# TOS Galactica Question



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Quick question: 

Will the original series Galactica kit be the same scale as the recent "new" Galactica/Pegesus kits?

Thanks!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> Quick question:
> 
> Will the original series Galactica kit be the same scale as the recent "new" Galactica/Pegesus kits?
> 
> Thanks!


From what I have heard, it will be about the same size as the old Monogram kit. I have no idea what size the new kits were so I don't know if this helps.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes .


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The scale is 1/4105.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanks, everyone. I am hearing various things. So it looks like the new "old" kit will be quite a bit smaller then the old Monogram kit.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

No, it should be pretty much the same dimensions. Where are you getting that it'll be smaller than the Monogram?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Pretty sure that is how I answered the question to begin with, same size roughly as the Monogram?!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Exactly. Thus my counter-question. 

I've not seen it stated anywhere else that the Moebius TOS Big G will be smaller, tho have seen several folks ask similar questions. Always to receive the same answers as here - it'll be the same size as the Monogram kit, as well as the Timeslip Creations TOS battlestar kit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Griffworks said:


> Exactly. Thus my counter-question.
> 
> I've not seen it stated anywhere else that the Moebius TOS Big G will be smaller, tho have seen several folks ask similar questions. Always to receive the same answers as here - it'll be the same size as the Monogram kit, as well as the Timeslip Creations TOS battlestar kit.


:thumbsup:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Sorry guys. I'm still confused, I guess. And I'm probably not saying this right. So I'll try to be more clear:

I remember the Monogram kit was pretty big. Inaccurate, but big-ish. I also know the Moebius Pegasus/Galactica kit (new series kits) were physically smaller than the old Monogram kit. (scale not withstanding) So I assumed the new series kits were a smaller _*scale*_ than the Monogram kit of old. 

That brings me to the new original series Moebius Galactica:

*Is it the same scale as the Moebius new series Galactica? Or is it much bigger, like the old Monogram kit?*

** I thought I read that Moebius was making both old and new series kits in the same smaller scale.....


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

As I understand it the old Monorgam kit as well as the 2 new series kits from Moebius are all 3 a scale of 1/4105. And the old Monogram kit is about 18 inches long.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

As *Irishtrek* said, the Monogram and Moebius kit are all / will all be in 1/4105-ish scale. The Monogram kit - and also the TC resin kit - of the TOS Big G are / should be roughly 17.5" / 44.5cm long. This puts them at approximately 1/4105 scale, which is also the same scale for the Moebius TNS _Galactica_ and _Pegasus_. 

So, the Monogram and Moebius TOS _Galactica_ kits should be both the same size and will be the same scale.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

There is only one way to find out ..... wait for the kit :tongue:

As seen with the Moebius Mark I, she is slightly longer than the Revell kit, and I doubt there would be any significant changes in lenght and width for the coming Galactica.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Mark I??? Are you reffering to the Viper from TOS???


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Yup. I am working on two right now and did a comparison with the Revell kit. To quote Paragraphix, Revell's Mark I Viper is close to being obsolete


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Moebius made their TNS Galactica and Pegasus the same scale as the old Monogram kit, so folks can have a same scale display. Their new TOS Galactica is also this scale for the same reason. Any difference in size is due to a size difference between the two series.

The Moebius TOS Viper is the same scale as the Monogram, slightly longer because they corrected the proportions. The Moebius TOS Raider will be the same scale as the Viper, which is why it's so huge. It just so happens that this makes it studio scale.

See, easy


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

In other, simpler words:

"Yes, they're all in the same scale."

and

"Yes, the new Moebius original BSG will be the same size as the old Monogram BSG"


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I think we need a few more people adding in the same info added already. Just to really, _really_ make sure there's an answer given. We wouldn't want anyone else to not get their chance, after all. 

C'mon! Any takers...?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Okee dokee.

Just to clarify, so there's no mistake:

- The original Monogram original series _Galactica_ kit is (was) 1/4105 scale.

- The Moebius Nu _Galactica_ and _Pegasus_ kits were created in the same scale of 1/4105 to match the original Monogram _Galactica_ kit.

