On the Torpedo Yield Calculations from TNG: Pegasus

[WATCH-MAN]

Did they ever state in the Ep why they couldn't just fire torps into the opening and have them detonate inside? Those things are guided, right? Or, heck, if they were able to transport some people over to the Pegasus, they could have transported a few torps over to it as well.

They still didn't know where exactly the Pegasus were.

• • • • • • RIKER:
        Sir, the Romulan warbird has altered course again... they are heading toward our position.
        
        • • RIKER:
        They probably want to see what we're so interested in over here.
        
        • • PICARD:
        Mister Data, how long will it take to determine the exact location of the Pegasus?
        
        • • DATA:
        At least another six hours, Captain.

[WATCH-MAN]

I wish to emphasize "MAY BE" in that sentence. Data has proven to be less than reliable when it comes to numbers in the past...despite being a computer. In this case, he could simply be overly cautious, or incorrect as to the composition of the asteroid. Since it's never actually stated what the asteroid is made of, I'm guessing it's a bit of both.

As Tribble an Ted C already stated: This asteroid had a strong enough gravitational/magnetic field to potentially overload a shuttlecraft's engines. That would imply that at the very least it has a greater gravitational / magnetic field than Earth does. But - under normal cirumstances - this would be a scientific absurdity.

Don't you think that the other bridge officers would notice it, if Data spouts such scientific absurdities? To them this had to sound plausible with what they already knew about the asteroid. It's not convincing that they had bought Datas warning if the asteroid were a perfectly normal asteroid consisting only of iron or any other usual material usually found in asteroids.

We do not know why the asteroid was so peculiar. We only know that it was peculiar. Maybe they talked off-screen about it.

[biostem]

Did they ever state in the Ep why they couldn't just fire torps into the opening and have them detonate inside? Those things are guided, right? Or, heck, if they were able to transport some people over to the Pegasus, they could have transported a few torps over to it as well.

They still didn't know where exactly the Pegasus were.

• • • • • • RIKER:
        Sir, the Romulan warbird has altered course again... they are heading toward our position.
        
        • • RIKER:
        They probably want to see what we're so interested in over here.
        
        • • PICARD:
        Mister Data, how long will it take to determine the exact location of the Pegasus?
        
        • • DATA:
        At least another six hours, Captain.

That was before they knew exactly where it was. Once they *did* know where it was, then what's their excuse?

[Formless]

Having watched it recently, they didn't need one: admiral "covered my ass for 12 years against conspiracy charges" vetoed destruction of the Pegasus as soon as it was proposed. He seriously wanted that phase cloak taken intact, and was mightily hacked off when Picard purposefully revealed the tech to the Romulans (right before Picard formally arrested him, of course).

[WATCH-MAN]

That was before they knew exactly where it was. Once they *did* know where it was, then what's their excuse?

You are right that the quote is from before they returned to the asteroid. After they returned Data scanned the area where they detected the resonance signature of the Pegasus. And yet they didn't know if warp core is still intact and if the entire engineering section was down there.

• • • • • • DATA:
        For the past several hours, I have been scanning the area where we detected the resonance signature of the Pegasus. From the strength and polarity of the signature, it would appear that most of the warp core is still intact.
        
        • • PRESSMAN:
        If we're lucky, the entire engineering section could be down there.

Doesn't sound to me as if they had a clear image in which condition the Pegasus was, where exactly it was or if the chasm was a straight path to it. Had they simply fired into the chasm they couldn't have confirmed the total destruction of the Pegasus. Part of it (e.g. the saucer section) could have been elsewhere.

[Borgholio]

As it is not very probably that it was a coincidence that the cloak failed just in the moment the ship passed through the asteroid, we have to assume, that the passing through the asteroid - as it is a very peculiar asteroid - caused the failure.

Coincidences like this happen all the time in Star Trek. How often is there a planetary disaster and by coincidence, the only ship in the area happens to be the one with the ability to fix it? How often do two tiny starships meet in the middle of empty space by random chance? In this case, there is nothing about the asteroid that is confirmed to be different. They do not state that it has unusual magnetic and gravitational properties, and they do not even suggest the idea that it was the asteroid itself that caused the cloak to fail. In fact, they suggest quite the opposite. They clearly state that the hardware needed to support the cloak blew up before the ship entered the asteroid.

Here's an alternate idea. The Pegasus was actually pretty close to the asteroid to begin with. They were probably testing the cloak by flying through some of the asteroids when the shit hit the fan. After the explosion, the gravity of the asteroid gradually pulled the Pegasus inside and kept it there until the cloak finally failed. This makes the most sense, rather than assuming the asteroid was something special without any hard evidence to back it up. It's also more probable than having a ship outside a solar system drift straight for that tiny asteroid and have the cloak fail at that exact moment.

