Protons or Photons?

Jedi Guardian · Post by **Jedi Guardian** » 2006-01-29 03:34pm

I like Star Trek but not as much as Star Wars so I don't know the difference between these two types of missiles like which would be more powerful and pack the most punch or which goes faster. I need some help now!

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 03:35pm

Proton torpedoes are much more powerful than photon torpedoes.

Jedi Guardian · Post by **Jedi Guardian** » 2006-01-29 03:45pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Proton torpedoes are much more powerful than photon torpedoes.

Thats what I tell my driends but they just belive that Photons are better I'm still not sure if they think that or they just like Star Trek better

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 03:58pm

Show them this site.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-01-29 04:10pm

Photon torpedoes are single-figure MT at best and don't appear to be all that maneuverable. Proton torpedoes can make hairpin turns at 70,000gs and take down capships that can resist TT to PT level firepower (though not neccessarily both in the same type torpedo). Do the math.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 05:15pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Proton torpedoes are much more powerful than photon torpedoes.

no, some types of proton torpedos are stronger. Others are not.

A proton torpedo is just your basic thermonuclear warhead, and like in real life these weapons come in a large variety of yields, with different qualities (bombs, long range missiles, fast interception missiles, artillery, focused, MRV, etc).

You can't simply stand there and declare "This is teh bestest!!!!111"

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 05:16pm

Wait, protorps are thermonuclear?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 05:30pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Wait, protorps are thermonuclear?

What the hell did you think they were?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-29 05:30pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Wait, protorps are thermonuclear?

Ask yourself what a 'proton' is, and you'll have your answer. Also, as pointed out, the term 'proton torpedo' is a warhead type, not necessarily the same from missile to missile.

For example; the proton torpedo's launched from an X-wing are not the same launched from the torpedo tubes of a Venator or Victory.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 05:37pm

I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-29 05:41pm

OmegaGuy wrote:I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).

Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 05:42pm

OmegaGuy wrote:I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).

The difference between the energy released by hypermatter and nuclear fusion is not very extreme. Further, you confuse energy density with actual density, and energy density with yield. Energy density is completely independent of yield - I can build a more powerful bomb out of gasoline then out of antimatter; it will just ahve to be really really big. As for actual density, consider that you can store hydrogen in a degenerate matter state. It is entirely possible to have a small (in volume) fusion warhead that has a higher yield then an equally sized (in volume) total conversion bomb.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-01-29 05:43pm

Knife wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).
Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.

Those numbers would be in the four to six-figure ballpark, and we're talking about weapons that actually fit in the launchers of snubfighters. I rather doubt that 50MT bomb was the size of a Stinger.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-01-29 05:47pm

Batman wrote:
Knife wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).
Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.
Those numbers would be in the four to six-figure ballpark, and we're talking about weapons that actually fit in the launchers of snubfighters. I rather doubt that 50MT bomb was the size of a Stinger.

If you're talking about the Lusankya, the snub fighters were using their sensors for targeting data, the missiles themselves were on the freighters and other *larger* vessels. Snub fighter missles didn't threaten an Executor class.

12 fighter sized ones were a threat to a single shield arc to a Victory.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 05:47pm

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 05:51pm

Knife wrote:
Batman wrote:
Knife wrote: Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.
Those numbers would be in the four to six-figure ballpark, and we're talking about weapons that actually fit in the launchers of snubfighters. I rather doubt that 50MT bomb was the size of a Stinger.
If you're talking about the Lusankya, the snub fighters were using their sensors for targeting data, the missiles themselves were on the freighters and other *larger* vessels. Snub fighter missles didn't threaten an Executor class.

12 fighter sized ones were a threat to a single shield arc to a Victory.

And a Victory that just decanted through an asteroid field at that - depending on when it dropped out of hyperspace, that means that either the rocks dumped their equivlent mass energy into the shields, or impacted ti at relativistic speeds. Both of which play a far larger factor then X-wing torps in hurting it.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-01-29 05:52pm

Knife wrote: 12 fighter sized ones were a threat to a single shield arc to a Victory.

