StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Howedar wrote:The way I see it, exaggerating the variability of the yield is different from exaggerating the maximum yield. He was doing the former, not necessarily the latter.

He's exaggerating the variability of the yield AND the minimum yield. I wouldn't give good odds that the maximum yield is even in the right ballpark.

We'll agree to disagree. I see exaggeration of a minimum as different as exaggeration of a maximum.

2) The Husnock ship is as likely as any other ship in the Trek universe to be carrying a large supply of anti-matter fuel on board. Indeed, the Husnock must obviously carry a substantial quantity of anti-matter just for ammunition.

Only if the Husnock use antimatter torpedoes.

Uraniun235 wrote:

2) The Husnock ship is as likely as any other ship in the Trek universe to be carrying a large supply of anti-matter fuel on board. Indeed, the Husnock must obviously carry a substantial quantity of anti-matter just for ammunition.

Only if the Husnock use antimatter torpedoes.

The Husnock ship was using a "jacketed" beam of antiparticles to fire on the Ent-D, so having a supply of suitable antimatter on hand would probably have been simpler than going to the trouble of generating the requisite antimatter on demand. Also, aside from quantum singularities, goofy-seeming biotech warp systems, and possibly very low grade warp drives like the Promelians may (or may not) have used, Trek warp drives appear to universally require antimatter to generate the requisite warp plasma.

On a related topic, it does seem that the Husnock must have existed, and that their elimination had effects on other species. Specifically, the Borg. The first Borg encountered used personal shielding that looked almost exactly like the shielding of the Husnock ship. That form of "facet" shielding was never seen again after the Husnock disappeared. Even the Borg never used it again. It's hardly compelling, incontrovertible proof, but it's there.

Uraniun235 wrote:

2) The Husnock ship is as likely as any other ship in the Trek universe to be carrying a large supply of anti-matter fuel on board. Indeed, the Husnock must obviously carry a substantial quantity of anti-matter just for ammunition.

Only if the Husnock use antimatter torpedoes.

BZZZT! Wrong answer; thank you for trying. The Husnock weapon was a stream of positrons and anti-protons, i.e. anti-matter (specifically ionized anti-hydrogen).

Here are a few things I picked up cruing the information superwhatever about photon torpedoes observed yield.

The TM states about 60-120 megaton yield. This is generally accepted among most of the people around. However, consider:

During the Cold War the Soviets built and detonated a 90 megaton nuke. It seems unlikely that, even given Starfleet's apparent disreguard to efficient advancement, they wouldn't be much better off 400 years later.

If that estimation of a mere 60-some odd megatons is correct, it would mean that the modern-day Arleigh Burke-class Cruise Missile Destroyer is capable of destroying a GCS, because it is armed with many multiple-megaton warheads fixed to the ends of cruise missiles and we've seen these torpedoes destroy ships. Again, it would be unlikely that Starfleet is SO inept that they would have their flagships run around the galaxy being no stronger than a modern-day Destroyer 400 years after the fact.

Thirdly, it has been observed and/or stated in the canon that even a Constitution-class' armament is capable of rending the surface of a planet void of life, ("A Taste of Armageddon" [TOS], "Bread and Circuses" [TOS], "Whom Gods Destroy" [TOS], "The Die Is Cast" [DS9]) let alone a much larger and more advanced GCS. Somehow I doubt it could be caused by a phaser, simply because phasers seem to damage no more than a few meters in radius at a time, and to "strafe" an entire planet accordingly would take eons.

Fourthly, several factors in visually estimating a torpedo's yield are ignored. Among others include the fact that space does not allow a big huge shield of flame, so you wouldn't see giant fireballs and be able to base power on that. Another, it seems as though people have completely ignored canon on-screen evidence of explosions a LOT larger than 64 megatons. For example, in "Skin of Evil" [TNG], a torpedo detonating on a planet's surface estimates to be about 300km across. 64 megaton yields do not cause a 300km wide explosion. That's more like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, at the very least.

However it is true that besides planetary bombardment, no huge massive torpedoes are seen. Why? I think I can explain that.

