Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Norade]

1. It is not bullshit it is fact we cannot use that scene to determine the max yield of a torpedo.

2. We are not discussing other torpedo hits of lesser or greater magnitude we are discussing that one.

3. Considering we know that firstly trek uses mass lightening and secondly even nowadays we can create Deuterium with a density of 140 kg/cm3 (ultra-dense deuterium) the volume of the warhead is not really a issue.

1) Show me an instance of higher demonstrated firepower from a torpedo then or this is the highest we've ever observed and thus should be assumed to be the highest they can use.

2) Other hits are relevant for determining how close to maximum yield this hit was.

3) Yet we have no evidence they use anywhere near this density in their weapons or that this would be in any way effective in a weapons capacity where you need a large number of individual particles to interact. Dense pellets don't do this.

[Lord Helmet]

1) Show me an instance of higher demonstrated firepower from a torpedo then or this is the highest we've ever observed and thus should be assumed to be the highest they can use.

Skin of evil and the die is cast both have much higher yield examples, other examples from TOS show a very large AOE for photon torpedoes.

2) Other hits are relevant for determining how close to maximum yield this hit was.

As per the examples above the example is very low.

3) Yet we have no evidence they use anywhere near this density in their weapons or that this would be in any way effective in a weapons capacity where you need a large number of individual particles to interact. Dense pellets don't do this.

Actually if we accept that they do use such densities it solves the refueling issues for long missions and torpedo yields it is also very close to making sense of Datas comment in true Q as the "per" could be "per cubic cm of ultra-dense M/AM".


The oddities of trek M/AM are not just limited to density, it cannot be mixed cold as per "the naked time", it can be "deactivated" as per "the doomsday machine" and how it can "rip away half the planets atmosphere" and knock the ship around from the blast wave even though the ship was in a reasonably high orbit in "Obsession"

[Norade]

1) Show me an instance of higher demonstrated firepower from a torpedo then or this is the highest we've ever observed and thus should be assumed to be the highest they can use.

Skin of evil and the die is cast both have much higher yield examples, other examples from TOS show a very large AOE for photon torpedoes.

A screen cap of TDiC from Youtube shows the planet is almost exactly a 250 pixel radius. The largest burst we see that doesn't just fade to little rings of smoke is roughly 11 pixels in radius, or 280 kilometers. However this doesn't appear to be a proper fireball as the effect of an explosion that large would linger for much longer than we see on screen with each blast fading in roughly 2 seconds. A real bomb creating a fireball of 280 kilometers would have a fireball lasting for well over an hour. As there is no way that a higher yield weapon could possibly have a fireball of shorter duration we can rule that out as the mushroom cloud or explosion created by these torpedoes.

This means that we can't use a nuclear effects calculator on those explosions to determine yield as they are clearly not high yield explosions as we know them. So what could they be? They could be clouds illuminated by the light from the explosions and phasers as the world is heavily over cast. This would explain a lot as the light from the Tsar bomb was visible from 1,000 kilometers away. Thus the effects we see on screen, a bright blob that expands into wide bright rings would actually give us a yield of around that of the Tsar bomb, though with a much diminished fireball and more radiation released in the form of light both visible and invisible to the frequencies the view screen was showing.

If we assume that the torpedo seen blowing up the asteroid was 200% larger than the Tsar bomb then the largest that rock could be is around 370 meters, if the torpedo was only the same as the technical manual listing of 64 megatons that would be a rock 255 meters. Thus far even RSA would have to admit that 64 megatons for a torpedo would be. TDiC shows nothing that we wouldn't expect from a 64 megaton device that is designed to emit radiation instead of create a massive fireball. It also fails to show anything like destruction of 30% of the crust.

2) Other hits are relevant for determining how close to maximum yield this hit was.

As per the examples above the example is very low.

Actually, as I've shown it's bang on for high end yield if we accept RSA's numbers. If the rock is smaller than claimed then it might in fact be a lower yield device.

3) Yet we have no evidence they use anywhere near this density in their weapons or that this would be in any way effective in a weapons capacity where you need a large number of individual particles to interact. Dense pellets don't do this.

