar Galactica is like comparing the 60's Batman tv show to Tim Burtons 89 movie....two different incarnations of the same monster....

If they did a Planet of the Britt Ekland Clones today, who would they cast? (keeping in mind that I think Britt was GORgeous)?

Charlize Theron was cast as her in the Peter Sellers biopic.
But I'm thinking Heather Graham might be a closer approximation to Britt's big-blue-eyed beauty.

Agreed!

But I just think that Charlize Thereon has that rare combination of beauty, innocence, sincerity and glamour reminiscent of the stars of years ago.

Huzz

SO as you can see, in addition to raping the original, the show suffers major logical fallicies. Wait till you get to the botanical garden not growing food in a fleet with a water shortage

Because Moore doesn't bother to do any research. That's why he wrote the miniseries after only watching one episode, and based many of his changes on assumptions.
And obviously, you and Moore would appear to have a great deal in common, seeing as you didn't both to research the subject before taking a giant dump just 'cause yer precious, crappy show is soooo much better than what we've currently got. :roll:

Actually, I take that back. You and Moore have ZERO in common. He makes tons of money with this awesome retelling of the original BSG and makes LOTS of people happy. You, on the other hand, seem only capable of talking out your... can I say "sphincter"? Well, anyhow, that's where you talk from just about every time you cry about the new BSG and how Satan-like Ron D. Moore obviously must be.... :rolleyes:

>SNIPPERINO!<
2. Adama ordered the ship to veer STARBOARD (the holes were on the port side)! He's the one that made the water spill out by creating an acceleration TOWARD the hole! If he'd veered to PORT, the force would push the water INTO the tanks. (But the surface tension should keep the water happily in the tank with no force needed.)
I think he was having Galactica veer to starboard, dude. I was a bit confused on that, too, 'til I rewatched it. It's never specificed which ship he's ordering starboard and I think he just yells it out, doesn't he? Now I'm forgettin' for sure.... :confused:
3. Why not fly over to the water and suck pump it back into the newly-repaired tanks? The droplets would coalesce as they bump into each other making the spill one or several large spheres of water, right? Easy to stick a hose in and start pumping.
'Cause they don't have a big enough bucket...? ;)

Keep watchin'. They just get better and better! I don't feel there's a clunker in the whole first season.

Yeah, because the original was soooooo scientifically accurate! What a joke! You really got to get over this obsession......

Never. They raped my show. Glen Larson also wasn't claiming to make a "realistic" show

Jesh, on the original Galactica they shot water thru the turbo lasers thru a vacuum to put out a fire!!!

Could have worked, the ice would melt when it hit. Of course the final solution of just blowing the bay air would have been what any real fire control squad would have come up with first.

Comparing the two Battlestar Galactica is like comparing the 60's Batman tv show to Tim Burtons 89 movie....two different incarnations of the same monster....

Apples and Oranges. 60s Batman was a farsical rape of the character it took almost a decade to recover from (thank you Neal Adams). Neither project was made by Bob Kane as well. The original series is correct, any deviation without express permission from Glen Larson is wrong.

Actually, I take that back. You and Moore have ZERO in common. He makes tons of money with this awesome retelling of the original BSG and makes LOTS of people happy. You, on the other hand, seem only capable of talking out your... can I say "sphincter"? Well, anyhow, that's where you talk from just about every time you cry about the new BSG and how Satan-like Ron D. Moore obviously must be...

I'll be happy to take over the show at any time. The first thing will be the "Galactica" going through a wormhole and the real ship coming out the other side, from which point we can continue a proper revival. Regardless of whether or not it makes people happy, it's still a rape, and still wrong. If the same thing were done to Trek (how about a female, celibate Kirk, a Spock that suffers from too much emotion and he and McCoy pal around like Bashir and O'Brian?), people would be up in ARMS. Simply because it's a show most people consider cheesy doesn't mean that it's any less deserving of respect. I would fight the same for freaking Barney.

I was at San Diego ComicCon's panel for NeoBSG. All it was was an hour of busting on the original series and talking about how to get the women to bang(fist and F**k) each other.
Then ComicCon censored my question for Moore about why he goes out of his way(literally more effort required) to do things wrong when he can do them right, because they said "this is a venue for positive and affirming questions only". Their contempt is obvious, and considering all that remains is the barest of concepts and a few proper nouns (mostly relegated to callsigns) the show should never have been called Galactica.

Hell, Moore's really ripping off Space Above and Beyond far more than the real series.

The reason your question was likely censored (censured is more likely what they were really doing, given your attitude here) was because they're tired of all the whiney TOS Fans busting on the new series. I can't say I blame them. It was prolly that or call a Waaaah-bulance.

