Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech?

[Lord Helmet]

Did you read what you quoted me as saying? Kim was the one who scanned the asteroid, and he expected fragmentation (into much smaller pieces than were observed). Chakotay eyeballed it, and thought it would be vapourised.

They/Kim scanned the roid, they/he would have then reported/sent the findings ect to Tuvok and Tuvok would have set the yield of the torp appropriately. Chakotay's comment is pretty typical for most of the situations it is used in accross all sci-fi and even non-sci-fi considering that "vapourised" virtually never means vapourised in as factual sense.

The fact is that we cannot say for sure and it is actually very unlikely considering how things are done that the torp was set to max.

Bullshit. We've seen torpedo hits in other cases that were nowhere near that powerful and the maximum yield they could fit by volume and known warhead material isn't all that high.

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.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144

We saw no such aftermath in the case of the S8472 blast.......in fact, we didn't see any aftermath at all. Hence, we can only assume that the minimum firepower of the S8472 bioship cluster is 5E16 megatons, while the lone DS1 had a superlaser blast of 1E22 megatons.

As you could easy claim, that the blast caused by S8472 is around E30 megatons. (I do not care about the 5, because there is no reason to do so, if you are wiedling around the 10^X factors)

Do you have proof that only under those circumstances those calcs would be correct?

You mean: Do I have any proof that only the planet is factored in besidethe calculation itself?

Just freaking LOOK AT IT. Do you see anything about the solar system? No.

We're looking at a civilization that can build tens of thousands of mile long warships at a rate of several per day, and by a single manufacturer. They have ships which putter around at several thousand Gs. I think it's safe to say that they easily wield that much energy on a routine basis.

We are looking at a formular which could be handled by a 10 year old boy.

Assuming said nuclear blast is caused by a device with sufficient yield

Depending on the situation 20 megatons is more than enough.

WUT?

Jesus. One extream example where the rest of the solar system factors in quite extream.
In a normal solar system the gravitation between earth and sun is enough to keep us in orbit. Factored in? No.
The rotation energy (earth) is around 10^29 J. Faktored in?
All the kinetic energy of earth: 10^33 J.

You might want to look up how the gravitational binding energy is defined. It is the energy released if a nebula is becoming a planet.
(At least in the formula used)

@Darth Tedious

That assumption has one huge logical flaw- if every ship has DS-level firepower, they could have destroyed the planet with a single ship.

You will end up with this problem anyway. The only way to explain it away is giving the borg planetary shields which are quite able to absorb this much power.
It does not matter, if they have death star powerlevel, double death star power level, half death star power level, 1/1000 death star power level.
It quite leads to the same flaws. So hell, you do not blow it up with one shot, you shoot several times. You do not reduce it to dust but to some big rocks.Still, it is not done.

It also runs into massive problems when we compare it with other examples of firepowr we've seen in ST.

Well, what a surprise. And true for so many Movies, Series etc.

If single ships can one-shot planets, why did it take 30 ships to perform a BDZ in DS9:'The Die Is Cast'?

Why don't the borg use airborne nanobots?
(As always you may explain it away with the founders using some kind of shilds or forcefields to keep the planet stable)
(Not that it was my point, that in several hundred episodes one writer would break the barrier of sillyness)

If ship shields can withstand DS-level firepower, how did the Enterprise-D lose its shields to a 400 gigawatt particle beam in TNG:'The Survivors'?

The Enterprise D is quite older than the Voyager. And it was still able to withstand photon torpedos. (Which have under any assumption a quite higher yield) So there was something about this beam interacting with the shields. (I guess thats why the E-E got multiphase shields.)
(It gets even stranger, if you consider 7of9 is able to survive beeing hit by this amount of energy.)
So surprise: The technology in ST hase more than increase by the factor of 1000+++ between TNG and Voyager.
Darn it, there are several of similar problems within any movie, serie, PnP, computer game etc. (And that this is what I was saying all the freaking time)
You just try to hold on to the sillyness in StarWars while condeming the sillyness in StarTrek.
This is all I am saying.
Was the hole blow up Planet in Voyager silly? Yes, of course.
Was it silly in StarWars? Yes, of course.
Something like this is always silly.
If both StarTrek and StarWars would been written by Astrophysics, would they look different? Yes they would.
Would they be better as Movies? I doubt it.
Because silly, if it comes to physics is not silly if it comes to the story.