Actually if we accept that they do use such densities it solves the refueling issues for long missions and torpedo yields it is also very close to making sense of Datas comment in true Q as the "per" could be "per cubic cm of ultra-dense M/AM".

The oddities of trek M/AM are not just limited to density, it cannot be mixed cold as per "the naked time", it can be "deactivated" as per "the doomsday machine" and how it can "rip away half the planets atmosphere" and knock the ship around from the blast wave even though the ship was in a reasonably high orbit in "Obsession"

Then they either aren't using M/AM or it is occasionally used with other substances.

[Norade]

Note, I was working as if the world we see was Earth sized as I could find nothing on its actual size.

[Lord Helmet]

A screen cap of TDiC from Youtube shows the planet is almost exactly a 250 pixel radius. The largest burst we see that doesn't just fade to little rings of smoke is roughly 11 pixels in radius, or 280 kilometers. However this doesn't appear to be a proper fireball as the effect of an explosion that large would linger for much longer than we see on screen with each blast fading in roughly 2 seconds. A real bomb creating a fireball of 280 kilometers would have a fireball lasting for well over an hour. As there is no way that a higher yield weapon could possibly have a fireball of shorter duration we can rule that out as the mushroom cloud or explosion created by these torpedoes.

This means that we can't use a nuclear effects calculator on those explosions to determine yield as they are clearly not high yield explosions as we know them. So what could they be? They could be clouds illuminated by the light from the explosions and phasers as the world is heavily over cast. This would explain a lot as the light from the Tsar bomb was visible from 1,000 kilometers away. Thus the effects we see on screen, a bright blob that expands into wide bright rings would actually give us a yield of around that of the Tsar bomb, though with a much diminished fireball and more radiation released in the form of light both visible and invisible to the frequencies the view screen was showing.


If we assume that the torpedo seen blowing up the asteroid was 200% larger than the Tsar bomb then the largest that rock could be is around 370 meters, if the torpedo was only the same as the technical manual listing of 64 megatons that would be a rock 255 meters. Thus far even RSA would have to admit that 64 megatons for a torpedo would be. TDiC shows nothing that we wouldn't expect from a 64 megaton device that is designed to emit radiation instead of create a massive fireball. It also fails to show anything like destruction of 30% of the crust.

What makes you think the detonations are on or above the surface of the planet?.

Then we have the fact that the explosions did expand over the distances you mentioned in such a short space of time (in TDIC and skin of evil), a explosion expanding to 280km in diameter or so in a tiny fraction of a second has considerable energy.

Then they either aren't using M/AM or it is occasionally used with other substances.

We know they must use other substances due to the trilithium resin and other oddities the warp engines produce.

Note, I was working as if the world we see was Earth sized as I could find nothing on its actual size.

A reasonable assumption considering it had earth gravity as per Odo and Kira ect strolling about on it.

[Norade]

A screen cap of TDiC from Youtube shows the planet is almost exactly a 250 pixel radius. The largest burst we see that doesn't just fade to little rings of smoke is roughly 11 pixels in radius, or 280 kilometers. However this doesn't appear to be a proper fireball as the effect of an explosion that large would linger for much longer than we see on screen with each blast fading in roughly 2 seconds. A real bomb creating a fireball of 280 kilometers would have a fireball lasting for well over an hour. As there is no way that a higher yield weapon could possibly have a fireball of shorter duration we can rule that out as the mushroom cloud or explosion created by these torpedoes.

This means that we can't use a nuclear effects calculator on those explosions to determine yield as they are clearly not high yield explosions as we know them. So what could they be? They could be clouds illuminated by the light from the explosions and phasers as the world is heavily over cast. This would explain a lot as the light from the Tsar bomb was visible from 1,000 kilometers away. Thus the effects we see on screen, a bright blob that expands into wide bright rings would actually give us a yield of around that of the Tsar bomb, though with a much diminished fireball and more radiation released in the form of light both visible and invisible to the frequencies the view screen was showing.