And thank God that you'll never get close enough to come anywhere near taking over the new series! For starters, you have to have talent, then you gotta have potential. And, of course, you have to have positive connections.

By the way, last I checked, BSG - old or new - wasn't, isn't and never will be your show. It belongs to the producers and the fans. Constantly bitchin' that the show is horrible w/o doing anything more than giving your own, highly biased opinion pretty much takes any rights you have for credible criticism, far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Sword of Whedon
WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! They raped my show!
WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! New Galactica sucks!
WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! WAAAH!!! The world moved on without me and I'm living in the past!

Man, shut the FRAK up. New BSG isn't to your liking? FINE. DON'T WATCH IT!

This started out as as simple and honest technical discussion and you came in here and turned it into a b!+chfest. You love the original so much? Get out your DVD box set of the originals and study them like the Zapruder film, then go to "www.ihatenewgalactica.com" and cry with the other 3 fanboys there who never grew up.

Oh, and, your beloved Richard Hatch, THE ORIGINAL APOLLO, has already been in two 1st season eps and is back for a third this coming Friday. This is the same guy who was originally fighting for the direct sequel idea that you keep having wet dreams over, right? IF HE thinks New BSG good enough to be involved in (several times), how bad can it be?

Never. They raped my show. Glen Larson also wasn't claiming to make a "realistic" show .Could have worked, the ice would melt when it hit.

Huh? You're understanding of science is right up there with your aesthetic taste.


I'll be happy to take over the show at any time. The first thing will be the "Galactica" going through a wormhole and the real ship coming out the other side, from which point we can continue a proper revival. Regardless of whether or not it makes people happy, it's still a rape, and still wrong.

That's awfully big of you. Deluded and insane, but awfully big of you.

I was at San Diego ComicCon's panel for NeoBSG. All it was was an hour of busting on the original series and talking about how to get the women to bang(fist and F**k) each other.
Then ComicCon censored my question for Moore about why he goes out of his way(literally more effort required) to do things wrong when he can do them right, because they said "this is a venue for positive and affirming questions only". Their contempt is obvious, and considering all that remains is the barest of concepts and a few proper nouns (mostly relegated to callsigns) the show should never have been called Galactica.

.

I can't imagine why Moore didn't want to answer any "rape" questions from a crazed fanboy.

Dude, Ron Moore creates televisions shows. You used to watch Battlestar Galactica. Only in your mind do your credentials and opinion carry the weight and respect you seem to laughingly think they deserve.

Hell, Moore's really ripping off Space Above and Beyond far more than the real series

That's ridiculous, but even if it was, your defunct effort was a BSG Sequel/Remake!

How original.

This started out as as simple and honest technical discussion and you came in here and turned it into a b!+chfest.

Actually, the technical thing that bothered me most during Season 1 was Starbuck finding and flying the organic Cylon raider. Realistically, that was like me finding a dead whale on a beach, climbing inside it, and not only figuring out how to make it swim and dive, but make it swim good enough to outmanuever a shark (Apollo's Viper). But hey, it's a TV show!

Could have worked, the ice would melt when it hit. Of course the final solution of just blowing the bay air would have been what any real fire control squad would have come up with first.


Actually, the ice would've melted, but only after it would've punched a big-a$$ hole on the hull (or made a serious dent, anyway). It's all about inertia and force, which equals mass times acceleration. Physics is cool. :cool: I'm not a math geek (former liberal arts major, anyway), but physics was something I could get in to.

Great explanation Huzz! Ever think about volunteering to teach physics part time?

José

Physics? That's the science of making yer beer bubbly, at least that's what we engineers think! LOL!

I neglected the fact that the water in the tank would be at about 70 F and the temperature in space, while not absolute zero, would be about -360F according to one site I just googled. So, we also have the possibility that such a rupture could be partially self-sealing owing to the fact that some of the tank water might freeze at the rupture. The self-sealing action would only save the day if the rupture were small. On the show the hole was big so I'd expect a lot of water to be lost.

A proper thermodynamic analysis would be needed to model that one. Either way, not a good day for our space faring friends!

Huzz

"Fizzicks", get it?

Nyuk nyuk. :jest:

Huzz

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the wife will hit me for ya!

Yeah, great job on that, Dave! You used small words, so even I could follow it. :thumbsup:

Physics? That's the science of making yer beer bubbly, at least that's what we engineers think! LOL!

I neglected the fact that the water in the tank would be at about 70 F and the temperature in space, while not absolute zero, would be about -360F according to one site I just googled. So, we also have the possibility that such a rupture could be partially self-sealing owing to the fact that some of the tank water might freeze at the rupture. The self-sealing action would only save the day if the rupture were small. On the show the hole was big so I'd expect a lot of water to be lost.