(I mean in StarWars it was a big problem to hit a hole with 1m radius (first death star).
Quote:"Not even a computer could do it."
Well, laser guided missiles from around 2000 had twice the precision.

Same thing with energy sources. The time StarWars was made it was all about fusion and fission. (The hyper matter was introduced later)
The time TNG was made it was about M/AM. (Which started to behave unlike anything in physics very soon)
The time SG was made it was about vacuum energy.
Well, if StarWars would be written today, I guess they would use ZPMs or something around this line.
@Norade

But nobody in an official capacity uses anything but kilotons or megatons for high yield weapons

Well, for now. I would not be so sure about that. Consider that TNT has not the importance it used to have.

[Darth Tedious]

That assumption has one huge logical flaw- if every ship has DS-level firepower, they could have destroyed the planet with a single ship.

You will end up with this problem anyway. The only way to explain it away is giving the borg planetary shields which are quite able to absorb this much power.

Like all your other explanations, it is a complete fabrication. We see the beam immediately interact with the planet itself.

Have another look (as if we haven't seen it enough times ).

The beam is fired from 0:31 to 0:37. If there was a planetary shield in place capable of absorbing over 10% of the beam's power (as you claim), it would have been observed.

Also note the visible asteroids from 0:52.
But feel free to keep claiming that the planet was entirely vapourised, and not blown into asteroids as Alderaan was. Apparently you are so obsessed with claiming that S8472's planet-killer was more powerful than the Death Star that you are willing to ignore the bleedingly fucking obvious.

It does not matter, if they have death star powerlevel, double death star power level, half death star power level, 1/1000 death star power level.
It quite leads to the same flaws.

If we assume the weapon must have been DET, then it does lead to those same flaws. If we consider that it was a chain reaction, it is reasonably consistant with everything else we've seen in Star Trek.
Of course, that would fuck up your claim that Voyager could lolpwn the Death Star...

It also runs into massive problems when we compare it with other examples of firepower we've seen in ST.

Well, what a surprise. And true for so many Movies, Series etc.

No. There are no demonstrations of firepower in the various series and films of the ST franchise that are as staggeringly inconsistant as your claim.

If single ships can one-shot planets, why did it take 30 ships to perform a BDZ in DS9:'The Die Is Cast'?

Why don't the borg use airborne nanobots?

Irrelevant.

(As always you may explain it away with the founders using some kind of shilds or forcefields to keep the planet stable)

No. We may not.

2:18 onwards.
There was no planetary shield.
Again, you are making fucking ridiculous assumptions to try and support your bullshit claims.
You might as well claim that the forces of Star Trek are on par with The Culture or the Xeelee.

(Not that it was my point, that in several hundred episodes one writer would break the barrier of sillyness)

Perhaps you should stop making bullshit side statements that don't relate to your point. Then you won't have to keep backpedalling from them.

If ship shields can withstand DS-level firepower, how did the Enterprise-D lose its shields to a 400 gigawatt particle beam in TNG:'The Survivors'?

The Enterprise D is quite older than the Voyager.

Really? You think technology got that much better in 7 years?

So surprise: The technology in ST hase more than increase by the factor of 1000+++ between TNG and Voyager.

Wow! You do.Strange that we did not see that technological increase in increments throughout TNG. Or did it all happen between Stardates 47988.0 and 48315.6?
Again, this is another bullshit claim in support of your "Voyager can lol at the DS" theory.

You just try to hold on to the sillyness in StarWars while condeming the sillyness in StarTrek.
This is all I am saying.

