Trek ships that could stand up to Wars ships.

[Jark]

I found this argument pretty convincing, it puts the lower limit on Voyager-era torpedo max yield at about 20MT (+-10MT or so due to scaling issues). Still dialogue dependent to some degree, but much less badly than the Pegasus incident.

I was reading up on this topic from that forum and he recently did this again for photon torpedos in this thread

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=121704

It looks there's an updated set of measurements and figures of the one you linked to later in the thread. The final figure isn't too far off the one in the thread you linked to, at around 30 megatons.


For the record I think I should note that not too long ago another user on this forum was banned because he was using a figure that vivftp had calculated. I wanted to link to a phaser analysis he's doing, but I wasn't sure if that was prohibited here or not as he's been banned from SDN. I sent PMs to a couple of moderators but didn't hear back so I don't know if it's acceptable behaviour here to link to things from a banned user. Could a mod please tell us if it is or not? Thanks.

[Batman]

'Somewhat' dialogue dependent? They 'expected' the asteroid to be vapourized when it WASN'T. So there was this thingy made of unobtainium inside that survived, but what happened to the REST of the asteroid? It should STILL have been vapourised. Was it?
Especially as the visual evidence provided in this thread is rather strange. If the torpedo detonated on impact, why are both the asteroid AND, apparently, the torpedo, still intact two frames AFTER impact? (and since the before/after frames seem to be identical, how did they determine it impacted to begin with?)

[Jark]

'Somewhat' dialogue dependent? They 'expected' the asteroid to be vapourized when it WASN'T. So there was this thingy made of unobtainium inside that survived, but what happened to the REST of the asteroid? It should STILL have been vapourised. Was it?
Especially as the visual evidence provided in this thread is rather strange. If the torpedo detonated on impact, why are both the asteroid AND, apparently, the torpedo, still intact two frames AFTER impact? (and since the before/after frames seem to be identical, how did they determine it impacted to begin with?)

From what I understand the sensors told them it was made of one thing, and they expected it to be vaporized. The sensors were being fooled and it was actually artificial and made up of other materials, which is why it shattered instead of being vaporized.

I'd look further into it, but I've got to run.

[Darth Wong]

Not only was the unobtanium object inside the asteroid not destroyed, but there was still plenty of rock which survived. Did the unobtanium object somehow make the rock stronger? Did it shield the asteroid? And why did they expect a certain fragment size if it was supposed to be vapourized?

[Ghost Rider]

The idiot was banned because he was all but a viv sock puppet.

As for the calculations, one is better to use one's resources and make an analysis from there rather then rely on someone who purposefully skews results into his favor.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>
You have a BETTER source for canon photorp yields, by all means educate me.

Nemesis heh, heh, heh.

Damn.

I take back everything I said earlier. Somehow that page escaped my notice.

[Batman]

If it is any consolation, I didn't see that post originally either.
Nice catch, Darth Servo.

[Starglider]

And why did they expect a certain fragment size if it was supposed to be vapourized?

There are a lot of dubious aspects to this, but this particular part strikes me as reasonable. Reducing the entire asteroid to vapor with a (virtually) point energy release requires much more energy than vaporising it with evenly applied (e.g. omnidirectional radiative) heating. Dumping energy into one spot will create a ball of superheated plasma inside a molten cavity, exerting tremendous pressure which blasts the rest of the rock apart. Once it has fragmented the fireball will expand rapidly, but will also cool rapidly as it does so. Pumping more energy into the fireball makes it hotter and longer lasting, but also increases the velocity of the outer fragments. Eventually the fireball becomes so big and so hot that everything is vaporised, but it takes a vast amount of energy; the energy content of the explosives in a typical modern iron bomb is enough to vaporise the steel casing, but in practice small fragments of the casing almost always survive. It takes a nuclear bomb to vaporise them all. Similarly the Death Star dumped an incredible amount of energy into Alderann, much more than the minimum required to vaporise it, but numerous small fragments still survived.

[Batman]

Excuse me? A FIREBALL? In a vacuum?

And you're dodging the point. Either they expected the asteroid to be vapourized or they didn't. If they expected fragments, it WASN'T vapourized.

And is it just me, or is Alderaan a red herring?

[Starglider]

I am incidentally aware that VivFTP is an immature twit, having read his threads here, but that doesn't automatically make him wrong in every instance.

Excuse me? A FIREBALL? In a vacuum?

'Fireball' is a standard nuclear weapons term for a rapidly expanding cloud of high-energy plasma. It applies just as well to an antimatter explosion as to a fission/fusion one. Whether it takes place in rock, air or a vaccuum is irrelevant (though it does determine how fast the fireball will expand and how quickly it will lose energy).