A proper thermodynamic analysis would be needed to model that one. Either way, not a good day for our space faring friends!
The charges were, to me, obviously shaped or I doubt any holes would have been blown in Galactica's armor. As such, they were each likely more than 30m across. From the view we got in the episode when Tyrol's DC team go in to do their survey, those tanks were huge, but there's no way the water would have frozen quickly enough to have sealed the holes, from my very limited knowledge of physics & thermodynamics.

Plus, there's the most important aspect of all, whether it made sense or not - it was in the Script. ;)

I'll definitely agree w/you, PhillipMarlowe, that there's been very little that's bugged me about any of the episodes we've seen so far. Starbuck flying that Raider so quickly is one of them - tho not nearly so far fetched as your whale comparison considering that the "pilot" had physical controls to manipulate and it wasn't some sort of cyber-interface. The other is the whole forced feel to the major plot point of "Scattered" - two aspects: they couldn't plot jump corridinates to find the RTF (RagTag Fleet) from their own emergency jump corridinates; and how it went from taking 12 hours to 10 minutes w/the addition of two additional computers - DCC and fire control, IIRC - to what was the highly-specialized FTL computer. The latter plot device bugs me more than the former, as it doesn't make much sense to me that it would drop by such a large time factor.

Actually, the technical thing that bothered me most during Season 1 was Starbuck finding and flying the organic Cylon raider. Realistically, that was like me finding a dead whale on a beach, climbing inside it, and not only figuring out how to make it swim and dive, but make it swim good enough to outmanuever a shark (Apollo's Viper).

Well, she's that good.

The one thing that I don't like about this new Galactica, and this isn't a technical issue, is the shape of the Cylon Raider. It looks like a Batarang with a Centurion's head (or a Batarang mating with a Romulan Warbird, take your pick.

Physics? That's the science of making yer beer bubbly, at least that's what we engineers think!

En-geh-neer, eh? I married me one of those (she made the transition to an architect). That explains it! Physics majors tend to get convoluted in their explanations. Some engineers can do that too, but in my experience most manage to dumb it down for us "mortal folk".

José

The reason your question was likely censored (censured is more likely what they were really doing, given your attitude here) was because they're tired of all the whiney TOS Fans busting on the new series. I can't say I blame them. It was prolly that or call a Waaaah-bulance.


No, it was the con, not SciFi who censored me. They need to be punished for what they've done and held publically accountable.

And thank God that you'll never get close enough to come anywhere near taking over the new series! For starters, you have to have talent, then you gotta have potential. And, of course, you have to have positive connections.

Hah, I've got them. I would have been involved in the DeSanto revival.

By the way, last I checked, BSG - old or new - wasn't, isn't and never will be your show. It belongs to the producers and the fans. Constantly bitchin' that the show is horrible w/o doing anything more than giving your own, highly biased opinion pretty much takes any rights you have for credible criticism, far as I'm concerned.

It has nothign to do with bias. Answer these questions

Did Ron Moore create Battlestar Galactica?
No

Did Glen Larson Bless Ron Moore's "re-imagining"
No

Does Ron Moore despise the original series?
Yes

Does Ron Moore go out of his way to change things when keeping them the same would be easier?

Yes

Therefore it is wrong. period, final, end of story.

Huh? You're understanding of science is right up there with your aesthetic taste.


All I said was that it could've worked, and I repeat, Glen Never claimed to make a realistic show. Moore is.

can't imagine why Moore didn't want to answer any "rape" questions from a crazed fanboy.


Really? Because he put himself under 100% hostile audiences. Again, this was the con, under no orders from SciFi or the production group

That's ridiculous, but even if it was, your defunct effort was a BSG Sequel/Remake!


Guess you never watched SAAB then. If you did you'd see that the story, hierarchy and pretty much everything but the gambling habit tacked onto the Cylons is virtually identical, sans nuclear holocaust to the Silicates

This started out as as simple and honest technical discussion and you came in here and turned it into a b!+chfest.

Actually, I didn't start the war, it was the usual "How can you say that" assholes coming out of the woodwork. I will finish it though

Bottom Line- You don't have to agree with me, but you wil be constantly reminded that what you're watching is a rape and the antithesis of show it claims to represent, and against the wishes of the show's creator. I repeat. If this were Trek you'd be screaming and you know it.

Actually, I checked the Con's website, and darned if your picture wasn't there as you waited in line to submit the question......

http://www.babygotosleep.com.au/media/crying_baby01_300_border.jpg

No wonder they didn't take you serious, next time don't wear the Robbie Rist/Dr Z costume! :hat:

It's a "rape" only in your mind - as well as of that of a few other delusional, pathetic individuals. As such, I rather doubt that you've actually got the credentials - nor the cajones! - to take the reigns of BSG, let alone make it in to something that the vast majority of non-over-the-top TOS Fanboys would watch.

