---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: afinalunity@hotmail.com (DarkStar) Date: 29 May 2002 16:30:33 -0700 Subject: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <80ae86b7.0205291530.4d38327a@posting.google.com> -------- People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical Manual isn't considered a valid info source. So, where is 64 megatons coming from? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 29 May 2002 23:35:05 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020529183505570-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged them at less than a kiloton of yield. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:29:46 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020529183505570-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? > > It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. > In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than > modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged > them at less than a kiloton of yield. Been watching Star Trek V again, huh? :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:32:06 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:u8gJ8.71866$Oa1.6053560@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:20020529183505570-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: > > > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > > > > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > > > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > > > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > > > > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > > > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > > > > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? > > > > It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. > > In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than > > modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged > > them at less than a kiloton of yield. > > Been watching Star Trek V again, huh? :) > or "Night Terrors" or "Pegasus" -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:46:13 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 29 May 2002 22:32:06 -0400, "Cmdrwilkens" wrote: >"DarkStar" wrote in message >news:u8gJ8.71866$Oa1.6053560@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> >> "Durandal" wrote in message >> news:20020529183505570-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... >> > The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: >> > > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. >> > > >> > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of >> > > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star >> > > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. >> > > >> > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical >> > > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. >> > > >> > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? >> > >> > It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. >> > In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than >> > modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged >> > them at less than a kiloton of yield. >> >> Been watching Star Trek V again, huh? :) >> > >or "Night Terrors" or "Pegasus" > I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:13:42 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk... > I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a > massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks > of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of > it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings the sum down. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 30 May 2002 05:05:39 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Kazuaki Shimazaki told me: > "The Baron" wrote in message > news:3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >> I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a >> massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks >> of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of >> it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... > > Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, > but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings > the sum down. 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:00:55 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > The voice in my head named Kazuaki Shimazaki told me: > > "The Baron" wrote in message > > news:3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk... > > > >> I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a > >> massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks > >> of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of > >> it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... > > > > Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, > > but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings > > the sum down. > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. Whatever, Wong was being generous when he typed that number in :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Beeblebear" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:55:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Durandal" wrote in message news:20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > The voice in my head named Kazuaki Shimazaki told me: > > "The Baron" wrote in message > > news:3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk... > > > >> I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a > >> massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks > >> of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of > >> it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... > > > > Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, > > but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings > > the sum down. > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. Also, another galaxy class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly half merged in the rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous side. -- Chris Lyth (clyth@ifis.org.uk) Who sees no connection between national pride and 22 men kicking a glorified pig's bladder round a field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:06:49 