If we assume that the torpedo seen blowing up the asteroid was 200% larger than the Tsar bomb then the largest that rock could be is around 370 meters, if the torpedo was only the same as the technical manual listing of 64 megatons that would be a rock 255 meters. Thus far even RSA would have to admit that 64 megatons for a torpedo would be. TDiC shows nothing that we wouldn't expect from a 64 megaton device that is designed to emit radiation instead of create a massive fireball. It also fails to show anything like destruction of 30% of the crust.

What makes you think the detonations are on or above the surface of the planet?.

Then we have the fact that the explosions did expand over the distances you mentioned in such a short space of time (in TDIC and skin of evil), a explosion expanding to 280km in diameter or so in a tiny fraction of a second has considerable energy.

The explosions would have to be on or above the surface of the planet, unless you're suggesting they were below the surface which only makes the weapons less effective.

Yes, but that means they aren't explosions as I explained above. There is no way a greater explosive yield can have a fireball of shorter duration than a modern nuclear device. Thus those need to be flashes from the initial burst filtering through the clouds. They simply can't be anything else.

Then they either aren't using M/AM or it is occasionally used with other substances.

We know they must use other substances due to the trilithium resin and other oddities the warp engines produce.

So unquantifiable substances may change how torpedoes work, but it's so inconsistent as to be worthless to try to analyze what does what and how.

[Lord Helmet]

The explosions would have to be on or above the surface of the planet, unless you're suggesting they were below the surface which only makes the weapons less effective.

For all the fleet knew the founders were the surface (they were at least a large lake or sea) as such subsurface detonations would apply all the energy to the target.

Yes, but that means they aren't explosions as I explained above. There is no way a greater explosive yield can have a fireball of shorter duration than a modern nuclear device. Thus those need to be flashes from the initial burst filtering through the clouds. They simply can't be anything else.

This ignores the fact that we actually see the explosion and fireball expand in skin of evil.

So unquantifiable substances may change how torpedoes work, but it's so inconsistent as to be worthless to try to analyze what does what and how.

That is why you quantify them with the the effect they have or the effect they are noted to have as you have to do with phasers due to funkyness.

We know that phasers can disintegrate large quantities of material with no explosive results that DET weapons would produce as such the comment "equivalent effect" really needs to proceed any claim of energy output from trek weapons.

[Norade]

The explosions would have to be on or above the surface of the planet, unless you're suggesting they were below the surface which only makes the weapons less effective.

For all the fleet knew the founders were the surface (they were at least a large lake or sea) as such subsurface detonations would apply all the energy to the target.

Except that we've proven IRL that this isn't actually the case. The best way to kill things is almost always going to be with air bursts. Given that anything that has the ability to survive with roughly human anatomy shouldn't be able to survive any significant depth we can figure that the shock wave from an airburst would effect a larger area and thus kill more.

Yes, but that means they aren't explosions as I explained above. There is no way a greater explosive yield can have a fireball of shorter duration than a modern nuclear device. Thus those need to be flashes from the initial burst filtering through the clouds. They simply can't be anything else.

This ignores the fact that we actually see the explosion and fireball in skin of evil.

Were these fireballs more two second puffs? Or were they the good sixty plus second lingering balls of death that we should expect?

So unquantifiable substances may change how torpedoes work, but it's so inconsistent as to be worthless to try to analyze what does what and how.

That is why you quantify them with the the effect they have or the effect they are noted to have as you have to do with phasers due to funkyness.

We know that phasers can disintegrate large quantities of material with no explosive results that DET weapons would produce as such the comment "equivalent effect" really needs to proceed any claim of energy output from trek weapons.

Except that torpedo effects seem to vary a huge amount from doing less damage than the empty casing should do, to destroying decently large rocks. That said, the highest end we've seen can easily fit with the TM's 64 megaton weapons.

[Lord Helmet]

Except that we've proven IRL that this isn't actually the case. The best way to kill things is almost always going to be with air bursts. Given that anything that has the ability to survive with roughly human anatomy shouldn't be able to survive any significant depth we can figure that the shock wave from an airburst would effect a larger area and thus kill more.