Apparently, Glen Larson had the rights to BSG, yes? My understanding is that he could have done something with them, but never did, then somehow "lost" the rights to BSG. So, while he may not have given his blessing, it's not anybody's fault but his own. Plus, he's not the one who came up w/the original concept for the show. ;)

And every time you crop up here and have to take a giant dump on the series, you'll get the same attitude reflected back at you. It's past old and tired. Face it, the original series, while entertaining for it's time, has aged very, very poorly. To be blunt, it's so dated that it's now nothing more than a pathetic fan boy wet dream of what could have been.

Could have worked, the ice would melt when it hit. Of course the final solution of just blowing the bay air would have been what any real fire control squad would have come up with first.

That's not so much the question as how do you make an electronic energy emitter spray water? Take apart your TV remote and work up a plumbing schematic, will ya? :)

Truthfully, I acknowledge that NBSG has taken a lot from Space: Above and Beyond. But since I really loved Space: AAB, and it's thoroughly unlikely to ever come back, I'm glad to have it's spirit revived in BSG. It's kind of a combination show, taking the best of old BSG and S:AAB together.

The other is the whole forced feel to the major plot point of "Scattered" - two aspects: they couldn't plot jump corridinates to find the RTF (RagTag Fleet) from their own emergency jump corridinates; and how it went from taking 12 hours to 10 minutes w/the addition of two additional computers - DCC and fire control, IIRC - to what was the highly-specialized FTL computer. The latter plot device bugs me more than the former, as it doesn't make much sense to me that it would drop by such a large time factor.

I kind of wondered about that too. So they had Coordinates A, which were transmitted to the Fleet. Then they refined those coordinates (Coordinates B), but failed to transmit them to the fleet. So Galactica jumped to Coordinates B while the rest of the Fleet went to Coordinates A.

So....

What, they can't go to their recycle basket ("trash" if they use a Mac OS) and retrieve the old coordinates? They don't make back up copies of their drives? I can find a previous version of a document if I really needed to. IT can pull out the backups if it's been deleted.

As for combining the computers and shaving time, that I can understand if they needed to network to utlize another computer's mainframe, ROM and RAM and/or processing speed. Not a computer guy, but that plot device works for me... :)

José

It has nothign to do with bias. Answer these questions

Did Ron Moore create Battlestar Galactica?
No

Did Glen Larson Bless Ron Moore's "re-imagining"
No


Does Ron Moore go out of his way to change things when keeping them the same would be easier?

Yes

Therefore it is wrong. period, final, end of story.



All I said was that it could've worked, and I repeat, Glen Never claimed to make a realistic show. Moore is

You mean like Larson's steller previous work? Which was your fave, Manimal? BJ and the Bear? Galactica 1980? Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo? Get Christy Love?

Yeah, you and Larson would have made a greaaat Galactica! How dare Moore presume to fiddle with such greatness!


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0488991/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0488991/)

Damn, I hope nobody "rapes" some Aaron Spelling show, you'll really blow a gasket...

First, assume that there is a uniform atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere throughout Galactica internally to minimize issues of personel access etc. Nominally, the water storage area would also be pressurized to 1 atmosphere. Pressure outside the ship is zero. When the tanks are ruptured and open to space, the 1 atmosphere pressure inside the ship and tank area will drive the water out of the hull.
Pressurize WHAT to 1 atmosphere? The tanks had a big sealed door that looked to be airtight (certainly watertight); thus there was no air to pressurize to 1 ATM. Surely you don't mean pressurize the water to 1 ATM. :)

Two, it is evident that Galactica has some form of artificial gravity which seems to exist uniformly throughout the ship.
Sure, artifical gravity in the tanks would cause water to drain down to the level of the holes. The holes looked to be high up on the wall/ceiling, though.

Third, Glactica is moving in space. Any course change would cause the water to want to remain travelling in its original path due to inertia.
Sure, it was moving but not accelerating. Then Adama accelerated in the direction that would indeed tend to force the water out, as I mentioned initially. (There was no battle, no clear reason for any evasive maneuver. Perhaps the Galactica's skin shrinks if it gets water on it. :)

Actually, I checked the Con's website, and darned if your picture wasn't there as you waited in line to submit the question......

http://www.babygotosleep.com.au/media/crying_baby01_300_border.jpg

No wonder they didn't take you serious, next time don't wear the Robbie Rist/Dr Z costume! :hat:

LOL!

BTW, I notice Glen Larsen is credited as some kind of production consultant, so I guess he must have bought off on the new series to some degree.