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Beeblebear" wrote in message news:ad5p0l$2r6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, > > > but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings > > > the sum down. > > > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. > > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open > spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. > Also, another galaxy class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly > half merged in the rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous > side. Um, the Romulan Warbird is over a kilometer long, but the Enterprise-D is 640 meters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 30 May 2002 18:46:52 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020530134651632-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Beeblebear told me: > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the > open spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. Also, another galaxy > class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly half merged in the > rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous side. The E-D is probably comparable in size to the E-E, which is 700m. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:58:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net> -------- > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open > spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. > Also, another galaxy class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly > half merged in the rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous > side. > > -- Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, an Oberth class ship 150 metres long. -=Doomriser ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:00:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf676b4_2@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "Doomriser" wrote in message news:3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net... > Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. > However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, an Oberth > class ship 150 metres long. > Oh, and half of it was in solid rock! -=Doomriser ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Beeblebear" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:44:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Doomriser" wrote in message news:3cf676b4_2@news.cybersurf.net... > "Doomriser" wrote in message > news:3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of > view. > > However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, an > Oberth > > class ship 150 metres long. > > > Oh, and half of it was in solid rock! > > I said in my previous post that the pegasus was merged in rock. And I don't keep a TM next to my computer so I don't know off the top of my head the length of the ED. The point stands that it has got to be one fuck of a big asteroid for the ED to be able to enter it. -- Chris Lyth (clyth@ifis.org.uk) Who sees no connection between national pride and 22 men kicking a glorified pig's bladder round a field ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 07:03:33 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Beeblebear" wrote in message news:ad69ub$4om$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > news:3cf676b4_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > > news:3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > > Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of > > view. > > > However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, an > > Oberth > > > class ship 150 metres long. > > > > > Oh, and half of it was in solid rock! > > > > > > I said in my previous post that the pegasus was merged in rock. > And I don't keep a TM next to my computer so I don't know off the top of my > head the length of the ED. The point stands that it has got to be one fuck > of a big asteroid for the ED to be able to enter it. You don't need to, the TM's dead! :-) -- Kaz Trying for a little lame humor... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Warrior" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:42:12 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad6b72$usqho$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Beeblebear" wrote in message > news:ad69ub$4om$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > > news:3cf676b4_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > > > news:3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > > > Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point > of > > > view. > > > > However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, > an > > > Oberth > > > > class ship 150 metres long. > > > > > > > Oh, and half of it was in solid rock! > > > > > > > > > > I said in my previous post that the pegasus was merged in rock. > > And I don't keep a TM next to my computer so I don't know off the top > of my > > head the length of the ED. The point stands that it has got to be one > fuck > > of a big asteroid for the ED to be able to enter it. > > You don't need to, the TM's dead! :-) Considering it's written by the show's two technical consultants, and with the full endorsement of Gene Roddenberry (who wrote the introduction), all I can say is their authority overrides yours. The TM is canon, whether anyone likes it or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:53:02 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Warrior" wrote in message news:UrhQ8.7603$uH2.7540@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > Considering it's written by the show's two technical consultants, and with > the full endorsement of Gene Roddenberry (who wrote the introduction), all I > can say is their authority overrides yours. The TM is canon, whether anyone > likes it or not. Gene Roddenberry no doubt agreed to write the introduction, and they are written by the show's two technical consultants, but that still hardly means they are canon. Here is the official position: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes [read: the TAS does not count] and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts." http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321 The TM is NOT a live action