StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is in relation to my previous 'Survivors' thread.

It occured to me, that since most people accept that the Husnock ship's affect on the E-D would have been the same if the Husnock ship was real, that the E-D's effect on the Husnock ship would also be the same had the Husnock ship been real.

I am referring to the scene when the E-D fired a single torpedo at the Husnock, which totally destroyed their unshielded ship.

It was stated that the Husnock ship had '5 times the mass' of the E-D.

That may mean it was a denser ship, more hull etc, or that it was just bigger.

Whatever the case, the fact that a single torp destroyed it would suggest an almost ridiculous warhead for that torpedo.

I would guesstimate that that torp may have been hundreds of MT powerful, maybe even gigatons!

Most other visuals suggest far lower yields.

Since most people accept that for all intents and purposes that the Husnock ship was real, I would like the discussion to follow that general belief.

What do ya all think?

TurboPhaser wrote:Whatever the case, the fact that a single torp destroyed it would suggest an almost ridiculous warhead for that torpedo.

I would guesstimate that that torp may have been hundreds of MT powerful, maybe even gigatons!

I would suggest you're not thinking very carefully. Consider...

1) The Husnock ship obviously made no attempt to defend itself against that final photon torpedo.

2) The Husnock ship is as likely as any other ship in the Trek universe to be carrying a large supply of anti-matter fuel on board. Indeed, the Husnock must obviously carry a substantial quantity of anti-matter just for ammunition.

3) Data observed that the Husnock ship possessed "enormous energy reserves", indicating that it had very large (by Federation standards) and easily detectable fuel supply.

Conclusion: It is highly likely that the undefended hit from the Enterprise's photon torpedo compromised the vessel's anti-matter containment system, resulting in a catastrophic explosion of the target's own fuel. This could easily be an expected result if you hit a real, unshielded Husnock ship in the stern with a photon torpedo.

TurboPhaser wrote:This is in relation to my previous 'Survivors' thread.

It occured to me, that since most people accept that the Husnock ship's affect on the E-D would have been the same if the Husnock ship was real, that the E-D's effect on the Husnock ship would also be the same had the Husnock ship been real.

Leap in logic. We know that the Husnock's weapons had a particular effect upon the E-D because their instruments showed those effects. There is nothing to indicate that the reverse must also be true. The fact that the Husnock ship was stronger or weaker depending on the Dowd's whim at any given time is proof that its strength was not that of a real Husnock ship.

Whatever the case, the fact that a single torp destroyed it would suggest an almost ridiculous warhead for that torpedo.

Or that something inside the Husnock ship cooked off.

While I don't think the Husnok ship's properties changed at any time--it was described as having huge energy reserves from the get-go, not after it increased its weapon settings--I think this same fack makes it kinda hard to get reliable calcs. Fairly high, I would say, a couple to a dozen or so megatons off hand, but all the torpedo would technically have to do is breach the hull and hit a fuel tank. (Granted that is hard to do in ST, thanks to SIF's, but this is not a Federation vessel).

Oh, before someone misinterpits this, it is hard to breach the hull and hit a fuel tank. It is not hard to damage the exterior causing overloads and stuff that cause a failure in the safety systems of said fuel tanks, but this takes time...ie the explosion is not immediate. This was, so the hull was likely breached in spades, which is hard .

I think the biggest yield clue for a photon torpedo came from Enterprise: 3km crater in an asteroid. Says nothing about depth, but the area effect is there.

Lord Poe wrote:I think the biggest yield clue for a photon torpedo came from Enterprise: 3km crater in an asteroid. Says nothing about depth, but the area effect is there.

But what happened to the material in it, vaporized or simply smashed up and thrown into space? As I recall we've seen photon torpedoes burrow once or twice so either is possibul.

Lord Poe wrote:I think the biggest yield clue for a photon torpedo came from Enterprise: 3km crater in an asteroid. Says nothing about depth, but the area effect is there.

That one ranges from 180 KT to an absolute max of 37 MT, and the max requires it to be in an atmosphere, so it really doesn't fit.

Ender wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:I think the biggest yield clue for a photon torpedo came from Enterprise: 3km crater in an asteroid. Says nothing about depth, but the area effect is there.

That one ranges from 180 KT to an absolute max of 37 MT, and the max requires it to be in an atmosphere, so it really doesn't fit.

Well it should be pretty much on the low end for photon torpedoes since that is Starfleets first edition "photonic torpedoes".

Ender wrote:

Lord Poe wrote:I think the biggest yield clue for a photon torpedo came from Enterprise: 3km crater in an asteroid. Says nothing about depth, but the area effect is there.

That one ranges from 180 KT to an absolute max of 37 MT, and the max requires it to be in an atmosphere, so it really doesn't fit.

How would you calculate that? I had discussed it with Edam can came with numbers closer to the high end, but how was the lower end measured?