We are discussing beings that can exist as light, fire, rock and who knows what else and for a fact know they have nothing like a human anatomy.

Were these fireballs more two second puffs? Or were they the good sixty plus second lingering balls of death that we should expect?

They were fireballs that expanded 300+km in a fraction of a second, the impact of a blast wave traveling at that sort of speed is going to pulverise anything and dwarfs the damage a standard nukes tiny (relatively) fireball would do.

Except that torpedo effects seem to vary a huge amount from doing less damage than the empty casing should do, to destroying decently large rocks. That said, the highest end we've seen can easily fit with the TM's 64 megaton weapons.

In regards to effect we have examples of much greater yields as long as we do not limit our viewpoint to the duration of the fireball and if even if we do (wrongly) give the TM's canon status that allows us to give photons a 690gt yield (DS9 manual) and main phasers on a intrepid class the ability to disintigrate the entire surface of a earth type planet (Voyager manual).

[Norade]

Except that we've proven IRL that this isn't actually the case. The best way to kill things is almost always going to be with air bursts. Given that anything that has the ability to survive with roughly human anatomy shouldn't be able to survive any significant depth we can figure that the shock wave from an airburst would effect a larger area and thus kill more.

We are discussing beings that can exist as light, fire, rock and who knows what else and for a fact know they have nothing like a human anatomy.

Okay, still no reason to assume they lived deep enough to require a sub surface detonation.

Were these fireballs more two second puffs? Or were they the good sixty plus second lingering balls of death that we should expect?

They were fireballs that expanded 300+km in a fraction of a second, the impact of a blast wave traveling at that sort of speed is going to pulverise anything and dwarfs the damage a standard nukes tiny (relatively) fireball would do.

Except that those couldn't have been purely fireballs as they would have burnt for longer than a few seconds. What part of a fireball from anything larger than the Tsar bomb would burn longer and brighter is hard for you to understand.

Except that torpedo effects seem to vary a huge amount from doing less damage than the empty casing should do, to destroying decently large rocks. That said, the highest end we've seen can easily fit with the TM's 64 megaton weapons.

In regards to effect we have examples of much greater yields as long as we do not limit our viewpoint to the duration of the fireball and if even if we do (wrongly) give the TM's canon status that allows us to give photons a 690gt yield (DS9 manual) and main phasers on a intrepid class the ability to disintigrate the entire surface of a earth type planet (Voyager manual).

Show me a way that they could have a lower duration fireball. Wait, you can't. Until you can show evidence that a high yield explosive weapon would not produce a fireball that lingers as long as a modern nuke you haven't a leg to stand on.

Also, those TM's would be wrong as they are back up by on screen events that show a far lower firepower even in situations where using maximum force would be prudent.

[Azron_Stoma]

I was the first member on this board I believe who heard of the 690gt Photon torpedo nonsense, which has no basis in the Tech manual it's claimed to be from (Always claimed to be from the TNG tech manual btw, not the DS9 one.) and of course is disproven on screen in Voyager "Dreadnought" where a 43 gigaton weapon at best is considered a super weapon, which effectively derails the 690gt myth (Which only came into being after the ICS books were published btw) The supposed "evidence" comes from a misreading of this line in the TNG Tech manual regarding photon torpedoes.

"While the maximum payload of antimatter in a standard photon torpedo is only about 1.5 kilograms, The released energy per unit time is actually greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." pg 129

Note the use of "per unit time" in this quote, I'm not even going to bother even speculating or researching the energy of an antimatter pod rupture in any way because it's completely irrelevant. All this line is saying is that a Photon torpedo releases it's energy faster than that of an antimatter storage pod going up. Which makes perfect sense given the fact that a Photon torpedo is Designed to blow up as quickly and as efficiently as possible when it's supposed to. Meanwhile an antimatter storage pod is designed to do anything but.

Those who propose the absurd 690gt figure blithely ignore the "per unit time" part of the sentance, as well as the 1.5 kilogram maximum payload. Possibly using white out on it in their books.

[Norade]

Yeah, 690GT torpedoes sounded a little off. Thanks for clearing that one up.

