# Size / scale of the exisiting battlestar models



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Hi fellows, 

in a german forum a discussion started about the scale of the old TOS Battlestar Galactica and the new Moebius one. 

Both are given with a scale of 1:4105. But the Moebius one is smaller than the Revellogramm one. I know that some people say that the TOS is "one nautical mile" long, and the new one is 1400 meters, so the model sizes are correct. BUT a lot of online sources, including the battlestar wiki, are giving the length of the TOS with 1200 meters - so the scale of the two models isn`t the same, as the Moebius one should be bigger than the Revellogramm one. 

What do you think about it? Are they in the same scale, or not?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

I don't really care.....I''m just glad to have the models.


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

Ditto


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Same here but I do wish it was longer! Now where have I heard that before? :wave:.

Just glad to have this great kit fom Moebuis! Even if is is too small. Now where have I heard that before....:wave:


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

A nautical mile is 1852m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

So if you go with that number then the TOS is bigger then the Nu. Where the number 1200m came from and if it is correct I do not know.


----------



## Joe Brown (Nov 16, 1999)

While it's always nice to nail down hard (and accurate!) numbers for our treasured starships, the simple fact was that the FX teams rarely had the time to make things 'perfect' - they needed to get completed shots out ASAP.

Here's some interesting data:
http://ravensbranch.allen.com/galacticasize.html


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

well if dykstra says one nautical mile, then TOS is Bigger than Nu.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I remember from the original BSG novels, the Galactica was supposed to be rather large. In terms of the model built for the series, the size of the viewports, landing bays, etc., a mile (nautical or otherwise) is a bit of an overstatement.

In terms of modeling - both kits were made decades apart by two different manfacturers. I'd say that they're close enough in size for what most people expect from a kit.

Makes no difference to me...

Bryan


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I have no problem with the two Battlestars being different sizes- aside from the general configuration there is little in common with the two ships.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I detect a bit of "Galactica Envy". Just because the original was bigger and could take a pounding more, I am sure the new one is just as capable.....for its size!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Having thoroughly researched the TOS Galactica, I'm convinced of its larger size.

The two major points to consider in its size are the round openings in the side of the flight pods which launch the Vipers and the size of the landing bay opening which has to accomodate the size of the shuttles.

If the Galactica were smaller than the 6080 foot length, these two openings would simply be too small to serve their purposes.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Well, for me it is ok, too, but there is a large fanbase here in Germany which just started complaining the the Moebius kit can`t be 1:4105 because it it smaller than the TOS Galactica, but referred to several online sources it should be bigger (because of the 1200 meters for the old lady).

Does someone here have a link to an online source that states 1800 meters for the TOS one? At the moment I`m standing alone here (in Germany, that is) with my "no, the Moebius one is correct, the old one is a nautical mile long"-statement.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I thought it was decided way back when the show started that the new ship was a little smaller than the original ship.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

John P said:


> I thought it was decided way back when the show started that the new ship was a little smaller than the original ship.


I know that. BUT I try to find a way to convince my fellow german modelers about that. At the moment a wave of "Moebius did it wrong!"-shouts is going through the fandom here...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trying to convince Germans they're wrong!?
Good luck with THAT!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

John P said:


> Trying to convince Germans they're wrong!?
> Good luck with THAT!


Indeed - I know my fellow countrymen... that`s why I`m asking if someone knows a online source for the "nautical mile" of the TOS Galactica. :wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Joe Brown already gave you one excellent source, which even gives references to where the information came from, Marko. 



Joe Brown said:


> While it's always nice to nail down hard (and accurate!) numbers for our treasured starships, the simple fact was that the FX teams rarely had the time to make things 'perfect' - they needed to get completed shots out ASAP.
> 
> Here's some interesting data:
> http://ravensbranch.allen.com/galacticasize.html


_Please_ don't ignore that source, as it shows a definite attempt at rationalizing the various sizes mentioned previous to TNS coming in to being, as well as I think does so rather well with a minimum of bias. A lot of times, we look at the intent of a thing and will just go with that, but in this case the intent given by the creators - Glen A. Larson and John Dykstra, the guys who created the series/ship model, respectively - seems to make a LOT of sense IMNSHO. 

Otherwise, tell the folks who are your opposition to offer up honest-to-gods (sarcasm intended from TNS BSG  ) proof to back up their own claims. Quoting a Wiki-anything source doesn't make it so, as I've found a number of entries at Battlestar Wiki to be inaccurate and have offered corrections w/citations in the past. Trust, but verify is my middle name, particularly when you aren't immediately given a citation w/link to back up what you read. 