In modern warfare, tanks are armed with a variety of ammunition types. They might have HEAT, AT, HE, APDUR, SEAI, etc etc. Now, the beauty behind this is, the HE shell is actually larger than, say the small tungsten filled "arrows" commonly used as armour piercing. If you fired both at the ground, the HE would create a rather large plume of dust and fire and probably kill anyone within 20 meters or so, while the armour piercing round would create a small dirt cloud. Now, with the destructive-looking force of the HE round, you wonder why they don't use that on tanks. Its pretty simple. The HE is weaker on any given point, while the armour piercing is designed to put all the pressure on a single point. I think the same can be said about a pho-torp. NO, I'm not saying they use kinetics through their faster-than-light speed to punch through shields, simply that they're designed to do one thing, beat enemy shields, while the massive explosions seen a dozen times atleast on planets are made simply to damage as large an area as possible. Not only does it make sense, it fits the canon quite well and actually explains why you see a photorp devestate almost 100,000 km2 of planet but fail to penetrate the shields of a 400 meter long vessel. Anyway it's something to think about. It sure beats blindly accepting that every photon torpedo is 60mt and that every quantum torp is 120mg, despite what the dozens of canon examples show.

Also, another piece of evidence to back up this idea is that in "For the Uniform"[DS9] Sisko attaches a storage pod to a quantum torpedo, so as to turn it into a vessel to spread a contaminent over a planet. It hints to the fact that torpedoes can be modified to suit their mission. In any case, I don't think photon torpedo yield should be dismissed as a set 60mt so easily. The only evidence of such a figure is from a TM, and is proven wrong over a dozen times on screen. If I remember my heirarchy correctly, the canon footage should override that.

Vexx wrote:
The TM states about 60-120 megaton yield. This is generally accepted among most of the people around. However, consider:

During the Cold War the Soviets built and detonated a 90 megaton nuke. It seems unlikely that, even given Starfleet's apparent disreguard to efficient advancement, they wouldn't be much better off 400 years later.

The TM number (which is of course, completely without any canon/official standing) is actually quite generous, going by the events of the shows. Regardless of the capabilities of the Soviet Czar bomb, we are not responsible for what we seen on screen.

If that estimation of a mere 60-some odd megatons is correct, it would mean that the modern-day Arleigh Burke-class Cruise Missile Destroyer is capable of destroying a GCS, because it is armed with many multiple-megaton warheads fixed to the ends of cruise missiles and we've seen these torpedoes destroy ships.

You can't fit a megaton warhead on a standard-size (Tomahawk, SS-N-21 SAMPSON) cruise missile. They are multi-kiloton range- around 200kt for the SAMPSON, for example (S-10 Granat is the Soviet designation).

Again, it would be unlikely that Starfleet is SO inept that they would have their flagships run around the galaxy being no stronger than a modern-day Destroyer 400 years after the fact.

They are stronger, though how much so is open to debate. Consider the size of a photon torpedo (ref: Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock) compared to a megaton range nuclear warhead that tips an ICBM, and that by the most generous estimates they have much greater firepower.

Even if they were not, however, it wouldn't matter. What you see, is what you get.

Thirdly, it has been observed and/or stated in the canon that even a Constitution-class' armament is capable of rending the surface of a planet void of life, ("A Taste of Armageddon" [TOS], "Bread and Circuses" [TOS], "Whom Gods Destroy" [TOS], "The Die Is Cast" [DS9]) let alone a much larger and more advanced GCS. Somehow I doubt it could be caused by a phaser, simply because phasers seem to damage no more than a few meters in radius at a time, and to "strafe" an entire planet accordingly would take eons.

Ack and you were doing so well. Those episodes have been discussed countless times. Run a search.

Fourthly, several factors in visually estimating a torpedo's yield are ignored. Among others include the fact that space does not allow a big huge shield of flame, so you wouldn't see giant fireballs and be able to base power on that.

You can however base firepower on it's effects on objects with known physical properties- for example, the TNG episode Pegasus, where the E-Ds entire torpedo load was required merely to fragment a 5km asteroid.

Another, it seems as though people have completely ignored canon on-screen evidence of explosions a LOT larger than 64 megatons. For example, in "Skin of Evil" [TNG], a torpedo detonating on a planet's surface estimates to be about 300km across. 64 megaton yields do not cause a 300km wide explosion. That's more like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, at the very least.

Also been discussed countless times. You are clearly unaware of the characteristics of a megaton-class explosion. Those explosions were too short in duration to be in the megaton range. Hence, upper atmospheric effects.

