The aircraft carrier looks about a quarter of its size, let's say it's a Nimitz class which is about 340m long, that would only make the Galactica 1.3km long then. Which is sorta reasonable I suppose, even if it'd take forever to get from one end to the other.Andon wrote:QUOTE (Andon @ Nov 11 2008, 02:02 PM) Link? Not anymore. Sci-fi channel did have it on their site at one point in time. I did find this: http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7695/800pxbsg2cvn1en3.jpg which put the Galactica as 'Massively huge' size.
Also, the Colonial 1 can fit in, and dock in, the BSG's flight pods.
The Galactica can handle several squadrons of Vipers - It just has never had the chance since the show's timeline to actually carry more than just the squadron/squadron and a half that it seems to have.
Not sure if the 4k/5k mark is correct, but i seem to remember thinking 'That's a BIIIG ship'
...yep, Star Wars definitely doesn't have any of that, no siree! Have you even watched Star Wars??djrbk wrote:QUOTE (djrbk @ Nov 11 2008, 12:22 PM) Trek has better tech imo.
ie. Tractor beams basically shutting down ships, cloaking, warp speeds, scanners, etc. Trek still has Q for the "undefeatable god" factor, and War would win any ground battle. (especially if they're deploying jedis)
QUOTE I think i remember (perhaps in the original series) someone on ST mocking lasers and saying about how much better phasers were. This suggests SW lasers are less powerful than ST phasors.[/quote]
It was an episode of The Next Generation and featured the usual nonsensical Treknobabble that doesn't make any sense, besides, Star Wars don't use lasers, they use blasters. And even if "lasers" were useless in Star Trek, the fact that they mentioned it doesn't suggest @#(! about Star Wars, especially since TOS was made before Star Wars anyway.
