Why are Trek weapons so weak?

AWACS · Post by **AWACS** » 2003-01-13 05:44pm

I mean, if photon torpedoes use M/AM as they are supposed to, then why do they only yield 64MT? Such a yeild would result from only 2-3 pounds or so of AM and an equal quantity of M, IIRC. A 6 foot torpedo should have room for dozens of pounds of AM in warhead space. I mean how much of the torpedo's internal volume is required for guidance/proulsion? It can't be so much that it leaves only 4-6 lbs worth of warhead space. Photon torpedoes should have dozens of pounds of AM, maybe even over 100 if they use the antimatter version of a dense substance such as lead or DU.

I mean, by rights, using normal science, a six foot missile using M/AM reaction as the mechanism for destructive force should have high megaton/low gigaton yield. But trek ships have these stupid 64 megaton torpedoes...

Trek writers should be anally raped with a rolled up sheet of M/AM reaction calcs.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-13 06:04pm

You also need a containment system to keep the AM from destroying the rest of the torp.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 06:04pm

Because the Federation is way tooo humanistic to use more powerful weapons.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-13 06:22pm

Still doesn't make sense, not w/ the amount of antimatter they seem to be able to carry for the warp core. I agree. They should make bigger torpedoes w/ decent impulse emission active tracking and decent propulsion for real missiles. Not those golf balls I saw the E-D toss at the Scimitar in Nemesis that didn't track at all and allowed the Scimitar to slowly bank out of their path.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-01-13 07:03pm

AWACS wrote:I mean, if photon torpedoes use M/AM as they are supposed to, then why do they only yield 64MT?

They don't.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-13 08:23pm

They probably yield less if we're going pure visuals.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-13 08:53pm

A 250kg warhead will be sub-megaton using modern technology. Using M/AM, it depends on how much AM can be safely stored, and at what density. Its not as if you can pack AM like bags of iron filings.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-01-13 09:01pm

AWACS wrote:Trek writers should be anally raped with a rolled up sheet of M/AM reaction calcs.

Why should you care whether a series has high or low firepower?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-13 09:23pm

Trek torpedoes are weak because the writers have no concept of the firepower actually released by the M/AM reaction, and because the visual guys are even worse.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-13 09:58pm

[1]We don't know how bulky the containment system for propulsion is, I don't recall there being any torpedo cutaways around. The warp sustainer likely takes up quite a bit of room.

[2] The writers are total morons.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-13 10:38pm

It seems like it would be more efficient just to use a traditional nuclear warhead, when you factor in the cost of refining antimatter and the number of containment systems you need to store it.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2003-01-14 05:28pm

The way I always look at this debate is like this: Trek weapons are only weak when compared with the firepower of more advanced universes (Star Wars being a prime example). However, in their own universe, Trek weapons are fairly formidable. It is just a question of your point of view.

How you use them is important too. The Defiant's pulse phasers are a good example. They are approximately the same power level as the GCS and NCS's phasers, I think. Yet just four or five direct hits in quick succession caved in a Jem'Hadar bug's forward shields and blew the ship out of the sky. This illustrates that the TOS movies' pulse phaser concept were more effective against shields than the TNG-era beam phasers.

However, I am convinced that the weapon that the BoP was using in 'Generations' was not a Photon Torpedo. No matter how you look at it, a PhoTorp should have ripped the Enterprise-D's effectively unshielded secondary hull apart like a rusty tin can. The relatively tiny amount of damage implied a less powerful explosive, maybe a plasma warhead or something.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-01-14 06:41pm

You mean like how the photon torpedoes ripped the E-A apart in ST:VI? Or the Klingon BoP in the same movie (it took several)? Or maybe the torpedoes ripping apart the Defiant in "The Changing Face of Evil"?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-14 08:20pm

Damn it used to be a nice, one shot one kill weapon
now their totally dumbed down, and don't do J/S

hmm, purhaps all the fire power is being backged through the consols instead of the weapons.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-14 08:24pm

The BoP in Generations was playing with the E-D. We even get the indication that they were firing partial power disrupters. They could also have fired lower powered Torpedoes. Even with them possibly being low in power they still tore large holes in the E-Ds hull.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2003-01-14 08:40pm