I don't condemn the planet-killing and BDZ's in Star Trek. I am against your claims about them which fly in the face of not just everything else we've seen in the series, but contradict what we see of the events themselves (i.e. there were asteroids when S8472 destroyed the planet, there were no planetary shields in TDiC).

Was the hole blow up Planet in Voyager silly? Yes, of course.
Was it silly in StarWars? Yes, of course.
Something like this is always silly.

Translation: "I can't win a versus debate, I'm just going to say it's all silly and made up!"
Suck it up, princess. Nobody's forcing you to participate in this 'silly' debate. You are free to fuck off whenever you like.

(I mean in StarWars it was a big problem to hit a hole with 1m radius (first death star).
Quote:"Not even a computer could do it."
Well, laser guided missiles from around 2000 had twice the precision.

1: The hole was 2m wide. Thanks for showing your ignorance.
2: The quote was: "That's impossible, even for a computer." Can you get anything right?
3: Feel free to back up your claim that any missile (even today) can turn 90° in the space of a meter.

[Mercenario]

Like all your other explanations, it is a complete fabrication. We see the beam immediately interact with the planet itself.

No, we do not. The first part is not shown. So there is still everything possible.

Also note the visible asteroids from 0:52.

Alright. I missed those in the last shot. Does not change a lot really.

There was no planetary shield.

Yeah, did not know this episode. They are also not firing big time. How long was it? 5 seconds? I counted 13 torpedos. Does not seem like they intended to blow up the planet...

Really? You think technology got that much better in 7 years?

Why not? Development is everything but linear.
Well, you do not get around it. I mean one freaking ship could stand up against an enemy in its own ground, while one of his ships used to be a major threat to the federation a while ago.

Wow! You do.Strange that we did not see that technological increase in increments throughout TNG.

How could we? You can't upgrade a ship every month. In a lot of companys today you will find mashines construcet in the 70s or even 60s. Not because there are no new ones, but the old ones still do the job.
It always begs the question, if you really have to upgrade or replace.

1: The hole was 2m wide. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

Radius=/= diameter.. So radius 1m = diameter 2m. There the two was hiding.

2: The quote was: "That's impossible, even for a computer." Can you get anything right?

Right, I was to lazy to look up the quote. Not that I changed the meaning in any way.

3: Feel free to back up your claim that any missile (even today) can turn 90° in the space of a meter.

Well, try another angle. (It still begs the question why they were flying in this rift in the first place. Anyway.)

[Darth Tedious]

No, we do not. The first part is not shown. So there is still everything possible.

We miss less than the first half a second.
Your theory was that each ship has equivalent firepower to the Death Star, but that there was a planetary shield in place so powerful that it took all 9 ships combined to penetrate it. If your theory was correct, most of the time the beam was being fired for would have been spent penetrating the shield. Your theory is a steaming carcass. Occam's razor cut its throat a while back.
But feel free to invent some new and even more convoluted reason as to why everything should work the way you imagine it to.

Alright. I missed those in the last shot. Does not change a lot really.

Didn't see those asteroids, did you? You should try paying attention. Your bullshit power calcs were based on the assumption that the entire planet had been vapourised. Also note that those asteroids did not appear to be moving at high fractional c- suggesting the destruction of the planet was much less violent than that of Alderaan.
But still- "Does not change a lot really."
How many orders of magnitude would you consider to be 'a lot'?
Asteroids present - concession accepted.

Yeah, did not know this episode. They are also not firing big time. How long was it? 5 seconds? I counted 13 torpedos. Does not seem like they intended to blow up the planet...

Seems you knew enough to know it was the Founders they were bombing. Perhaps you should watch the episode and get a fucking clue.
No planetary shields - concession accepted.

Why not? Development is everything but linear.