Which easily makes them TT level unless a Victory would succumb to a single broadside from an Acclamator.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-01-29 05:53pm

Batman wrote:
Knife wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:I always thought they were hypermatter warheads. That's the only thing I could imagine being packed into such a small space and taking on SW shields (in - universe).
Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.
Those numbers would be in the four to six-figure ballpark, and we're talking about weapons that actually fit in the launchers of snubfighters. I rather doubt that 50MT bomb was the size of a Stinger.

I was thinking the same thing. The Russians could probably build an nuke an order of magnitude more powerful than 50 MT too.. but it would be as big as a house.

Then again Ender seems to think it's possible "It is entirely possible to have a small (in volume) fusion warhead that has a higher yield then an equally sized (in volume) total conversion bomb." and not knowing what a "degenerate matter state" is I can't say he's wrong

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-01-29 05:55pm

OK, disregard the above, I was basing my estimate on a fully functional Victory.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 05:59pm

Degenerate matter state is really really compressed matter.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 06:03pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Degenerate matter state is really really compressed matter.

Specifically, I was referring to metallic hydrogen. It is technically a state of degenerate matter.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-29 06:06pm

PayBack wrote:
Batman wrote:
Knife wrote: Since in the 1960's, the Russians had a 50 MT bomb, I don't see why it's unreasonable that a civilization as advanced as SW could crank out one a order of magnatude more powerful. A GT level missile would start getting into the realm of a threat to a capship in suffiecent numbers.
Those numbers would be in the four to six-figure ballpark, and we're talking about weapons that actually fit in the launchers of snubfighters. I rather doubt that 50MT bomb was the size of a Stinger.
I was thinking the same thing. The Russians could probably build an nuke an order of magnitude more powerful than 50 MT too.. but it would be as big as a house.

Then again Ender seems to think it's possible "It is entirely possible to have a small (in volume) fusion warhead that has a higher yield then an equally sized (in volume) total conversion bomb." and not knowing what a "degenerate matter state" is I can't say he's wrong

Lets say your mechanism for TC is antimatter. Antiproton storage is highly limited by electrostatic repulsion (I have the exact numbers floating around somewhere, but I don't want to dig them out or get it wrong). Compare that with a thermonuclear bomb using a core of metallic hydrogen. Per volume the greater mass in the nuke will result in greater energy release even though the material releases less matter on a per mass comparison.

To help you conceptualuize a bit easier, think conventional cars vs hydrogen burning cars. Burning hydrogen is more eficient then burning gas, but the car burning gass has a better mpg rating and greater range. This is because the greater density of gasoline means that they can hold more fuel even though both have tanks that are the same size.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-01-29 07:02pm

Yeah I know about differing energy densities etc (espially as I was considering buying a diesel and also reading up on biomass etc.. I just didn't know the feds torps were so limited...

Is there any reason you can't have anti metalic hydrogen? And if not, why don't the feds make their torps out of those?

Actually I think I know why... metalic hydrogen might be great for fusion, it doesn't mean it's better than anything else when it comes to total conversion.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-01-29 07:11pm

PayBack wrote: Is there any reason you can't have anti metalic hydrogen?

None that I can think of, at least theoretically.

And if not, why don't the feds make their torps out of those?

Because they can't?

Actually I think I know why... metalic hydrogen might be great for fusion, it doesn't mean it's better than anything else when it comes to total conversion.

And that's complete bullshit. It's enormously denser than gaseous or liquid hydrogen and therefore would, on a per-volume basis, relase a hell of a lot more energy assuming you can achieve TC (and there's nothing inherent in metallic hydrogen that says you can't).

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-29 07:20pm

What about Heavy Rockets and Space Bombs? Are those canon or not?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Protons or Photons?

Protons or Photons in power?

Protons or Photons?