[Lord Helmet]

Okay, still no reason to assume they lived deep enough to require a sub surface detonation.

You mean apart from the fact they could be the surface (and were in regards to being a large lake or sea) and have no above surface structures and are nothing like human?.

In fact the only structure we see is subsurface as that is where sisko ect are being held.

Show me a way that they could have a lower duration fireball. Wait, you can't. Until you can show evidence that a high yield explosive weapon would not produce a fireball that lingers as long as a modern nuke you haven't a leg to stand on.

I really do not need to show you anything apart from the canon fact that the fireball expands 300+km in a fraction of a second, now you may want to focus on the duration for obvious reasons but the destructive blast wave traveling at that speed is the real money shot.

Also, those TM's would be wrong as they are back up by on screen events that show a far lower firepower even in situations where using maximum force would be prudent.

As long as you not only limit your perspective to the nuke calculator and not just that but to the duration part of it (for rather obvious reasons) you are always going to hit the same problem when discussing photon torpedoes and phasers as well for that matter.

I was the first member on this board I believe who heard of the 690gt Photon torpedo nonsense, which has no basis in the Tech manual it's claimed to be from (Always claimed to be from the TNG tech manual btw, not the DS9 one.) and of course is disproven on screen in Voyager "Dreadnought" where a 43 gigaton weapon at best is considered a super weapon, which effectively derails the 690gt myth (Which only came into being after the ICS books were published btw) The supposed "evidence" comes from a misreading of this line in the TNG Tech manual regarding photon torpedoes.

TNG Tech Manual wrote:
"While the maximum payload of antimatter in a standard photon torpedo is only about 1.5 kilograms, The released energy per unit time is actually greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." pg 129

Note the use of "per unit time" in this quote, I'm not even going to bother even speculating or researching the energy of an antimatter pod rupture in any way because it's completely irrelevant. All this line is saying is that a Photon torpedo releases it's energy faster than that of an antimatter storage pod going up. Which makes perfect sense given the fact that a Photon torpedo is Designed to blow up as quickly and as efficiently as possible when it's supposed to. Meanwhile an antimatter storage pod is designed to do anything but.

Those who propose the absurd 690gt figure blithely ignore the "per unit time" part of the sentance, as well as the 1.5 kilogram maximum payload. Possibly using white out on it in their books.

Firstly it was not a superweapon it was a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and destroy a enemy base, essentially a crewless ship flown by a adative AI with weapons and shields ect.

You are not the first to "blithely ignore" that little detail although i will not try to guess the method you use to do so.


I remember seeing the 690gt comment but i thoght it was from the DS9 manual.

[Azron_Stoma]

Firstly it was not a superweapon it was a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and destroy a enemy base, essentially a crewless ship flown by a adative AI with weapons and shields ect.

You are not the first to "blithely ignore" that little detail although i will not try to guess the method you use to do so.

Uh no, it WAS a Superweapon, it carried a payload of 1 ton of antimatter and 1 ton of normal matter, enough to, in Tuvok's words "Blow up a small moon"

43 gigatons (the max theoretical yield of said 1 ton m/am payload) is enough to destroy a moon like say, phobos or deimos.

How is something that carries the yield of over 671 photon torpedoes NOT a Superweapon?

[Lord Helmet]

Uh no, it WAS a Super-weapon

Because you say so?.

it carried a payload of 1 ton of antimatter and 1 ton of normal matter, enough to, in Tuvok's words "Blow up a small moon"

43 gigatons (the max theoretical yield of said 1 ton m/am payload) is enough to destroy a moon like say, Phobos or Deimos.

And in your mind that qualifies it for super-weapon status over the canon fact it was a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and destroy a base?.

You may want it to be a super weapon and you are obviously welcome to think of it as such but there are far greater weapons and warheads in trek that qualify for such titles as "super-weapons".

Modifying a photon torpedo to pop a star or planet or even modifying material from the engines to scour the surface of a planet clean of mountains and seas or to totally obliterate a life form much larger than earth ect ect.