And you're dodging the point. Either they expected the asteroid to be vapourized or they didn't. If they expected fragments, it WASN'T vapourized.

'Mostly vaporised' is a reasonable colloquialism, particularly since it's coming from Chakotay. For the purpose at hand, preventing the asteroids damaging a planet, smashing it into minute pieces will do the job (they'll burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere). But to ensure that the largest surviving pieces (from the outer edges of the explosion) are only a few centimetres, most of the rock is going to have to be vaporised.

And is it just me, or is Alderaan a red herring?

Well kinda, I'm just illustrating that 'explosive power required to vaporise' is a much higher figure than 'theoretical minimum energy required to vaporise' - a discrepancy that increases with size.

[Darth Wong]

Well kinda, I'm just illustrating that 'explosive power required to vaporise' is a much higher figure than 'theoretical minimum energy required to vaporise' - a discrepancy that increases with size.

You're forgetting that these are Trekkies. Remember the asteroids in TESB which were vapourized without a trace of solid material remaining? They deny that those asteroids were vapourized, while insisting that the "Rise" asteroid was completely vapourized despite solid fragments remaining.

[Batman]

Excuse me? A FIREBALL? In a vacuum?

'Fireball' is a standard nuclear weapons term for a rapidly expanding cloud of high-energy plasma. It applies just as well to an antimatter explosion as to a fission/fusion one. Whether it takes place in rock, air or a vaccuum is irrelevant (though it does determine how fast the fireball will expand and how quickly it will lose energy).

You know what, I have to conceed. I forgot that while a PT in and of itself doesn't provide enough matter for a fireball, the asteroid would (IF the warhead were powerful enough to vapourize it).

And you're dodging the point. Either they expected the asteroid to be vapourized or they didn't. If they expected fragments, it WASN'T vapourized.

'Mostly vaporised' is a reasonable colloquialism, particularly since it's coming from Chakotay. For the purpose at hand, preventing the asteroids damaging a planet, smashing it into minute pieces will do the job (they'll burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere). But to ensure that the largest surviving pieces (from the outer edges of the explosion) are only a few centimetres, most of the rock is going to have to be vaporised.

Utter and complete conjecture. If they expected fragments, they did NOT expect total vapourisation. Thus, the DEGREE of vapourisation they expected it completely up for grabs. And still dialogue. What did the VISUALS say?

And is it just me, or is Alderaan a red herring?

Well kinda, I'm just illustrating that 'explosive power required to vaporise' is a much higher figure than 'theoretical minimum energy required to vaporise' - a discrepancy that increases with size.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, yes?

[Starglider]

You're forgetting that these are Trekkies. Remember the asteroids in TESB which were vapourized without a trace of solid material remaining? They deny that those asteroids were vapourized, while insisting that the "Rise" asteroid was completely vapourized despite solid fragments remaining.

Yes, and they claim they were made of talc as well, and all kinds of other idiotic things. But those idiocies are beside the point. In this case they're using similar logic to the ISD asteroid destruction incident - it's just less convincing, due to (post-TOS) Trek's typical inability to show anything clearly, consistently and unambigiously.

[Starglider]

You know what, I have to conceed. I forgot that while a PT in and of itself doesn't provide enough matter for a fireball,

Actually it does, just not a very big once. A fireball is simply thermalised plasma (i.e. the ion velocities show a thermal distribution). In an open-space AM explosion, most of the gamma and charged pions will shoot off in random directions, leaving a couple of hundred kilos of plasma formed from the torpedo casing, which will glow very brightly for a very brief time (microseconds) before dissipating very rapidly. This is similar to initiating a nuclear weapon outside of the earth's atmosphere.

Utter and complete conjecture. If they expected fragments, they did NOT expect total vapourisation. Thus, the DEGREE of vapourisation they expected it completely up for grabs.

You do realise that expecting complete vaporisation drags the PT yield up? I'm inclined to believe Kim over Chakotay over this one, since a) he's demonstrated much more technical competence, b) it results in a lower PT yield and c) Chakotay's line can be rationalised as a simplification, Kim's can't.

And still dialogue. What did the VISUALS say?

Most of the mass of the asteroid vanished, but some sizable fragments (made of manufactured material seemingly) remained. The energy requirements for this can't be that much lower than turning the whole rock into vapor and a little light gravel.

Well kinda, I'm just illustrating that 'explosive power required to vaporise' is a much higher figure than 'theoretical minimum energy required to vaporise' - a discrepancy that increases with size.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, yes?

The difference between the two figures makes perfect sense and if you don't understand that you don't understand basic physics. If you don't like me bringing up Alderann as a very-large-scale example of it, fine.

