StarDestroyer.Net BBS

seanrobertson wrote:
Where in the episode does it say anything about vaporization, though?

Spock held some remains of the base in his hands. The whole thing was definitely not vaporized. For all we know, the plasma weapon might've shattered some of the outer layers of the asteroid off, destroyed its shields and in destroying the outpost, breached its reactor, which could add significantly to the explosion(s).


Wasn't it so that one torpedoe downed their shield, then another one destroyed it(penetrating 1600m of iron too)?

Yes, the first hit flattened the shields, the second hit pulverised the asteroid--says something about TOS outpost shields, me thinks. And, no, the asteroid was not vaporised in whole, but the meathod of attack means at least some of it was (see my above post for my reasoning).

And if I may, hard materials are brittle, but a diamond cannot be crumbled in your hands, far from it. Why should any harder substance crumble in this manner? If Spock effortlessly crumbled a remaining piece of the base as a testament to the weapon's power, why cannot his explanation be taken at face value?

The Silence and I wrote:And if I may, hard materials are brittle, but a diamond cannot be crumbled in your hands, far from it. Why should any harder substance crumble in this manner? If Spock effortlessly crumbled a remaining piece of the base as a testament to the weapon's power, why cannot his explanation be taken at face value?

Bad example. If a diamond was deformed and impacted in the way that the pieces of that station had been, it would have shattered long before Spock got his hands on it.

The piece of metal in his hands had undergone unknown trauma before he picked it up. Its brittleness, consistent with heavy microstructural damage, could have been caused by any number of perfectly mundane mechanisms, and does not require any kind of exotic physics on the part of the weapon. It was most likely spiderwebbed with a network of internal fractures, hence the fact that it fell apart so easily.

In any case, the use of a super-hard material for structural purposes is laughably stupid in the first place. The writers of that episode were incompetent. The fact that they wrote it in the 1960's is no excuse; any auto mechanic of that era could have told you the same thing.

The Silence and I wrote:Emphasis mine. Not vaporised, no, but seemingly in small pieces--almost certainly along with considerable vaporization.

The phrase "dust and debris" hardly indicates anything about the level of vapourization. You can blow just about anything up and you'll get dust and debris.

So it takes two shots to "pulverise" such an installation. A good minimum size for the asteroids in question is 3.2 Km in diameter, solid iron will actually be a very close estimate in this case, and one hit should take care of the asteroid once shields are down. The weapon is plasma-based, and attacks from the outside--it is hardly a buried explosive--thermally.

Unless it penetrates before releasing its energy. If it were just a blob of plasma, it would dissipate almost immediately.

Using Wong's calculator, the fragmentation energy is 32.8 MT, but I have hopefully established this is not accurate. Cratering energy is 154.8 MT for iron, and is closer to the value required, but this will result in a large, well, crater in the asteroid and many large broken-off pieces.

No, when the crater depth is equal to the radius of the asteroid, it will fragment the asteroid.

This should be an absolute minimum value. Obviously vaporization is much too high (245 GT) but there was some going on. I personally think 10-15% of the asteroid was vaporised, as that *should* be enough to pulverise the rest of it. That would give about 25-37 GT. I feel this is a good reference number, feel free anyone to show off your superior knowledge and make better numbers, or even just to disagree. This was done on the fly, so to speak.

So you just arbitrarily decide that 10-15% of the asteroid was vapourized, based on ... what? Why 10% instead of 1%?

My original reply was toasted last night, but "Silence and I", you have to look at the quotes you wrote carefully.

The OUTPOSTS were being referred to as being reduced to dust and debris.

The ASTEROIDS were pulverized.

Lord Poe wrote:My original reply was toasted last night, but "Silence and I", you have to look at the quotes you wrote carefully.

The OUTPOSTS were being referred to as being reduced to dust and debris.

The ASTEROIDS were pulverized.

Wayne,

Your knowledge of TOS is impressive. If someday Michael was to write or publish someone else's essay against this "Cult of Connie," your recollection of such details would be immensely helpful.

I've argued against the uber-TOS (don't you hate how fucking everything these days is "uber"? I'm sick of the word...), but I don't know the details of the series very well at all.

seanrobertson wrote:Wayne,

Your knowledge of TOS is impressive. If someday Michael was to write or publish someone else's essay against this "Cult of Connie," your recollection of such details would be immensely helpful.

Thanks. Did you see me in action in this thread?

I've argued against the uber-TOS (don't you hate how fucking everything these days is "uber"? I'm sick of the word...), but I don't know the details of the series very well at all.

You should try to find "The Nitpicker's Guide to Classic Trek" in an old bookstore, or hunt for it online!

Lord Poe wrote:

My original reply was toasted last night, but "Silence and I", you have to look at the quotes you wrote carefully.

The OUTPOSTS were being referred to as being reduced to dust and debris.

The ASTEROIDS were pulverized.

You have a point, it sounds like the weapon cracked open the asteroid, demolished the base, and left the asteroid in drifting pieces. In that case cratering energy is probably the most likely. Nice catch there, I assumed he reported seeing just dust+debris, and then concluded the outposts+asteroids were what he was looking at. If the former, this should be low-end. If not, then I take that back.

Ok, if the outposts were 100 meters in diameter--not unlikely as it had to have sensors, shields, a reactor, and at least one crewman (More than one, I would think, but we only see one)--then adding a mile to each side gives an asteroid 3,320 meters in diameter, iron, or close to it. It seems cratering energy will suffice, so that is 170 MT.
If the base is assumed to take up no volume, then an asteroid of 3,220 meters in diameter can be used for a cratering energy of 157 MT.

Oh, and Mike, yes, this post is a concession, and also, how is cratering energy determined in your calculator? After reading what is typed there I am unsure as to whether the yield is calculated from a buried explosive, or if it calculates the energy needed to blast such a crater from the outside (more in line with this example, I would think, as a plasma torp. does not strike me as capable of burrowing).

Lord Poe wrote:

seanrobertson wrote:Wayne,

Your knowledge of TOS is impressive. If someday Michael was to write or publish someone else's essay against this "Cult of Connie," your recollection of such details would be immensely helpful.

Thanks. Did you see me in action in this thread?

YES!

I had been looking for that post That's truly classic--worthy of going up on your site.

I've argued against the uber-TOS (don't you hate how fucking everything these days is "uber"? I'm sick of the word...), but I don't know the details of the series very well at all.

You should try to find "The Nitpicker's Guide to Classic Trek" in an old bookstore, or hunt for it online!

Sounds like a good idea

seanrobertson wrote:I had been looking for that post That's truly classic--worthy of going up on your site.

Hmmm...good idea!