Personally, since you had asked originally, I use the "One nautical mile" reference as "canon". For the most part because that's what GAL and JD said and there's nothing that I have yet to see which implicity denies what they've stated as the intent for _Galactica_ or her sister battlestars. I just wish that we could have seen some other Colonial Fleet capital ships other than the battlestars.


----------



## Moebius (Mar 15, 2007)

The only thing I can say is I have seen 4720 and 4740 as lengths for the new ship. (4740x12)/4105=13.85. You may be able to say the Revell kits is wrong, but if you go by what is listed for the new ship, it is 4105. The nautical mile has been the accepted length of the TOS ship forever it seems like, so if this is wrong, it has nothing to to with the scale of our piece. It is 4105 regardless of what the old kit was.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Moebius said:


> The nautical mile has been the accepted length of the TOS ship forever it seems like, so if this is wrong, it has nothing to to with the scale of our piece. It is 4105 regardless of what the old kit was.


Yes, I agree completely with you, and I never had any doubt. But as John P said above: "Trying to convince Germans they're wrong!? Good luck with THAT!"

However, I posted an explanation in the german forum, especially mentioning the point you stated above with the given length of the new G, and that, in the worst case, the scale if the Revell one is wrong, and not yours.

But I feel a bit like Don Quijote, fighting with windmills... :freak:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I have a buddy who's convinced that the Monogram and Moebius _Galactica_ models are not the same scale. I, however voted that the original ship is bigger than the new version. 

As has been noted by Joe's excellent link, it's really been next to impossible to determine the actual size of the original ship, especially when you do the on-screen comparisons. I think we'd have to go with John Dykstra's statement that the original ship was intended to be 1 nautical mile long... which will make it close enough for me! 

Still waiting on my buddy to send me the Moebius _Galactica_ kit he got for me - should have taken the earlier opportunity for him to have sent it up last week, so my fault on that.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Just did the math. At one nautical mile in length (6,076 feet) the original (Or REAL ONE if you are me!) Galactica, at 1/4105 scale, would be 17.75 inches in length. My Monogram kit measures just about spot on, so why all the controversy? The man that created it, Glen Larson, and the man who built it, John Dykstra, both say it was one nautical mile long, why is that not good enough for some? It is not their fault the new guys made it a smaller ship!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Joe Brown said:


> While it's always nice to nail down hard (and accurate!) numbers for our treasured starships, the simple fact was that the FX teams rarely had the time to make things 'perfect' - they needed to get completed shots out ASAP.
> 
> Here's some interesting data:
> http://ravensbranch.allen.com/galacticasize.html


While this source is an interesting piece of work, I tend to dismiss it.

The problem is (and its implied in the piece) that with the optical processes of the day, it was very hard to get really accurate in size relationships between the models.
It involves shooting one model of one particular scale at a certain distance.
And shooting another model of another scale in a way that makes it look bigger or smaller than the first model.

So as they say s---- happens like, what happens if there wasn't room on the stage for the motion control rig to get far enough back on a certain lens so they have to switch to another focal length, and oh geez that now requires repositioning the camera rig and reprogramming the move. And oh yeah, time and buget.

So unless you have another source to draw from, the model photography is the worst. Its the first clue, but IMHO, its the worst clue.

So the next thing is a 'full size' set piece.
I put that in quotations because, who says the set piece has to be made the 'real' size, like in the case of the shuttle exterior. It was built to a different scale than the interior set.
(same thing is true on the Star Trek shuttle Galileo. Exterior, one scale. Interior another scale.)
This happens a lot in set building.
The exterior set for Titanic was only 90% of the true size of the real Titanic.
However, the producers and production designer must have felt that that amount wouldn't be noticable on film, but would provide real savings in construction and logistics.

When it comes to this issue, I tend to go with the interior set as a more realistic starting point due to the fact of people being in closer relationship with set vs. the exterior.

I think everyone can agree that the size of the Viper set piece is the 'size' of the Viper. I remember somthing about the studio model being one 'scale foot' longer than the full size set piece so I'm not worried because its not going to affect the size of the Galactica.

However, the Shuttle is another story.
The size of the interior set, vs. the scale of the exterior piece is quite different.
If the model is scaled up to fit the drawn blueprints for the interior set, then the shuttle was 110 feet long (studio model being 1/60th).
I think the exterior was built to half scale due to size limitations on the sound stage.

A diagram here, shows a lot of this.
http://www.wegottafindearth.com/rpf/shuttleA.jpg

I think it is part of an article titled "How Big is a colonial Shuttle."

So you prefer the smaller exterior?
Ok, where do you put the landram.
Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem as though the landram will fit in any loading door on a shuttle of that smaller size.

Therefore, in this case, I support the idea of a 110 foot shuttle fitting the dimensions of the interior set.

So now, the million dollar question. How big does the Galactica have to be to allow the shuttle to land on it?

