Re: BSG+ Centauri A, B, C and Cally (was Re: Anyone else notice...)

"Brad Templeton" <btm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:iPOdnYkU2Jf8WpHVnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <673ll1F2ngah5U2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> KalElFan <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"Brad Templeton" <btm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> In fact, since she photographed Taurus, that means she
>>> photographed the Pleiades... If they spot those in the photo...
>>> If she had a good enough camera...
>>>
>>> If she happened to catch some of the really distant items...
>>
>>If, if, if... again, there's nothing to nitpicks like this.  You're
>>making it all up.
>
> She did shoot the zodiac.   Her camera seems more than adequate.
> They did study the photos quite carefully.   I'm not making it up.
>>
>>> Of course, that's what computers are for.
>>
>>You're just not realizing the magnitude (pun intended) of the
>>calculations here, even assuming they had the hardware and
>>software to make it feasible.  It involves 200 million stars,
>>from 200 million different perspectives, without any specific
>
> It does not.  I have done these calculations.   They are
> trivially within the capability of our modern computers, let
> alone those on the fleet.    You don't calculate every star for
> every other star.   Quite the reverse, you prune the tree very
> quickly because you know what the sky you are seeking looks like,
> and as soon as you model the sky from a point and you do not
> see stars where they should be, you can skip on to the next try.
>
>
>>the objects are local (e.g., planets) or extra-galactic.  What
>>they have is the ability to confirm it's Earth sky when they get
>>there, not the ability to find it that way.
>
> Nonsense.  My local planetarium can show the sky from any point
> in our region instantly.   Software that does this is common.  The
> only thing incorrect is that if you get
>>
>>> If you get some distinctive objects, such as Pleiades, m8,
>>> any globular clusters, galaxies like m31... If Starbuck had...
>>
>>If, if, and yet more if.
>
> No if.  M8 is their main signpost.  They know where it is in
> Saggitarius, they saw it in thte tomb.   M45 is very distinctive
> and would show up in a shot of Taurus.
>
> However, I believe the following is true:
>
> a) If you are trained to pilot raptors, as Starbuck is, and
> considered good at, then interstellar navigation would be a major
> part of your training.   And in fact since she has conducted long range
> jump missions, such as Kobol to Caprica and back (twice) we can be
> certain she is trained in this.
>
> b) A person trained in this would know how to identify useful markers
> for navigation.    Her instinct, if trying to navigate an unknown area
> would be to look for the basics you can see from everywhere --  first
> the galactic plane, then M31, then the major globulars, other local
> galaxies and then perhaps major nebula and distinctive super-bright
> stars like Deneb, Antares, Rigel, Betelguese from her last known
> position.
>
> c) This would be doubly so for somebody realizing, "I'm at Earth, I
> definitely need to locate it for the fleet."
>
>
> Now, Starbuck was under the influence of the powers who took her
> there, so she may not have had time to do more than photograph the
> Zodiac and planets.   But if she did, it seems crazy to think a
> trained interstellar navigator would not have look for and photgraphed
> the big markers.

Relevant question -- do the writers have a sufficient level of knowledge
to 
take everything you point out into account?  In other words, are you
putting 
forth that Starbuck is being deceptive, or do you take it that the she's
on 
the level and it's just that the writers are messing it up?