Are photon torpedoes really anti-matter devices?

[Uraniun235]

A modern American thermonuclear ICBM mounted warhead (W-80) has a yield of slightly more one megaton . i find it hard to believe that 23rd century warheads have a yield less than that of ones designed in the 1970's. that , my friend, is simply illogical.

It would be illogical if we hadn't seen over and over again for 36 years that these little pop-torps were barely kiloton range. They wrote the 64-megaton thing in the TM based on what they thought made sense. How often has Star Trek not made sense?

The problem is that I don't think the writers have any control over what the VFX people do afterwards, nor do I think the VFX people would necessarily be knowledgeable about what a megaton blast would look like.

A good example would be "Booby Trap", in Mike's own TNG Canon Database:

The resulting explosion was described in the screenplay as spectacularly violent, obliterating much of the asteroid field itself, but in the televised episode, we saw nothing of the sort. The explosion was unspectacular, and didn't even completely obscure the Promellian battle cruiser's hull

Of course, it would be better if there were more communication between writers and VFX personnel, and of course a better attitude towards continuity than "let's not tie ourselves down too much, god forbid we might not get to do an episode because it might contradict another episode" would be good too, but the point is we shouldn't pin all the blame on the writers.

With regard to the original topic: I was under the impression that the photon torpedoes were not initially present in TOS. When were they added? Could it be that they simply had no photon torpedoes in "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Obsession"?

[Patrick Degan]

With regard to the original topic: I was under the impression that the photon torpedoes were not initially present in TOS. When were they added? Could it be that they simply had no photon torpedoes in "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Obsession"?

The photon torpedo makes its first canon appearance in the first season episode "Arena", in combat with the Gorn cruiser over Cestus III. The Enterprise does not seem to have photorps in "Balance Of Terror", which preceded "Arena", so at some point in that year, the E-nil had a weaponry upgrade in which photorp launchers were installed. Perhaps during the repair and refitting layover at Starbase 11 in "Courtmartial"?

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that I don't think the writers have any control over what the VFX people do afterwards, nor do I think the VFX people would necessarily be knowledgeable about what a megaton blast would look like.

It is the producers' job to direct the VFX people to make sure the show looks the way it's supposed to. However, since the producer is the closest entity to "creator" that we can find in a TV show made by a co-ordinated staff, his decisions are basically canon, regardless of what the writers or tech advisors think (for example, the infamous tiff between Gene Roddenberry and Harlan Ellison over "City on the Edge of Forever").

[The Silence and I]

Torpedos are stated as anti matter weapons in the TNG episode "The Loss"
As an attempt to escape the 2 dimensional wave thing, two volleys of six torpedos are fired without effect. Then someone says antimatter explosions have no effect or something to that effect. Also, these were actually large explosions, not the ussual fire-cracker deal. Not that that is anything useful in any sort of calcs.

[Nathan F]

I ask this because in TOS, every time they need to generate a really big kaboom, they have to jury-rig some kind of anti-matter device to deliver it.

Examples: "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Obsession"

If photon torpedoes were anti-matter weapons, why would they need to specially construct anti-matter bombs on these occasions?

Yes, they are.

This website contains some info on it and includes sources:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies5c.htm

Another source of info on the Photon torp:
http://www.ditl.org/index.htm?daybody=/ ... photon.htm

Oh, and welcome to the boards, fellow Tennessean.

[beyond hope]

[darkstar]As we all know, it is impossible for sound to transmit in a vacuum. Since photon torpedoes make noise in a vacuum, the classical "matter-antimatter" theory of photon torpedo warheads fails. I propose that the torpedo casings are instead filled with concentrated Moronium (TM Mike Wong 2003) Sulfate, which explains why they are sometimes observed to have power not much greater than small tactical nukes. It is incited to explode via <technobabble,> thus producing sound in space despite the impossibility of such a phenominon.[/darkstar]

Back to the thread: was there actually any statement in TOS that photon torpedoes were a matter-antimatter projectile? I don't remember seeing a torpedo casing until TWOK.

[Patrick Degan]

was there actually any statement in TOS that photon torpedoes were a matter-antimatter projectile? I don't remember seeing a torpedo casing until TWOK.

It is never stated in any episode of TOS but I believe was so described in the writers' bible and subsequently so described in Gene Roddenberry and Stephen E. Whitfield's The Making Of Star Trek; once upon a time the only source of detailed information on the Enterprise of any sort.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't think they are anti-matter. The 64-megaton figure originally came from the assumption that they were 3-kilogram anti-matter warheads. You could supposedly get that big a bang from that little anti-matter. (To Darth Wong if he sees this: Could you?)