Doesn't matter, really. There are reasons why they'd reduce the yield later. They might have done it to increase range, speed, the size of the guidance system or even reliability (the containment field is less reliable than they'd have liked.)

Or maybe they just didn't have enough antimatter to really stuff all those torpedoes to snuff, but they do have enough to stuff one or two to the required level?

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:How would you calculate that? I had discussed it with Edam can came with numbers closer to the high end, but how was the lower end measured?

It would help to have pictures of this event (although I still don't see why Enterprise is regarded as canon).

Enterprise doesnt even have Star Trek in the title so it isn`t Trek

Darth Wong wrote:

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:How would you calculate that? I had discussed it with Edam can came with numbers closer to the high end, but how was the lower end measured?

It would help to have pictures of this event (although I still don't see why Enterprise is regarded as canon).

Enterprise is canon because paramount says so

The event has no screen caps, Reed (the Armoury officer with an unhealthy obsession with weapons, well maybe not compared with some members of this board I guess ) is describing the new Photonic Torpedoes (see that kids they added "ic" to make it seem old fashioned) and he says something to the effect that their yield ranges from taking out a shuttles com array without scratching the hull to putting a 3km crater in an asteroid.

TheDarkling wrote:The event has no screen caps, Reed (the Armoury officer with an unhealthy obsession with weapons, well maybe not compared with some members of this board I guess ) is describing the new Photonic Torpedoes (see that kids they added "ic" to make it seem old fashioned) and he says something to the effect that their yield ranges from taking out a shuttles com array without scratching the hull to putting a 3km crater in an asteroid.

Ah, so it's just character bragging. I forgot that some people consider that sort of thing to be concrete evidence.

AdmiralKanos wrote:

TheDarkling wrote:The event has no screen caps, Reed (the Armoury officer with an unhealthy obsession with weapons, well maybe not compared with some members of this board I guess ) is describing the new Photonic Torpedoes (see that kids they added "ic" to make it seem old fashioned) and he says something to the effect that their yield ranges from taking out a shuttles com array without scratching the hull to putting a 3km crater in an asteroid.

Ah, so it's just character bragging. I forgot that some people consider that sort of thing to be concrete evidence.

Indeed, he either knows zip about the weapons it his responsibility to use and maintain or he was just making figures up out of nowhere with no basis in reality, why he should have said it could destroy the moon which would have sounded much more impressive, I guess he was just being reserved in classical British manner.



If someone in the navy came and told me what the capabilities of the ship they were serving on where I would be inclined to believe them unless what they were saying somewhat fantastic and I would also expect them to give a fellow officer a fair appraisal of a weapon when describing its abilities and giving figures but sure its possible he was just making it up for some mysterious reason and that the chief Engineer hasn't the slightest clue about the ships weapon capabilities and thus could be easily fooled by this deception hatched by a man British fellow…. for some mysterious reason .

You might be suprised, I have heard some incredible bragging from sailors from my time in the navy. This includes stuff like carrier crews bragging that their carriers can do 50 knots (when their top speed is listed a 32 and might be able to do 34 knots)

TheDarkling wrote:

AdmiralKanos wrote:Ah, so it's just character bragging. I forgot that some people consider that sort of thing to be concrete evidence.

Indeed, he either knows zip about the weapons it his responsibility to use and maintain or he was just making figures up out of nowhere with no basis in reality, why he should have said it could destroy the moon which would have sounded much more impressive, I guess he was just being reserved in classical British manner.

Keep your rolleyes icons to yourself, jackass. Your logic is that he could not possibly have been exaggerating or anything less than perfectly accurate and literal because if he exaggerated, he would exaggerate by a million times instead of 10 times. That's moronic; the other half of the sentence (about taking out a sensor array without "scratching the paint") is OBVIOUSLY exaggeration, so you are full of shit when you argue that the statement should be taken literally.

If someone in the navy came and told me what the capabilities of the ship they were serving on where I would be inclined to believe them unless what they were saying somewhat fantastic and I would also expect them to give a fellow officer a fair appraisal of a weapon when describing its abilities and giving figures but sure its possible he was just making it up for some mysterious reason and that the chief Engineer hasn't the slightest clue about the ships weapon capabilities and thus could be easily fooled by this deception hatched by a man British fellow…. for some mysterious reason .

Either that, or you're full of shit and you don't understand the propensity of people to exaggerate. I strongly suspect you have no experience in real life whatsoever, and are still a student.

I reiterate: this is opinion, not direct evidence. He does not even say what type of asteroid he's talking about, or whether any tests were performed. If he was trying to give a precise figure for yield, he could have done so in the appropriate units, AND AS AN ENGINEER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IF HE MEANT HIS COMMENT TO BE USED FOR QUANTIFICATION PURPOSES. Stop being an arrogant dumb-ass.