How is something that carries the yield of over 671 photon torpedoes NOT a Super-weapon?

Firstly when it does not carry the yield of 671 photon torpedoes and secondly when in canon it is a tactical weapon.


But i am willing to accept any material you have where it is referred to as a "super-weapon" if you have any, it goes without saying that it will need to be canon material and not a product of your imagination obviously.

[Azron_Stoma]

Lmao, are you honestly trying to use the fact that it's an Interstellar Balistic Missile as some evidence AGAINST it being a superweapon?!

Firstly when it does not carry the yield of 671 photon torpedoes and secondly when in canon it is a tactical weapon.

Oh okay fine, it carries roughy 666 times the payload (1000 / 1.5 = 666.6R) the 671x was from the 43000/64 = 671.875 which was more of a rough estimate (hell I even rounded down).

It's more like a Strategic weapon than a Tactical one, blowing up a small moon = Well beyond the capabilties of a Photon torpedo, or even an entire ship-full of photon torpedoes (TNG: Pegasus). a Tactical Weapon would be one that only carries the power of a regular torpedo (or maybe five to ten) not hundreds. It would take 3 galaxy classes firing most of their torpedoes all in one salvo to match the yield of the Dreadnought. That (at least as far as I'm concerned) is a Superweapon. It may not be on the order of a trilithium sun exploder or biogenic weaponry, but it still counts. (much like how an atom bomb isn't on the order of a hydrogen bomb, but both are still super weapons.)

This isn't some 24th century cruise missile, it's an ISBM.

[Captain Seafort]

I wish people would stop repeating this myth. In Pegasus, they considered blowing the shit out of the asteroid as being a realistic option - they could do it, but the commanders decided it wasn't the best way to achieve their real objective of recovery while avoiding the Romulans.

It would also have taken most of their torpedoes to do it. Given the size of the asteroid and the number of torpedoes the ship carries, this makes a PT about 1 Mt. This fits well with Rise, which also makes a torpedo about a megaton, and BoBW/Deja Q which make phasers about 100kT/sec. This is considerably less than the 43GT warhead on Dreadnought.

[Captain Seafort]

That 1 MT is based on a number of shaky assumptions too (I'd put it closer to 10; about the same ballpark as the TM number)... but indeed, it's certainly less than the big thing.

While it's certainly only a rough figure, if anything I'd say it's an overestimate in both cases, as it assumes the asteroids are solid cylinders. They're clearly much less voluminous than that.

[Lord Helmet]

Lmao, are you honestly trying to use the fact that it's an Interstellar Balistic Missile as some evidence AGAINST it being a superweapon?!

No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

Oh okay fine, it carries roughly 666 times the payload (1000 / 1.5 = 666.6R) the 671x was from the 43000/64 = 671.875 which was more of a rough estimate (hell I even rounded down).

And again you use non-canon material.

You do know that the tech manuals and the 1.5kg of m/am material that is from them is not canon right?.

It's more like a Strategic weapon than a Tactical one, blowing up a small moon = Well beyond the capabilities of a Photon torpedo, or even an entire ship-full of photon torpedoes (TNG: Pegasus). a Tactical Weapon would be one that only carries the power of a regular torpedo (or maybe five to ten) not hundreds. It would take 3 galaxy classes firing most of their torpedoes all in one salvo to match the yield of the Dreadnought. That (at least as far as I'm concerned) is a Superweapon. It may not be on the order of a trilithium sun exploder or biogenic weaponry, but it still counts. (much like how an atom bomb isn't on the order of a hydrogen bomb, but both are still super weapons.)

This isn't some 24th century cruise missile, it's an ISBM.

Again you are welcome to call it a "superduperwhoppaweapon" if you wish but unless you can provide material supporting it being designated such it is merely a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and take out a base and a marquis base at that (so likely small and poorly defended/shielded).

TNG: Pegasus is a oddity in several regards like some of the attributes of the asteroid in question as well as the effect they wanted to achieve, they also wanted to destroy it before the Romulans could close and gain any tech so Riker could have more likely been referring to the torpedoes they had actually loaded in the tubes ready to fire rather than the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire.