I want to say he's listed as a Creative Consultant, but don't recall for certain and don't have the time to watch any episodes to find out. Gotta head to DaJob!

Yes, Larson is credited as a "Consultant".

Maybe Adama commanded Galactica to veer away from the venting water because as it froze it became a threat to the hull. It doesn't make sense why an armor that can withstand a nuke can't withstand water.

Or maybe that's what became of those annoying Wonder Twins and Adama knoew they'd be pi$$ed once they were released from their prison... :tongue:

José

Did Ron Moore create Battlestar Galactica?
No

He merely improved upon it. What began a cheesy “Star Wars” ripoff has become one of television’s best shows.

For the record, Shakespeare didn’t ”create” the story of Romeo & Juliet either, but I for one am glad he took a crack at it.

Did Glen Larson Bless Ron Moore's "re-imagining"
No

Gene Roddenberry didn’t bless “The Wrath of Khan” either, but that didn’t stop the film from becoming a critical and commercial success. You maintain “Star Trek” fans would scream bloody murder were someone to appropriate (or, to use your favorite word, “rape”) their beloved franchise, but that’s exactly what Nick Meyer, Harve Bennett and Paramount Pictures did with ST:II, and as I recall the fan fallout was zero. No doubt it helped that the movie was really good.

Does Ron Moore despise the original series?
Yes

Not according to Ron Moore. Maybe you're thinking of Roger Moore.

Does Ron Moore go out of his way to change things when keeping them the same would be easier?

Yes

No argument here. Clearly Ron Moore and Company have worked very hard to improve upon the original series when it would have been easier to write something equally crappy.

You wil be constantly reminded that what you're watching is a rape and the antithesis of show it claims to represent

Best of luck with your sad, bitter, and pointless crusade. :wave:

Columbia - if the nominal pressure in the water tank is different than that of the surrounding atmosphere, then the tank must be designed to withstand that pressure diferential in addition to the pressure created by the static pressure created by the weight of the water. Also, if you open the tank hatch, water will blow out or contaminants will get sucked in depending on where pressure is higher.

Why would a designer intentionally add needless complexity to a system? The most elegant solutions are the simplest. Same pressue inside and out. No squishing of the tank if outside pressure is higher, no leakage if inside pressure is higher.

Huzz

Not according to Ron Moore. Maybe you're thinking of Roger Moore.That jerk! I knew it!

;)

Qapla'

SSB

You don't have to agree with me, but you wil be constantly reminded that what you're watching is a rape and the antithesis of show it claims to representPlease, continue to do so at every opportunity. I haven't read anything here funnier than the BSG threads in which you choose to become involved. And that's the truth.

What you are actually constantly reminding us of is that we sincerely wonder whether you're really watching the same show we are, or if you're somehow the victim of a cruel hoax.

Qapla'

SSB

That jerk! I knew it!

;)

Qapla'

SSB

Actually, by SOW's reasoning, Roger Moore raped Sean Connery.

You mean like Larson's steller previous work? Which was your fave, Manimal? BJ and the Bear? Galactica 1980? Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo? Get Christy Love?

Yeah, you and Larson would have made a greaaat Galactica! How dare Moore presume to fiddle with such greatness!

This is the part of what I say people never pay attention to

This is not about quality, or the perception of quality. This is about creator's rights to dictate the form and shape of their creation. I take the same attitude toward anything from Citizen Kane to Barney.

It's a "rape" only in your mind - as well as of that of a few other delusional, pathetic individuals. As such, I rather doubt that you've actually got the credentials - nor the cajones! - to take the reigns of BSG, let alone make it in to something that the vast majority of non-over-the-top TOS Fanboys would watch.

So how else would you describe the willful and intentional 180-ing of most of the core concepts and values of Galactica, and the replacing of the somewhat unique backstory with a bad Terminator/SAAB rip, and the castration of Starbuck, Boomer, and now Commander Cain (Michelle Forbes, while a fine actress is the antithesis of Lloyd Bridges' Patton-esque Cain) The Tom DeSanto plan was mostly solid, and blessed by Glen. That's what I'd start with. Hit Cylon.org for a description.

Apparently, Glen Larson had the rights to BSG, yes? My understanding is that he could have done something with them, but never did, then somehow "lost" the rights to BSG.

As a condition of getting the show on the air back in 78, he sold the TV rights to Universal. He still retains the movie rights, and has been trying to get a film (ranging from an IMAX project to theatrical to DTV) for at least 15 years.

So, while he may not have given his blessing, it's not anybody's fault but his own. Plus, he's not the one who came up w/the original concept for the show.

Say what now? Glen Larson first developed BSG as "Adam's Ark" back in 72. He certainly was the creator of it.

