What are the current Trek numbers?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 01:42am

I'm wondering because I've seen a lot of people using the old MT level ratings, and I'm wondering if those are still accurate for torpedo yields. Has my calculation from "Nemesis" thrown the balance, or do we chalk that up to discrepency and stick with our older numbers from TNG and DS9? Which do you guys think is more reliable?

ali-sama · Post by **ali-sama** » 2003-02-09 02:37am

Master of Ossus wrote:I'm wondering because I've seen a lot of people using the old MT level ratings, and I'm wondering if those are still accurate for torpedo yields. Has my calculation from "Nemesis" thrown the balance, or do we chalk that up to discrepency and stick with our older numbers from TNG and DS9? Which do you guys think is more reliable?

may I see them?

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-02-09 01:54pm

Yea I'm still using the old ones only to sparingly help the Trekkies more...if it's the more accurate one heh.

Main reason i'm still using the old ones is because I haven't "seen" the new version.

Cyaround,
Jason

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-09 01:58pm

heh. I started a thread like this. It fell into oblivion because no one wanted to respond.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 02:56pm

ali-sama wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:I'm wondering because I've seen a lot of people using the old MT level ratings, and I'm wondering if those are still accurate for torpedo yields. Has my calculation from "Nemesis" thrown the balance, or do we chalk that up to discrepency and stick with our older numbers from TNG and DS9? Which do you guys think is more reliable?
may I see them?

Of course.

I wrote:Now for some quick calculations. We don't know how much the E-E masses, nor what its actual volume is, but we can get a reasonable idea. The length of the ship is about 680 meters. Its beam is 240 meters, and its height is 87 meters1. For these calculations, it will be assumed that the ship is a perfect, rectangular box. It clearly is not, and its actual volume is likely somewhere between one half, and one quarter of the volume here calculated. Now, that gives the E-E a volume of 14,198,400 cubic meters. Assuming that the ship's density is that of iron, the ship will thus mass a total of 1.07E11 kilograms (This could, theoretically, be low. It's possible that the ship would be more dense than iron, but it would have to be far more dense in order to raise the total mass of the actual ship beyond the one here calculated. Remember that the ship is filled with empty space, including a long shaft shown in this very movie, with lots of lightweight plastic and ceramic-looking parts.). The collision speed was 30 meters/second. We can easily plug these numbers in to a KE calculator, and we find that the ship did ½(1.07E11*30²) = 4.81E13 joules to the Scimitar. Now, this is still being very generous. Remember that the E-E took substantial damage from the collision- indicating that it also absorbed a considerable amount of the impact energy itself. It also disregards the mass lightening effect of ST ships, which would lower this even further. Thus, this should be treated as a fairly high-end estimate of the amount of energy involved in the collision.

In any case, the shields of the Scimitar were lowered from seventy percent to zero, and the E-E continued on as if nothing had happened. Let us, however, assume for the moment that the Scimitar did manage to stop the E-E using just its shields. This would mean that the Scimitar has shielding equal to 4.81E13 joules, or the equivalent of less than 15 kilotons. It further means that all of the weapons fire that struck the Scimitar during the battle was the equivalent of just 5 kilotons! Most of the E-E's weaponry missed its target. According to Gil Hamilton's count2, at least eight torpedoes and three quantum torpedoes hit the Scimitar, as well as numerous phaser and disruptor shots. If we assume that only photon torpedoes hit the Scimitar, and that the quantum torpedoes and phasers and disruptors did no damage, we find that the yield of a photon torpedo is merely .625 kilotons. This means that an X-Wing can match a photon torpedo for firepower with just eleven shots!3 That calculation, incidentally, gives every possible advantage to Star Trek. It involves a lower limit for X-Wing firepower, and the enormously generous calculations above for both the collision, and for calculating the torpedo firepower.

You may also access them here:

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/index.html

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 02:57pm

Ender wrote:heh. I started a thread like this. It fell into oblivion because no one wanted to respond.

I think that people are afraid to use the new estimates, because they are so low. However, I also feel that they are more reliable than the previous estimates, which were based mainly on conjecture or extrapolation.

Volpent Eagle · Post by **Volpent Eagle** » 2003-02-09 06:56pm

How do you estimate a movie?

I like the star wars series and the first trek.

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2003-02-09 07:18pm

SUPER ATOMIC POKE OF DOOOOOM!!!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-09 07:21pm

Volpent Eagle wrote:How do you estimate a movie?

I like the star wars series and the first trek.

It's estimates on weapons power. Like if you see a weapon destroy a certain amount of rock, since you know the characteristics of rock, you can estimate the power of the weapon.

You should read Mike's page before posting a lot. And read announcements.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 08:08pm

Volpent Eagle wrote:How do you estimate a movie?

I like the star wars series and the first trek.

It's an estimate on the weapons firepower, dumbass.