AdmiralKanos wrote: Keep your rolleyes icons to yourself, jackass. Your logic is that he could not possibly have been exaggerating or anything less than perfectly accurate and literal because if he exaggerated, he would exaggerate by a million times instead of 10 times.

No Wong that is simply your straw man of what I said, my point is incase you missed it is that he should A) Know what his weapons can do and B) should be able to give a rough estimate of their capabilities, yes he may not have been exact but without other figures that contradict him using his comment as a ballpark estimate is perfectly valid because even if he is braggng he must have a rough estimate of his weapons cabilties and would still somewhere close to that estimation.

That's moronic; the other half of the sentence (about taking out a sensor array without "scratching the paint") is OBVIOUSLY exaggeration, so you are full of shit when you argue that the statement should be taken literally.

Yeah because if I wanted to to impress people with the speed of my car I would tell them it could do about 1000 MPH, I may over estimate by 10-20 MPH or so to talk it up but I'm not going to over exagerate it so much that what I'm saying is obvious rubbish, when giving some sort of figure or to put it another way Im hardly going to say it takes me 5 minutes to reach point B (without traffic) when infact it takes 50 (or even 20 for that matter).

Either that, or you're full of shit and you don't understand the propensity of people to exaggerate. I strongly suspect you have no experience in real life whatsoever, and are still a student.

And thus I have never heard anyone exaggerate, of course.

I reiterate: this is opinion, not direct evidence. He does not even say what type of asteroid he's talking about, or whether any tests were performed.

That just makes the 3KM of dubious value to us because we don't know what type of asteroid but getting a range as some have done is certainly possible.

If he was trying to give a precise figure for yield, he could have done so in the appropriate units, AND AS AN ENGINEER, I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IF HE MEANT HIS COMMENT TO BE USED FOR QUANTIFICATION PURPOSES.

You have to be an engineer to figure that out?

Obviously if he wanted to be exact he would have given a number in MT but he was talking about the weapons informally to a colleague (putting the weapons stats into a real world context to make their abilties clear) and the 3KM value is either an estimation of his own or based upon live fire tests run by starfleet or a simulation he himself had run.

Ah yes, Reed. The dumbass who says Phase Cannons are 500 gigajoules in one episode and 80 in another.

Hahahah that's some weapons expert you got there.

my point is incase you missed it is that he should A) Know what his weapons can do and B) should be able to give a rough estimate of their capabilities

However, he doesn't give any CONTEXT about the rough estimate of the weapon's capabilities. He may have been referring to a three-kilometer crater in a powdery surface, a dense surface, or something in between. He may have been referring to theoretical capabilities of the weapon. He may have been referring to different TYPES of the weapon (the thing about the comm array could've been a tiny tactical missile, the three-kilometer crater might've been a massive city-destroying weapon half the size of Enterprise itself).

Even without delving into the possibility of exaggeration, the offhand comment lacks the details or context that would allow us to take it with any significant weight.

Well, it certainly can't be taken verbatum as concrete evidence. I personally think that it can be used as an indicator, though. I wouldn't expect Reed's guesstimation to be more than an order of magnitude more powerful than reality.

Reed's previous comments about the yield of his weapons have been:

1. Internally inconsistent (see the 80 GJ or 500 GJ statements)
2. Completely inconsistent with Captain Archer's statements regarding weapons yield (shouldn't BOTH people know about how powerful the weapons of the ship are?)

In this case, Reed was obviously exaggerating when he stated that the torpedoes could knock off a sensor array without scratching the paint. I see no reason why he wouldn't exaggerate with the other half of his statement.

The way I see it, exaggerating the variability of the yield is different from exaggerating the maximum yield. He was doing the former, not necessarily the latter.

Howedar wrote:The way I see it, exaggerating the variability of the yield is different from exaggerating the maximum yield. He was doing the former, not necessarily the latter.

Not necessarily, but what kind of evidence is it when the best you can say is that it's not necessarily useless?

When one half of a sentence is obviously bullshit, it's rather ridiculous to treat the other half as gospel. Especially when it doesn't come with any qualifiers which would allow us to figure out what it really means (eg- what kind of asteroid, etc).

Darth Wong wrote: Not necessarily, but what kind of evidence is it when the best you can say is that it's not necessarily useless?

Pretty damned poor. Useful only if there is no counterriding evidence.

When one half of a sentence is obviously bullshit, it's rather ridiculous to treat the other half as gospel. Especially when it doesn't come with any qualifiers which would allow us to figure out what it really means (eg- what kind of asteroid, etc).

By no means do I think it should be treated as gospel. I do think, however, that it gives us some insight as to the ballpark power of photonic torpedos. Again, I think it is safe to assume that they're within an order of magnitude of Reed's statement.