However it is true that besides planetary bombardment, no huge massive torpedoes are seen. Why? I think I can explain that.

*snip*

I think the same can be said about a pho-torp. NO, I'm not saying they use kinetics through their faster-than-light speed to punch through shields, simply that they're designed to do one thing, beat enemy shields, while the massive explosions seen a dozen times atleast on planets are made simply to damage as large an area as possible. Not only does it make sense, it fits the canon quite well

No, it doesn't. If you read the site, you would see canon evidence, specifically, Q Who, were Worf stated that firing a photon torpedo at close range at the Borg vessel would likely destroy the Enterprise. If the warhead was a shaped charge (I believe that's what you were referring to), there would be no such risk. We also have explosions slamming out from all directions in First Contact (against the Cube).

and actually explains why you see a photorp devestate almost 100,000 km2 of planet but fail to penetrate the shields of a 400 meter long vessel. Anyway it's something to think about. It sure beats blindly accepting that every photon torpedo is 60mt and that every quantum torp is 120mg, despite what the dozens of canon examples show.

Canon examples actually show firepower less than that.

Also, another piece of evidence to back up this idea is that in "For the Uniform"[DS9] Sisko attaches a storage pod to a quantum torpedo, so as to turn it into a vessel to spread a contaminent over a planet. It hints to the fact that torpedoes can be modified to suit their mission. In any case, I don't think photon torpedo yield should be dismissed as a set 60mt so easily. The only evidence of such a figure is from a TM, and is proven wrong over a dozen times on screen. If I remember my heirarchy correctly, the canon footage should override that.

The TM has no official standing whatsoever, but in the versus debate it is sometimes used just to be generous. Whether they can be altered to suit their mission or not (canon evidence that this is the case: ST6) we have never seen any referene made in the canon to modifications to torpedoes for specific tasks, which you'd figure would be the case: in a tank, the commander orders the loader what kind of round to fire.

The TM number (which is of course, completely without any canon/official standing) is actually quite generous, going by the events of the shows.

I'm not disputing that there have been torpedo yields which are quite small, even examples where a torpedo couldn't have had a yield that was even 1 kiloton. I'm simply saying, there have been larger yields seen and mentioned in the dialogue. Sure, it's easy enough to make excuses for why a 60 megaton weapon might look bigger, but in reality that's ignoring canon footage and giving it a meaning that suits our "fancy".

Ack and you were doing so well. Those episodes have been discussed countless times. Run a search.

Well, thanks I guess, but I wasn't a part of those discussions so I really don't know what everyone has "agreed" to as the reasonings behind these many events.

You can however base firepower on it's effects on objects with known physical properties- for example, the TNG episode Pegasus, where the E-Ds entire torpedo load was required merely to fragment a 5km asteroid.

Yes, that's an example; another example are the thousand-mile-wide-plus craters left on the Founder's homeworld after a short bombardment. We know the rough physical properties of the standard planet. It's unlikely that the planet was made of very soft goo, and yet those craters were there.

Those explosions were too short in duration to be in the megaton range. Hence, upper atmospheric effects.

I find it hard to believe that they targeted something on the ground, but the torpedo exploded in the upper atmosphere. They were aimed at the surface.

Worf stated that firing a photon torpedo at close range at the Borg vessel would likely destroy the Enterprise. If the warhead was a shaped charge (I believe that's what you were referring to), there would be no such risk. We also have explosions slamming out from all directions in First Contact (against the Cube).

No, I wasn't referring to shaped charges. I said "they're designed to do one thing, beat enemy shields". That could be in a variety of ways, either through sheer concentrated force or some other mechanics. Also, IIRC the Borg cube in question didn't even have shields, negating the use for that type of anti-shield torpedo. Also, I don't see how the fact that the unshielded Enterprise perhaps being destroyed less than 2km from the explosion has anything to do with making the rest of what I said wrong. It merely means that they couldn't survive an explosion from a torpedo at that range.

Canon examples actually show firepower less than that.

Yes, that's part of the point. Canon shows firepower far less and far more than the accepted 60-120 megaton figure. So why are they ignored?