Khemri · Post by **Khemri** » 2003-02-09 08:11pm

I personally put Trek weapons at more or less than half a kiloton from Evidence in "Nemesis", "Pegasus", and "The Survivors".

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 08:13pm

Khemri wrote:I personally put Trek weapons at more or less than half a kiloton from Evidence in "Nemesis", "Pegasus", and "The Survivors".

That would, then, force a re-evaluation of the previously pretty set B5 vs. ST debate, because those numbers ARE too low to simply hand the debate to ST.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-09 09:37pm

Just something I have noticed.

I keep hearing people say "I use the old numbers to throw Trek a bone". Funny. Every debate I have been in when Trek gets pit against someone other then the Empire, I have yet to see ANYONE actually go by the "old" numbers. Instead I constantly see sub MT level and even a not so rare sub KT level claim on Trek weapons.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 09:43pm

Alyeska wrote:Just something I have noticed.

I keep hearing people say "I use the old numbers to throw Trek a bone". Funny. Every debate I have been in when Trek gets pit against someone other then the Empire, I have yet to see ANYONE actually go by the "old" numbers. Instead I constantly see sub MT level and even a not so rare sub KT level claim on Trek weapons.

Where is this? If you're going to use the old numbers, then you've got to use a 64 MT max yield for torps (divided by two for most "hard" targets, to account for the explosion pattern).

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-09 09:58pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Just something I have noticed.

I keep hearing people say "I use the old numbers to throw Trek a bone". Funny. Every debate I have been in when Trek gets pit against someone other then the Empire, I have yet to see ANYONE actually go by the "old" numbers. Instead I constantly see sub MT level and even a not so rare sub KT level claim on Trek weapons.
Where is this? If you're going to use the old numbers, then you've got to use a 64 MT max yield for torps (divided by two for most "hard" targets, to account for the explosion pattern).

Just about every single thread in the other scifi has people stating that the most powerful Trek weapons are maybe 1 or 2 MT.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-02-09 10:02pm

That's because they are. Most people seem to throw Trek a 64 MT bone when refering to anything Empire, and I'm seeing low MT couple hundred KT statements for them in debates w/ other SF.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-02-09 10:03pm

[quote="Alyeska']Just about every single thread in the other scifi has people stating that the most powerful Trek weapons are maybe 1 or 2 MT.[/quote]

And people say Warsies are the most unfair ones?

But, to be honest, I don't get into vs debates much, really. I just felt like posting a crude attempt at a joke.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-02-09 10:15pm

Alyeska wrote:Just something I have noticed.

I keep hearing people say "I use the old numbers to throw Trek a bone". Funny. Every debate I have been in when Trek gets pit against someone other then the Empire, I have yet to see ANYONE actually go by the "old" numbers. Instead I constantly see sub MT level and even a not so rare sub KT level claim on Trek weapons.

I have always used 40 MT type 12s, 50 MT PTs, and 150 MT Qts. The only times I have ever used lower numbers is to absolutly prove Trek would win, and even then I end up with MT range.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 11:32pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Ender wrote:heh. I started a thread like this. It fell into oblivion because no one wanted to respond.
I think that people are afraid to use the new estimates, because they are so low. However, I also feel that they are more reliable than the previous estimates, which were based mainly on conjecture or extrapolation.

Like sub kiloton calcs are anything new? You should talk to Ted C.. he seems to thinka long the lines you do

another good person to check with might be seanrobertson if you wanted to discuss the issue with him.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 11:35pm

Eh. I think Alyeska might have a point. I mean if you're going to use low end, use them. Its rather condescending to be given the "benefit of the doubt" in a debate that may very well be already lost (in one way or another)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 11:37pm

And the "already lost" comment is pretty much already considered factual by most reasonable trekkies I could think of, at least on the industrial advantage/fleet size aspect alone.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-02-09 11:38pm

w00t! B5+ST=B5 ownage!

Never got how anyone could think that photorps are 64mt.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-09 11:39pm

SolidSnake wrote:w00t! B5+ST=B5 ownage!

Never got how anyone could think that photorps are 64mt.

You needn't be an ass.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 11:55pm

SolidSnake wrote:w00t! B5+ST=B5 ownage!

Never got how anyone could think that photorps are 64mt.

Considering your regard for Shep, that doesnt say much about your understanding of much in general.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-02-10 12:22am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
SolidSnake wrote:w00t! B5+ST=B5 ownage!

Never got how anyone could think that photorps are 64mt.
Considering your regard for Shep, that doesnt say much about your understanding of much in general.

First, why dont you lick my anal rim, you gibbering cretin. Shep and I have completely different politics. I dont agree with half the shit he says, but i think overall, he's a cool guy.

Second, give me one example... One fucking example on photorps demonstrating anything near 60 MT.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What are the current Trek numbers?

What are the current Trek numbers?

Re: What are the current Trek numbers?

Re: What are the current Trek numbers?