episode, or a movie. It is also not in the exception list, which includes two novels and Yesteryear. That's IT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:21:42 +0200 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" schreef in bericht news:aes96k$9go09$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Warrior" wrote in message > news:UrhQ8.7603$uH2.7540@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > Considering it's written by the show's two technical consultants, and > with > > the full endorsement of Gene Roddenberry (who wrote the introduction), > all I > > can say is their authority overrides yours. The TM is canon, whether > anyone > > likes it or not. > > Gene Roddenberry no doubt agreed to write the introduction, and they are > written by the show's two technical consultants, but that still hardly > means they are canon. > > Here is the official position: > "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > episodes [read: the TAS does not count] and movies are canon, or > official Star Trek facts." > http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321 > > The TM is NOT a live action episode, or a movie. It is also not in the > exception list, which includes two novels and Yesteryear. That's IT. Sad but true. Maybe I should buy Paramount and make them change it. After that I could write a book that would become canon. All I need are several scores of billions of dollars. If I start saving money now I will ..... -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:57:48 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Wouter Valentijn" wrote in message news:af2bu3$af65a$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > Gene Roddenberry no doubt agreed to write the introduction, and they are > > written by the show's two technical consultants, but that still hardly > > means they are canon. > > > > Here is the official position: > > "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action > > episodes [read: the TAS does not count] and movies are canon, or > > official Star Trek facts." > > http://www.startrek.com/information/faq.asp?ID=1321 > > > > The TM is NOT a live action episode, or a movie. It is also not in the > > exception list, which includes two novels and Yesteryear. That's IT. > > Sad but true. > Maybe I should buy Paramount and make them change it. > After that I could write a book that would become canon. > All I need are several scores of billions of dollars. > If I start saving money now I will ..... [Raises suspicious eyebrow] And what would that book be about? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wouter Valentijn" Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 16:58:30 +0200 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" schreef in bericht news:af2vqm$ba2k6$2@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Wouter Valentijn" wrote in message > news:af2bu3$af65a$1@ID-43412.news.dfncis.de... > > > Sad but true. > > Maybe I should buy Paramount and make them change it. > > After that I could write a book that would become canon. > > All I need are several scores of billions of dollars. > > If I start saving money now I will ..... > > [Raises suspicious eyebrow] > > And what would that book be about? > It would be a book set in the late 25th century, Earth calender. Hector the Magnificent of the Empire of the Moon (Earth's moon that is), takes control over the Federation and makes sure that a superior star drive becomes a reality. No more just experimenting with transwarp or slipstream drive. Every industrial facility in Federation space would be dedicated to this, wormholes that allow you to go ANYWHERE in time and space, and the production of the subspace rift torpedo. It creates on exploding a large hole in subspace destroying everything in a light-year radius and closes a minute after that. Sufficed to say that keeping a safe distance using this weapon is strongly advised. And making sure it functions within a second after firing it. And I just made that up. Actually, it would me more along the lines of 'Extreme'. But now that I'm thinking about the above... -- Wouter Valentijn www.zeppodunsel.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Warrior" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:39:55 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Beeblebear" wrote in message news:ad69ub$4om$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > news:3cf676b4_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > > news:3cf67653_2@news.cybersurf.net... > > > Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of > > view. > > > However, a GCS is ~650 metres long, And the Pegasus is NCC 53847, an > > Oberth > > > class ship 150 metres long. > > > > > Oh, and half of it was in solid rock! > > > > > > I said in my previous post that the pegasus was merged in rock. > And I don't keep a TM next to my computer so I don't know off the top of my > head the length of the ED. The point stands that it has got to be one fuck > of a big asteroid for the ED to be able to enter it. You are correct, which is why it *is* remarkable that they could destroy it by using up their torpedoes. No SW ship could, given the weak performance we saw in ESB from their weapons. {TL bolts could only blow apart small rocks, and that not fast enough to keep them from hitting their ships, even when the relative speeds between them were under 2 kps or so. And the heave ordinance dropped by those TIE bombers seemed to do nothing but flash meekly upon impact with any asteroid of significant size...maybe that's why Han Solo figured, correctly, that they'd be safe from the imperials inside a big enough asteroid.} By the way, the dimensions and specs of the Enterprise D are as follows: {Note: "TM" = Technical Manual for the E-D. "STE" = Star Trek Encyclopedia.