The TM has no official standing whatsoever, but in the versus debate it is sometimes used just to be generous. Whether they can be altered to suit their mission or not (canon evidence that this is the case: ST6) we have never seen any referene made in the canon to modifications to torpedoes for specific tasks, which you'd figure would be the case: in a tank, the commander orders the loader what kind of round to fire.

I think it's anti-productive to use non-canon information in any sort of position that would affect getting information from canon. And yet, everyone seems stuck on that non-canon figure even though other yields are clearly seen throughout the years of shows and movies.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to say that torpedoes can readily be capable of millions of megatons of power. Simply that saying all photons have 60 megatons and all quantums have 120 megatons doesn't cut it given the fact that a far wider spectrum of yields has been seen, from ridiculously small to quite larger.

Vexx has to go back to school and study some more physics. Read the 'TOS' Funniest Science Bloopers' thread and you'll know what I mean.

Yes, that's an example; another example are the thousand-mile-wide-plus craters left on the Founder's homeworld after a short bombardment.

We know the rough physical properties of the standard planet. It's unlikely that the planet was made of very soft goo, and yet those craters were there.

I personally haven't seen the episode (TDiC), though I've never heard anyone make any claim that there were 1,000-mile wide craters. If there are, you should run the appropriate calculations.

I find it hard to believe that they targeted something on the ground, but the torpedo exploded in the upper atmosphere.

Not what I'm saying. It did hit ground, but what you saw was not a megaton class explosion, by definition. They last a set period of time, and the ones in TDiC dissipated rapidly.

No, I wasn't referring to shaped charges. I said "they're designed to do one thing, beat enemy shields". That could be in a variety of ways, either through sheer concentrated force or some other mechanics. Also, IIRC the Borg cube in question didn't even have shields, negating the use for that type of anti-shield torpedo.

Don't you think that in all of TNG, DS9 and VOY they'd make some mention of multiple torpedo types, at some point?

Also, I don't see how the fact that the unshielded Enterprise perhaps being destroyed less than 2km from the explosion has anything to do with making the rest of what I said wrong. It merely means that they couldn't survive an explosion from a torpedo at that range.

Relates to shaped-charges- specifically, a shaped charge couldn't possibly have such an effect on the E-D. But this is irrelevant now.

Yes, that's part of the point. Canon shows firepower far less and far more than the accepted 60-120 megaton figure. So why are they ignored?

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, it depends how generous the other side is feeling (because really, this only comes up in versus debates).

I think it's anti-productive to use non-canon information in any sort of position that would affect getting information from canon. And yet, everyone seems stuck on that non-canon figure even though other yields are clearly seen throughout the years of shows and movies.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to say that torpedoes can readily be capable of millions of megatons of power. Simply that saying all photons have 60 megatons and all quantums have 120 megatons doesn't cut it given the fact that a far wider spectrum of yields has been seen, from ridiculously small to quite larger.

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but apart from jury-rigged field mods for very specific tasks, we've no explicit canon evidence of anything but two types of torpedoes: photon, and quantum.

There is, however, circumstantial implied canon evidence:

- Torpedoes look different in every movie

ST:TMP- blue torpedo destroys asteroid
ST2: WoK- red torpedo with well defined 'sunbursts' capable of blowing off nacelles/destroying torpedo tubes
ST3: SfS- smaller red torpedoes with ill defined, and fewer 'sunbursts' of a much weaker variety- had no noticeable effect on an unshielded Bird of Prey. Note, however, that the E-Nil almost certainly had no opportunity or inclination to change torpedo loads upon returning to Space Dock
ST5: GREEN torpedo. Pathetic firepower (effect of a stick of TNT or something, really).
ST6: Back to red torpedo. No sunburst to speak of, but a shimmering, hardly defined 'corona' around the centre.
STG: Close to the WoK style. Enough to destroy a BoP in one shot, unshielded.
STFC: Back to ST6 style.
STN: New style. No corona/sunburst at all. More like SW style proton torpedoes, i.e. a comet-like weapon

One problem with all this. The shows. Throughout TNG, DS9 and VOY- the photorps all look exactly the same.

Vexx wrote:Yes, that's an example; another example are the thousand-mile-wide-plus craters left on the Founder's homeworld after a short bombardment. We know the rough physical properties of the standard planet. It's unlikely that the planet was made of very soft goo, and yet those craters were there.