Don't you think that the other bridge officers would notice it, if Data spouts such scientific absurdities?

They're pretty dumb too. There are countless incidents of Data using blatantly incorrect scientific terms, making incorrect calculations and assumptions, and sometimes just very bad ideas. They have complete faith in his ability to be a perfect calculator that they don't ever bother to fact-check him.

We only know that it was peculiar.

No, we don't. Where do they say that it was? We only have Data saying that it "might". Which, even if we trust him fully, is just probably a prudent safety suggestion.

Maybe they talked off-screen about it.

Then it never happened and cannot be used as evidence in this discussion.

[Simon_Jester]

They're pretty dumb too. There are countless incidents of Data using blatantly incorrect scientific terms, making incorrect calculations and assumptions, and sometimes just very bad ideas. They have complete faith in his ability to be a perfect calculator that they don't ever bother to fact-check him.

What fraction of Data's bloopers are things that are shown to not work in story, and what fraction of them are clear examples of the writers clearly meaning to write "have Data say something scientific and relevant" and ending up with gibberish?

[Borgholio]

What fraction of Data's bloopers are things that are shown to not work in story, and what fraction of them are clear examples of the writers clearly meaning to write "have Data say something scientific and relevant" and ending up with gibberish?

To be honest, I have no idea the actual numbers. The one biggie that springs to mind is when the E-D was caught in a time loop which recycled every time it was hit by another starship that was also caught in the loop. Data kept insisting that the tractor beam would work better than Riker's idea to de-compress the main shuttlebay, and the E-D kept getting destroyed until he actually tried Riker's idea and it worked.

[Metahive]

It wasn't that Data's idea was wrong, it was that it wasn't sufficient by itself to do the job, so the solution was to use both methods at once. That's not an example of Data being totally wrong. He isn't perfect.

[Ted C]

It wasn't that Data's idea was wrong, it was that it wasn't sufficient by itself to do the job, so the solution was to use both methods at once. That's not an example of Data being totally wrong. He isn't perfect.

When they finally broke the loop by decompressing the shuttlebay, the tractor beam wasn't used at all.

[Prometheus Unbound]

ah but since that never happened, Data was never wrong

[Simon_Jester]

What fraction of Data's bloopers are things that are shown to not work in story, and what fraction of them are clear examples of the writers clearly meaning to write "have Data say something scientific and relevant" and ending up with gibberish?

To be honest, I have no idea the actual numbers. The one biggie that springs to mind is when the E-D was caught in a time loop which recycled every time it was hit by another starship that was also caught in the loop. Data kept insisting that the tractor beam would work better than Riker's idea to de-compress the main shuttlebay, and the E-D kept getting destroyed until he actually tried Riker's idea and it worked.

Data repeatedly coming up with an inappropriate plan isn't the same thing as Data being grossly wrong in his picture of a situation.

Looking up the episode, Data keeps suggesting using the tractor beam because he's caught in a time loop. Data functions the same way each time, using a tractor beam to repel a ship on a collision course with the Enterprise. But no matter how many times the loop is iterated, Data is confronted with the same situation, and responds with the same plan.

Which certainly seems like a reasonable plan, since that kind of thing is exactly what the ship has tractor beams for in the first place.

There's no surprise that a thinking machine, given the same inputs over and over, with no ability to remember previous failures, will come up with the same plan over and over. It's not until someone figures out a way to give Data extra information (from a previous iteration of the temporal loop) that he makes a different decision.

You could equally well blame Picard for repeatedly adopting Data's plan over Riker's in each iteration of the loop, which causes just as much of a problem.

[Borgholio]

There's no surprise that a thinking machine, given the same inputs over and over, with no ability to remember previous failures, will come up with the same plan over and over. It's not until someone figures out a way to give Data extra information (from a previous iteration of the temporal loop) that he makes a different decision.

When you put it like that, I can't really argue against the logic. I was thinking about the idea that he should have been able to calculate the change in velocity and heading of the other ship once the tractor beam was engaged and know it wasn't enough time. But then again, maybe he was working with limited sensor input...

[WATCH-MAN]

Sometimes I wonder if you know about what you are talking at all or if your only intention is to make Star Trek look bad.

The impression some may get is that you aren't interessted in debatting the matter but only in making snide remarks about Star Trek.

Example 1:

• • • • It wasn't that Data's idea was wrong, it was that it wasn't sufficient by itself to do the job, so the solution was to use both methods at once. That's not an example of Data being totally wrong. He isn't perfect.

        When they finally broke the loop by decompressing the shuttlebay, the tractor beam wasn't used at all.