} Length: 641 meters. (STE .p. 138.) Width: 467.12 meters (Jackill's Technical Readout Data Sheets; hereafter abbreviated "JTREDS".) Height: 138.33 meters (JTREDS) Mass: 4.96 million metric tonnes. (TM .p. 57) Displacement: 5,000,000 mt (JTREDS) Propulsion: Warp 9.2 maximum sustainable cruising speed, Warp 9.6 top speed for up to 12 hours. (TM .p. 1 and .p. 57.) [Note: As a reference, Warp 9 = 1,516 c according to TM .p. 55, which also indicates that velocities begin to rise more sharply Warp speeds climb. This indicates that Warp 9.2 and especially Warp 9.6 would be substantially, rather than slightly faster than Warp 9.] Twelve (12) Type X Phaser Arrays: Output* Per Array = 1.02 GW (TM .p. 3 and .p. 123 and .p. 125.) {*Note: That is 5.1 MW per emitter segment multiplied by 200 emitter segments per array according to TM .p. 125 will converge on the release point, firing a beam that will travel "at c," i.e. the speed of light, to the target. This is the array's initial output energy, the SEM output, which is not to be confused or conflated with the beam's final effect energy upon the target, the NDF, which will be greater (by an increasing proportion) than the amount of output. This phenomenon, facilitated by the Rapid Nadion Effect, or RNE, is discussed in the hand unit "Personal Phasers" section, TM .pp. 134 - 137.} Phaser Arrays' Effective Tactical Range: 300,000 km [i.e. one light-second.] (TM .p126.) {Note: This has been improved as of Deep Space 9.} Three (3) Photon Torpedo Launchers; two for the drive section, one for the saucer section. Packeting of matter and antimatter increase annihilation surface area by three orders of magnitude, making them do damage *beyond* merely half of a typical global energy release. Each launcher can fire up to 10 torpedoes at once. Warhead payload is 1.5 kg of antimatter, presumably combined with as much normal matter, for a total reaction mass of 3 kg. (TM .p. 3 and .pp. 128 - 130.) {Note: The energy release would therefore be equivalent to over 60 Megatons. However, this following quote indicates it would be greater still: "...the released energy per unit time is actually greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." (TM .p. 129.) Such a pod normally holds 100 m^3 of antimatter. (TM .p. 68.) Therefore, the implication of 3 kg of annihilated matter releasing *more* energy than 100 m^3 of antimatter must mean that photon torpedoes increase their potential by means of a phaser-like RNE phenomenon, or some other fictional effect which causes their, apparently enhanced, final effect potential.} Photon Torpedoes' Effective Tactical Range: 3,500,000 km. (TM .p. 128.) {Note: This has been improved as of Deep Space 9.} Let me know if you need other info...though you might want to consider taking a look at the TM and/or STE, even if you don't end up keeping them by your computer. ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:57:10 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Warrior" wrote in message news:LphQ8.7601$uH2.1875@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > You are correct, which is why it *is* remarkable that they could destroy it > by using up their torpedoes. No SW ship could, given the weak performance we > saw in ESB from their weapons. {TL bolts could only blow apart small rocks, > and that not fast enough to keep them from hitting their ships, even when > the relative speeds between them were under 2 kps or so. And the heave > ordinance dropped by those TIE bombers seemed to do nothing but flash meekly > upon impact with any asteroid of significant size...maybe that's why Han > Solo figured, correctly, that they'd be safe from the imperials inside a big > enough asteroid.} It is amazing. ST has torpedoes less than a megaton strong! Wow, SW is dead! I know you like to dream, Warrior. Quality Trekkies seem non-existant these days. Semi-decent Trekkies there are still a few. That silly Pegasus asteroid had been SCALED and MEASURED it and the yield needed to destroy it simply isn't that great. In fact, it is only about 500kT. Sorry, pal. I know it is hard to accept that ST is so weak, but there it is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:15:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Warrior" wrote in message news:LphQ8.7601$uH2.1875@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Beeblebear" wrote in message > news:ad69ub$4om$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > > > I said in my previous post that the pegasus was merged in rock. > > And I don't keep a TM next to my computer so I don't know off the top of > my > > head the length of the ED. The point stands that it has got to be one fuck > > of a big asteroid for the ED to be able to enter it. > > > You are correct, which is why it *is* remarkable that they could destroy it > by using up their torpedoes. No SW ship could, given the weak performance we > saw in ESB from their weapons. {TL bolts could only blow apart small rocks, > and that not fast enough to keep them from hitting their ships, even when > the relative speeds between them were under 2 kps or so. Minimum energy for destruction as is rises upwards from 701 TJ (167 Kt) to 2863 TJ ( 684 Kt). Note this is for the lightest weaponry and is a lower limit. http://www.geocities.com/cmdrwilkens/Calcs/math.html Upper limit from "Night Terrors" based upon total devotion of reactor output to deflector dish and 30,000 TW output (Riker and Geordi both state that a dozen or so TW is maximum reactor capability) yields 28.66 KT per torpedo. > And the heavey ordinance dropped by those TIE bombers seemed to do > nothing but flash meekly > upon impact with any asteroid of significant size...maybe that's why Han > Solo figured, correctly, that they'd be safe from the imperials inside a big > enough asteroid. Hmmm, anti-personal thermal detonators are heavy weaponry? > > By the way, the dimensions and specs of the Enterprise D are as follows: > {Note: "TM" = Technical > Manual for the E-D. "STE" = Star Trek Encyclopedia.