By all means, please produce a SCREENSHOT of these "thousand-mile-wide-plus craters" that NO ONE else but you saw.

BULLSHIT! They were thousand km SHOCKWAVES! Shockwaves that propagated faster then sound!



EDIT: Furthermore, the claimed "Skin of Evil" had red fireballs when large explosions (like nukes) produce WHITE explosion!

Nit-pick: It was yellow. Not red. So obviously it was multi-terra ton (Sarcasim).

Darth Servo wrote:

Vexx wrote:Yes, that's an example; another example are the thousand-mile-wide-plus craters left on the Founder's homeworld after a short bombardment. We know the rough physical properties of the standard planet. It's unlikely that the planet was made of very soft goo, and yet those craters were there.

By all means, please produce a SCREENSHOT of these "thousand-mile-wide-plus craters" that NO ONE else but you saw.

K, it took me awhile but anyway...




Anyway.

It doesn't really take a physics degree to know that you can't do some of the things that were done with ONLY 60 megatons. There are too many examples of torpedo explosions producing the effects that you'd see from something much larger or even much smaller than 60 megatons to just assume they're all 60 megatons max. It sure doesn't explain how the Enterprise-Prime has the ability to rid a planet of all life, considering it would have less than 60 megatons and only a hundred or two hundred of them. Also, AFAIK, all the world's current nukes don't have the ability to effectively burn away everything on the face of the planet. They can kill everything through radiation but that's different than destroying a planet with non-radioactive torpedoes.

And this isn't a vs. debate, I don't care what Star Wars does whatever, I only care about canon torpedo yields.

Vexx wrote: K, it took me awhile but anyway...

[img]http://www.st-v-sw.net/tdic01.jpg[img]


Anyway....

That shows no craters, it shows disruption in an atmosphere of unknown composition. There also are no flashes, as you would get from such supposedly huge explosions.

And viewed from Earth's orbit, nuclear explosions look like lightning flashes, except a little bit longer lasting.

Anyway I don't think it's a good idea to make excuses for why a 60ish megaton weapon would do all the things they do. Atmospheric distortions, upper atmosphere effects, the list of excuses made to keep your 60 megaton figure safe goes on and on.

No, it doesn't. If you read the site, you would see canon evidence, specifically, Q Who, were Worf stated that firing a photon torpedo at close range at the Borg vessel would likely destroy the Enterprise. If the warhead was a shaped charge (I believe that's what you were referring to), there would be no such risk. We also have explosions slamming out from all directions in First Contact (against the Cube).

Does that in fact prove large warheads for PhoTorps? That a proximity detonation can destroy the Enterprise?

Vexx wrote: Anyway.

It doesn't really take a physics degree to know that you can't do some of the things that were done with ONLY 60 megatons. There are too many examples of torpedo explosions producing the effects that you'd see from something much larger or even much smaller than 60 megatons to just assume they're all 60 megatons max.

Vexx,

WRT the explosions, my colleagues are saying that no amount of energy can explain the propagation of those "ripples".

The ripples expand at close to thousands of km/sec., covering the equivalent of a large country very rapidly.

You can ramp up the amount of energy by orders of magnitude, and it still doesn't explain why those rings expand as quickly as they do.

That of course means yield isn't solely responsible for those blast waves. It never could be.

Thus, we have to turn to treknobabble.

It's best, IMO, to stick to Tbabble w/ which we're already familiar. That is, we've heard about certain kinds of weapons that don't do all their damage through direct energy transfer to a target, right?

Phasers certainly qualify. Subspace weapons, such as those used by the Son'a, probably qualify too. (Photon, quantum, tricobalt weapons do not.)

It sure doesn't explain how the Enterprise-Prime has the ability to rid a planet of all life, considering it would have less than 60 megatons and only a hundred or two hundred of them. Also, AFAIK, all the world's current nukes don't have the ability to effectively burn away everything on the face of the planet. They can kill everything through radiation but that's different than destroying a planet with non-radioactive torpedoes.

Two things:

1--All of the nukes in the world wouldn't come even close to exterminating all human life, let alone killing ALL life period (down to bacteria).

2--I'm not sure that the Enterprise has the ability to kill all life on its own. I remember the descriptions of General Order 24, but nothing about how it'd "kill all life, including bugs, bacteria [etc.]."

