See DarkStar get his asteroid calculations kicked.

[Master of Ossus]

Are you guys seriously telling me that antimatter suddenly makes a rock brittle when it explodes with other matter that is present within the torpedo? Are you guys telling me that the weakness of the material brought on Voyager and the lack of damage that Voyager did to the asteroid is not proof that the asteroid was extremely weak? Explain to me how, if the asteroid really was made up of such brittle material, Voyager did so little damage to it. I am not saying that the asteroid should not have crumbled (as DarkStar believed). I am saying that if the asteroid was so weak that it could be fractured so easily, how the hell did it survive a 100+MT torpedo impact without being blown to smithereens?

Robert, there are metals that are extremely brittle. DarkStar, there are minerals that are extremely brittle. I know this. The point is that if the asteroid were as brittle as is demonstrated by Chakotay and his almighty chisel, then it could not have possibly survived the hit from a weapon nearly as powerful as DarkStar is saying of the torpedo was anywhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims. Visuals always overrule dialogue. We KNOW that the asteroid was made up of material that was extremely weak and could be cracked very easily. We KNOW that Voyager did not destroy the asteroid. It did not even come close. We KNOW that if the torpedo truly were 100+MT (or anywhere even remotely near that figure), that an asteroid that weak would have been reduced to tiny splinters. We must therefore conclude that the torpedo hitting the asteroid was nowhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims, or it would have done vastly more damage. This is not an example of a high Federation firepower. This is an example of an extremely low Federation firepower.

Darkling, DarkStar's site does not explain how the asteroid could have been so brittle, or how a rock that brittle could have taken so little damage from the torpedo. His premise is flawed.

[Robert Walper]

Are you guys seriously telling me that antimatter suddenly makes a rock brittle when it explodes with other matter that is present within the torpedo?

The list of total components of a photon torpedo are unknown to me. However, I do know that a Romulan plasma torpedo can affect apparently very strong materials to the point where they are easily crsuhed by hand, which incidently shocked the crew when Spock did it.

Are you guys telling me that the weakness of the material brought on Voyager and the lack of damage that Voyager did to the asteroid is not proof that the asteroid was extremely weak?

I believe you're assuming the asteroid was weak in the first place. It was weak when Chacotay handled it, however, I gave a canon example of ST technology altering material strength to a point of easily being crushed by hand after exposure toweaponry. And again, I admit this is an old example from Romulan plamsa torpedoes, but the concept isn't unfathomable in the Trek universe, and might be applicable in this situation.

Explain to me how, if the asteroid really was made up of such brittle material, Voyager did so little damage to it.

Again, we are not certain the asteroid was "brittle" when Voyager fired on it. We know it was brittle when Chacotay handled it afterwards. I gave an example of ST weaponry being able to alter material strength significantly.

I am not saying that the asteroid should not have crumbled (as DarkStar believed). I am saying that if the asteroid was so weak that it could be fractured so easily, how the hell did it survive a 100+MT torpedo impact without being blown to smithereens?

Perhaps it had a high material strength before being fired upon, but ST weaponry treknobabble weakened it's material strength so significantly that pieces of it could later be crushed by hand. Virtually an identical situation to the TOS exmaple, yet dealing with an astroid instead of a station's hull plating.

Robert, there are metals that are extremely brittle.

I'm well aware of that. There are also materials that are not very brittle.

DarkStar, there are minerals that are extremely brittle. I know this. The point is that if the asteroid were as brittle as is demonstrated by Chakotay and his almighty chisel, then it could not have possibly survived the hit from a weapon nearly as powerful as DarkStar is saying of the torpedo was anywhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims.

Based upon your assumption the asteroid was brittle in the first place, your arguement certainly has merit. But what if the asteroid wasn't brittle in the first place, but Treknobabble weaponry effects made it so? IT happened in TOS...

Visuals always overrule dialogue. We KNOW that the asteroid was made up of material that was extremely weak and could be cracked very easily. We KNOW that Voyager did not destroy the asteroid. It did not even come close. We KNOW that if the torpedo truly were 100+MT (or anywhere even remotely near that figure), that an asteroid that weak would have been reduced to tiny splinters.