But we can see from the entire history of Trek that photorps are barely kiloton range. Also, I don't recall it being said one time in the entire history that anti-matter was part of the equation. So I'd say…NOT!

:preparing to be assaulted by rabid Trekkies:

A modern American thermonuclear ICBM mounted warhead (W-80) has a yield of slightly more one megaton . i find it hard to believe that 23rd century warheads have a yield less than that of ones designed in the 1970's. that , my friend, is simply illogical.

The W-80 warhead is used on the BGM-109, AGM-86 and AGM-129 cruise missiles, mod 0 has a yield 5-200 kilotons depending on setting. Mod-1 yields 5-150 depending on setting.

Trident uses the W-76, which yields 90-100 kilotons. Trident II uses W-88 with 475-kiloton yield.

[Sea Skimmer]

A modern American thermonuclear ICBM mounted warhead (W-80) has a yield of slightly more one megaton . i find it hard to believe that 23rd century warheads have a yield less than that of ones designed in the 1970's. that , my friend, is simply illogical.

Modern small-arms are smaller and less powerful than the ones used in WW1.

And on the other hand artillery doubled in range and tripled in lethality from WW2 to the Gulf War

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't think they are anti-matter. The 64-megaton figure originally came from the assumption that they were 3-kilogram anti-matter warheads. You could supposedly get that big a bang from that little anti-matter. (To Darth Wong if he sees this: Could you?)

But we can see from the entire history of Trek that photorps are barely kiloton range. Also, I don't recall it being said one time in the entire history that anti-matter was part of the equation. So I'd say…NOT!

:preparing to be assaulted by rabid Trekkies:

A modern American thermonuclear ICBM mounted warhead (W-80) has a yield of slightly more one megaton . i find it hard to believe that 23rd century warheads have a yield less than that of ones designed in the 1970's. that , my friend, is simply illogical.

Tell me, what's the yield of a ship-carried anti-ship missile? Bringing in strategic weapons and saying the warhead on an anti-ship missile must exceed it is apples and oranges.

More recent missiles such as the Soviet SS-N-19 had yields of about 200 kilotons; SS-N-12 carried a 500-kiloton warhead. Earlier less accurate weapons had yields of one to five megatons, such as that carried by the Soviet AS-1 of 1950's vintage.

Steel hulled warships are incredibly hard targets, for a above surface burst you basically need to catch the target inside of the fireball to be sure of killing it.

In general planners will only use as large a bomb as is necessary to kill the target. That's why yields have gone down so much, and why many tactical bombs can have variable yields ranges from 1 to over 300 kilotons. Building or using larger devices is easily done for both strategic and tactical roles, however there's no point. Why spend more money or blast a bigger crater for your tanks to traverse if you don't need to?

[Ted C]

Yes, they are.

This website contains some info on it and includes sources:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies5c.htm

Another source of info on the Photon torp:
http://www.ditl.org/index.htm?daybody=/ ... photon.htm

Oh, and welcome to the boards, fellow Tennessean.

While I appreciate the effort, both of your sources base their conclusions on the TNG Tech Manual, which is a rather low credibility source these days. Some posters are actually producing some canon evidence that anti-matter is the explosive charge, but I have yet to see any canon support for the 1.5 kg charge (with a potential yield of 64 MT).

And I'm not exactly a newbie, but thanks for the welcome anyway.

[Nathan F]

DOH! Just noticed that you have been here longer than I have...

Wonder how I missed that.

But anywho, I don't know of any canon sources as to which the actual warhead size is mentioned. I'll try to find out though...

[Ted C]

... getting a big bang out of a relatively tiny warhead makes a lot of sense for a missile.

I've estimated that a typical photon torpedo has an upper limit of about 600 KT, based on some rather convoluted interpretations of events in "Best of Both Worlds" and "Deja Q" (see the spreadsheet link on my website if you really want to see how I get there).

You could get a 600 KT blast with about 15 grams of anti-matter.

The small quantities of explosive material involved make this an extremely scalable weapon. It should be a piece of cake to load 1, 5, 8, 10, or however many grams of anti-matter into the warhead you want, up to its limit.

Using a small portion of the ship's own fuel supply as weapon payload is also convenient.

[The Nomad]

About the photorps blasts : could they release their energy in an incredibly short amount of time or in the form of X-rays ?

[Illuminatus Primus]

About the photorps blasts : could they release their energy in an incredibly short amount of time or in the form of X-rays ?

Mike's missiles page talks about M/AM annhiliation products.

[Xon]

About the photorps blasts : could they release their energy in an incredibly short amount of time or in the form of X-rays ?

Their energy would be released as high energy Gamma-rays(Gamma-rays are just high energy x-rays). As for the time frame, that is dependant on how well the M/AM is "mixed".