And this isn't a vs. debate, I don't care what Star Wars does whatever, I only care about canon torpedo yields.

I care about canon torpedo yields, too, which is why I think it's best to start off looking at incidents in which we don't have the kinds of ambiguities of "The Die Is Cast."

TurboPhaser wrote:

No, it doesn't. If you read the site, you would see canon evidence, specifically, Q Who, were Worf stated that firing a photon torpedo at close range at the Borg vessel would likely destroy the Enterprise. If the warhead was a shaped charge (I believe that's what you were referring to), there would be no such risk. We also have explosions slamming out from all directions in First Contact (against the Cube).

Does that in fact prove large warheads for PhoTorps? That a proximity detonation can destroy the Enterprise?

Do you know how much energy the hull, of the Enterprise can take?

Vexx wrote:And viewed from Earth's orbit, nuclear explosions look like lightning flashes, except a little bit longer lasting.

Anyway I don't think it's a good idea to make excuses for why a 60ish megaton weapon would do all the things they do. Atmospheric distortions, upper atmosphere effects, the list of excuses made to keep your 60 megaton figure safe goes on and on.

You FUCKING DIPSHIT! NO WEAPON CAN MAKE THOSE SHOCKWAVES PROPAGATE AT HUNDREDS OF KM/SECOND THROUGH RAW POWER!

TurboPhaser wrote: Does that in fact prove large warheads for PhoTorps? That a proximity detonation can destroy the Enterprise?

It depends What I consider "large" might be different than your own idea of the same which, I would guess is at least into the high MT-range, correct?

Anyway, I did some figures on proximity explosions awhile back, particularly those in "Q Who?"

As I recall, the Borg cube was between 5-10 kilometers "behind" the Enterprise-D. This is a pretty good estimate, but someone could refine it somewhat I guess *shrugs*. (In the end, for a no. of reasons it doesn't make that much of a difference.)

Anyway, I don't gotta tell you, that means that when the E-D shoots at the cube, those explosions would be 5-10 km away.

From directly aft, the E-D would have a frontal area of no more than ~65,000 square meters; take the width of the saucer, and multiply that by the ship's height to approximate a "box."

The hard part is deciding what amount of energy, delivered through similar means of course, is actually lethal to the ship itself.

Canon leaves us with no such accounts. We know that a 400 GW Husnock weapon, which probably involved some kind of phaser-like NDF effects, did some thermal damage to the hull; and to boot, it was a more highly focused attack than a bomb striking some 65,000 m^2.

Therefore, ~200 gigajoules isn't enough to destroy the Enterprise-D under normal circumstances.

We also know that a quarter kiloton Romulan mine blew a nice chunk out of the NX-01 in "Minefield." If 40% of that mine's ordinance struck the ship, that'd be 418 gigajoules. The E-D is far larger than the NX and presumably more durable, even if it does require all sorts of SIFs to sustain itself in warp flight, sublight maneuvers, and so on.

While, subjectively, I seriously doubt that amount of energy would likely blow up the E-D, we have to step back for a minute and remember that Data didn't specify how the photorps would destroy the ship. Those two giant warp nacelles, which we know are horrifically vulnerable ("Cause and Effect"), would have to be factored into the equation.

That's significantly different than just blowing up a bomb on a hull, which is unrealistic anyway: in Trek, most starships aren't at ALL just a sheath of armor flying through space; they're replete with all KINDS of design weaknesses, from windows to warp core injectors w/out redundant back-up systems, nacelles, etc., etc.

And it's different than the Husnock attack, wherein similar thermal damage to the fwd. hull might be lethal to a warp nacelle (if focused).

As such, our starting figure is admittedly VERY rough, but we're just spitballing here. If only for consistency's sake, I will say that the results are, IMO, MUCH closer to a realistic result than if you arbitrarily decided the E-D's unshielded hull could survive a nuke of X yield at point-blank distance.

Anyway, all we have to figure out is, at 5 km distance, how big must a photorp's blast be to strike a 65,000 m^2 frontal area with ~400 GJ?

I come up with about a 462 kiloton torpedo.

If the cube was 10 km behind the E-D, a photorp would have to yield 1.85 megatons.

I won't even mention the fact that they were shooting 3 torpedoes in rapid succession...Data did say, "a photon detonation" as I recall.