And every time you crop up here and have to take a giant dump on the series, you'll get the same attitude reflected back at you. It's past old and tired. Face it, the original series, while entertaining for it's time, has aged very, very poorly. To be blunt, it's so dated that it's now nothing more than a pathetic fan boy wet dream of what could have

You can successfully update the old series to modern standards without sacrificing what came before, or changing what the show is about. There was only 23 episodes of continutity, half of which are disposible in terms of macrostory. How hard would it have been? Answer- Not very. You make the fanboys happy, and everyone else will fall in line.

Actually, by SOW's reasoning, Roger Moore raped Sean Connery

Last I checked, Ian Fleming created James Bond.

This is the part of what I say people never pay attention to

This is not about quality, or the perception of quality. This is about creator's rights to dictate the form and shape of their creation. I take the same attitude toward anything from Citizen Kane to Barney.



OK. Now we've gotten to the core of the problem. This is not about an artist preserving the integrity of his work. Your arguement would be valid if someone modified the original series. If say they re-edited the episodes, creating completely new stories. If they Tiger Lilyed it and dubbed in comic dialogue. Even if they went in and added new CGI effects. But the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is not Larson's work. It is a new series that uses the '70s series as source material. And as writers have been doing since the time of Aristotle, the producers use some elements, ignore others, and create new stuff.

I think your problem is that you are one of those people who put fidelity to the source material above everything else. You know, "In the book, she was a brunette, in the movie they made her a red-head. They've completed ruined it." I've said this before on other threads. When the choice is between fidelity to the original and good drama, good drama should always win.

BTW, I notice Glen Larsen is credited as some kind of production consultant, so I guess he must have bought off on the new series to some degree

Yeah. It's a similar situation to Richard, in that Larsen isn't exactly rolling in it right now. As I understand it, they called him up and told him they could either cut him a check or not, and they would still do whatever the hell they wanted

And as writers have been doing since the time of Aristotle, the producers use some elements, ignore others, and create new stuff

Except they didn't tend to lable their work as "The Iliad" or whatnot. While they may borrow elements, the good ones didn't ape the proper nouns and slapped their own show on top of it. Hell, how many times has The Seven Samurai been retold? (The Magnificent Seven being the only one that actually licensed it, and if memory serves Kurosawa greatly enjoyed it) Three Amigos, a Bug's Life, every episode of the A-Team :)

I would be far more forgiving if it was called something else, used none of the names or designs and included an "Inspired by Battlestar Galactica" line, thereby seperating their work from the original.

I think your problem is that you are one of those people who put fidelity to the source material above everything else. You know, "In the book, she was a brunette, in the movie they made her a red-head. They've completed ruined it." I've said this before on other threads. When the choice is between fidelity to the original and good drama, good drama should always win.

But you can have fidelity to the original AND good drama. Had this been the show that Moore ended up with after working closely with, and recieving the blessing of Glen Larson (as DeSanto and Singer did) I would have 0 issue with it as a show called BSG because Glen gave it his blessing.

The LOTR movies are a prime example. They're at their worst when PJ decided to make up shit (Osgiliath comes to mind), but none of them alters the story. I have issue with them, but not this kind of issue. How about Battlefield Earth? Whatever you think of the quality of the original novel, the alterations they made were immense and they were punished for it accordingly (and so was anyone who saw it).

Seriously, from all the people who are yelling at me, how many of you would NOT be pissed off by the hypothetical Trek I described? Be honest. Even if it were 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film I detest and believe can only be enjoyed under the influence of illegal substances, If I were handed the reigns for a remake there would be 0 deviation in terms of plot. I don't get pissed off when someone's hair color is wrong, I DO get pissed when unneccessary fundemental alterations are made for no other reason than someone trying to "make it their own". If they want something to be their own, they can create it, just don't ride other people's work as a way to express your own ideas.

For the record, I couldn't be a bigger fan of Moore's Trek work, especially DS9.

Oh, get over yourself, SOW.
Let's play the violins while your poor ol' broke buddies Richard, Dirk, and Glen attach their name to the new Galactica, even though they hate it just like you do, because they have to feed the children! . I swear, you name drop more than a clumsy mail carrier during a hurricane.

I think the real reason you hate Ron Moore and the new Galactica is because your phone didn't ring, that is if your ties to the Desanto version exist anywhere other than between your ears. I say that because when you repeat that "Ron Moore Only watched 1 episode"-"Moore is a Hack" mantra, thread after thread after thread, you sound like nothing so much as a pathetic girl that just got dumped. And a potential psycho/stalker at that.


And if the glorious magnificent Desanto version had come to be, there'd have been another group of whiny deluded fanboys screaming Bryan Singer raped their precious version of Galactica and was a untalented hack and that they should be allowed to make the new Galactica.