[Batman]

You know what, I have to conceed. I forgot that while a PT in and of itself doesn't provide enough matter for a fireball,

Actually it does, just not a very big once. A fireball is simply thermalised plasma (i.e. the ion velocities show a thermal distribution). In an open-space AM explosion, most of the gamma and charged pions will shoot off in random directions, leaving a couple of hundred kilos of plasma formed from the torpedo casing, which will glow very brightly for a very brief time (microseconds) before dissipating very rapidly. This is similar to initiating a nuclear weapon outside of the earth's atmosphere.

And people say 'I' don't have a sense of humour.

Utter and complete conjecture. If they expected fragments, they did NOT expect total vapourisation. Thus, the DEGREE of vapourisation they expected it completely up for grabs.

You do realise that expecting complete vaporisation drags the PT yield up?

I do. As it didn't happen, this is relevant why?

I'm inclined to believe Kim over Chakotay over this one, since a) he's demonstrated much more technical competence, b) it results in a lower PT yield and c) Chakotay's line can be rationalised as a simplification, Kim's can't.

And not a one of them is supported by visuals so...
[qiuote]

And still dialogue. What did the VISUALS say?

Most of the mass of the asteroid vanished, but some sizable fragments (made of manufactured material seemingly) remained. The energy requirements for this can't be that much lower than turning the whole rock into vapor and a little light gravel.[/quote]
Because...you say so. Your EVIDENCE for a) most of the mass of the asteroid being vapourized and b) the fragments that DIDN'T being made of unobtanium just like the one they were wondering about is...?

Well kinda, I'm just illustrating that 'explosive power required to vaporise' is a much higher figure than 'theoretical minimum energy required to vaporise' - a discrepancy that increases with size.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, yes?

The difference between the two figures makes perfect sense and if you don't understand that you don't understand basic physics. If you don't like me bringing up Alderann as a very-large-scale example of it, fine.

Last I checked, Alderaan WASN'T vapourized.

[Darth Wong]

Besides, accelerating solid fragments to escape velocity requires more energy than vapourizing them anyway.

[Batman]

That one seems to be overlooked a lot.

[Starglider]

I do. As it didn't happen, this is relevant why?

The Pegasus asteroid wasn't destroyed either, but you seem to think that hypothetical is relevant.

And still dialogue. What did the VISUALS say?

Most of the mass of the asteroid vanished, but some sizable fragments (made of manufactured material seemingly) remained. The energy requirements for this can't be that much lower than turning the whole rock into vapor and a little light gravel.

Because...you say so. Your EVIDENCE for a) most of the mass of the asteroid being vapourized and b) the fragments that DIDN'T being made of unobtanium just like the one they were wondering about is...?[/quote]

From the visual appearance of the explosion. No, there is (AFAIK) no way to precisely scale the fragments or confirm that those fragments were really all that was left. This is Trek for you; it is frustratingly incapable of showing things completely or consistently, largely due to a seeming 'tell, don't show' directiorial policy. It isn't a reliable PT scaling, it's just better than Pegasus, where no PTs were actually fired, nothing was blown up, and all we got was one line from an officer of extremely dubious tactical competence (as illustrated by Peak Performance, Generations and Insurrection).

Besides, accelerating solid fragments to escape velocity requires more energy than vapourizing them anyway.

Yes, that's my point. That said Alderann probably wasn't a good example to pick, because a) most of the planet's mass was molten to start with and b) the crust isn't going to survive being accelerated to c-fractional velocities within seconds without disintigrating into fine dust (while melting from the frictional heating). The asteroids we saw in ANH were either chunks that were shielded from the main effects of the explosion by some sort of freak local effects, or blobs of molten rock that had coalesced and cooled into solid chunks by the time the Falcon turned up.

[Batman]

I do. As it didn't happen, this is relevant why?

The Pegasus asteroid wasn't destroyed either, but you seem to think that hypothetical is relevant.

Yes I do. Because, you see, it WASN'T directly contradicted by visuals. Unlike the Rise ones.

And still dialogue. What did the VISUALS say?

Most of the mass of the asteroid vanished, but some sizable fragments (made of manufactured material seemingly) remained. The energy requirements for this can't be that much lower than turning the whole rock into vapor and a little light gravel.

Because...you say so. Your EVIDENCE for a) most of the mass of the asteroid being vapourized and b) the fragments that DIDN'T being made of unobtanium just like the one they were wondering about is...?

From the visual appearance of the explosion. No, there is (AFAIK) no way to precisely scale the fragments or confirm that those fragments were really all that was left. This is Trek for you; it is frustratingly incapable of showing things completely or consistently, largely due to a seeming 'tell, don't show' directiorial policy. It isn't a reliable PT scaling, it's just better than Pegasus,[/quote]
No it isn't. Pegasus at least gave us an approximate figure. Rise gives us NOTHING.