Proton Torpedo

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-09 05:23pm

Does anyone know what the specifications of a proton torpedo are?

Such as length, width, height, mass, payload, etc?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-06-09 05:38pm

Varies by type Ranges from a few inches long, a few kg, and a sub KT yield to several meters long, massing probably around a few tons, and having a multi GT yield

You need to be more specific for better info

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2003-06-09 05:46pm

Ender wrote:Varies by type Ranges from a few inches long, a few kg, and a sub KT yield to several meters long, massing probably around a few tons, and having a multi GT yield

You need to be more specific for better info

something comprable to what we saw in ANH...or perhaps a shoulder fired unit?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-06-09 06:01pm

Steven Snyder wrote:
Ender wrote:Varies by type Ranges from a few inches long, a few kg, and a sub KT yield to several meters long, massing probably around a few tons, and having a multi GT yield

You need to be more specific for better info
something comprable to what we saw in ANH...or perhaps a shoulder fired unit?

ANH ones were a few inches long, had a range of 90,000 KM, and a yield of ~1 KT

Shoulder fired ones have shorter range, are not as wide, but have aroudn the same yield.

More common dogfighting torps are ~ 1 MT - 10 MT as near as I can tell, and can range up to the high hundreds of MT for cap killers.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-09 07:17pm

The ANH warheads where a few inches long, the complete missile was comparable in size to 155mm artillery shell.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-09 07:19pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The ANH warheads where a few inches long, the complete missile was comparable in size to 155mm artillery shell.

Woah.

Something that small blew up the Death Star?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-09 09:33pm

So you see the irony? To be fair, that one kiloton warhead blew up inside a very delicate reactor. It just put a hole in it, the reactor did most of the damage.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2003-06-10 04:56pm

YT300000 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:The ANH warheads where a few inches long, the complete missile was comparable in size to 155mm artillery shell.
Woah. Something that small blew up the Death Star?

Its called a chain reaction

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-10 07:21pm

Crazedwraith wrote:
YT300000 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:The ANH warheads where a few inches long, the complete missile was comparable in size to 155mm artillery shell.
Woah. Something that small blew up the Death Star?
Its called a chain reaction

I still have trouble believing that a missile that small could penetrate the armour on a reactor 16 km across. Why was the reactor unarmoured?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-06-10 07:27pm

YT300000 wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:
YT300000 wrote: Woah. Something that small blew up the Death Star?
Its called a chain reaction
I still have trouble believing that a missile that small could penetrate the armour on a reactor 16 km across. Why was the reactor unarmoured?

There's a limit on how much you can armor something as dense as a black hole.

Kerneth · Post by **Kerneth** » 2003-06-10 08:39pm

Why armor something that's in the exact center of a space station the size of a Death Star? It's not like the Imperials planners thought "Hey, some hotshot Rebel pilot who just happens to have l33t Force skills might come along and somehow manage to shoot a pair of proton torpedos into a thermal vent and blow up the reactor!"

By the time the DS2 came along, of course, the engineers had found out the hard way that a Force-skilled pilot could put a pair of proton torpedos down a 1 meter across thermal vent into the reactor, and thus armored it.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-11 04:16am

Why was the reactor unarmoured?

Try this experiment:

1. Start a fire in your fireplace.

2. Close the flue.

3. Wait five minutes.

Now you know why the reactor was "unarmoured".

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-06-11 05:50am

SPOOFE wrote:
Why was the reactor unarmoured?
Try this experiment:

1. Start a fire in your fireplace.

2. Close the flue.

3. Wait five minutes.

Now you know why the reactor was "unarmoured".

How about "lock yourself in a room, eat alot of mexican, and start a lighter?

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-11 05:52am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:
Why was the reactor unarmoured?
Try this experiment:

1. Start a fire in your fireplace.

2. Close the flue.

3. Wait five minutes.

Now you know why the reactor was "unarmoured".
How about "lock yourself in a room, eat alot of mexican, and start a lighter?

Cannibal!

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-06-11 04:04pm

YT300000 wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:
YT300000 wrote: Woah. Something that small blew up the Death Star?
Its called a chain reaction
I still have trouble believing that a missile that small could penetrate the armour on a reactor 16 km across. Why was the reactor unarmoured?

Because they figured 80 kilometers of ship with heavy armor on top of that would be sufficient.

You don't armor reactors. Doing so would be retarded. There is no need, and it drasically interferes with heat transfer.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-11 06:14pm

Point conceeded.