[Metahive]

No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

What would that be? And don't give me any one-off deals or accidents like Genesis, the Soliton wave or any of the various sunbusters. The dreadnaught missile was projected to kill two million people upon impact of a heavily populated class M world, anything in canon magnitudes above that?

[Captain Seafort]

I'm willing to say most of that is hidden in the order of magnitude estimate except for the underkilling aspect of the asteroid calculator. Scaling is surely imprecise too, but 10m x 10m x 10m fragments of hard rock shaken loose from a big boom is well below what's needed to wreck ship equipment in the given asteroid.

Why? The fact that there are inefficiencies is more than made up for by the extremely rough scaling. You also don't need to worry about the ship too much - simply use the PTs to smash the asteroid and you'll expose the ship. Any big lumps can be mopped up with phaser fire.

The Rise rock also fits very well with the 1 Mt figure. I make it to be 2.2 Mt assuming vaporisation and again modelling the rock as a cylinder. Since it's a) not a solid cylinder and b) was not expected to be vaporised, this is obviously an overestimate. Finally, phasers at 100 kT/sec would require 5 seconds to match a single 1 Mt PT. At the 10 Mt you suggested earlier it would take almost a minute. The former fits better with the rough tactical equivalence we observe between the two than the latter.

[Azron_Stoma]

No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

Again just because they have more powerful weapons of the biological variety (remember the feds can't "pop" stars, only the Dominion and 1 El Aurian have shown to have that ability) doesn't mean this is not a super weapon, it's certainly not a conventional one.

You do know that the tech manuals and the 1.5kg of m/am material that is from them is not canon right?.

Obviously, but it's more in line with what we see on screen for the torpedoes, especially if we take efficiency and blast pattern into account.

Again you are welcome to call it a "superduperwhoppaweapon" if you wish but unless you can provide material supporting it being designated such it is merely a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and take out a base and a marquis base at that (so likely small and poorly defended/shielded).

Lol if it was small and poorly defended I doubt a < 43 gigaton weapon would be nessescary.

You can repeat the same "tactical weapon designed to blah blah blah" It doesn't change the fact that the weapon carries more firepower than at LEAST 2 and a half galaxy class photon torpedo payloads, and that's being generous. I don't need them to explicitly say it's a super weapon on screen, as they clearly treat it as one.

TNG: Pegasus is a oddity in several regards like some of the attributes of the asteroid in question as well as the effect they wanted to achieve, they also wanted to destroy it before the Romulans could close and gain any tech so Riker could have more likely been referring to the torpedoes they had actually loaded in the tubes ready to fire rather than the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire. [/quite]

He stated that it would take "most of our torpedoes" no hint that he meant "most of our torpedoes we've already loaded" since they have no qualms about firing full spreads in relation to any sort of inventory. It's also hardly an oddity since it fits in pefectly with what we saw in Rise and TDiC as far as yields go, I guess the only oddity is that for once the dialogue actually supports the visuals (even if they are visuals from other episodes as we never saw them fire at the asteroid).

[Lord Helmet]

No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

What would that be? And don't give me any one-off deals or accidents like Genesis, the Soliton wave or any of the various sunbusters. The dreadnaught missile was projected to kill two million people upon impact of a heavily populated class M world, anything in canon magnitudes above that?

A weapon of a few kilotons could achieve that in spades easily by hitting a population center on a "heavily populated class M world" so quoting a projected death toll is really a poor way to judge yield.

Again just because they have more powerful weapons of the biological variety (remember the feds can't "pop" stars, only the Dominion and 1 El Aurian have shown to have that ability) doesn't mean this is not a super weapon, it's certainly not a conventional one.

A few modified photon torps nova'd a sun in half a life.

But regardless we cannot ascribe "superweapon" to a missile, well unless you happen to be head of Viacom or Paramount obviously..

Obviously, but it's more in line with what we see on screen for the torpedoes, especially if we take efficiency and blast pattern into account.

Again you are trying to ascribe nuke effects to weapons that obviously have little relation to such things, it is like ascribing DET to phasers it just does not work.