This is where CG becomes really handy, because you can build items to 'real' sizes just like any CAD program.

Years ago I bought a set of bluprints to the Galactica that are regarded as probably the best out there. As part of my verification process, I made a simple hull of the Galactica in CG to those specs and started seeing if the parts fit right before I started to build (umm-still have to start building).

Once I had the hull in CG form, I couldn't help but enlarge it to the proposed 6080ft. length to test all these 'size' questions.

The other thing I did was download a prebuilt CG model of the shuttle.
While crude, (detail didn't matter) it could be pushed, pulled and resized to fit the proposed dimensions of the Galactica shuttle.

Here is the result.




If the rational on the size of the shuttle is correct, then the Galactica HAS to be the nautical mile, because any of the smaller lengths, simply won't allow the shuttle to pass the opening to the landing deck.

So aside from Larson and Dykstra saying that it is that nautical mile, which is a biggy, here is the best proof I could come up with independently to support or refute that length.

Marco, perhaps that might satisfy your German skeptics.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> Marco, perhaps that might satisfy your German skeptics.


VERY good explanation. I`ll translate and post it in the german forum!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

RSN said:


> The man that created it, Glen Larson, and the man who built it, John Dykstra, both say it was one nautical mile long, why is that not good enough for some?


Because this statement and measurements can not be found in the www, but several other ones (especially in the battlestar wiki, to this website my german fellows are mainly refering).


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Because this statement and measurements can not be found in the www, but several other ones (especially in the battlestar wiki, to this website my german fellows are mainly refering).


I hate to break this news to people, but the internet is not the ONLY source of information in the world. At the age of 47, most of the things I have read and learned from, were from printed or other media. If they do not want to believe the truth because they can't find it on web, then I weep for the future!!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Marco Scheloske said:


> VERY good explanation. I`ll translate and post it in the german forum!


Thanks. Post me a link when you do. I've never had my stuff translated before.
I want to hear what I sound like in German. I'll read it to my kids.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> Thanks. Post me a link when you do. I've never had my stuff translated before.
> I want to hear what I sound like in German. I'll read it to my kids.


I did it the lazy way and simply posted a link to here in the german forum. My fellows there can all read english good enough to follow this thread.


----------



## iamweasel (Aug 14, 2000)

Just imagine if this had been a Trek ship question, it would have 1400 replies already and not a one would say "I don't care".


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Whoa ... interesting read here. I for one never really gave the size of the Galactica (both old and new) much thought. Its nice to know we have serious modellers within the BSG arena as well.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

"A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing", wow, all I said was most of what I have learned, was read years ago and can not be found on the internet. That does not make the information wrong! And as long as we are throwing numbers around, I have an I.Q. of 170, which means diddly squat on this subject! It make my laugh at how personally people take these forums. Enjoy!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN said:


> "A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing", wow, all I said was most of what I have learned, was read years ago and can not be found on the internet. That does not make the information wrong! And as long as we are throwing numbers around, I have an I.Q. of 170, which means diddly squat on this subject! It make my laugh at how personally people take these forums. Enjoy!!


I did NOT take it personally, my good friend and I did not declare you "wrong." I just wanted to point out that your general observation was a bit off. I thought I made that clear. 

And, mea culpa, I was discussing something at the risk of diverting the topic which I give into on occasion. I just thought it was an interesting subject because I've made quite a few observations over the years on the influence of so much knowledge at people's fingertips. I find the topic fascinating.

And congrats on the IQ score but note that I did not mention mine--that's a little too much information. Standardized tests are a bit more iffy in inferences made--especially of late. I was just making the point about ignorance vs. intelligence in order to clarify my point. I do not find very many of us to be dummies here by any means--just the opposite so please consider yourself to be in excellent company.

In conclusion: okay, lesson learned. I'll delete my previous post.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I did NOT take it personally, my good friend and I did not declare you "wrong." I just wanted to point out that your general observation was a bit off. I thought I made that clear.
> 
> And, mea culpa, I was discussing something at the risk of diverting the topic which I give into on occasion. I just thought it was an interesting subject because I've made quite a few observations over the years on the influence of so much knowledge at people's fingertips. I find the topic fascinating.
> 
> ...


Don't delete it, THAT IS AN ORDER! It's all good!!!!!!!! As I said, I find these things funny, not insulting. As Spock said, "You proceed from a false assumption, I have no ego to bruise."!! I am getting ready to put my money where my mouth is and post my "Class of 2010" builds from this year. I hope they meet up with the other talent here!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN said:


> I am getting ready to put my money where my mouth is and post my "Class of 2010" builds from this year. I hope they meet up with the other talent here!!


I'm sure you'll do just fine in that regard, sir.:thumbsup:


----------