However, only if one were to accept you claim the asteroid was brittle in the first place. I'm not denying the piece Chacotay handled was brittle, but was it brittle before a torpedo slammed into it? We don't know...but there is ST evidence that material not normally brittle can be made so after being impacted by ST weaponry.

We must therefore conclude that the torpedo hitting the asteroid was nowhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims, or it would have done vastly more damage.

Assuming the asteroid was brittle in the first place makes your arguement valid.

This is not an example of a high Federation firepower. This is an example of an extremely low Federation firepower.

Possibly, but one must first accept your assumption the asteroid was brittle before exposure to treknobabble torpedoes.

Darkling, DarkStar's site does not explain how the asteroid could have been so brittle, or how a rock that brittle could have taken so little damage from the torpedo. His premise is flawed.

If there were no evidence that could explain why Chacotay can break asteroid material with his hands, I'd agree with you fully. But there is evidence that ST weaponry, which many SW fans will argue is virtually all the same tech level, can affect material strength so significantly to make the material destructable by hand.

[Master of Ossus]

A plasma torpedo is not the same as a photon torpedo. We know this. M/AM reactions are not going to make something brittle, when before it was not. Explosions do not make something so incredibly brittle that it can be cracked open with a few blows from a chisel, when before it was capable of resisting 100+MT worth of destructive energy. The crew of Voyager themselves did not mention that the rock's composition could have been altered by the torpedo. Observe:

Torres: "I've completed the mineralogical scans. The rock is composed of trioxine, olivine, . . . waitaminute. I'm reading a concentration of triatium."

There is not even mention of the possibility that the triatium came from their torpedo. There is no mention that the asteroid fragment they brought aboard could have been different from the one that they fired on. Things like that do not change with torpedo impacts. I cannot believe that I am having to explain this to so many people.

[Master of Ossus]

Basically what they are doing is scanning the debris from the asteroid they fired on in an attempt to figure out why that asteroid, and other asteroids, were not responding well to their weapons. This should demonstrate that the materials in the asteroid did not change during their attack.

I realize that this can be construed as a double post, but I really don't care. For one thing, I'm already a Council Member with more than a thousand posts to spare, and for another thing I think that this is a slightly different point from what I said in the last post.

[Robert Walper]

Basically what they are doing is scanning the debris from the asteroid they fired on in an attempt to figure out why that asteroid, and other asteroids, were not responding well to their weapons. This should demonstrate that the materials in the asteroid did not change during their attack.

Excellent point taken. I withdraw my speculation in that area.

[Master of Ossus]

Basically what they are doing is scanning the debris from the asteroid they fired on in an attempt to figure out why that asteroid, and other asteroids, were not responding well to their weapons. This should demonstrate that the materials in the asteroid did not change during their attack.

Excellent point taken. I withdraw my speculation in that area.

Great. Wonder why DarkStar isn't reacting more strongly to this trhead.

[Lord_Vader]

Perhaps he realizes that 'resistance is futile' when trying to argue with you MOO.

[Robert Walper]

Perhaps he realizes that 'resistance is futile' when trying to argue with you MOO.

The Borg value efficecy, not redundancy. :p

[seanrobertson]

Basically, what DarkStar says is that in the VOY episode "Rise," Voyager targets an asteroid with a torpedo. The shot does very little damage to the asteroid,

Hmm...I don't know that I'd say that. There was a large vapor
flash, and it was shattered pretty convincingly. That's not bad
for a weapon that only directs about a third of its energy toward
the 'roid.