(1) Blame the idiotic writers, and especially the special effects people, who just don't realize how powerful Trek should be. It is stated early on than photon torps are powered by antimatter. And what do we get? Chemical weapon yields based on visuals! What's worse, they can't even be consistent about it! In ST-TMP, a single torp largely vaporised a sizable asteroid. In ST-5 a torp appears to do less than an artillery shell! I don't care if it was supposed to detonate underground, it still was supposed to be an antimatter detonation! What about the gamma rays! Pegasis gives KT level, Generations shows lousy firepower, ST-6 shows a hull breach, Q-Who? states they are dangerous to themselves, Yesterday's Enterprise shows minute flashes of light, Skin of Evil shows a 400+km explosion that dissipates too quickly to be even MT range, ST-N hardly showed explosions at all, the list goes on and on and on.

(2) Because even when the writers get it right, the effects crew screws up. Example that comes to mind is Booby Trap (TNG). Four (I think) torps are fired in an asteroid field. The screen play says there was massive damage to the field, nearby asteroids are destroided, etc. What do we see? Four small fireballs that manage to destroy a powerless cruiser, but leave the asteroids untouched.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-01-14 09:20pm

In that "Living Witness" episode, it was revealed that photon torp have a 25 isoton yield. Don't ask me what an "isoton" is supposed to be.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-14 11:30pm

The Silence and I wrote:In ST-TMP, a single torp largely vaporised a sizable asteroid.

Sizable? Vaporised? We never saw the asteroid next to anything so its impossible to tell how big it is. We never saw what happened to the asteroid after the torpedo impact. The Enterprise immediately drops out of warp, so you can NOT say the asteroid was vaporised.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-01-15 12:42am

AWACS wrote:I mean, if photon torpedoes use M/AM as they are supposed to, then why do they only yield 64MT? Such a yeild would result from only 2-3 pounds or so of AM and an equal quantity of M, IIRC. A 6 foot torpedo should have room for dozens of pounds of AM in warhead space. I mean how much of the torpedo's internal volume is required for guidance/proulsion? It can't be so much that it leaves only 4-6 lbs worth of warhead space. Photon torpedoes should have dozens of pounds of AM, maybe even over 100 if they use the antimatter version of a dense substance such as lead or DU.

I mean, by rights, using normal science, a six foot missile using M/AM reaction as the mechanism for destructive force should have high megaton/low gigaton yield. But trek ships have these stupid 64 megaton torpedoes...

Trek writers should be anally raped with a rolled up sheet of M/AM reaction calcs.

You need containment fields, such as strong EM fields, to store antimatter. If the containment field goes off, then the antimatter in the torpedo interacts with the matter, causing a big boom. Also, when the warhead goes off, much of the antimatter will be scattered before it can react, further reducing the yield.

Also, they simply don't need weapons to be all that powerful. It's not like Trek hulls can take very much abuse.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-01-15 01:16am

I think the mistake that we are making here is assuming that the writers know anything about what elements asteroids are made of, and what the power output is of a photon torpedo is. They seem to just write this stuff for the effect.

That is actually one of problems with trying to nail down solid Star Wars evidence. Wong makes some of his estimations by looking to scenes such as a Star Destroyer destroying an asteroid. He proceeds to tell us how much energy would be required to destroy an asteroid made up of X or Y elements. I can hang with this. That is all true, but the problem is that the writers don't seem to know jack about these issues. They didn't sit down and say, "well, since asteroids are made up of nickel and iron composites, let's make the lasers capable of putting out X amount of power." The writers just made the scene for the effect.

Also, since Star Wars takes place in a galaxy "far far away," I think we can safely say that we really don't know what these asteroids are made out of...

Ah, hell... I think I put this in the wrong place. Sorry people!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-15 04:42am

Yo, superman, we are supposed to assume that the laws of physics hold true regardless of the universe. This is exactly what irratates people about overgunned Animated Series.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-01-15 04:48am

Oh, I agree. I am just wondering if maybe these asteroids could be made up of something else, especially the ones in Star Wars.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2003-01-15 09:22am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:You mean like how the photon torpedoes ripped the E-A apart in ST:VI? Or the Klingon BoP in the same movie (it took several)? Or maybe the torpedoes ripping apart the Defiant in "The Changing Face of Evil"?

