Now I'm more worried about you than I am about him. When he gets back,
he's going to kill you, Pat.

Nothing from him yet.

Of course I'm a technology geek, and I sat there looking at the
Galactica and thinking " ... you know, that makes a lot of sense... in
the absence of atmosphere you actually could put the structural
framework on the exterior of the ship, rather than inside. No one's ever
thought of that before."

It certainly makes for a uncluttered interior of the primary pressure
hull.

The battlestar itself definitely has the feel (well for us landlubbers) of
an authentic warship. (and little details like using actual army phones for
the shipboard phones is a nice touch.)

Actually, it makes the interior _more_ cluttered - as now all the
cables and piping that used to either run within the spaces between
the structural members or be supported by the selfsame members now has
to find other volume to occupy and other structure to support it.

For you landlubbers, yeah. Otherwise it's an utter design horror.

For example - our (powered) phone system looked pretty much like a
land phone, like what you'd find in a phone booth for example. (Minus
the coin handling bits obviously.)

Here's something I've always wondered about...are the staircases between

Nor did we keep the command center (or any other part of the ship)
dark and gloomy with weird lighting. Control was either fully lit,
lit by only by red lights, or fully dark with instrument lights dimmed
almost to being out[1]. Surface ship CIC's are always fully lit,
while the Bridge is lit by natural light (or not).

[1] And in that state, the smoking lamp was out... When rigged for
red, you had to step outside of Control to use a lighter.

Derek Lyons wrote:
For you landlubbers, yeah. Otherwise it's an utter design horror.

For example - our (powered) phone system looked pretty much like a
land phone, like what you'd find in a phone booth for example. (Minus
the coin handling bits obviously.)

Here's something I've always wondered about...are the staircases between
decks angled so that the upper end is forward of the lower end?

You'd expect that, as it would give the crew a better chance of staying
upright if the sub collided with something while some of the the crew
were on the stairs.
Other way around and the person on the stairs might get tossed clean off
of them as the sub rapidly decelerated.

Nor did we keep the command center (or any other part of the ship)
dark and gloomy with weird lighting. Control was either fully lit,
lit by only by red lights, or fully dark with instrument lights dimmed
almost to being out[1]. Surface ship CIC's are always fully lit,
while the Bridge is lit by natural light (or not).

[1] And in that state, the smoking lamp was out... When rigged for
red, you had to step outside of Control to use a lighter.

Was that for surface operations, or just to allow maximum dark
acclimatization for the eyes of the people using the periscopes?

Derek Lyons wrote:

Actually, it makes the interior _more_ cluttered - as now all the
cables and piping that used to either run within the spaces between
the structural members or be supported by the selfsame members now has
to find other volume to occupy and other structure to support it.

Yeah, but remember your sub days...on a warship you want all the
plumbing and wiring where you can get at it in a hurry if something gets
damaged.

Anyway, I'm sure the main reason for the exterior framework was, like
the retractable fighter bays, aesthetics, not some breakthrough in
functional design. For starters, given the size of the ship the
framework is way oversized to handle the comparatively low difference in
pressure between vacuum and interior atmospheric pressure.

On the surface or for periscope ops, Control was lit during the day
and fully dark at night. Rig for red was used for normal submerged
ops when it was dark on the roof. (We rigged 15 mins before local
sunset and secured the rig 15 mins before dawn.)

MIR, and ISS use the same design philosophy more-or-less... Piping and
cabling are dammed hard to repair/upgrade and last a hell of a long
time anyhow, so just bury it in the walls. Where MIR flubbed it,

and
the Navy does sometimes too (though they are getting better), is not
providing at least some access for occasional minor repairs and
upgrades. ISS does a little better since, on the American side, you
can pull a rack or rack(s) and get acess to the cabling/piping that
runs near the shell.


Anyway, I'm sure the main reason for the exterior framework was, like
the retractable fighter bays, aesthetics, not some breakthrough in
functional design. For starters, given the size of the ship the
framework is way oversized to handle the comparatively low difference in
pressure between vacuum and interior atmospheric pressure.


