# Battlestar Galactica (Original series)Wish List/poll



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

I thought I would initiate a thread on what kits we fans of the Originial Battlestar Galactica would like to see.

Let's try and avoid Who currently has the rights, Why this or that couldn't be done(We should all know that's nonesense, Just look at all the kits Moebius and Pegasus are making).It may take the release of the Big Screen version to make the powers that be realize that these kits could sell. As to who could do it?? personally Fine Molds would be my first choice. Also let's try and keep it to the models we would like to see and not start any negative remarks about either the New Show or the original.

Anyhoo..Here's my wish list

1)22" Battlestar Galactica
2)Colonial Landram
3)Colonial Shuttle
4)Originial Cylon warrior 1/6
5)Android Dagget(Yes..Muffy, in 1/6 scale)


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

A really, really nice Galactica (the "real" one, not the "new" one) has always been something I've wanted to see.

Of course, even more than that, I've always wanted a computer "flight sim" set up in the TOS Galactica world. (I'm not nearly good enough to make it for myself, even using an existing game engine.) "Beyond the Red Line" shows that this can be done using nuBSG ideas (using the Freespace 2 engine)...

But I've always been very, very partial to the general feel of TOS BSG, both technologically and thematically. So yeah, a big 22" "real" Galactica would be high on my list.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Yeah, a 22 inch, accurate and detailed TOS Galactica. I always liked the hardware in the original series even if I couldn't stand the series itself. Maybe it's just a preference for physical models over CGI craft.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)




----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Colonial Landram


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Galactica Shuttle studio model


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

Original Studio miniature today....


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

My vote would be for a 1/2500 scale original series _Galactica_, which would come in at just over 29" long.


----------



## teslabe (Oct 20, 2007)

Trek Ace said:


> My vote would be for a 1/2500 scale original series _Galactica_, which would come in at just over 29" long.


You could put me down for three if it was at least 29" long.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

I would love to see a new original series Galactica kit, 22" would be good for me, 29" would be great.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Well, nobody REALLY knows the actual size of the original series ship... there are several different "pseudo-official" sizes out there that get tossed around. So it's hard to say what size is "correct," so it's hard to say the proper size of the ship in a given scale.

For me, I'd really be inclined to go for 24" rather than either of the above... because a 24" is ideal for shelf-based display. Anything too much larger and it'll require some sort of custom display setup... which means I'll never really do one.

I'm trying to figure out just how I'm going to display my 1:350 Enterprise... which is going to take up wayyyy too much of my home space to begin with. But I've always, always wanted a "perfect" Enterprise model... so I'm prepared to make a sacrifice or two for that.

But for the Galactica? I like it, but I don't "need" it... if that makes any sense. Make it TOO large and it will cease to be practical for me, and I won't want it anymore.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Galactica for me please! :thumbsup:


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

All of the ships please! Figures aren't really my thing. Unless we're talking about girls, but that's a whole 'nother thing! :wave:


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

*Galactica size relative to Nimitz class carrier*

Galactica size relative to Nimitz class carrier

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/File:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg


----------



## BOXIE (Apr 5, 2011)

Definitely Galactica 22'' to 29'',shuttle landram,and some of the convoy ships-Rising Star The larger size would make it easier to light


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

The BIG G herself.......and the bigger and more detailed the better.:thumbsup:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> A really, really nice Galactica (the "real" one, not the "new" one) has always been something I've wanted to see.
> 
> Of course, even more than that, I've always wanted a computer "flight sim" set up in the TOS Galactica world. (I'm not nearly good enough to make it for myself, even using an existing game engine.) "Beyond the Red Line" shows that this can be done using nuBSG ideas (using the Freespace 2 engine)...
> 
> But I've always been very, very partial to the general feel of TOS BSG, both technologically and thematically. So yeah, a big 22" "real" Galactica would be high on my list.


uuuummmm, "real" Galactica??
you do realize it was a 'studio model' about 76 inches long right?

And what about the not making and comparisons between the old and new series.

And yes, I'd love to have a 1/2500 scale TOS Galactica.
better 1/32 scale Viper.
1/32 scale TOS Raider.

In 1/72 scale
Viper.
Raider.
Shuttle.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> Well, nobody REALLY knows the actual size of the original series ship... there are several different "pseudo-official" sizes out there that get tossed around. So it's hard to say what size is "correct," so it's hard to say the proper size of the ship in a given scale.