Of course, "very little damage" IS context-sensitive

but everyone is surprised that it does not do vastly more. Chakotay is surprised that the asteroid is not vaporized, but Harry Kim says that they should not be seeing any fragments larger than a centimeter. Basically, DarkStar then goes through it and does some scaling with the torpedo that actually hit the asteroid and then moves on to determine limits based on the asteroids size. He tries to find out how much energy it would take to vaporize that asteroid (he says that he is generous, in that he leaves out some factors to account for Harry Kim's comment, but watch). His figures come up with about 150 MT (remember that he does not accept any "EU crap," like ICS, so he says that that's far in excess of SW weapons),

I dunno about that stuff. What relevance does it have toward his
asteroid figures? I know Dark Star mentions this, but since we're
concerned with the validity of the figure this'd be a red herring.
We're not, after all, talking about similar "official" ST text (which,
so far as I know, doesn't exist anyway, though I don't particularly
care for doing away with the TMs completely).

I would have to say, however, that leaving fragments in the centimeter
range WOULD indicate most of the thing's mass probably would be
vaporized--if nickel-iron as the VGR crew noted. How much? I dunno.
Obviously not all, but that's a very odd fragmentation for something
that remains largely intact.

give or take, as the lower realistic limit for Voyager's firepower. He can say that I am misrepresenting him, but I am confident that I have put together the general gist of what he did. If anyone wants to check, you can see everything he did at the link that I provided.

Now, DarkStar says a couple of interesting things about the asteroid. First off, he admits that it is a bit darker than would be expected. The quote is here:

The extremely dark and mottled coloring of the asteroid is a bit odd, but not unreasonably so. From what we know of the asteroid, it should fall within the parameters of an M-type . . . S-type if the olivine was common throughout....

I found this a bit strange, as he repeatedly told us that an asteroid's composition cannot be determined from video footage of ESB (he said that its behavior, texture, and color cannot be judged from the video, IIRC). But in any case, I'll give him that because he also had a quote that said that the asteroid was simple iron-nickel.

Fair enough. Here again, though DS might've been inconsistent in so
doing, what he said in a separate argument really has no bearing here.

In any event, it's irrelevant since the characters state the expected
composition of the thing.

Finally, (and this is what a lot of people picked up on) DarkStar says that that is far greater than SW firepower and references some "maximum" figures from a few SW sites. They all have slightly different estimates based on the same incident, but the range is 250 to about 2900 terajoules. Those are LTL's, but seeing as how EVERYONE knows he isn't going to allow for the possibility of higher power TL's based on EU evidence (or whatever else), so I will grudgingly give him that point, as well.

Photon torpedos at maximum yield might be slightly more powerful
than those particular light TLs. Maybe. But it doesn't take investigation
of the EU to note that the heavy guns on any Imperator are
simply gargantuan next to a light battery. Looking at the studio model,
after all, isn't straying from canon...it's just a real close look

Now we can see the problem with the whole thing. If Chakotay was able to crack a beachball sized hunk of the thing open with a pick, how is it possible that Voyager did so little damage to it if Voyager's weapons were anywhere near what DarkStar is claiming?

With respects, this seems to be begging the question. Your conclusion and premises are essentially the same thing: if it's so weak, how could it be strong?

Also, exposure to high-energy gamma rays, like from a photon torpedo,
WILL make metal extremely brittle. Visible cracking isn't necessary.

Note that the crack through the asteroid is evidently not the result of repeated chiselling, or any kind of cutting laser (or similar). If it was a cutting laser, we would have expected the asteroid's edges to be smooth, with a single cut going straight through the rock. If it was from repeated chiselling, we would see evidence of that (tool marks, rock shavings, etc.). Instead we see evidence of a fairly clean fracture, like the ones that most kids would get from cracking open a golf ball sized geode with a hammer. It was likely the result of only a few, strong blows, if that. This represents an EXTRAORDINARILY low strength for the rock.

I agree, only I don't agree insofar as the reason the rock would be
weak is concerned. As I said, exposure to the photon torpedo could've
made that sample particularly brittle.

[seanrobertson]

Are you guys seriously telling me that antimatter suddenly makes a rock brittle when it explodes with other matter that is present within the torpedo?

Gamma rays.

See Mike's commentary on "Booby Trap" in the TNG Canon Database,
Ossus. Then figure that ambient radiation is precisely squat next to
a M/AM warhead.

Are you guys telling me that the weakness of the material brought on Voyager and the lack of damage that Voyager did to the asteroid is not proof that the asteroid was extremely weak?