Now, you could probably generate larger numbers than this and still be partly right, inasmuch as it's probably unlikely that 6.4 MJ/m^2 would even be fatal to warp nacelles.

HOWEVER, before someone just arbitrarily plugs in bigger values, it's PARAMOUNT (no pun intended) that you understand two things:

1--Data said the explosion might destroy the E-D. He could be wrong and, indeed, it seems rather odd that a proximity detonation would blow up the ship when we've seen multiple DIRECT HITS fail to do the same...Data might've been extremely conservative in his assessment.

2--Data didn't specify the manner in which the E-D would be destroyed. Obviously, the implication was that an explosion "that close" would tear them a new one, but how? Is it going to smash the ship's entire hull? (No.) Might it simply be the straw that broke the camel's back; i.e., initiates a chain-reaction which will make the warp core explode, as it invariably does? Would it do something nasty to the warp coils in the nacelles, or other sensitive equipment?

IOW, it's important to not simply assume, as I did for the argument's sake, that "destruction" MUST mean one of several things, especially as the numbers go higher and higher.

3--These figures are consistent with others, if actually a bit high for most cases. When we repeatedly see photorps in the kiloton range or, at BEST, very low single-digit megaton range, what are we to conclude? We go with the bulk of the evidence...something that's rather easy since the evidently abberant examples involve things other than DET.

Vexx wrote:

Darth Servo wrote:By all means, please produce a SCREENSHOT of these "thousand-mile-wide-plus craters" that NO ONE else but you saw.

K, it took me awhile but anyway...
[img]http://www.st-v-sw.net/tdic01.jpg[img]

Those AREN'T CRATERS. They're some sort of atmospheric shockwaves.

Vexx wrote:And viewed from Earth's orbit, nuclear explosions look like lightning flashes, except a little bit longer lasting.

Anyway I don't think it's a good idea to make excuses for why a 60ish megaton weapon would do all the things they do. Atmospheric distortions, upper atmosphere effects, the list of excuses made to keep your 60 megaton figure safe goes on and on.

You're the only one making excuses. That pic has been on Wayne Poe's website for years. You have NOT established massive yields for photon torps.

Vexx wrote:Here are a few things I picked up cruing the information superwhatever about photon torpedoes observed yield.

The TM states about 60-120 megaton yield. This is generally accepted among most of the people around.

That's actually considered extremely generous.

However, consider:

During the Cold War the Soviets built and detonated a 90 megaton nuke. It seems unlikely that, even given Starfleet's apparent disreguard to efficient advancement, they wouldn't be much better off 400 years later.

Not really. The Soviet design was considerably larger and bulkier than the photon torpedoes used in ST, and they didn't have nearly the variety of functions.

If that estimation of a mere 60-some odd megatons is correct, it would mean that the modern-day Arleigh Burke-class Cruise Missile Destroyer is capable of destroying a GCS, because it is armed with many multiple-megaton warheads fixed to the ends of cruise missiles and we've seen these torpedoes destroy ships. Again, it would be unlikely that Starfleet is SO inept that they would have their flagships run around the galaxy being no stronger than a modern-day Destroyer 400 years after the fact.

Assuming that the Arleigh Burke could actually target the GCS. Photon torpedoes are substantially more accurate, and have other significant advantages over modern missiles.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumptions that technology is directly compatible without problems (ie. you can move a ballistic missile onto a starship and it will still be capable of functioning properly), and that technology must invariably improve over time.

You also ignore examples in which the GCS has been observed to be less advanced than modern naval vessels. I've never seen a modern naval vessel destroy itself over a computer virus, but I've seen a GCS do that. I've never seen a modern naval vessel's sensors befuddled by strange ores in the hills. I've never seen someone take control of the bridge of a modern vessel and quite literally lock out all other controls in the rest of the ship, but I've seen all of this in ST.

Thirdly, it has been observed and/or stated in the canon that even a Constitution-class' armament is capable of rending the surface of a planet void of life, ("A Taste of Armageddon" [TOS], "Bread and Circuses" [TOS], "Whom Gods Destroy" [TOS], "The Die Is Cast" [DS9]) let alone a much larger and more advanced GCS. Somehow I doubt it could be caused by a phaser, simply because phasers seem to damage no more than a few meters in radius at a time, and to "strafe" an entire planet accordingly would take eons.