6,080 ft. is the most commonly accepted size for the TOS Galactica and most importantly, the one said by Larson and Dykstra.


The ship length CAN vary until you try to fit the Vipers and Shuttles through the various opening in the model meant to handle said objects. Namely the round openings in the sides which represent the launch tubes and more importantly the landing deck opening.
This is more important because this opening needs to handle the size of the shuttle.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=312066

I refer you to this thread from a while back.
If you scroll down to post number #22, I gave a pretty exhaustive rationale to back up the 6080 measurement.

So for 6080 feet, a 1/2500 Galactica would be about 29 3/16th inches long.

I ended up not voting for the Galactica because I'd rather have it in 1/2500 scale.
And I'm wondering why the landram is 1/35th rather than 1/32 which is the scale of all the BSG (old and new) fighters so far.


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

I'd love a really decent, well detailed model of the original series Galactica. 

Sean


----------



## bccanfield (Nov 17, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> 6,080 ft. is the most commonly accepted size for the TOS Galactica and most importantly, the one said by Larson and Dykstra.....



Over a mile long -- that's three 1701Ds placed end to end. That is huge.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> 6,080 ft. is the most commonly accepted size for the TOS Galactica and most importantly, the one said by Larson and Dykstra.
> 
> 
> The ship length CAN vary until you try to fit the Vipers and Shuttles through the various opening in the model meant to handle said objects. Namely the round openings in the sides which represent the launch tubes and more importantly the landing deck opening.
> ...


That's the size Roger Sides scaled the Galactica out to when given the opportunity to examine the model by Ed Miarecki.
Personally, I'd rather have a TOS Galactica in scale with the Moebius nuGalactica.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

merged with another post


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> uuuummmm, "real" Galactica??
> you do realize it was a 'studio model' about 76 inches long right?


Hence my use of quotes. But don't let my clear intent dissuade you from making snarky comments, please.


> And what about the not making and comparisons between the old and new series.


What about it?


ClubTepes said:


> 6,080 ft. is the most commonly accepted size for the TOS Galactica and most importantly, the one said by Larson and Dykstra.
> 
> 
> The ship length CAN vary until you try to fit the Vipers and Shuttles through the various opening in the model meant to handle said objects. Namely the round openings in the sides which represent the launch tubes and more importantly the landing deck opening.
> ...


Well, I tend to go with the larger size as well... I'm just saying that there is no "stake in the ground" number which has been put out there, and there are a wide variety of opinions.

But yeah, I PERSONALLY tend to agree with your position on this as well. I just won't go telling someone who disagrees that they're "wrong." After all, as you yourself said, it's just a model...

But I DO agree with the folks who claim that the TOS Galactica is just freakin' HUGE. Then again, I also believe that the TOS Enterprise can't be 947' long, and has to be longer (my own number came up to 1067' in order to make everything fit "just right," but a lot of other folks have gone just a bit bigger still).


----------



## starlord (Mar 30, 2011)

I have two of the original. BSG models that came out, there was one ship missing from the list, with a 29 inch BSG model, how about a cylon basestar the same scale that would be grate to go with the other 3 basestars that I have. all from the original show.


----------



## starlord (Mar 30, 2011)

just think, unlike the ST ship, the Galactica could hold something like 12 of the vipers and they also had a good number of the people who where fleeing the cylons too.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

So, it looks like we're talking about a 1:2500 scale Galactica at 29 1/8" long, or a 1:3200 Galactica at 22 3/4" long.

I vote for the 1:3200 size.


----------



## starlord (Mar 30, 2011)

How about a cylon basestar just as big?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

bccanfield said:


> Galactica size relative to Nimitz class carrier
> 
> http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/File:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg


The Nimitz clas carriers are just over 1000 feet in length and according to the first edition of Famous Spaceships.......... TOS Galactica is about 2000 feet long and this thread is for TOS Battlestar Galactica not the new show.
As for me I would like a kit of both the old and the new ones both in the same scale even if it means creating new larger molds for the new Galactica.
Or I can always try and scratch build on of the 2........


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> So, it looks like we're talking about a 1:2500 scale Galactica at 29 1/8" long, or a 1:3200 Galactica at 22 3/4" long.
> 
> I vote for the 1:3200 size.