Hmm...I'm saying, not necessarily. It's a good observation,
Master O., but as I said in my previous post, exposure to very
high-energy gamma ray emissions in such a brief period COULD
make that sample extremely brittle.

Indeed, we don't know from which part of the asteroid that sample
came. As I also noted in my last post, part of the asteroid was
indeed vaporized.

Explain to me how, if the asteroid really was made up of such brittle material, Voyager did so little damage to it.

Huh? It was brittle only after the torpedo exploded, *not* before.

I am not saying that the asteroid should not have crumbled (as DarkStar believed). I am saying that if the asteroid was so weak that it could be fractured so easily, how the hell did it survive a 100+MT torpedo impact without being blown to smithereens?

Again, this is begging the question. You're also ignoring the fact that
the thing's material strength could change from exposure to the aforementioned gamma rays.

Robert, there are metals that are extremely brittle. DarkStar, there are minerals that are extremely brittle. I know this. The point is that if the asteroid were as brittle as is demonstrated by Chakotay and his almighty chisel, then it could not have possibly survived the hit from a weapon nearly as powerful as DarkStar is saying of the torpedo was anywhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims.

Hmm...no, that's not what Rob was saying (and the episode was
"Balance of Terror," though it did heavily involve the Neutral
Zone ).

The point is that exposure to the Romulan weapon--apparently
a precursor to photon torpedos in some respects--made the
"hardest substance known to Federation science" that brittle.
Why would Spock shatter that stuff in his hands if it was
already brittle? What would that prove? His demonstration
was a testament to the extraordinary power of the Romulan
weapon, which IIRC destroyed a base roughly one mile beneath
an asteroid's surface.

Visuals always overrule dialogue. We KNOW that the asteroid was made up of material that was extremely weak and could be cracked very easily.

AFTER exposure to a photon torpedo. What effect that had on
the asteroid, we do not know. You'd need to pound on a fragment
*prior* to the explosion to make any decisive conclusions...and
even then, as you said, "some metals are brittle." These particular
metals could've been chosen for their ablative qualities over their
tensile strength. The ability to withstand great heat, after all, *is*
what you'd want in those kinds of "mass driver" weapons.

We KNOW that Voyager did not destroy the asteroid. It did not even come close.

? It blew apart. I'd call that "destroy." Michael would call it destroyed
if it was the asteroid in "The Pegasus."

We KNOW that if the torpedo truly were 100+MT (or anywhere even remotely near that figure), that an asteroid that weak would have been reduced to tiny splinters. We must therefore conclude that the torpedo hitting the asteroid was nowhere near as powerful as DarkStar claims, or it would have done vastly more damage. This is not an example of a high Federation firepower. This is an example of an extremely low Federation firepower.

Can't agree. From the visuals, it appears as if no more than
75% of the torpedo exits the explosion intact. Thus, an omnidirectional
explosive like a photorp still vaporized on the order of a quarter of
that asteroid, in spite of the funky alloys contained therein.

Also, an asteroid of that size would STILL require 93 kilotons to shatter.
More than shattering occured in the visuals (large vapor flash); therefore,
93 kilotons is the fair lower-limit we're looking for.

I wouldn't call that weak, by any means...especially when two members
of the crew expected at least an order of magnitude more damage.

[Master of Ossus]

I already went over this with Robert Walper and he conceeded almost immediately. Exposure to the photon torpedo did not substantively change the composition of the asteroid. Gamma radiation is insufficient to provide for the incredible lack of material strength that we see in the asteroid. The asteroid was made of extremely brittle material before and after the asteroid hit it.

[Master of Ossus]

Incidentally, people, PLEASE read the thread and note all of the objections that have been made before you post anything new. If you are still confused then you can post and ask questions, but I really don't want to have to answer the same point several times.

[Master of Ossus]

Also incidentally, in spite of Mr. Robertson's claim, the Database on "Booby Trap" has not a SINGLE reference to EITHER Gamma Radiation or materials strength. He was clearly mistaken on that, too.