Lol if it was small and poorly defended I doubt a < 43 gigaton weapon would be necessary.

And yet every marquis base we saw was at best a small cave or village.

He stated that it would take "most of our torpedoes" no hint that he meant "most of our torpedoes we've already loaded" since they have no qualms about firing full spreads in relation to any sort of inventory. It's also hardly an oddity since it fits in perfectly with what we saw in Rise and TDiC as far as yields go, I guess the only oddity is that for once the dialog actually supports the visuals (even if they are visuals from other episodes as we never saw them fire at the asteroid).

Considering the time constraints regarding the nearby Romulan ship it makes perfect sense that he was referring to the torps in the tubes and not the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire and way longer than it would have taken the Warbird to fly over and start beaming over parts of the soon to be exposed ship. They also knew the ships position inside the asteroid so it also makes sense from the point that all they needed to do was blast away the area covering the ship and then blow the ship apart and we also know they can cut through normal rock with the ships phasers very easily and quickly to the sort of depth the ship was at.

There is no reason to assume that rise had the torps set to max and in fact it would be pointless for them to have done so and counter productive to the fact they tended to be low on fuel quite regularly.

TDIC was clearly stated to have destroyed a large amount of the planets surface, you cannot dispute direct canon material buddy.

[Norade]

Okay, still no reason to assume they lived deep enough to require a sub surface detonation.

You mean apart from the fact they could be the surface (and were in regards to being a large lake or sea) and have no above surface structures and are nothing like human?.

In fact the only structure we see is subsurface as that is where sisko ect are being held.

If they were the surface that's even less reason to detonate a nuke anywhere but above them.

Show me a way that they could have a lower duration fireball. Wait, you can't. Until you can show evidence that a high yield explosive weapon would not produce a fireball that lingers as long as a modern nuke you haven't a leg to stand on.

I really do not need to show you anything apart from the canon fact that the fireball expands 300+km in a fraction of a second, now you may want to focus on the duration for obvious reasons but the destructive blast wave traveling at that speed is the real money shot.

No, you really do need to show me how that fireball works otherwise it simply can't be a high yield explosion. No nuclear device tested in real life has a short duration fireball so you've got some explaining to do if you want anybody to buy that those 300+km blobs are fire caused by anything like a traditional explosion.

Also, those TM's would be wrong as they are backed up by on screen events that show a far lower firepower even in situations where using maximum force would be prudent.

As long as you not only limit your perspective to the nuke calculator and not just that but to the duration part of it (for rather obvious reasons) you are always going to hit the same problem when discussing photon torpedoes and phasers as well for that matter.

So as long as I ignore real life physics and make no attempt to analyze things...

[Azron_Stoma]

A few modified photon torps nova'd a sun in half a life.

That was already very unstable/dying, not a normal sun.

But regardless we cannot ascribe "superweapon" to a missile, well unless you happen to be head of Viacom or Paramount obviously..

Given it's obvious role, I don't have to be anyone of the kind.

Again you are trying to ascribe nuke effects to weapons that obviously have little relation to such things, it is like ascribing DET to phasers it just does not work.

Given what we know about M/AM reactions it's perfectly reasonable.

And yet every marquis base we saw was at best a small cave or village.

And we never heard of anything like the Dreadnought going after any of those.

snip'd unsubstantiated nonsense

We know that the proximity to the Romulans would have limited the timeframe, but your interpretation again doesn't jive with Riker pointing out the ammunition problem, which if they were just going to fire a few salvos he wouldn't have even brought up.

There is no reason to assume that rise had the torps set to max and in fact it would be pointless for them to have done so and counter productive to the fact they tended to be low on fuel quite regularly.

Then give us a clear example of greater firepower, you have yet to do so.

TDIC was clearly stated to have destroyed a large amount of the planets surface, you cannot dispute direct canon material buddy.

Yet we saw none of said destruction, it's only canon that they said it, not that it's true. Visuals Trump Dialogue and in this case 30% of the crust was obviously not destroyed, not even close.