Maybe with a kicky wormhole opening....

You make the fanboys happy, and everyone else will fall in line.

Strange. From out here in the real world, it looks like "everyone else" is happy in spite of the fanboys.

Talk about cosmic irony. :)

Except they didn't tend to lable their work as "The Iliad" or whatnot. While they may borrow elements, the good ones didn't ape the proper nouns and slapped their own show on top of it. Hell, how many times has The Seven Samurai been retold? (The Magnificent Seven being the only one that actually licensed it, and if memory serves Kurosawa greatly enjoyed it) Three Amigos, a Bug's Life, every episode of the A-Team :)

I would be far more forgiving if it was called something else, used none of the names or designs and included an "Inspired by Battlestar Galactica" line, thereby seperating their work from the original.



So by your reasoning, the remake of PSYCHO is better than the remake of THE LADY KILLERS?

By your reasoning, the Boris Karloff FRANKENSTEIN and the Bela Lugosi DRACULA are terrible movies, but would be good if they had just changed the character's names?

I'm sorry, but your distinctions are ridiculous. If a work is good, its fidelity to the source is irrelevant. A bad movie that follows its source word for word is still a bad movie.

And your example of THE SEVEN SAMURAI works against your argument. The movie was called THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN when it was first released in America. So the western used the same name, was an official remake, and from what I understand, did not involve Kurosawa at all. And they made major alterations to the story. Frankly, I think combining the young kid and the crazy Samurai wannabe into one character, and having him stay with the villagers at the end is a much bigger sin than making Starbuck a woman. But guess what. THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN is still a pretty good movie.

Columbia - if the nominal pressure in the water tank is different than that of the surrounding atmosphere, then the tank must be designed to withstand that pressure diferential in addition to the pressure created by the static pressure created by the weight of the water. Also, if you open the tank hatch, water will blow out or contaminants will get sucked in depending on where pressure is higher.

Why would a designer intentionally add needless complexity to a system? The most elegant solutions are the simplest. Same pressue inside and out. No squishing of the tank if outside pressure is higher, no leakage if inside pressure is higher.

Huzz

I'm not trying to be thick or a smart alec, but I don't understand what you're saying. I thought you couldn't compress water, thus the "pressure" on the water side is either zero (if there's no artificial gravity -- not likely) or the weight of the water, if there is artificial gravity. The door will certainly be very heavy to close, considering the wall of water on the other side (assuming 1g artificial gravity), and the water would certainly rush out into the corridor if the door's opened. Obviously, the door and bulkheads must be designed to support this pressure, just like any real tank on Earth.

...
But you can have fidelity to the original AND good drama.

This is probably true. Or you can have less fidelity to the original AND good drama. There's no law for or against either. Is new BSG enjoyable as it is? To me and many, many others, yes. Is it making money? Apparently. 'nuff said.

This is not about quality, or the perception of quality. This is about creator's rights to dictate the form and shape of their creation.

Rubbish. This is about a deluded FanBoy's bloated ego.

You hitched your wagon to the wrong Battlestar and can't accept the fact that someone else had the creative wherewithal to succeed where you so badly hoped they would fail.

You made your mind up to hate Moore's BSG before it ever aired, and can't bring yourself to accept the fact that it's become a critical and commercial success.

You make the fanboys happy, and everyone else will fall in line.

Your contempt for "everyone else" speaks volumes; fanboys, as you so clearly demonstrate, are their own worse enemies.

Last I checked, Ian Fleming created James Bond.

And we're forever in his debt, but it's thanks to the vision and artistry of others that the character has endured all these years.

Arthur Conan-Doyle... Bram Stoker... Walt Disney... Rod Serling... Gene Roddenberry... Glen Larson (chuckle)... all of these men had a vision, but those visions have been kept alive by guys like Ron Moore

Hi Columbia!

I didn't think you were trying to be smart alecky - sorry if it seemed like I thought that!

Consider a plain old botle of water. If you open the stopper, nothing happens. The air pressure inside the bottle and outside are the same. Take the same bottle of water, stick it on a super soaker water pistol and pump up the pressure of the air in the bottle. Create an opening and whoosh - out comes the water!

A big tank of water will always have some amount of air in it. Even if its due to air that is dissolved in the water and slowly returns to a gas state. A big tank would have to allow that air to vent and thus the air pressure inside and outside the tank would be the same. Otherwise, the tank could leak or rupture etc.

Water is very incompressible, more so than some metals (ask any machinist!) but it will change volume somewhat with temperature which could cause air pressure changes if there is no vent on the tank. Also, as water reserves are used, air would have to be vented in to replace that volume or the tank would collapse.