[seanrobertson]

I already went over this with Robert Walper and he conceeded almost immediately. Exposure to the photon torpedo did not substantively change the composition of the asteroid.

Based on...?

Gamma radiation is insufficient to provide for the incredible lack of material strength that we see in the asteroid. The asteroid was made of extremely brittle material before and after the asteroid hit it.

Uh, yeah, it is. The fact that the thing was SOLID and fragments
of it stayed INTACT as we watch them hurdle through the targetted
planet's atmosphere are testament to this.

Let's take a closer look at Michael's observations WRT "Booby Trap,"
shall we?

First, we'll assume the Promellian battlecruiser was located in
an asteroid field roughly the same distance from Sol as our own
asteroid field, beginning around 2.7 AU away (roughly 405 million
km). Assuming the star in that system has an output similar
to Sol's at 3.83E26W, that'd equal 186 J/m^2.

The Promellian battlecruiser is of an unknown size, roughly
as wide as it is long and about a fifth as tall (rough guess).
If it was of a similar size to the Galaxy-class starship,
it would have a surface area far less than 78,000 square meters.

Therefore, in one second, it would withstand 14.5 MW. Per day,
that's 1.2 terajoules. Per year, 427.2 terajoules. Per one
THOUSAND years, 427,200 terajoules--about 102 megatons.

Mike seemed to think such energies would render the Promellian
cruiser's metal rather brittle, and this is from far less intense
exposure (not to mention the fact that it's an upper-limit in every
respect, from surface area to the amount of energy striking it
in the form of gamma radiation). Presumably, this metal would
also be less prone to becoming brittle than nickel or iron, though
that's simply an assumption based on the levels of engineering
technology the Promellians should've acquired on the way to building
a small interstellar empire.

So tell me...where am I going wrong, here? I've made every effort
to be conservative in the above figure, and it is in line with
what Dark Star came up with. We've yet to argue what constitutes
"brittle" in the context of "Rise" vs. "Booby Trap," but I say again,
the latter is an extreme OVERestimate.

And forgive me for getting a bit snippy, but until I posted, I didn't see any discussion of gamma rays. Further, you are still engaged in begging the question: the gamma radiation can't be enough to account for the brittle rock (coming from...which part of the asteroid? I don't remember) because the torpedo's E release is insufficient to cause as much.

You'll also note I discussed a bit more than the fact that the
rock could've been brittle from said exposure (which, as you
know, would follow the inverse-square law: the farther away
from the explosion, the lower the radiation per given unit
of frontal area). Did you go over that already, too?

I really don't mean to sound smart-assed, but it's going to take
more than "the gamma rays couldn't have done it" to satisfy me.

[Master of Ossus]

DarkStar's claim was that the kind of rock that the asteroid was made up of naturally gave itself to fractures and cleavage. You come back and state that the Gamma radiation released from a single shot with a proton torpedo would suddenly change an asteroid from being able to resist 100+MT worth of energy to the point where it is incapable of resisting a chisel.

How much Gamma radiation would have been produced from a single proton torpedo hit? The ship in

Remember that the asteroid's composition could not have changed because it was still being scanned to determine how the asteroid managed to resist the blast. The Battle Cruiser in "Booby Trap" had been there for ages. Millenia. More importantly, you are assuming that every joule of destructive energy within the torpedo was in the form of Gamma radiation. That is CLEARLY flawed and incorrect. Think about it. Because the explosion produced light in the visible spectrum, we KNOW that not all of the energy was in the form of Gamma radiation. That is the primary knock against your logic. Other, vast amounts of torpedo energy would be released in the form of KE and heat. Others would be released in other forms. The fact that the Battle Cruiser would have taken 102 megatons worth of Gamma radiation in a millenia (less per thousand years, but it was probably there for even longer than that), is more or less irrelevent. The proton torpedo's TOTAL yield was hardly any larger than that amount of radiation, but NOT ALL OF THAT WAS IN GAMMA RADIATION! In fact, only a very small portion of it would be released in Gamma radiation.

Further, where the hell are you getting that about the Promellian relic? It is not in the database under "Booby Trap." Please revise.

