StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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?

Ted C wrote: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?

because it's longer winded and they can spend most of the episode building the thing rather than have what we find in TNG and VOY?

Coaan wrote: because it's longer winded and they can spend most of the episode building the thing rather than have what we find in TNG and VOY?

But it wasn't "long-winded". Scotty whipped the things up "off-screen" without any major fanfare. The need for him to construct them, though, indicates that the ship doesn't actually have any dedicated anti-matter explosive devices on board, which in turn suggests that photon torpedoes don't carry anti-matter charges.

Ted C wrote:

Coaan wrote: because it's longer winded and they can spend most of the episode building the thing rather than have what we find in TNG and VOY?

But it wasn't "long-winded". Scotty whipped the things up "off-screen" without any major fanfare. The need for him to construct them, though, indicates that the ship doesn't actually have any dedicated anti-matter explosive devices on board, which in turn suggests that photon torpedoes don't carry anti-matter charges.

so then that would lead us to believe that TOS era pho-torps may not indeed be antimatter weapons.

the TNG tech manual does however state that contemporary pho-torps do indeed use antimatter both to fuel the warp sustainers and as a warhead.

both weapons are called photon torpedos? why would they keep the name if the warhead was a completely diferent one? IMHO , using the information at hand i would be inclined to conclude that the TOS era torps use a small or miniscule quantity of antimatter due to technological restrictions and scotty retrofitted the torps with increased anti matter by romoving other systems within the torpedo.

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:

It might have been said that they use antimatter, but not 3kg of it. That's strictly from the TM. And yes, you can get 64 MT from 3kg of M/AM annihilation. E=mc^2.

EDIT: now that I think about it, I don't recall them actually using the phrase "antimatter" in relation to torpedoes as opposed to warp cores, AM storage, etc.

Captain Kruger wrote: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.

Col. Crackpot wrote: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.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Captain Kruger wrote: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.

Col. Crackpot wrote: 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.

But modern warships hardly ever use thermonuclear warheads, do they? Typical ship-to-ship missiles only carry chemical warheads that are no more powerful than shells from WW2 battleships.

Weapon payload is determined by what is necessary to destroy the target, not by the absolute maximum amount of destruction it can be made to carry.

In STG, Scotty says that an anti-matter detonation would free them from the nexus, Kirk says "Photon torpedo", but they weren't going to be installed till Tuesday.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:In STG, Scotty says that an anti-matter detonation would free them from the nexus, Kirk says "Photon torpedo", but they weren't going to be installed till Tuesday.

I suppose that might be a case for an anti-matter payload. Can we verify that quote?

Ted C wrote:

Kamakazie Sith wrote:In STG, Scotty says that an anti-matter detonation would free them from the nexus, Kirk says "Photon torpedo", but they weren't going to be installed till Tuesday.

I suppose that might be a case for an anti-matter payload. Can we verify that quote?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty - An anti-matter discharge directly ahead mighty disrupt the field long enough for us to break away.

Kirk - Photon torpedo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the complete quote from Star Trek Generations.

So with the new calculations a photon torpedo seems to carry a very small payload of anti-matter. Almost seems like a waste of time.

Col. Crackpot wrote: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?

Well, if the equipment needed to isolate and store the small amount of antimatter used in the low yield torps weighs less than the total mass of all the chemical or nuclear warheads they'd otherwise have to equip the torps with, then it might make sense. Less mass=better engine efficency.

RedImperator wrote:Well, if the equipment needed to isolate and store the small amount of antimatter used in the low yield torps weighs less than the total mass of all the chemical or nuclear warheads they'd otherwise have to equip the torps with, then it might make sense. Less mass=better engine efficency.

Well said.

RedImperator wrote:Well, if the equipment needed to isolate and store the small amount of antimatter used in the low yield torps weighs less than the total mass of all the chemical or nuclear warheads they'd otherwise have to equip the torps with, then it might make sense. Less mass=better engine efficency.

A smaller payload also translates into a smaller weapon. Remember that a photon torpedo also has to carry a propulsion system, a guidance system, a sensor system (if it tracks targets), a communications system (if it's to accept remote commands to detonate, disarm, or switch targets), and a shield system (to provide the "shield cancellation" effect of frequency matching). They might desperately need to keep the size of the payload small.

Ted C wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Well, if the equipment needed to isolate and store the small amount of antimatter used in the low yield torps weighs less than the total mass of all the chemical or nuclear warheads they'd otherwise have to equip the torps with, then it might make sense. Less mass=better engine efficency.

A smaller payload also translates into a smaller weapon. Remember that a photon torpedo also has to carry a propulsion system, a guidance system, a sensor system (if it tracks targets), a communications system (if it's to accept remote commands to detonate, disarm, or switch targets), and a shield system (to provide the "shield cancellation" effect of frequency matching). They might desperately need to keep the size of the payload small.

That makes even more sense than what I came up with, I think. Considering the amount of wasted space on a GCS, it doesn't seem like mass-reduction is a real design concern for them. But getting a big bang out of a relatively tiny warhead makes a lot of sense for a missile.

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

Not quite. Take a look at the G-3...as powerful as an enfield, but with
semiauto fire..

Exception to the norm, and weren't they at least planning to adopt that caseless rifle I know about but in a bout of stupidity the name is lost.

Col. Crackpot wrote: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.

That ICBM is also about 20 feet tall and 14 feet around If I recall my Trident specs correctly. As compared to a photon torp whish is 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 2 feet high. Size matters.

Ender wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote: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.

That ICBM is also about 20 feet tall and 14 feet around If I recall my Trident specs correctly. As compared to a photon torp whish is 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 2 feet high. Size matters.

Yes, size does matter. Remember that at one time a 15 KT atomic bomb was the size of a car.

There are also plenty of "modern American nuclear warheads" that yield plenty less than a megaton. In fact, megaton-range warheads are somewhat out of style; I believe the multiple independent kiloton-range warheads are the standard now on ICBMs.

Ender wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote: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.

That ICBM is also about 20 feet tall and 14 feet around If I recall my Trident specs correctly. As compared to a photon torp whish is 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 2 feet high. Size matters.

But if you put a W-80 equivalent yield 23rd Century nuke in place of the antimatter and all containment thereof on a photo torp's propulsion and shielding, etc. Could you produce observed affects?

Yes.

Ted C wrote:

Coaan wrote: because it's longer winded and they can spend most of the episode building the thing rather than have what we find in TNG and VOY?

But it wasn't "long-winded". Scotty whipped the things up "off-screen" without any major fanfare. The need for him to construct them, though, indicates that the ship doesn't actually have any dedicated anti-matter explosive devices on board, which in turn suggests that photon torpedoes don't carry anti-matter charges.

Not necessarily. The situations in both "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Obsession" required very high-yield devices to ensure total destruction of the lifeforms in question. Photon torpedoes are antiship weapons and designed to carry their explosive payload in a very small package. Those would not have produced the yield required for the destruction of two very large and structurally amorphous creatures. Hence, the necessity to construct specialised demolition charges.