What else is 1:3200 scale?

The whole reason for the 1:2500 scale, is the number of other Sci-fi subjects in that scale.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I want a 3 foot Galactica, and I want it yesterday!
Oh fudge, I guess I'll have to make it my own self....:freak:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

ClubTepes said:


> What else is 1:3200 scale?
> 
> The whole reason for the 1:2500 scale, is the number of other Sci-fi subjects in that scale.


My feelings, exactly. 1/2500 would also be a great scale for a stardestroyer - but that is for another thread.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Regarding scale discussions about the TOS Galactica, I added this to the Wiki entry in hopes some might find it helpful:



> The one missing piece of information in studies [regarding the scale of the TOS Galactica] is the actual diameter of the launch tube openings on the studio miniature. As someone who has spent years studying the filming model, and has designed and helped to build a very precise replica of it that is currently on display at the EMPSFM Science Fiction Museum in Seattle, Washington (see External Links section), I know these openings were 1/4 inch in diameter.
> 
> Having drawn the studio miniature in precise detail, including in 3D, I determined that a 27-28 foot Viper fits inside the tubes quite nicely if the studio model scales out to one nautical mile in length. In fact, the tubes scale out to 20 feet in diameter. Anything smaller would clip the wings of the Vipers. Don't forget there are pipes, bulkheads, and other details inside the round tubes that require clearance as well. So, I'm not quite sure how you could work it out if the ship were to be substantially smaller. Also, this value does coincide with John Dykstra's estimate that was quoted in vintage magazine articles of the period.
> 
> Charles Adams, _StarshipBuilder.com_


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> What else is 1:3200 scale?
> 
> The whole reason for the 1:2500 scale, is the number of other Sci-fi subjects in that scale.


And the whole reason for not going in that scale is that I would not have anyplace to put the larger one, and thus I would never buy it.

I simply will never buy any model except for the TOS Enterprise which is over 2' or so in length, because I would have absolutely no place to put it. The TOS Enterprise is a special case, because it's a "dream" of mine. I bought the TMP Enterprise in the larger scale as well, but I don't really expect to ever have it out on display, honestly.

We're talking about what we want.

You want something in scale to other kits you have. The 1:2500 scale is common with Star Trek kits, but I'm not aware of any other category of Sci-fi model which is common in that scale. So, unless you really, really want to show Galactica in formation with the Enterprises, I don't see that as being that much of an issue. But maybe you have other non-Trek 1:2500 subject you'd like to put it alongside?

Me, I don't want that, because it's too big to be practical for me. 2' or so is simply the biggest I'll even consider, so that I can put it someplace where I won't have to redesign my entire home around it. 

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> And the whole reason for not going in that scale is that I would not have anyplace to put the larger one, and thus I would never buy it.
> 
> I simply will never buy any model except for the TOS Enterprise which is over 2' or so in length, because I would have absolutely no place to put it. The TOS Enterprise is a special case, because it's a "dream" of mine. I bought the TMP Enterprise in the larger scale as well, but I don't really expect to ever have it out on display, honestly.
> 
> ...


There is already a number of the rag-tag fleet ships in 1/2500 scale.

One thing that is common is EVERY other area of scale modeling, is the whittling down of subjects from 'box' scale to a few common scales.
Obviously such as 1/32, 1/48, 1/72, 1/144, 1/200, 1/350 and so on.
Sci-fi sadly is the last hold out (but its getting better).

Part of the fun scale modeling is to take something like a WWII fighter in 1/144 and have it next to a 1/144 Saturn V so that one can appreciate better the size of the Saturn V.

There is nothing wrong with placing a 1/2500 Enterprise next to a 1/2500 Galactica.


You may not buy something because its 'too big' and thats fine.
I won't buy something because its not in the scale I want.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

CLBrown said:


> And the whole reason for not going in that scale is that I would not have anyplace to put the larger one, and thus I would never buy it.


That's okay. I'll buy the one that you don't.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

It always amazes me when I see people saying they want a small Galactica. 

How can a small model capture all of that beautiful kit bashed detail? 

Even one the same size as the old Monogram kit is too small to capture the detail of 
the original model.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

bccanfield said:


> Galactica size relative to Nimitz class carrier
> 
> http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/File:Bsg-2-cvn.jpg


Real Battlestars are not ribbed for her pleasure.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> It always amazes me when I see people saying they want a small Galactica.
> 
> How can a small model capture all of that beautiful kit bashed detail?
> 
> ...