[seanrobertson]

Also incidentally, in spite of Mr. Robertson's claim, the Database on "Booby Trap" has not a SINGLE reference to EITHER Gamma Radiation or materials strength. He was clearly mistaken on that, too.

"Clearly mistaken"? I'm sorry, but a terse two-line reply does not
a sound refutation make. I don't care who you've discussed
the matter with prior to me; if you haven't addressed the points
adequately (which you have not--no offense intended), you're
going to continue to get taken to task for it, MOO.

Perhaps I was thinking of something else, but Michael HAS stated that the oft-quoted Trekkie example of blowing up the Promellian battlecruiser with one torpedo is rather less impressive than it initially sounds...yes, for the explicit reason of the metal being exposed to gamma radiation for a thousand-plus years. I would check the database to confirm what you're saying, but it isn't working for me at all.

Oops, now it is. Apparently Michael said this elsewhere. Care to ask
him?

Also, I would appreciate if you'd drop the attitude that you're merely
fielding questions here. What history you might have with Dark Star
is totally irrelevant. All that matters to me are the validity or cogence
of points being discussed--nothing more.

[Master of Ossus]

Your ignorance of ST is astounding. The Enterprise required four torpedoes to destroy the Promellian derelict. Why should I need to ask Mike where he stated that? You made the claims, please back them up. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to be taking you to task on anything. After all, according to you I think I'm just fielding questions. This is not a history lesson on what has gone on between me and DarkStar in the past. Make no mistake, this is an attack on one page of his website. It should be evaluated seperately from my debates with him elsewhere. My victory or defeat here is independent of what happened in the other threads.

[aerius]

Also, exposure to high-energy gamma rays, like from a photon torpedo,
WILL make metal extremely brittle. Visible cracking isn't necessary.

There is one problem with this. If the rock was indeed subjected to enough radiation to cause this much embrittlement, there'd be enough residual radiation in the sample to cause radiation sickness and/or death when Chakotay handles it with his bare hands. Case in point, the cooling pipes for the core of a modern nuclear reactor do indeed suffer from embrittlement and micro-fractures caused by high energy radiation. This embrittlement occurs over a period of months to years. Now if I were to pull a cooling pipe out of the core of your local nuke generating station, I'd get radiated to a crisp.

The amount of radiation that asteroid needs to cause that much brittleness would be hundreds to thousands of times as much as that given off by the core of your local nuke plant, which means the rad levels in the fragments would also be far higher than those in the core cooling pipes. In other words once they got the piece on board the entire crew would likely be glowing in the dark.

[seanrobertson]

DarkStar's claim was that the kind of rock that the asteroid was made up of naturally gave itself to fractures and cleavage. You come back and state that the Gamma radiation released from a single shot with a proton torpedo would suddenly change an asteroid from being able to resist 100+MT worth of energy to the point where it is incapable of resisting a chisel.

If I'd said proton torpedo, you'd no doubt be taking me to task for
that...

As for what Dark Star says, I ask again: what does that matter?
You're not talking to him right now. You're talking to me.

How much Gamma radiation would have been produced from a single proton torpedo hit? The ship in

Huh? You seem to have been cut off.

Remember that the asteroid's composition could not have changed because it was still being scanned to determine how the asteroid managed to resist the blast.

You're kidding, right? Who suggested that the composition
changed? I only said that the exposure to gamma radiation
could've made the metal in that sample BRITTLE. We're talking
about a change in integrity, not composition; i.e., the asteroid
changes from frozen methane to solid gold.

The Battle Cruiser in "Booby Trap" had been there for ages. Millenia.

The next time you accuse me of being "ignorant" of Star Trek to
the point it astounds you, perhaps you should be sure what "millenia"
means.

I figured the ship had been around for a thousand years, did I not?
Now, what does the script say? You know, the script in which Michael
didn't say anything about brittle metals after prolonged exposure
to gamma rays?

Ahh, here it is.

TNG Season 3, Ep# 54: "Booby Trap"

(Looking at the debris field left by the apocalyptic finale to the Promellian-Menthar war, a millenium ago)

IOW, a thousand years. What's the problem?

More importantly, you are assuming that every joule of destructive energy within the torpedo was in the form of Gamma radiation.

Uhh...what torpedo? Are we talking about "Rise" again, or "Booby
Trap"? I assume the former.

Would you care to point out where I said that? I offered you a general
*range* MOO.

That is CLEARLY flawed and incorrect. Think about it. Because the explosion produced light in the visible spectrum, we KNOW that not all of the energy was in the form of Gamma radiation.

Sigh...we know about how much of a photorp would be gamma radiation,
roughly one-third. I didn't hold up 103 MT accumulated over a thousand
years as evidence that Dark Star's figure is right; I should've
been more clear, I guess. I meant that energies *approaching
that order of magnitude* with the far greater intensity of a photorp
will have the effects I described, to a greater degree from the center
out of course.

(Remember, some of the largest fragments of the thing were hurled
into the atmosphere. It might've been slim pickins' from what was
left, closer to the "center" of the asteroid. MAYBE.)

That is the primary knock against your logic. Other, vast amounts of torpedo energy would be released in the form of KE and heat.

Kinetic energy would probably be negligible, at least from our perspective (with only the asteroid's initial position as a benchmark). There's no medium through which to create a shockwave, and we are dealing
with a massless particle release. Those certainly can have an effect
on something even as massive as the "Rise" asteroid, but measuring
that effect isn't important, anyhow. One thing I *do* know Michael
discusses at one of his Technology assessment pages is the fact
that a photorp's E release would be 7-3 charged pions to gamma rays.

Others would be released in other forms. The fact that the Battle Cruiser would have taken 102 megatons worth of Gamma radiation in a millenia (less per thousand years, but it was probably there for even longer than that),

MOO,

Let me say a couple of things right fast.

First, I'm not trying to brake your balls. I want you to understand that
I always approach everyone in these forums as friends I simply have
not met yet.

That's the most important thing I need to write at this point, because
I feel this is rapidly degenerating. As I said before, I think this is
largely because you perceive me as defending Dark Star (and I know
you two are buddies from waaaaaaaaay back, LOL).

Now, on to the things at hand:

One millenia, a millenium, IS a thousand years. The script said the
ship had been there for that length of time.

is more or less irrelevent. The proton torpedo's TOTAL yield was hardly any larger than that amount of radiation, but NOT ALL OF THAT WAS IN GAMMA RADIATION! In fact, only a very small portion of it would be released in Gamma radiation.

One third. Also remember that the solar energy striking that *absurdly* generous frontal area will come in other forms, also.

Further, where the hell are you getting that about the Promellian relic? It is not in the database under "Booby Trap." Please revise.

It actually came with very old r.a.s.t discussions with Michael, but he
reiterates it here:

(Star Trek: Federation Torpedos, in the Technology section)
They point out that 5 photon torpedoes obliterated an ancient Promellian warship in "Booby Trap". But we must also remember that the Promellian warship had been subject to gamma radiation bombardment for over a thousand years (remembering that gamma radiation makes metal more brittle with time). If a photon torpedo carried enough energy to totally obliterate an enemy ship without assistance from its warp core, why then did the Enterprise require 5 photon torpedoes to destroy the Promellian warship? The answer is that the Promellian warship, unlike most targets, did not have a functioning warp core that could detonate and aid in its own destruction, so the Enterprise was forced to use 5 torpedoes. The same holds true for any other situation where a photon torpedo destroyed a vessel- in every case, significant energy was contributed to the explosion by the vessel's warp core. The ancient, brittle Promellian vessel was different because it did not contribute to its own destruction.

More on the no. of photorps in just a moment.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually the other poster, aerius, provided a reasonable point about how Gamma radiation great enough to seriously affect metal would also have a decidedly adverse effect on people. If the asteroid were made more brittle by the torpedo, then we would expect to see protective gear on Chakotay and Torres (probably, though Klingons MIGHT have greater tolerances for radiation than humans).

