I'm a little surprised with the Trekkie debators...

[Master of Ossus]

It also was not very bright, and was brief so this is not likely a huge explosion, and does not seem to be conventional

I don't think M/AM warheads could even qualify as "conventional".

You don't necessarily need a massive fireball or bright light to cause massive destruction. Those seismic torpedoes in AoTC didn't make any particularly huge fireballs IIRC and they managed to shatter asteroids. So, you could have weapons with little or no "flash" that cause a lot of destruction, or vice versa.

The flash is caused by the release of EM radiation (which also causes some other effects of the explosion, ie. heat). We actually know quite well how a M/AM explosion would operate, and it would necessarily create a large fireball, if the yield was as great as some people are claiming.

The seismic charges in AotC were different, since they did not appear to release EM radiation in large quantities. Instead, they appear to have used force fields or similar technology to destroy targets, but did not introduce heat or similar to those targets. Moreover, the seismic charges detonated in space, where no oxygen exists to feed a fireball (which, actually, would never form in the first place in space). Both of the other examples being discussed took place in the atmosphere, and both of the fireballs dispersed LUDICROUSLY quickly for an explosion of the magnitude some people are claiming.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Ok, all very interesting, but I still havent read a solid, plausible explanation for why the fireball was seen so clearly from orbit.

I think that's been established -- the visual (I'm guessing by what's been said that the visual appeared on the E-D's main bridge display) was enhanced by the E-D's sensors.

What was visible on-screen, IOW, wouldn't have necessarily been visible to the naked eye.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

EDIT: And vice versa -- what should have been visible may have been filtered out, as well.

[TurboPhaser]

Ok, all very interesting, but I still havent read a solid, plausible explanation for why the fireball was seen so clearly from orbit.

I think that's been established -- the visual (I'm guessing by what's been said that the visual appeared on the E-D's main bridge display) was enhanced by the E-D's sensors.

What was visible on-screen, IOW, wouldn't have necessarily been visible to the naked eye.

Yes, but there isnt a shred of canon evidence to support that. And is the E-D's viewscreen a high tech TV now? Why bother enhancing the pretty boom for the bridge crew to drool over? Besides, I dont think the crew were in a mood to worry about how cool their explosions looked.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes, but there isnt a shred of canon evidence to support that.

Actually, dumbass, the fact that no other explanation is possible given the canon information NECESSARILY supports this conclusion, lending "canon evidence to support that."

And is the E-D's viewscreen a high tech TV now? Why bother enhancing the pretty boom for the bridge crew to drool over?

Irrelevant. Unless there's some other explanation that properly deals with everything, then there's no need to show the motives behind this application of technology.

Besides, I dont think the crew were in a mood to worry about how cool their explosions looked.

Who cares? The viewscreen embellished it for them.

[Lord of the Farce]

And is the E-D's viewscreen a high tech TV now? Why bother enhancing the pretty boom for the bridge crew to drool over? Besides, I dont think the crew were in a mood to worry about how cool their explosions looked.

Actually, there might be a possible reason (even if it's not a necessarily a good one) for screen enhancement. Namely, so the crew members who don't have access to the sensor console don't keep asking "Huh? what's happening down there?"

... Just a wild theory...

[Darth Wong]

You don't necessarily need a massive fireball or bright light to cause massive destruction.

In atmosphere, it's an inevitable side-effect of a very large EM energy release, such as a megaton-class (never mind gigaton or teraton) M/AM reaction would produce. Saying you can have a teraton EM blast without a sustained fireball or visible surface destruction is like saying you can have a billion dollars without being rich.

Those seismic torpedoes in AoTC didn't make any particularly huge fireballs IIRC and they managed to shatter asteroids. So, you could have weapons with little or no "flash" that cause a lot of destruction, or vice versa.

The fireball is a byproduct of atmosphere/energy interactions, dumb-ass. You won't get a fireball in space even with a gigaton blast. You'll only get a brief flash of light. If the mass of the bomb is low enough, it could easily slip between the 24 frames per second of a movie. It will be noticeable only by its effects on surrounding matter. As MoO said, a seismic charge is not a M/AM blast anyway, so we really don't know how it will interact with matter.