} ST FAQ "Only what you see onscreen is canon" John Ordover (senior editor for ST Books) "it [TM] is pure speculation" > Length: 641 meters. (STE .p. 138.) > > Width: 467.12 meters (Jackill's Technical Readout Data Sheets; hereafter > abbreviated "JTREDS".) > > Height: 138.33 meters (JTREDS) > > Mass: 4.96 million metric tonnes. (TM .p. 57) > > Displacement: 5,000,000 mt (JTREDS) > > Propulsion: Warp 9.2 maximum sustainable cruising speed, Warp 9.6 top speed > for up to 12 hours. (TM .p. 1 and .p. 57.) > [Note: As a reference, Warp 9 = 1,516 c according to TM .p. 55, which also > indicates that velocities begin to rise more sharply Warp speeds climb. This > indicates that Warp 9.2 and especially Warp 9.6 would be substantially, > rather than slightly faster than Warp 9.] > Millenium Falcon (.5 hyperdrive rating): 50,000,000 c (ref ANH and BTM) Galaxy Gun projectile: 100,000,000 c (ref Dark Empire II) > Twelve (12) Type X Phaser Arrays: Output* Per Array = 1.02 GW (TM .p. 3 and > .p. 123 and .p. 125.) {*Note: That is 5.1 MW per emitter segment multiplied > by 200 emitter segments per array according to TM .p. 125 will converge on > the release point, firing a beam that will travel "at c," i.e. the speed of > light, to the target. This is the array's initial output energy, the SEM > output, which is not to be confused or conflated with the beam's final > effect energy upon the target, the NDF, which will be greater (by an > increasing proportion) than the amount of output. This phenomenon, > facilitated by the Rapid Nadion Effect, or RNE, is discussed in the hand > unit "Personal Phasers" section, TM .pp. 134 - 137.} > Minimum TL firepower: 1.05e4 TW. (ref ESB) RSS Acclamator shielding power: 7e10 TW (ref AOTC:ICS) > Phaser Arrays' Effective Tactical Range: 300,000 km [i.e. one light-second.] > (TM .p126.) {Note: This has been improved as of Deep Space 9.} > Turboalser Maximum Effective Range 37 Million Km+ (ref SWTJ, BTM, and Enemy Lines II: Rebel Stand) > Three (3) Photon Torpedo Launchers; two for the drive section, one for the > saucer section. Packeting of matter and antimatter increase annihilation > surface area by three orders of magnitude, making them do damage *beyond* > merely half of a typical global energy release. Physical constraints of a uniform explosion (PhoTorp detonation) show that a maximum of 50 % of energy released can be directed against a given target. > Each launcher can fire up to > 10 torpedoes at once. Warhead payload is 1.5 kg of antimatter, presumably > combined with as much normal matter, for a total reaction mass of 3 kg. (TM > .p. 3 and .pp. 128 - 130.) {Note: The energy release would therefore be > equivalent to over 60 Megatons. However, this following quote indicates it > would be greater still: "...the released energy per unit time is actually > greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." (TM > .p. 129.) Such a pod normally holds 100 m^3 of antimatter. (TM .p. 68.) > Therefore, the implication of 3 kg of annihilated matter releasing *more* > energy than 100 m^3 of antimatter must mean that photon torpedoes increase > their potential by means of a phaser-like RNE phenomenon, or some other > fictional effect which causes their, apparently enhanced, final effect > potential.} Alternatively you could read the "per unuit time" piece of the quote and realize that the detonation merely has greater speed than a pod detonation which increases peak power. Additionally increasingly larger M/AM mixtures will result insuccesively less efficient reactions period. (ref Laws of Physics) > > Photon Torpedoes' Effective Tactical Range: 3,500,000 km. (TM .p. 128.) > {Note: This has been improved as of Deep Space 9.} > > Let me know if you need other info...though you might want to consider > taking a look at the TM and/or STE, even if you don't end up keeping them by > your computer. ;) TL Effective Range: 37 million Km Number of targets engaged over 50 Km away in TNG, DS9 and Voy: 1 Number of situations when it would have been tactically advisable to engage at greater range: >10 -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:16:20 -0600 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF6B2C4.1204191F@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Beeblebear wrote: > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. > > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open > spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. > Also, another galaxy class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly > half merged in the rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous > side. Doesn't anybody here remember that I've already scaled it? http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/fissure.jpg http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/pegasus_asteroid.jpg http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/concessionaccepted.jpg Graeme Dice -- When aiming for the common denominator, be prepared for the occasional division by zero. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:45:14 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <_uIJ8.77514$Kp.7606380@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> -------- "Graeme Dice" wrote in message news:3CF6B2C4.1204191F@sk.sympatico.ca... > Beeblebear wrote: > > > > "Durandal" wrote in message > > news:20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > > > > > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. > > > > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open > > spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. > > Also, another galaxy class ship is inside there with the E-D (admittedly > > half merged in the rock). 15 km is probably a little bit on the ungenerous > > side. > > Doesn't anybody here remember that I've already scaled it? > http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/fissure.jpg > http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/pegasus_asteroid.jpg > http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/concessionaccepted.jpg For some reason, even on broadband, getting these to come up makes pulling teeth look painless and easy. So, if they've forgotten, it is because they couldn't see it the first time. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kamakazie Sith" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:26:15 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Beeblebear" wrote in message news:ad5p0l$2r6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Durandal" wrote in message > news:20020530000538898-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... > > The voice in my head named Kazuaki Shimazaki told me: > > > "The Baron" wrote in message > > > news:3cf59228.26096479@news.freeserve.co.uk... > > > > > >> I thought the point of Pegasus was that they were going to blow up a > > >> massive asteroid in it, which would give huge figures... large chunks > > >> of it were hollow, yeah, but the overall mass and average density of > > >> it were probably still greater than the asteroids destroyed in TESB... > > > > > > Overall mass, well, considering it WAS a 15km wide asteroid, probably, > > > but they are merely "destroying" and not "vaporizing" it, which brings > > > the sum down. > > > > 15km? It looked more like 2-3 to me. > > The E-D is supposedly over a kilometer long. It is flying inside the open > spaces inside this asteroid in Pegasus. ::shakes head:: The E-D is a little bit over 600m long.