[Master of Ossus]

Also, actually, it's kind of good that you guys are defending DarkStar. At least this way he can't say that the whole board is against him, and you might take some ammunition out of his hands when he finally decides it's time to respond to this thread.

[Darth Wong]

As long as people are talking about my database and metal embrittlement, I would like to point out that metallic embrittlement is the result of long-term low-intensity ionizing radiation bombardment. Short-term high-intensity radiation bombardment causes the same effects, but they are overwhelmed by the prompt heating effect, so they are not significant (remember that when you heat metal to high temperatures, it anneals and becomes softer).

[seanrobertson]

Your ignorance of ST is astounding.

What the hell is this?

You're going on about proton torpedos, and my ignorance of Trek
is astounding?

Come on, man--lighten up. That'd be a pretty big hasty generalization,
anyhow...get the no. of torpedos in an episode wrong, and you're
ignorant of ALL Star Trek! LOL.

The Enterprise required four torpedoes to destroy the Promellian derelict.

Patently false. Michael's entry in "Booby Trap" is also wrong (though
I know he mentions five photorps in his torpedo section). ONE
torpedo was directed at the battlecruiser. The other three were
fired at asteroids.

I saw the episode about two weeks ago and paid special attention
to this fact. Even in Michael's vidcap, you can make out four distinct
explosions (and no, the 'roids weren't right on top of the ship, either).

Why should I need to ask Mike where he stated that? You made the claims, please back them up.

If my claim is predicated on something Michael said, I have to
back it up independent of him? That doesn't flush.

I already provided the source, anyhow, in the torpedo page.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to be taking you to task on anything.

I see no reason for hostility or dramatics. It doesn't do anything to enhance the exchange, no? So relax a little. I don't recall anything
I'd said that screamed, "Flame me!" in so many words.

After all, according to you I think I'm just fielding questions.

Those are your words. You dismissed two of my posts without
directly replying to either--rather haughty presumption--by stating:

Incidentally, people, PLEASE read the thread and note all of the objections that have been made before you post anything new. If you are still confused then you can post and ask questions, but I really don't want to have to answer the same point several times.

If you're still confused? You "can post and ask questions"? LOL.
Thanks for giving me your permission! (You've got to admit, that
sounded...bad.)

I still don't see where the SAME point is being raised. I didn't see
anything mentioned of how the explosion's gamma rays would
make the rock brittle. And I *certainly* didn't see you answer
a good many other objections; e.g., what part of the asteroid
the rock came from, how one would account for the other parts of
the 'roid remaining intact 'til they nailed the planet's ground below,
etc.

This is not a history lesson on what has gone on between me and DarkStar in the past.

As opposed to a history lesson of the future?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

MOO, I can't help but to think that is what is going on, here.
I was perfectly polite to you, questioned some of your choice of
words and reasoning, and once you saw that I wouldn't be summarily
dismissed like a bad schoolkid, you got down my throat in a hurry.
(E.g., "Your ignorance of ST is astounding.")

I can only think that, YES, your feelings regarding Dark Star ARE
coloring your judgment in this thread. Otherwise I think you'd
see I'm not your enemy.

Make no mistake, this is an attack on one page of his website. It should be evaluated seperately from my debates with him elsewhere. My victory or defeat here is independent of what happened in the other threads.

Victory or defeat? It's an argument--a critique to be precise. It's not
a battle. Relax a little, dude.

[Master of Ossus]

No, I was saying that if you make a statement about where Mike said something, you must post where it was from if asked for it. You dismissed my statements that it was not from his database at first, and you told me to ask Mike where it was from. That is not a proper method of debate.

[seanrobertson]

Also, actually, it's kind of good that you guys are defending DarkStar. At least this way he can't say that the whole board is against him, and you might take some ammunition out of his hands when he finally decides it's time to respond to this thread.

Defending Dark Star?

How am I defending Dark Star? All I did was respond to your critiques
of his page, and now I'm defending Dark Star, the man?

I'm not even trying to reaffirm his figures. I KNOW I have stated
that the lower-limit from the incident would be in the low to mid-kiloton
range, NOT hundreds of megatons.