Huzz

Strange. From out here in the real world, it looks like "everyone else" is happy in spite of the fanboys.

And Moore and company would do well to remember that it was the fanboys who nagged Scifi for the last 15 years (So much that they had a special question in their FAQ saying they weren't interested) that made them want to revive Galactica, and had nagged Universal before that, and made sure that the franchise never dropped below their radar.

Oh, get over yourself, SOW.
Let's play the violins while your poor ol' broke buddies Richard, Dirk, and Glen attach their name to the new Galactica, even though they hate it just like you do, because they have to feed the children! . I swear, you name drop more than a clumsy mail carrier during a hurricane.

I'm not the one supporting the destruction and alteration of other people's work. Sounds like your concience is bothering you. In any case, if you want me to stop "namedropping", then stop saying that I don't have the creds to have ever been involved with it, and stop questioning my motives. I don't know Dirk and Glen personally, however I do know people who do. and I only know DeSanto on the most superficial of levels. He knows who I am, I know who he is, and that's about where it stops.

I think the real reason you hate Ron Moore and the new Galactica is because your phone didn't ring, that is if your ties to the Desanto version exist anywhere other than between your ears.

Hardly. Guess what? I don't care if I'm involved or not, as long as the original is respected. I won't lie and say that if the phone rings I wouldn't have been right there for the DeSanto version, or any other that continued and respected the original. If Moore called me up right now and offered me the lead guest star of the week, I wouldn't take it under current conditions (aka, if this show isn't being erased and the real one brought back in that episode, no dice).

I say that because when you repeat that "Ron Moore Only watched 1 episode"-"Moore is a Hack" mantra, thread after thread after thread, you sound like nothing so much as a pathetic girl that just got dumped. And a potential psycho/stalker at that.

Gee, so I guess in your book the best way to adapt a book is to only read the first chapter? That's hackery at its highest levels, and it showed. Moore's claims like "there are no strong female characters"(disproven in the very next episode), and his laziness (mixing up pyramid and triad, which required him to expend more effort making up new terms for the hands). Hell, Moore even had the most iconic part of Galactica, the Cylon eye sound FX changed for freak's sake.

And if the glorious magnificent Desanto version had come to be, there'd have been another group of whiny deluded fanboys screaming Bryan Singer raped their precious version of Galactica and was a untalented hack and that they should be allowed to make the new Galactica.

But Singer/DeSanto's version was blessed by Glen Larsen, and therefore just fine. Singer/DeSanto's version also set out to respect and continue the original, while Moore set out to do whatever the hell he wanted. It's a matter of approval of the creator, and intent.

There will always be whiny fanboys, Again, this is about creator's rights. Period. If Glen Larsen does not approve, it should not be made. George Lucas has every right to screw up Star Wars any way he wants. You don't have to agree with it, but the creator is always the only person who is right when it comes to the story, structure and form of his/her creation.

So by your reasoning, the remake of PSYCHO is better than the remake of THE LADY KILLERS?

Never saw the remake of the LadyKillers, and Psycho puts me to sleep, but yes i'd say yes, because Van Sant saw there was no need to be creative, because it had already been done perfectly. In most cases remakes are rather pointless, just re-release the original.

I'm sorry, but your distinctions are ridiculous. If a work is good, its fidelity to the source is irrelevant. A bad movie that follows its source word for word is still a bad movie.

But it was still faithful, and therefore better than a bad movie that calls itself one thing even though it only shares 2-3 half-scenes with the original source material (Starship Troopers, though the political commentary was hysterical)

And your example of THE SEVEN SAMURAI works against your argument. The movie was called THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN when it was first released in America. So the western used the same name, was an official remake, and from what I understand, did not involve Kurosawa at all. And they made major alterations to the story

Then you're not reading what I've been writing. Kurosawa approved it. Therefore it's fine.
Creator's rights, not quality is what matters.

Sounds like your concience is bothering you. In any case, if you want me to stop "namedropping", then stop saying that I don't have the creds to have ever been involved with it, and stop questioning my motives. I don't know Dirk and Glen personally, however I do know people who do. and I only know DeSanto on the most superficial of levels.

You don't have the 'creds" SOW. And you previously speaking for how Larson really feels, a guy you've admittedly never met, shows just how deluded you really are.

He knows who I am, I know who he is, and that's about where it stops.

He might know your name from a restraining order. I suspect the same for your ol' buddies Rich and Dirk too

If Moore called me up right now and offered me the lead guest star of the week, I wouldn't take it under current conditions (aka, if this show isn't being erased and the real one brought back in that episode, no dice).

And then your wife Morgan Fairchild makes you a delicious tuna casserole.

There will always be whiny fanboys

Well, we do agree on one thing :cool: