Moderator: Vympel
ROFLMAO!!!!DarkStar wrote:This way, I did not incur the obvious error of scaling off of the glow as the torpedo came out of the tube, and yet still managed to give a lower limit value to the torpedo as it appeared in the last moments the Voyager reference point was available.
Also notice how Fuckstar claims he's trying to avoid the "obvious error of scaling off of the glow" as the torp comes out even though this particular kind of error would actually increase the perceived size of the torp, thus bringing it closer to his own exaggerated figure (and thus showing that the real figure is even farther away from his bullshit number).DasBastard wrote:ROFLMAO!!!!DarkStar wrote:This way, I did not incur the obvious error of scaling off of the glow as the torpedo came out of the tube, and yet still managed to give a lower limit value to the torpedo as it appeared in the last moments the Voyager reference point was available.
You call a 5x overestimation a "lower limit"? That's classic.
I agree on all points here. I don't think that those were maximum yield torpedoes, nor do I believe that the Federation exists primarily as a military body. It is more of an exploration party. I have no problems in assuming that other, more powerful examples of torpedo use can be found, but I also see no evidence that the torpedo fired in "Rise" was anything to boast about in terms of firepower. It seemed pretty laughable. More like a kiloton than one hundred fifty megatons.Robert Walper wrote: I'd like to mention that whatever the outcome, calcs for Voyager blowing up this asteroid, in whatever fashion, should not be taken as a maximum yield for photon torpedoes. We're merely establishing a lower limit of the torpedo's yield in this specific instance. I've seen no evidence that the Captain ordered a maximum yield torpedo to destroy this asteroid. After all, if a group of heavily equipped people want to level a building, and their portable rocket launchers(ie: lower yield weaponry) aren't doing the job, it's highly unlikely they'll immediately switch to their portable nuclear warhead launcher.
What I think alot of people are forgetting is that the Federation is dedicated to exploration and peaceful contact. They are so passive in fact, they will pass up an "apparent" option to wipe out their greatest foe, the Borg (ref: STTNG "Hugh"). Mike Wong actually makes an excellent point regarding how stupidly passive this action is.
I have to disagree, here. Voyager was going on a combat mission against the Maquis when it left. If SF was able to modify any ships to make them ready for combat, then they should have upgraded Voyager's weapons and shields, too. While I don't think that the torpedo used in this incidents was the most powerful weapon available to SF, I do think that Voyager was one of their more combat-capable ships. If it were not, it would be an example of stupidity on the part of the Federation command. In one episode it is stated that the number of torpedoes they have is limited (curiously, they fire many more torpedoes than that during the series). If fuel was the limiting factor, then we should have heard them talking about fuel. Their limiting factors were probably the number of torpedoes, and the amount of AntiMatter they could produce.Robert Walper wrote: I find it highly unlikely the Federation has it's exploration vessels bristling with maximum payload of maximum yield torpedoes. These weapons must be armed, and could very well be armed with an exisiting anti-matter supply meant more for the warp engines. Their onhand supply of torpedo fuel could be extremely limited for exploration ships, especially if you're cut off from proper resupply facilities, like Voyager.
[sarcasm] But guys, don't you see that you're making Trek more powerful. Now you're saying that an even smaller torpedo can do 100+MT of damage [end sarcasm]Darth Wong wrote:Also notice how Fuckstar claims he's trying to avoid the "obvious error of scaling off of the glow" as the torp comes out even though this particular kind of error would actually increase the perceived size of the torp, thus bringing it closer to his own exaggerated figure (and thus showing that the real figure is even farther away from his bullshit number).DasBastard wrote:ROFLMAO!!!!DarkStar wrote:This way, I did not incur the obvious error of scaling off of the glow as the torpedo came out of the tube, and yet still managed to give a lower limit value to the torpedo as it appeared in the last moments the Voyager reference point was available.
You call a 5x overestimation a "lower limit"? That's classic.
Idiot. The torpedo glow increases dramatically after it exits the tube . . . Voyager is only 344 meters long, so we're talking less than 150 meters travelled after it leaves the tube until it leaves the frame including Voyager. Your argument is that I should ignore this brightening, even though it's been seen since "Encounter at Farpoint" as a common quality of torpedoes of the TNG era, and even occurs in the TOS-era movies.Darth Wong wrote:Also notice how Fuckstar claims he's trying to avoid the "obvious error of scaling off of the glow" as the torp comes out even though this particular kind of error would actually increase the perceived size of the torp, thus bringing it closer to his own exaggerated figure (and thus showing that the real figure is even farther away from his bullshit number).DasBastard wrote:ROFLMAO!!!!DarkStar wrote:This way, I did not incur the obvious error of scaling off of the glow as the torpedo came out of the tube, and yet still managed to give a lower limit value to the torpedo as it appeared in the last moments the Voyager reference point was available.
You call a 5x overestimation a "lower limit"? That's classic.
Thanks Darkstar but frankley we all already knew how to ignore everything but our own voiceI've given you the educational opportunity
Right on...if I keep this up, perhaps I'll evolve from "moronic simpleton" to just "simpleton".Master of Ossus wrote: I agree on all points here.
It also doesn't make sense to argue too heavily for this instance, I believe it is commonly accepted that photon torpedoes have variable yields. So Voyager simple fired a torpedo they felt was the right yield to destroy the asteroid with minimum fuel for the torpedo(hence theri confusion). They are stranded, so they're not going to use fuel like there's no tomorrow.I don't think that those were maximum yield torpedoes, nor do I believe that the Federation exists primarily as a military body. It is more of an exploration party. I have no problems in assuming that other, more powerful examples of torpedo use can be found, but I also see no evidence that the torpedo fired in "Rise" was anything to boast about in terms of firepower. It seemed pretty laughable. More like a kiloton than one hundred fifty megatons.
Point taken. I'm suprised I actually didn't mention this myself, since it's a good reason why Voyager would have a fancy weapon like a "tri-cobalt" device they used to destroy the CareTaker array.I have to disagree, here. Voyager was going on a combat mission against the Maquis when it left.
Well, perhaps upgraded is not the word I'd chose, but for sure that all their weaponry is setup for combat mode and shields are at peak efficency, etc.If SF was able to modify any ships to make them ready for combat, then they should have upgraded Voyager's weapons and shields, too.
Undoubtably, hence one of the reasons they didn't do too bad against the Borg. I actually find it quite amusing that Voyager, orginally equipped as a combat vessel, and with it's shield strength multiplied by a factor of ten(STVOY "The Q and the Grey") still got swatted easily by the first cube it truely encountered (STVOY "Scorpion", a cube locks on a tractor beam, completely disabling Voyager's shields, and beams Janeway off the bridge).While I don't think that the torpedo used in this incidents was the most powerful weapon available to SF, I do think that Voyager was one of their more combat-capable ships.
However, I don't think it would either the first of last example of it...If it were not, it would be an example of stupidity on the part of the Federation command.
I would guess that if Voyager was equipped as a combat role vessel, it's equipment could included small facilities to build more torpedoes on hand.In one episode it is stated that the number of torpedoes they have is limited (curiously, they fire many more torpedoes than that during the series).
Actually, the anti-matter was the "fuel" I was referring to, my mistake for bad clarification.If fuel was the limiting factor, then we should have heard them talking about fuel. Their limiting factors were probably the number of torpedoes, and the amount of AntiMatter they could produce.
If it qwas setup in "combat mode" as you call it then why did it have less than a fifth of the torps the Ent-D carries around which wasnt setup for anything for than being a cruise ship.Point taken. I'm suprised I actually didn't mention this myself, since it's a good reason why Voyager would have a fancy weapon like a "tri-cobalt" device they used to destroy the CareTaker array.
Because the E-D is much much bigger? Maybe because Voyager has a crew of 143, while the E-D has over a thousand? Size obviously. I think scaling would show the E-D as quite a big factor larger than Voyager.TheDarkling wrote:If it qwas setup in "combat mode" as you call it then why did it have less than a fifth of the torps the Ent-D carries around which wasnt setup for anything for than being a cruise ship.Point taken. I'm suprised I actually didn't mention this myself, since it's a good reason why Voyager would have a fancy weapon like a "tri-cobalt" device they used to destroy the CareTaker array.
Perhaps it's near the Cardassian border, and the Maquis isn't composed of just one ship? What if the Maquis went and got reinforcements? What if they encountered hostile Cardassian forces?They were only going after the Maquis remember not exactly a big threat (and one particular maquis vessel at that).
I should note the Intrepid class is a fraction of the size of a Galaxy class. It's combat load would therefore be lower.TheDarkling wrote:If it qwas setup in "combat mode" as you call it then why did it have less than a fifth of the torps the Ent-D carries around which wasnt setup for anything for than being a cruise ship.Point taken. I'm suprised I actually didn't mention this myself, since it's a good reason why Voyager would have a fancy weapon like a "tri-cobalt" device they used to destroy the CareTaker array.
They were only going after the Maquis remember not exactly a big threat (and one particular maquis vessel at that).