I will say that we have seen a continual decline in the photon torpedo's firepower. Three were enough to disable a shielded Klingon D-7 battlecruiser and force it to withdraw in TOS - "The Elaan of Troyus". By the end of the TNG era, you aren't even seeing sizable explosions. Compare that to the detonation of six photorps in the Borg premiere episode (Q-Who (?)). That completely obscured the visible face of a Borg cube (about 1 square mile?) for a few seconds.

Re.: the ST6 incident. This is probably me, but I wonder if that torpedo that breached the Enterprise-A's hull didn't detonate until it was the other side of the Enterprise's hull, or if it didn't detonate at all. The battle was taking place at pretty close range, and the safty systems on the torpedo may have disabled the detonation system, leaving just an impressive-looking kE impact.

I haven't seen all of 'Changing Face of Evil', and what I saw, I only saw once a year ago. However, considering how heavily armoured the Defiant-nil was, it is possible that a lot of the torpedo explosive yield was absorbed in tearing through the armour. Alternately, it might not have been torpedoes at all. My memory is a bit hazy, but those attacks looked more like disruptor blasts to me.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-15 03:29pm

The Silence and I wrote:(1) Blame the idiotic writers, and especially the special effects people, who just don't realize how powerful Trek should be. It is stated early on than photon torps are powered by antimatter. And what do we get? Chemical weapon yields based on visuals! What's worse, they can't even be consistent about it! In ST-TMP, a single torp largely vaporised a sizable asteroid. In ST-5 a torp appears to do less than an artillery shell! I don't care if it was supposed to detonate underground, it still was supposed to be an antimatter detonation! What about the gamma rays! Pegasis gives KT level, Generations shows lousy firepower, ST-6 shows a hull breach, Q-Who? states they are dangerous to themselves, Yesterday's Enterprise shows minute flashes of light, Skin of Evil shows a 400+km explosion that dissipates too quickly to be even MT range, ST-N hardly showed explosions at all, the list goes on and on and on.

(2) Because even when the writers get it right, the effects crew screws up. Example that comes to mind is Booby Trap (TNG). Four (I think) torps are fired in an asteroid field. The screen play says there was massive damage to the field, nearby asteroids are destroided, etc. What do we see? Four small fireballs that manage to destroy a powerless cruiser, but leave the asteroids untouched.

Are'nt torpedoes loaded with AM at the last minute, allowing for variable yields and safety. This might explain the incident in STV

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-01-15 06:30pm

As Michael said, it's unrealistic to think that a two meter long
casing could simply be filled with antimatter for a big warhead.

We don't really know how much AM is in a storage
pod--you know, the stuff that they store AM in to feed the warp
core--but those things are quite large for a reason. AM isn't
friendly stuff. Containing it alone is a pretty big deal.

Torpedoes are essentially smaller versions of an AM pod, so they not
only must have some kind of containment innerworkings (which
are pretty bulky even if we consider the vastly smaller scale),
they need guidance systems too. And I use "guidance" loosely

They also have some kind of warp field sustainment junk,
as evident by the fact that Worf's ex-girlfriend got to the
E-D inside a torpedo tube (not to mention the instances in
which torpedoes travel FTL for short periods, though off-hand
I can think of no such incident). Pair all of that with the
torpedo's miniaturized shield generators, assuming all torpedoes
are fitted with them (could help explain why BoP torpedoes
could slip through the E-D's own shields).

The more stuff you cram into a torpedo that isn't a warhead
leaves all the less room *for* a big warhead.

Still, I understand what you mean. After all, torpedoes usually
act like fire-and-forget devices for the most part, so you wonder
how much worse they could possibly fare by stripping the things
of some seemingly worthless guidance systems to spare room
for a bigger warhead...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why are Trek weapons so weak?

Why are Trek weapons so weak?

Re: Why are Trek weapons so weak?

Re: Why are Trek weapons so weak?

Weak? Well, it is all relative

Re: Why are Trek weapons so weak?

Torpedo effects - Highly variable