        From the last iteration:
        
        • • • • • • PICARD:
                Suggestions?
                
                • • RIKER:
                Decompress the main shuttlebay -- the explosive reaction might kick us out of the way.
                
                • • DATA:
                Captain -- I recommend we use the tractor beam to alter the other ship's trajectory.
                
                • • PICARD:
                Mister Worf -- make it so.
                
                • • WORF:
                Engaging tractor beam...
                
                • • DATA:
                The tractor beam will not be successful. I am decompressing the main shuttlebay...
        or watch from 06:50
        
        We may not have seen the tractor beam - but only because the camera focused on Data - while we can hear in the background the tractor beam working.

Example 2:

• • • • There are countless incidents of Data using blatantly incorrect scientific terms, making incorrect calculations and assumptions, and sometimes just very bad ideas.

        I challenge Borgholio to describe - without any help of others - 10 incidents in which Data was wrong. If there are "countless incidents", this shouldn't be very hard.
        
        (I do not consider "Cause and Effect" as such an example as Data merely made a suggestion. Nobody claims that he is omniscient. He is allowed to make guesses, conjectures, prognoses and estimations in situations he can't calculate something because he hasn't all necessary information. And even if it is possible to calculate something, it may only be possible to get the probability of success or the probability of an event. In "Cause and Effect" Data couldn't know that the tractor beam won't work as he didn't had all necessary information (e.g. mass of the Bozeman, remaining energy for the tractor beam after all main systems just went down and power levels were dropping rapidly or the effect of the distortion field on the tractor beam, the Enterprise or the Bozeman). As Data didn't claim that it will work - but made it clear that it is only a sugestion - implying that it is possible that it may not work - he did not made an error. It only would have been an error if he had been sure that it will work.)

If your are showing such a bias, some may wonder if you are able to consider facts and to change your opinion or if - regardless what facts and arguments are presented - you will never change your opinion.

[Crazedwraith]

I feel compelled to point out that in any sensible universe Data would have been right. The tractor beam should have been much more effective than venting the shuttlebay. Consider the mass of the air in the shuttlebay compared to the mass of the entire damn ship. It should have had a tiny effect.

[Borgholio]

The tractor beam will not be successful. I am decompressing the main shuttlebay...

And if you actually watch that scene, you will notice that it in fact takes several seconds longer than the actual event did on any other of the time loops. Had DATA stopped to consider it at any other time, they would have been dead.

I challenge Borgholio to describe - without any help of others - 10 incidents in which Data was wrong. If there are "countless incidents", this shouldn't be very hard.

So we're doing a Cyrano de Bergerac thing are we? Ok buddy, let's play. For clarification, are we referring to factual errors, memory errors, or mathematical errors? I wouldn't want you to cry foul after I gave you 10 times he forgot what happened in just the last episode.

[WATCH-MAN]

I feel compelled to point out that in any sensible universe Data would have been right. The tractor beam should have been much more effective than venting the shuttlebay. Consider the mass of the air in the shuttlebay compared to the mass of the entire damn ship. It should have had a tiny effect.

Exactly.

[WATCH-MAN]

The tractor beam will not be successful. I am decompressing the main shuttlebay...

And if you actually watch that scene, you will notice that it in fact takes several seconds longer than the actual event did on any other of the time loops. Had DATA stopped to consider it at any other time, they would have been dead.

Although we may treat footage as if it has really happened, we always have to consider, that between the scenes, at each cut, time may pass that is not shown on-screen. Insofar it says nothing that the last iteration seems to be a few seconds longer than the earlier iterations.

I challenge Borgholio to describe - without any help of others - 10 incidents in which Data was wrong. If there are "countless incidents", this shouldn't be very hard.

So we're doing a Cyrano de Bergerac thing are we? Ok buddy, let's play. For clarification, are we referring to factual errors, memory errors, or mathematical errors? I wouldn't want you to cry foul after I gave you 10 times he forgot what happened in just the last episode.

I'm talking of mistakes. As I have explained: I do not consider it a mistake if someone makes guesses, conjectures, prognoses or estimations because unavaible information do not allow more precise conclusions. If a decision is a mistake has to be judged ex ante.

And - as Simon_Jester and I already pointed out - "Cause and Effect" is not an example of Data making mistakes again and again - if he made a mistake at all.

(Do not misunderstand me. I do not contest that Data makes mistakes. I do contest your objection that he has made "countless" mistakes and that therefore we can ignore what he has to say.)

[Borgholio]

"Cause and Effect" is not an example of Data making mistakes again and again - if he made a mistake at all.