Well, I'd hardly argue that 23 inches long is "small." Who has said that they want a "small" one?

You can get just as much detail in a 23-inch model as you can in a 29-inch model, really. At least, from the standpoint of what you can see without a jeweler's loupe.

OBVIOUSLY, you can't capture every element of the detail of the studio model without using the same techniques to built it. Which means you're really talking about doing with the "finemolds Falcon" approach to really get a top-quality Galactica kit, with every part which was planted on in the studio model being a separate part in the kit.

But we're still only talking about the size of those planted-on components when talking about these two different scales. Again, the Finemolds guys did pretty well with their Falcon, replicating the same details but in smaller components sizes.

If you guys want something that's a "no compromises" kit, by all means, go for a six-or-seven-foot-long exact replica of the filming miniature, made of the same materials with the same planted-on components. That kit will likely run something like $15,000.. but hey, if absolute fidelity is that important to you, go for it.

Me, I just want a reasonable sized model which closely replicates the appearance and configuration of the studio model, without requiring me to devote my entire life to it.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I was going to remark that the general shape of the Galactica is a fairly easy build from scratch, it's the greeblies that getcha! But, if I had a choice, 29" would be okay, but I have an upright piano to display it on.

Frankly, both the 22 and 29 are fine with me. I do have one of the old Galactica kits, but wish there were correction kits made for her.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

charonjr said:


> I was going to remark that the general shape of the Galactica is a fairly easy build from scratch, it's the greeblies that getcha!


Yeah, after spending nearly two months on correcting this Revell Galactica, I called it quits.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

So, OK, since this is all speculation, why can't we have it both ways?


A nice, big, super duper Galactica (call it 2 ft. plus) and a smaller scale, call it 'fleet scale' version, maybe a foot long plus or minus. Then crank out the Rag-tag fleet and not just the handful of...oh, 'name players' I guess. Let's see some of those background ships! Make 'em up if needed! 

(after all, this allows a 'back door' release of the Valley Forge, right? As one of the '
Ag' ships?)

As long as we're making this wish, shouldn't we also have new kits of the Raider and Viper? We'd need 1/72 scale versions to be in-scale with the Shuttle, right? 

Also, shuttle should come with scale Land Ram.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Steve H said:


> A nice, big, super duper Galactica (call it 2 ft. plus) and a smaller scale, call it 'fleet scale' version, maybe a foot long plus or minus.


That'd be nice, but really, 3 ft. is the smallest I'd accept at this point.
But I'll be making my own next year anyway.:hat:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> It always amazes me when I see people saying they want a small Galactica.


In addition to what CLBrown wrote above, when most of us say we "want" a smaller model what we really mean is "that's all we have room/display space for". The way some modelers talk about wanting bigger models, I often wonder if they live in a warehouse or a 350,000-square-foot mansion where display space isn't an issue.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Zombie_61 said:


> In addition to what CLBrown wrote above, when most of us say we "want" a smaller model what we really mean is "that's all we have room/display space for". The way some modelers talk about wanting bigger models, I often wonder if they live in a warehouse or a 350,000-square-foot mansion where display space isn't an issue.


There is, even in this fantasy, a price factor.

I'd be happy with $20 worth of Galactica, ya know? Someone wants to lay down $200 for a 'near studio quality' giant kit, that's fine and I wish them all the best but me? $20 and something that sits nice on a desk or shelf, that's my happy place.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Zombie_61 said:


> In addition to what CLBrown wrote above, when most of us say we "want" a smaller model what we really mean is "that's all we have room/display space for". The way some modelers talk about wanting bigger models, I often wonder if they live in a warehouse or a 350,000-square-foot mansion where display space isn't an issue.


I thought mine was 350,000 sq. ft,.
But then I found a wing I never walked in before, and turns out its 420,.

Actually, its not a space issue, but a priority issue.

There is always room for a model, you just have to get rid of something else.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> ...There is always room for a model, you just have to get rid of something else...


Pets, spouses, children ... :freak:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Some models can be hung from the ceilings, displayed at local hobbyshops, etc. I never let the size of the model deter me if it's something that I want. There can always be a space found to display it.


----------