I suspect you are correct on both accounts. I'm just pointing out the
difference between what 'seems to make sense' and real world
considerations that might not occur to the lubber.

This is why I laugh (sometimes out loud) at depictions of fictional
spacecraft, and fictional depictions of (meant to be real, maybe
someday) real space craft by armchair engineers - they're the modern
equivalent of the 'bug eyed' LEM or the crawling down the side of an
Atlas to reach the surface just landed on. The depictors thereof
don't think about the real world engineering implications.

Derek Lyons wrote:
On the surface or for periscope ops, Control was lit during the day
and fully dark at night. Rig for red was used for normal submerged
ops when it was dark on the roof. (We rigged 15 mins before local
sunset and secured the rig 15 mins before dawn.)


Is the red light is used to at least give the crew some sense of a 24
hour day cycle, as well as keeping their eyes ready for night use?

I could see all sorts of circadian rhythm problems arising on a sub
where there isn't any sort of difference between day and night as far as
lighting goes to clue in your internal clocks as to the normal 24 hour
daily rhythm.

Derek Lyons wrote:
MIR, and ISS use the same design philosophy more-or-less... Piping and
cabling are dammed hard to repair/upgrade and last a hell of a long
time anyhow, so just bury it in the walls. Where MIR flubbed it,

Oh yes, the glycol leak mess...not to mention the GIANT WORMS:
http://www.anomalist.com/reports/mir.html
That report makes it sound like they had the Andromeda Strain aboard.
I was going to write that whole thing off as Russian BS until I read
that report about mutations of microorganisms during our Shuttle mission
tests.

I imagine keeping a sub fungus and mold-free presents a challenge also.

I think that anyone who puts any thought into it realizes that a sub is
probably by far the closest thing we have to what a large spacecraft
would look like internally.

At least they have chairs on the bridge, which is more than a Romulan
Bird-Of-Prey does:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges/romulan-bop-bridge.jpg
All the ST bridges are here:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges1.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges1a.htm

Underway we actually live on more-or-less an 18 hour rhythm.

I imagine keeping a sub fungus and mold-free presents a challenge also.


We spent a lot of time cleaning indeed - because anything infectious
sweeps through the whole crew. (We nearly missed going to sea on time
because a nasty strain of flu spread like wild fire one patrol.)

I think that anyone who puts any thought into it realizes that a sub is
probably by far the closest thing we have to what a large spacecraft
would look like internally.


That would be a reasonable guess.

And I thought I had too much time on my hands!

Derek Lyons wrote:


I imagine keeping a sub fungus and mold-free presents a challenge also.


We spent a lot of time cleaning indeed - because anything infectious
sweeps through the whole crew. (We nearly missed going to sea on time
because a nasty strain of flu spread like wild fire one patrol.)


I would think one major problem would be that most household
disinfectants could screw up the air purification gear.
I know that sub crews use special shower soaps and deodorants due to
that problem.


I think that anyone who puts any thought into it realizes that a sub
is probably by far the closest thing we have to what a large
spacecraft would look like internally.


That would be a reasonable guess.


BTW...ever see this?: http://davidszondy.com/future/space/dean_drive.htm
I've also seen a drawing of a Skipjack class with one mounted on it.
There's a weird connection to me in this also...one of the major
employers in our town is Goodrich, which used to be Lucas Western,
which used to be Western Gear, which did a study on the Dean Drive.


And I thought I had too much time on my hands!


I've talked to ST fans to whom the ST universe is far more real than
the one they are actually living in.
They had a lot of fun with that in the movie "Galaxy Quest".
You want to see something _really_ odd, tune into what's running on my
TV right now on the "Oxygen" network.
They've got "Shoperotic" running.
I was hoping this was going to be something about hot babes in sexy
lingerie...it's not... it's where women can buy exotic dildos and
vibrators...some up to 18" in length going up both ends at once,
described in clinical detail by two not-terribly-erotic women, who
look more like they should be accountants at a law firm.