I wasn't referring to each instance of him making the same decision in the time loop as yet another mistake. I'm not THAT much of a troll. I was referring to the instance itself happening PERIOD. Assuming the input was correct (speed and heading of the Bozeman), then it should be a fairly simple calculation for an advanced computer to add the repulsive force of the tractor beam to the equation and determine if it would work or not. Also, given how he has boasted the ability to perform several advanced analyses at the same time, he could have considered several other options at the same time, but he didn't.

(Do not misunderstand me. I do not contest that Data makes mistakes. I do contest your objection that he has made "countless" mistakes and that therefore we can ignore what he has to say.)

Shall I retract my usage of the word "countless" and replace it with "various mathematical, grammatical, and historical errors that should not be expected from a machine as powerful as a ship's main computer."? I'm not arguing that he makes a mistake every single episode. My point was that he thought a small, fairly unremarkable asteroid, somehow had gravitational and magnetic properties so strong that it could slam a shuttlecraft into the wall of the cavern hard enough to damage it. That demonstrates he is either unreasonably cautious or incapable of reading a simple sensor scan of an asteroid.

[Tribble]

I still don't see where everyone is going with this. If Data's statement is wrong, why are we assuming that Riker's is correct? I don't seem to recall Riker's assessments being anymore accurate than Data's. We never see photon torpedoes being used on the asteroid, and for all we know a couple of photon torpedoes would have shattered it enough to reveal the Pegasus and destroy it.

[biostem]

What I find odd, given the circumstance, is that they see the anomaly and don't seem to do anything prudent, like immediately backing off and raising shields.

Regarding the Pegasus incident - did they even try to send in a probe to scout ahead, (it's been a while since I watched that ep, sorry)?

I also find it odd that Data makes a suggestion, and no one ever says "Computer, based upon available information, can you confirm Data's conclusion" or anything like that - I suppose it's more of a respect thing - imagine someone requesting an immediate fact-check and correcting any of the other officers on something. Perhaps Data has a good enough track record that they give him the benefit of the doubt...

[Borgholio]

What I find odd, given the circumstance, is that they see the anomaly and don't seem to do anything prudent, like immediately backing off and raising shields.

I don't think they have EVER done that. In fact when facing that giant green face dude who wanted to run experiments on the ship, they actually move closer to get a better look!

Regarding the Pegasus incident - did they even try to send in a probe to scout ahead, (it's been a while since I watched that ep, sorry)?

I don't recall them sending a probe. They basically ran a search pattern using the E-D sensors until they found it.

I also find it odd that Data makes a suggestion, and no one ever says "Computer, based upon available information, can you confirm Data's conclusion" or anything like that - I suppose it's more of a respect thing - imagine someone requesting an immediate fact-check and correcting any of the other officers on something. Perhaps Data has a good enough track record that they give him the benefit of the doubt...

They do have issues with verification. I can't remember the episode, but they needed the main computer to run a calculation and it gave them the answer. They asked it to confirm and it did. See the problem with that? If you want to make sure the computer is correct, you don't ask it to confirm itself. You have Data run the calculation himself or have one of the bridge crew pull out a calculator or something.

[Ted C]

I feel compelled to point out that in any sensible universe Data would have been right. The tractor beam should have been much more effective than venting the shuttlebay. Consider the mass of the air in the shuttlebay compared to the mass of the entire damn ship. It should have had a tiny effect.

True. This is often used to argue that the "mass lightening" effect of the ship's subspace field makes the effective mass of the ship miniscule. Of course, the air in the shuttlebay is also in the subspace field, so...

[Tribble]

We are assuming that the depressurization of the shuttlebay was what saved them from the collision. However, we're not sure if that's actually the case. Remember that there are two crews involved here. And as stupid at ST crews can be, I highly doubt the Bozeman crew were just standing there watching the whole thing play out. For all we know, it was in fact the Bozeman which managed to avoid the collision, rather than the other way around. Perhaps the tractor beam had been interfering with what the Bozeman crew had planned, and that's why they kept colliding. The depressurization of the shuttlebay could have been totally inconsequential for all we know.

[Borgholio]

We are assuming that the depressurization of the shuttlebay was what saved them from the collision. However, we're not sure if that's actually the case. Remember that there are two crews involved here. And as stupid at ST crews can be, I highly doubt the Bozeman crew were just standing there watching the whole thing play out. For all we know, it was in fact the Bozeman which managed to avoid the collision, rather than the other way around. Perhaps the tractor beam had been interfering with what the Bozeman crew had planned, and that's why they kept colliding. The depressurization of the shuttlebay could have been totally inconsequential for all we know.

That...is an idea I never thought of before. Perhaps they were trying to reverse course or maneuver and it was interrupted by the tractor beam.