During late season 7 of TNG, (episode 7x19, 'Genesis') the Enterprise-D gets to test out some brand-new-and-improved photon torpedos, much to Worf's excitement. They were not orders of magnitude better than the previous model. The Mark IV photon torpedo had an 11% increase in yield, according to the test performed by Worf on Stardate 47653.2. That was mere months before the Voyager started her journey. But please, continue to claim that Voyager carried weapons thousands of time more powerful. Strange we didn't see them used in DS9- surely the Defiant would have carried weapons like that, being a newer ship than Voyager, and purpose built as a warship.

Well, you do not get around it. I mean one freaking ship could stand up against an enemy in its own ground, while one of his ships used to be a major threat to the federation a while ago.

In case you haven't seen Voyager, I should explain- they were able to get through Borg territory for two main reasons:
1. The Borg were reeling after the complete fisting they'd received from S8472 (close to completely defeated).
2. They had inside information from (and the help) of 7 of 9.

Without those two factors, it is highly unlikely Voyager would have survived her trip through Borg space.

How could we? You can't upgrade a ship every month. In a lot of companys today you will find mashines construcet in the 70s or even 60s. Not because there are no new ones, but the old ones still do the job.
It always begs the question, if you really have to upgrade or replace.

See above points regarding photon torpedo upgrades.

Well, try another angle. (It still begs the question why they were flying in this rift in the first place. Anyway.)

They had to fly below the Death Star's main shield, and avoid the surface defences as much as possible. A perpendicular shot would have allowed neither of these things.
Missile turning circles - concession accepted.

[Whiskey144]

As you could easy claim, that the blast caused by S8472 is around E30 megatons. (I do not care about the 5, because there is no reason to do so, if you are wiedling around the 10^X factors)

Except that I couldn't claim the '8472 blast was E30-range megatons. Because it isn't.

And that 5? It's very important. 5E16 megatons is the minimum required to 'blow up a planet'. 1E16 megatons simply will not get the job done.

Just freaking LOOK AT IT. Do you see anything about the solar system? No.

Have you considered the possibility that said solar system wouldn't have any effect on the destruction calcs? Have you considered the possibility that when wielding energies of this magnitude such factors as a solar system cease to be relevant, especially due to the rapidity with which said energies can be delivered?

We are looking at a formular which could be handled by a 10 year old boy.

Are you sure? They don't teach Algebra to 10-year-olds, IIRC.

Depending on the situation 20 megatons is more than enough.

O_o Are you serious? Do you really believe that? I mean it, because if you do, then you're nuts. We've tested bombs that big, IIRC, and nothing bad happened on anywhere near that scale of destruction. 20 megatons is about what you need to kill a city.

I mean, just what kind of situation would there be where 20 megatons is "more than enough" to blow up a planet?! The kind where it's hyperbole and the entire enemy civilization is clustered into a single city?

Jesus. One extream example where the rest of the solar system factors in quite extream.
In a normal solar system the gravitation between earth and sun is enough to keep us in orbit. Factored in? No.
The rotation energy (earth) is around 10^29 J. Faktored in?
All the kinetic energy of earth: 10^33 J.

Well, let's see. E29 Joules is about the amount of energy needed to blow off the oceans of Earth into space. E30 Joules is just slightly less than what you'd need to blow the crust off into space.

You need E31-E32 Joules to blow up the planet. I'd say that the 'kinetic energy of Earth' and the rotational energy of the planet aren't going to be relevant. It seems to me, at least, that the gravitational binding energy is much greater than either rotational or total kinetic energy (which would include rotational, you moron). So that's all that needs to be overcome.

Incidentally, gravitation between Earth and the Sun is irrelevant. It's only going to keep the debris in orbit.

You might want to look up how the gravitational binding energy is defined. It is the energy released if a nebula is becoming a planet.
(At least in the formula used)

Hmm. Let's see:

The gravitational binding energy of an object consisting of loose material, held together by gravity alone, is the amount of energy required to pull all of the material apart, to infinity. It is also the amount of energy that is liberated (usually in the form of heat) during the accretion of such an object from material falling from infinity.

Huh. Nothing about nebulae. Just stuff about the planet. Looks like you're wrong.