No you haven't because you have no evidence to demonstrate what the depth is. the object, to all appearences is viewed in the same plane every single time. You cannot accurately measure all three dimensiosn without views from some other plane to give us a clue as to depth. You are baselessly assumign that depth and width are equal without showing why. Now if you CAN show why you made this assumption then feel free to tell me why because otherwise you just pulled a number out of your ass and stuck it in there, for all the proof you've shown the depth of that asteroid could be 10m.DarkStar wrote:Actually, no. As I make reference to on the site, I have used something lower than the median value for the asteroid's width . . . it's depth is similar. Therefore, I have arrived at a figure which should approximate the true value, even including the slight rounding at the bottom, and more substantial rounding at the top.CmdrWilkens wrote: Then we assume ellipsoidal shape (you can see rounding at both end, additionally we have no clue, from the episode, of depth only width). In other words if we assume a less generous shape in order to be conservative we arrive at the forumla for ellipsoidals V=4/3 pi (x*y*z) which yields 9,005,375 m^3 which is a significant chunk smaller than you claim with corresponding decreases in total requisite energy.
This quote is from memory (so the number might be wrong, but it's not too far off) but when confronted by the need to do combat - I think this is an ep when they find a living nebula, it was like a 2nd or 3rd episode of the series:Robert Walper wrote:I would guess that if Voyager was equipped as a combat role vessel, it's equipment could included small facilities to build more torpedoes on hand.In one episode it is stated that the number of torpedoes they have is limited (curiously, they fire many more torpedoes than that during the series).
Objections
1. If Chakotay was able to tap a piece of the asteroid open with a little pick-axe, the asteroid must have been brittle. If it was made of such brittle materials, Voyager's torpedo should have done more damage.
There's a profound difference between taking a sharp pick against a solid rock and vaporizing it with a photon torpedo explosion. First, a rock has characteristics such as cleavage and fracture. That is, in fact, one of the ways rocks are identified.
Torres identifies olivine as one of the substances in the rock. You'll note that olivine has a brittle, conchoidal (shell-like) fracture. In other words, it breaks easily into curved fragments, not unlike glass does. Also pay attention to the fact that it is rather hard, but with a low density. Something hard, low density, and brittle is going to be easy to crack
Compare this with iron, which they thought the asteroid was made of. It's softer, and thus more malleable. It has a higher density, and a jagged, torn fracture. Now, let's say you fire a bullet at a wall made of olivine. You'll probably end up with a hunk of broken fragments flying away, and might even get cracks running from the point of impact. Do the same to an iron wall, and if the bullet penetrates more than a dent's worth, you'll get torn metal.
The point is that if your claims were true, and they were attempting to vaporize that asteroid, then the energy requirements to fracture it would have been so much lower than the energy requirements to vaporize the asteroid as to make any comparison silly. Your analogy is totally irrelevent.Detonate a thermonuclear weapon next to that wall, and the olivine wall will probably shatter. The more resilient iron wall may either tear wide open, or just sit there and melt, et cetera, depending on various factors.
This would assume, of course, that the entire asteroid was olivine, and not nickel-iron with a couple of oddball chunks of olivine. Given the fact that it fragmented in the way it did without vaporizing as expected, that isn't a bad hypothesis. But, then, the Nisu astrophysicist dude mentioned in his transmission that the asteroids were composed of artificial materials . . . whether he had simply found evidence that triatium alloy was part of the asteroid, or had found that sensor signals were being distorted, or found that the majority of the asteroids were literally artificial is not clear.
You are correct insofar as that the brittleness of the material is no indication of how difficult it will be to vaporize, however this does not explain that lack of fracturing we see in the asteroid that Voyager fired upon. Had the weapon had anywhere near the yield that you are claiming, the asteroid would have fractured far more completely. I stated this, earlier. Try to pay attention.In any event, the brittleness of a material is no indication that it will be easier to vaporize . . . indeed, it is far more likely to fracture uncontrollably, and in this case unexpectedly.
DarkStar, DasBastard demonstrated clearly that your scaling was incorrect. You grossly inflate the size of the asteroid being fired upon. This also, by extension, means that your scaling of the fragments is incorrect, and your scaling of the amount of truly vaporized material is also highly suspect. Please revise.2. Voyager didn't actually destroy the asteroid, therefore you can't claim firepower off of this episode.
Why not? The crew fully believed that they had an iron-nickel asteroid before them, and that it could be vaporized by photon torpedo. The fact that it wasn't vaporized does not negate their belief that they could have done so. Further, a 100m chunk and a smaller, perhaps 50 meter chunk flew toward the planet. Another chunk of about 40 meters flew off to the left. There was also a bunch of other crap flying around, but it's too small (and the vidcap is too low-res) for me to get much more out of it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that an extra 50m asteroid's worth of material made it out of the torpedo blast.
If all that is correct, then it means 688,410 m3 of debris was left over by the torpedo blast. For an asteroid that started out at 13,500,000 m3, that ain't half bad.
.)
I think it would still be a danger though becuase it's vapourized material would stilll fall to the planet, get stuck in the atmosphere, and cause a nuclear winter.I still have a hard time accepting that the entire rock could be
easily shattered with a pick-axe. As I mentioned earlier, since that asteroids' fragments were considered a danger to the people below,