This has never been observed, and in TDiC it was observed that their weapons were incapable of doing this kind of damage conventionally. Moreover, the Constitution class ships never claimed to be able to devastate the surface of a world. In all of these cases they were firing on specific targets (ie. cities) to wipe out a few vestiges of complex life, as opposed to wiping out all life.

Moreover, you are ignoring the ability of phaser fire to be expanded to suit the targets, as demonstrated when Kirk ordered a specific city block to be stunned using his ship's phaser array.

Fourthly, several factors in visually estimating a torpedo's yield are ignored. Among others include the fact that space does not allow a big huge shield of flame, so you wouldn't see giant fireballs and be able to base power on that.

That affects nothing. I've never seen anyone use fireballs in space to estimate yield. We measure yield in space by observing the effects of weapons fire on inert objects (ie. comets and asteroids). Only in the atmosphere are fireballs ever seen or used to estimate yield.

Another, it seems as though people have completely ignored canon on-screen evidence of explosions a LOT larger than 64 megatons. For example, in "Skin of Evil" [TNG], a torpedo detonating on a planet's surface estimates to be about 300km across.

1. SoE was not an inert target, but a starships that had crashed on a planet.
2. The explosion observed dissipated too quickly for it to have been even close to 64 MT, much less any more.

64 megaton yields do not cause a 300km wide explosion. That's more like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, at the very least.

However it is true that besides planetary bombardment, no huge massive torpedoes are seen. Why? I think I can explain that.

In modern warfare, tanks are armed with a variety of ammunition types. They might have HEAT, AT, HE, APDUR, SEAI, etc etc. Now, the beauty behind this is, the HE shell is actually larger than, say the small tungsten filled "arrows" commonly used as armour piercing. If you fired both at the ground, the HE would create a rather large plume of dust and fire and probably kill anyone within 20 meters or so, while the armour piercing round would create a small dirt cloud. Now, with the destructive-looking force of the HE round, you wonder why they don't use that on tanks. Its pretty simple. The HE is weaker on any given point, while the armour piercing is designed to put all the pressure on a single point. I think the same can be said about a pho-torp. NO, I'm not saying they use kinetics through their faster-than-light speed to punch through shields, simply that they're designed to do one thing, beat enemy shields, while the massive explosions seen a dozen times atleast on planets are made simply to damage as large an area as possible. Not only does it make sense, it fits the canon quite well and actually explains why you see a photorp devestate almost 100,000 km2 of planet but fail to penetrate the shields of a 400 meter long vessel. Anyway it's something to think about. It sure beats blindly accepting that every photon torpedo is 60mt and that every quantum torp is 120mg, despite what the dozens of canon examples show.

WTF? Why would a massive explosion do less damage to a shielded target than the piddly explosions we've seen? How does this fit with my observations of the ST:Nemesis collision, by which I estimated that the yield of photon torpedoes isn't even in the kiloton range? How does this explain "Pegasus," when Riker observed that the entire ship's magazine would be severely depleted by the destruction of a 5-10km asteroid?

Also, another piece of evidence to back up this idea is that in "For the Uniform"[DS9] Sisko attaches a storage pod to a quantum torpedo, so as to turn it into a vessel to spread a contaminent over a planet. It hints to the fact that torpedoes can be modified to suit their mission. In any case, I don't think photon torpedo yield should be dismissed as a set 60mt so easily. The only evidence of such a figure is from a TM, and is proven wrong over a dozen times on screen. If I remember my heirarchy correctly, the canon footage should override that.

Most canon footage, however, places torpedoes in the kiloton range or the low megaton range. The TM figures are generally considered pretty generous.

Vexx wrote:And viewed from Earth's orbit, nuclear explosions look like lightning flashes, except a little bit longer lasting.

Anyway I don't think it's a good idea to make excuses for why a 60ish megaton weapon would do all the things they do. Atmospheric distortions, upper atmosphere effects, the list of excuses made to keep your 60 megaton figure safe goes on and on.

The thing is, it's not really possible to make a shockwave act like that while in an atmosphere. If you increased the firepower, it won't particularly make a difference.

Moreover, I hardly think that I'm trying to keep the 60 MT figure viable, as I've already shown significant evidence that weapons fire in ST is in the KT range!