- The Timeslip resin original series _Galactica_, though infinitely more detailed, is the same scale as the original Monogram _Galactica_ kit of 1/4105 and the Moebius Nu _Galactica_ and _Pegasus_ kits.

- The new Moebius original series _Galactica_ kit is in scale with the original Monogram _Galactica_ kit, the Timeslip resin kit, and the Nu _Galactica_ and _Pegasus_ kits - all in 1/4105 scale.

- The fictional, full size original series _Galactica_ is stated as being somewhat larger than it's Nu Series full size counterpart. Therefore, even though the kits are all in the same scale of 1/4105, all of the original series _Galactica_ kits (Monogram, Timeslip and Moebius) are slightly larger than the Moebius Nu _Galactica_ kit.

Clear?


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> Okee dokee.
> 
> Just to clarify, so there's no mistake:
> 
> ...


Crystal! Thanks, Trek Ace!! I finally get it!!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Redundancy aside, I do find it wonderful that a kit manufacturer actually makes the effort to produce kits in a matching scale instead of the stupid box-scale which has been traditional. Creating a product line to match kits of the same subject which were made by another company is going a step beyond.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

Just how big in inches is the new Classic Battlestar Galactica kit going to
be?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

LOL!!! That's a funny question!!! 

And if you're actually serious, go back to the first page. The answer is in this thread since the Monogram and Moebius kits are in the same scale, they should be pretty much the same size.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I wonder how many more are going to ask the question over and over again???? Until it gets old and grey with moldy old cobwebs all over the place????:tongue:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The length isn't what I am worried about......but how wide is it?!!!


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey. What can I say? I never said my IQ was very high. 

I agree that it is pretty nice Moe is keeping congruency between subjects and even across brands. But it's kind of a weird scale, nevertheless. And I never would have guessed the new series G & P were physically smaller than its predecessor. Interesting. Usually next gen sci fi is bigger, badder, etc.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The reason the new BSG ships are smaller could be due to more powerful weapons and better more advanced technology.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

... and _Pegasus_ is pretty close in size to the TOS battlestar. I'm not home right now, so can't check my notes, but I want to say that the difference is only about 40m or 50m. Overall displacement likely goes to _Pegasus_, as well. 

Regardless, nothing beats lasers and deflector shields like you find on the TOS ships. :thumbsup:


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

> _The reason the new BSG ships are smaller could be due to more powerful weapons and better more advanced technology._


Good idea!



> _Regardless, nothing beats lasers and deflector shields like you find on the TOS ships._


Agreed!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> The reason the new BSG ships are smaller could be due to more powerful weapons and better more advanced technology.


I don't know- they seemed to be mostly slug throwers in the new show and the TOS show used laser-bolts. Lots of emplacements scattered around the hulls, but the weapon-tech in the new series seemed to be the less advanced technology...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Richard Baker said:


> I don't know- they seemed to be mostly slug throwers in the new show and the TOS show used laser-bolts. Lots of emplacements scattered around the hulls, but the weapon-tech in the new series seemed to be the less advanced technology...


I've only seen bits and pieces of the new series, but one thing I do know is that the communication system used hard line phones.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> The reason the new BSG ships are smaller could be due to more powerful weapons and better more advanced technology.


More advanced and more powerful than what, exactly? The new _Battlestar Galactica_ was a reboot, not a sequel or "next generation" series, so the Original Series' ships and technology wouldn't have existed in that universe.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> ... and _Pegasus_ is pretty close in size to the TOS battlestar. I'm not home right now, so can't check my notes, but I want to say that the difference is only about 40m or 50m. Overall displacement likely goes to _Pegasus_, as well.



Yeah? What's it displacing?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Er... Yeah, I know "displacement" wasn't really the word I wanted and wasn't germaine to the context, but I was at a loss for what word I wanted to use. Maybe the word I wanted was "volume"? Perhaps "tonnage"?

_:sigh:_ I need caffeine....


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

So...which model kit is bigger or are they the same size?



(runs and hides)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The answer is....!













Pond scum!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

"Egon, you said crossing the streams was bad."