[Mercenario]

I did not want to do the math, but alright.

How many orders of magnitude would you consider to be 'a lot'?

If they were hit by debris, we would need to estimate the speed the depris was flying with.
We see the cubes accelerating for about a second before the planet explodes.
Even if we just assume 1000g (1/3 of federation technology) we end up with 9.810 m/s.
But the last cube is destroyed 5 seconds after the start of the acceleration.
This would lead us to around 40-50 km/s. Thats 4 times the exit velocity of earth.
(And here I made the assumption, that both cubes started with 0 speed and have a crapy acceleration compared to federation ships)
And those assumption are much too low, because the cubes would only have traveld around 100km. This does not seem to fit.
So the numbers would be quite higher.
If the cube just started one light second away from the planet and did not move at all, we would and up with debris at a speed of 500 times the exit velocity of earth.
Even if I just take 10% of the mass (earth) at the speed of 50km/s I would end up with 10^33 J.

That was mere months before the Voyager started her journey

With class 6 warheads with a yield of 200 isotons.

But please, continue to claim that Voyager carried weapons thousands of time more powerful.

Well, the voyager crew made the claims, that one 80 isoton warhead would destroy a small planet, while having 200 isoton warheads at their disposal.
It is the voyager taking hits from ships and surviving, while they rip out huge pieces of borg cubes. (Before 7 of 9)

1. The Borg were reeling after the complete fisting they'd received from S8472 (close to completely defeated).
2. They had inside information from (and the help) of 7 of 9.

And still, they picked fights with cubes, which are able to wibe out a hole fleet in TNG. Even the cube with 5 drones would still had enough punch to crush a lot of ships, even if he would fire very inefficient.
Yeah and Seven just getting their shield up by "a lot" in a few hours, in liquide space.

And not that the borgs needed a lot of time after S8472 fall back to regroup.

[Whiskey144]

Even if we just assume 1000g (1/3 of federation technology) we end up with 9.810 m/s.

Funny, because the acceleration figure given for the Enterprise-D is 1500 Gs. Admittedly it's from the Tech Manuals, the canonicity of which I simply haven't got a clue about (some sources say yes, some say no), but hey, it's something to work with.

I did not want to do the math, but alright.

I see no math. Where is it? Is it hiding behind you, perhaps?

And still, they picked fights with cubes, which are able to wibe out a hole fleet in TNG. Even the cube with 5 drones would still had enough punch to crush a lot of ships, even if he would fire very inefficient.

TNG =/= VOY. The situation in TNG is vastly different from the one in Voyager, especially considering the additional circumstances WRT the Borg/8472 conflict, and the induction of a former Borg drone into Voyager's crew.

And not that the borgs needed a lot of time after S8472 fall back to regroup.

Proof?

Well, the voyager crew made the claims, that one 80 isoton warhead would destroy a small planet, while having 200 isoton warheads at their disposal.

First off, you have to define "small planet". Secondly, that's from a bit of dialogue that is more than likely hyperbole. Try again.

[Mercenario]

@Whiskey144

TNG =/= VOY. The situation in TNG is vastly different from the one in Voyager, especially considering the additional circumstances WRT the Borg/8472 conflict, and the induction of a former Borg drone into Voyager's crew.

Has no impact on the firepower of a single borg ship.

I see no math. Where is it? Is it hiding behind you, perhaps?

You see the numbers? Well, they came from other numbers. Right, I did not write down the calculations, because I thought it would be obvious.

Proof?

A lot of cubes flying around doing stuff. No mentioning of the weakend borg after the 8472 episodes.

For the gravitational potential:
Yes you would normally use "infinity" but the potential of a nebula several light seconds big is quite low compared to a dense planet. So it is not that important. (Anyway it would go against your point, not mine)

Funny, because the acceleration figure given for the Enterprise-D is 1500 Gs

Well, still much faster than the number I took. The last I read was 3000 g. Does not really matter anyway.

[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.