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The new Galactica IS a reboot, but I think it's more than implied that many of the ships and technology seen in the original series are part of its (past) universe.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The Premier show clearly showed in the Museum pod TOS equipment- the Classic Galactica, a Basestar, Cylon Raider, Viper Mk1, Landram, etc...
Never was it addressed how their technology went from energy weapons to solid projectiles- seems a step backwards to me but it would have been nice to have a single sentence somewhere in the series which explained why, like they found out energy weaponry had serious side effects on the nervous systems or made power cores unstable...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That's all assuming the model was based 100% upon tech from the TOS 'Verse. My thinking is that it wasn't, instead being an earlier battlestar design - which presumably wasn't as good a combat vessel as the _NuGalactica_ - from the very beginning of the war, and possibly named _Galactica_, as well. 

Supposition on my part, but it makes more sense than making the presumption that it's *the* TOS _Galactica_. There's no such indication.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

How about alternate universe instead????
I know it's been used before and is there for getting to be ancient.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

All of those props and music cues were ONLY included in the pilot film of the remake in order to make fans of the original show feel that this version was being made by people who cared about what the original series was all about. It took me all of half the first episode to realize they didn't have a clue as to why the original series had a following. I watched off and on over the run of the new show, but never saw the spark that the original series had.


----------



## COPP (Mar 25, 2013)

I would take the appearance of TOS equipment in those scenes as "winks" to the audience, similar to the appearance of the Serenity in the background of a scene on the flight deck or the Enterprise D as part of the ragtag fleet. My friend Lee Stringer (who worked on Galactica for a few seasons) told me to look for the Monogram kits in a shot of the museum gift shop, but I have never taken the time to do it, so he MIGHT have been kidding. 
Tom


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

My take was the old TOS equipment in the museum was to show where everything came from but history unfolded differently in the new series- the First Cylon War had the old stuff but instead of a sneak attack destroying the colonies the war ended in an armistice/stale mate. Like in our world, technology continued to evolve but all hoped it would not be deployed.
The whole point of having a museum on the Galactica was to show visitors what was once was, it was not some easter egg thrown in for freeze frame fans but helping establish that universe so we could appreciate the story. 
This whole discussion was about he relative size of the original BSG kit, the new one and then how they compare to the NuBSG ships in size. The NuBSG ships certainly look more modern next to the TOS craft, but some technological aspects seem uneven or retro.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I did like how the hull plating had been removed from much of the new Galactica, showing the "skeleton" of the ship and indicating just how close it was to the scrapyard in the new version. It added "character" to the ship, though I do prefer the bigger size and reliability of the original Battlestar Galactica, she could take a "punch" and barely flinch.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

RSN said:


> I did like how the hull plating had been removed from much of the new Galactica, showing the "skeleton" of the ship and indicating just how close it was to the scrapyard in the new version. It added "character" to the ship, though I do prefer the bigger size and reliability of the original Battlestar Galactica, she could take a "punch" and barely flinch.


Unless you take a Cylon Raider right up the landing bay. Then you're in trouble. 

Still trying to figure out how they can have a massive fire in the vacuum of space....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> Unless you take a Cylon Raider right up the landing bay. Then you're in trouble.
> 
> Still trying to figure out how they can have a massive fire in the vacuum of space....


Protective atmospheric bubble around the ship to limit the effects of explosive decompression....that is my story and I am sticking to it.

Oh, and if you have ever had a Cylon Raider right up the landing bay, well, you know just how painful that can be!!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

One thing about the new series- they moved the command center to the center of the ship. The Cylon crashing into the landing bay reference reminded me of the "Atlantia Death Squadron Attack" where they took out the fleets command ship by ramming the bridge.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

RSN said:


> Protective atmospheric bubble around the ship to limit the effects of explosive decompression....that is my story and I am sticking to it.
> 
> Oh, and if you have ever had a Cylon Raider right up the landing bay, well, you know just how painful that can be!!


I insist on dinner and a movie, first.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kdaracal said:


> I insist on dinner and a movie, first.


:lol:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

kdaracal said:


> ...Still trying to figure out how they can have a massive fire in the vacuum of space....


The nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere inside the ship ignited just prior to being vented through the various hull breaches, and the subsequent atmosphere flow continued to fuel the flames.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

RSN said:


> I did like how the hull plating had been removed from much of the new Galactica, showing the "skeleton" of the ship and indicating just how close it was to the scrapyard in the new version. It added "character" to the ship, though I do prefer the bigger size and reliability of the original Battlestar Galactica, she could take a "punch" and barely flinch.


I asked Lee Stringer about that. He said it wasn't originally the intention to have the ship in a "stripped" condition. He and Eric Chu came up with the concept of "battle ribbing" to make it more difficult for Cylons to get a clean hit on the ship. Only areas of the ship deemed more vulnerable had extra plating on the top of the battle ribbing.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

(deleted)
Whoops, wrong forum.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

seaQuest said:


> I asked Lee Stringer about that. He said it wasn't originally the intention to have the ship in a "stripped" condition. He and Eric Chu came up with the concept of "battle ribbing" to make it more difficult for Cylons to get a clean hit on the ship. Only areas of the ship deemed more vulnerable had extra plating on the top of the battle ribbing.


Interesting, as a casual viewer, that is not the impression I got, but it does make sense.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

seaQuest said:


> I asked Lee Stringer about that. He said it wasn't originally the intention to have the ship in a "stripped" condition. He and Eric Chu came up with the concept of "battle ribbing" to make it more difficult for Cylons to get a clean hit on the ship. Only areas of the ship deemed more vulnerable had extra plating on the top of the battle ribbing.


Sadly, it was an assumption made by the producers, who added commentary to the Battlestar Galactica Magazine that the exposed ribs were due to armor plates removed. Which didn't explain why there were AA emplacements that were "under" where armor would have been located. Pretty stupid of them, IMNSHO.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I liked the idea of the Battle-Ribs, any attack run would strike the sides of the ribs instead of the hull and the only way to directly aim for the hull between the ribs was to fly directly at the ship providing the AA guns wit a good target. It also gave the ship a nice, unique look.
Problem is that people heard 'stripping for decommissioning' saw the ribs and assumed they were removing the hull plating. When you did see the ribs close up, like in the first season episode where their water gets dumped, everything looks like it was designed to function that way. Guns, ports, sensors and such would be covered over and useless. Removing a gun, taking the hull plate off and then reattaching the gun to the gap between the ribs does not make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> ...Problem is that people heard 'stripping for decommissioning' saw the ribs and assumed they were removing the hull plating...


It's amusing to me how something like this gets started, and so many fans accept it as fact. Granted, in this case it's plausible and easier to understand given the appearance of the Galactica. More amusing to me is that it never once occurred to me while watching the show that the "Nu" Galactica had it's armor plating stripped, even after those rumors had spread throughout the Internet; I just took it for granted that the exposed ribs were part of the design.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Wasn't there an un-stripped Galactica in "Blood & Chrome", where more of the rib structure was covered with armor?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yes. That's called "RetConing", a Retroactive Continuity change. You'll note that they also added extra guns to _Galactica_. It was 16 or so when we first see her, additional 8 on her back with the presumption of another 8 on her belly. Then at the end, they added another 16 (I think it was) _just to the Gator Head_. They also added a bunch of slightly smaller guns to the Gator Head, which were about half the size if the main guns. This goes against the configuration we see her at the last days of the way in Operation: RAPTOR TALON during the "Razor" flashback - the last operation of the war. None of the battlestars present had nearly as many guns and Galactica had her "current" armor configuration as we see her in the Miniseries. 

And there's the Mk III Viper, as well, that is given Adama's name & callsign at the end of B&C - even tho a Mk III was never mentioned and I both the Miniseries and the "Razor" flashback it's heavily inferred that the Mk II is what was flown by both Adama and all Colonial Fleet forces at the end of the war. 

So, I take it all in stride and prefer to go with things as we sac them during the regular series run, as well as "Razor". That keeps the continuity intact and makes more sense than the logistical and structural changes that would have to have been made during the war and after - you need structural hard points built into the frame for the gun mounts, as well as a way to internally get ammunition to them.


----------