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eric Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:38:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 02:29:46 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Durandal" wrote in message >news:20020529183505570-0500@news.cis.dfn.de... >> The voice in my head named DarkStar told me: >> > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. >> > >> > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of >> > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star >> > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. >> > >> > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical >> > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. >> > >> > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? >> >> It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. >> In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than >> modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged >> them at less than a kiloton of yield. > >Been watching Star Trek V again, huh? :) > No, that would give them a yield of a modern hand grenade. :) Eric "Sufficiently advanced technology is often indistinguishable from magic." Clarke's Third Law aa #197 Remove the obvious to mail me ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 03:19:27 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF59A60.3060108@shaw.ca> -------- Durandal wrote: > DarkStar told me: >>So, where is 64 megatons coming from? > > It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. > In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than > modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged > them at less than a kiloton of yield. That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a handgrenade on A-Team. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 00:43:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3CF59A60.3060108@shaw.ca... > Durandal wrote: > > DarkStar told me: > > >>So, where is 64 megatons coming from? > > > > It's just been so ingrained because of the TM that we sometimes forget. > > In reality (sort of), photon torpedoes appear to be no more lethal than > > modern chemical explosives, and I did a calc a while back that pegged > > them at less than a kiloton of yield. > > That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a > handgrenade on A-Team. I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. :-) Rob Wilson > > C.S.Strowbridge > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 02:25:04 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF830B6.1080503@shaw.ca> -------- rob.wn5 wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a >>handgrenade on A-Team. > > I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. God I hated that show. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 03:34:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3CF830B6.1080503@shaw.ca... > rob.wn5 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a > >>handgrenade on A-Team. > > > > I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. > > God I hated that show. But it gave us Barclay. :-) Rob Wilson > > C.S.Strowbridge > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Ambivalent DMZ Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 03:05:35 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "rob.wn5" wrote in news:kqWJ8.4256$6S.225456 @newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > news:3CF830B6.1080503@shaw.ca... >> rob.wn5 wrote: >> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >> >> >>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a >> >>handgrenade on A-Team. >> > >> > I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. >> >> God I hated that show. > > But it gave us Barclay. God, I hated that show. -- DMZ mhm33x4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:58:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message news:Xns922029A315EB4C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... > "rob.wn5" wrote in news:kqWJ8.4256$6S.225456 > @newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > > > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message > > news:3CF830B6.1080503@shaw.ca... > >> rob.wn5 wrote: > >> > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > >> > >> >>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a > >> >>handgrenade on A-Team. > >> > > >> > I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. > >> > >> God I hated that show. > > > > But it gave us Barclay. > > God, I hated that show. But Barclay is such a great character, he makes the show *looks At keyboard* is there an Icon for deep sarcasm? ;-) Rob Wilson > > -- > DMZ mhm33x4 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 2 Jun 2002 03:20:46 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020601222045701-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named rob.wn5 told me: >> God, I hated that show. > > But Barclay is such a great character, he makes the show *looks At > keyboard* is there an Icon for deep sarcasm? ;-) Aye. I nearly wet myself laughing when a stormtrooper shot him on the spot in that one episode ... oh wait, that was Mike Wong's "Conquest," sorry. I just wanted that to be canon sooooooo badly. -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 04:25:13 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF84CE0.8040702@shaw.ca> -------- rob.wn5 wrote: > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: >>>>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a >>>>handgrenade on A-Team. >>> >>>I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. >> >>God I hated that show. > > But it gave us Barclay. He was the only good thing about it. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "rob.wn5" Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:59:06 +0100 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3CF84CE0.8040702@shaw.ca... > rob.wn5 wrote: > > "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote: > > >>>>That's being generous. Sometimes they're less effective than a > >>>>handgrenade on A-Team. > >>> > >>>I pity the fool, fires a puny torpedo at me. > >> > >>God I hated that show. > > > > But it gave us Barclay. > > He was the only good thing about it. Nah, The babe reporter was the only good thing about it. :-) Rob Wilson > > C.S.Strowbridge > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:23:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:80ae86b7.0205291530.4d38327a@posting.google.com... > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? 64 is basically a carry-over. We got so used to pegging Torps at 64 MT that we didn't expend much effort at doing calculations. However canon events such as "Night Terrors" and ST:V consistently peg Pho-torps in the mid-low kiloton range. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:15:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf57d24_1@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ad3rih$tpg7i$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > 64 is basically a carry-over. We got so used to pegging Torps at 64 MT that > we didn't expend much effort at doing calculations. However canon events > such as "Night Terrors" and ST:V consistently peg Pho-torps in the mid-low > kiloton range. > What do the "Pegasus" calcs put them at? We know that a GCS can be damaged by close shots (unless that statement is from the TM.) Could it be that 1. Proximity is a factor in many battles (since ST ships typically fight at <20 km) 2. Torps have to be charged with antimatter from the main reactor and it takes considerably longer to charge up 1 64MT PT than to fire 10 weak PTs? I thought that was the case, but in BOBW the Ent-D has plenty of time to charge a torp to fire out of the rear tube at the Borg cube, and it is still a KT-level detonation IIRC. Also, runabouts are stated by Trek debaters to be able to take hits from capship torpedoes. These are the same runabouts that can't take 900 MW from a defense sattelite. -=Doomriser ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 30 May 2002 02:08:26 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020529210824852-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named Doomriser told me: > What do the "Pegasus" calcs put them at? "Pegasus" isn't a very good example. The asteroid was largely hollow, and Riker was desperate not to allow the Pegasus to be found. So, of course he suggests destroying the asteroid, or at least enough of it so that the Pegasus is also destroyed. We don't know how many photon torpedoes the Enterprise was carrying, but Riker's desperation to avoid finding the Pegasus casts his suggestion in serious doubt. > We know that a GCS can be damaged by close shots (unless that > statement is from the TM.) Could it be that 1. Proximity is a factor > in many battles (since ST ships typically fight at <20 km) 2. Torps > have to be charged with antimatter from the main reactor and it takes > considerably longer to charge up 1 64MT PT than to fire 10 weak PTs? I > thought that was the case, but in BOBW the Ent-D has plenty of time to > charge a torp to fire out of the rear tube at the Borg cube, and it is > still a KT-level detonation IIRC. Not even. "Night Terrors" pegs them at less than 1 kiloton. Where's this "charging" stuff coming from, anyway? -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:53:23 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Doomriser" wrote in message news:3cf57d24_1@news.cybersurf.net... > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ad3rih$tpg7i$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > 64 is basically a carry-over. We got so used to pegging Torps at 64 MT > that > > we didn't expend much effort at doing calculations. However canon events > > such as "Night Terrors" and ST:V consistently peg Pho-torps in the mid-low > > kiloton range. > > > What do the "Pegasus" calcs put them at? > > We know that a GCS can be damaged by close shots (unless that statement is > from the TM.) Could it be that > 1. Proximity is a factor in many battles (since ST ships typically fight at > <20 km) > 2. Torps have to be charged with antimatter from the main reactor and it > takes considerably longer to charge up 1 64MT PT than to fire 10 weak PTs? I > thought that was the case, but in BOBW the Ent-D has plenty of time to > charge a torp to fire out of the rear tube at the Borg cube, and it is still > a KT-level detonation IIRC. I don't know about that being a kiloton level detonation, because those were huge. The torpedoes fired by the Enterprise produced fireball-looking-things almost as large as the face of the Borg ship, which is three kilometers to a side. > > Also, runabouts are stated by Trek debaters to be able to take hits from > capship torpedoes. These are the same runabouts that can't take 900 MW from > a defense sattelite. Well, even a Type 6 shuttle has withstood a photon torpedo. I think the episode was "Parallels". Worf was trying to get back to his reality, and an Enterprise from a Borg infested reality shot him with a photon torpedo. Of course, that was the reality where a haggard Riker and Worf were on the bridge, so it was probably a torpedo loaded with gasoline. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:06:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:DugJ8.63301$Kp.6396461@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > news:3cf57d24_1@news.cybersurf.net... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:ad3rih$tpg7i$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > 64 is basically a carry-over. We got so used to pegging Torps at 64 MT > > that > > > we didn't expend much effort at doing calculations. However canon events > > > such as "Night Terrors" and ST:V consistently peg Pho-torps in the > mid-low > > > kiloton range. > > > > > What do the "Pegasus" calcs put them at? > > > > We know that a GCS can be damaged by close shots (unless that statement is > > from the TM.) Could it be that > > 1. Proximity is a factor in many battles (since ST ships typically fight > at > > <20 km) > > 2. Torps have to be charged with antimatter from the main reactor and it > > takes considerably longer to charge up 1 64MT PT than to fire 10 weak PTs? > I > > thought that was the case, but in BOBW the Ent-D has plenty of time to > > charge a torp to fire out of the rear tube at the Borg cube, and it is > still > > a KT-level detonation IIRC. > > I don't know about that being a kiloton level detonation, because those were > huge. The torpedoes fired by the Enterprise produced > fireball-looking-things almost as large as the face of the Borg ship, which > is three kilometers to a side. Lets assume for a mintue that the explosion was roughly analogous to the blast radius of a nuclear weapon (not true because of a multitude of factors but suffice to say this would be an overestimate). The common equation is that blast_radius = Yield(in multiples of 2.5 Kt) ^0.33. For your equation the blast_radius is equal to 1.5 Km (again generous because that is the circle within which the square Borg cube would be inscribed). Plug this into the equation and your yield is a whopping 8.4 Kt. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 05:44:10 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ad4c4t$u469h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:DugJ8.63301$Kp.6396461@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Doomriser" wrote in message > > news:3cf57d24_1@news.cybersurf.net... > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:ad3rih$tpg7i$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > 64 is basically a carry-over. We got so used to pegging Torps at 64 MT > > > that > > > > we didn't expend much effort at doing calculations. However canon > events > > > > such as "Night Terrors" and ST:V consistently peg Pho-torps in the > > mid-low > > > > kiloton range. > > > > > > > What do the "Pegasus" calcs put them at? > > > > > > We know that a GCS can be damaged by close shots (unless that statement > is > > > from the TM.) Could it be that > > > 1. Proximity is a factor in many battles (since ST ships typically fight > > at > > > <20 km) > > > 2. Torps have to be charged with antimatter from the main reactor and it > > > takes considerably longer to charge up 1 64MT PT than to fire 10 weak > PTs? > > I > > > thought that was the case, but in BOBW the Ent-D has plenty of time to > > > charge a torp to fire out of the rear tube at the Borg cube, and it is > > still > > > a KT-level detonation IIRC. > > > > I don't know about that being a kiloton level detonation, because those > were > > huge. The torpedoes fired by the Enterprise produced > > fireball-looking-things almost as large as the face of the Borg ship, > which > > is three kilometers to a side. > > > Lets assume for a mintue that the explosion was roughly analogous to the > blast radius of a nuclear weapon (not true because of a multitude of factors > but suffice to say this would be an overestimate). The common equation is > that blast_radius = Yield(in multiples of 2.5 Kt) ^0.33. > > For your equation the blast_radius is equal to 1.5 Km (again generous > because that is the circle within which the square Borg cube would be > inscribed). Plug this into the equation and your yield is a whopping 8.4 Kt. No, you're using the wrong equation. The equation you have is for the blast (i.e. shockwave, atmospheric pressure wave, or overpressure effects) of an atomic bomb. The shockwave is not the same thing as the fireball. Neither what you used nor what I'm about to use is useful insofar as determining the torpedo yield, since both involve atmosphere, but here goes anyway with the proper equation: We'll say that the fireballs from the torpedoes were 1 kilometer wide. I haven't seen the episode in a little while, but that seems like a conservative estimate. The Radius is R (in feet) The Yield is Y (in kilotons) R = 145 x Y^0.39 is the equation given for fireball radius. So, 3,280 feet = 145 x Y^0.39 22.62 = Y^0.39 Now, since I've lost my mind and forgotten what the hell to do at this point, I just started plugging numbers into the calculator like a madman. As it turns out, 3000^0.39 equals 22.7ish, so we'll call Y approximately 3000. That means that a one kilometer fireball would come from a 3 megaton device. Again, that's meaningless for figuring out what the yield on the Enterprise torpedoes was against the shields of a spaceborne adversary at warp speeds, since the equation deals with nuclear weapons against unshielded targets in airburst situations within the atmosphere of a planet at sublight speed (whew! long sentence), but it's fun anyway. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:55:19 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:K_iJ8.65568$jm.6346780@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > We'll say that the fireballs from the torpedoes were 1 kilometer wide. I > haven't seen the episode in a little while, but that seems like a > conservative estimate. > > The Radius is R (in feet) > The Yield is Y (in kilotons) > > R = 145 x Y^0.39 is the equation given for fireball radius. So, > > 3,280 feet = 145 x Y^0.39 > 22.62 = Y^0.39 > > Now, since I've lost my mind and forgotten what the hell to do at this > point, I just started plugging numbers into the calculator like a madman. > As it turns out, 3000^0.39 equals 22.7ish, so we'll call Y approximately > 3000. > > That means that a one kilometer fireball would come from a 3 megaton device. > > Again, that's meaningless for figuring out what the yield on the Enterprise > torpedoes was against the shields of a spaceborne adversary at warp speeds, > since the equation deals with nuclear weapons against unshielded targets in > airburst situations within the atmosphere of a planet at sublight speed > (whew! long sentence), but it's fun anyway. :) The radius is HALF the width of a circle or sphere. It is 1640 feet, NOT 3280. Here's how you really do it using this formula: R=1640 (145)(Y^0.39)=1640 11.31=Y^0.39 11.31^(1/0.39)=Y Y=502.59kT Check: 502.59^0.39=11.31 Using this formula, and we conclude that the fireball is only about 500 kilotons. If not for the fact that I make similar screwups of confusing radius with diameter, missing the term "1/2" in 1/2mv^2 and so on, I might have called this a deliberate falsification attempt. Besides, you were right in that using the overpressure radius calculations (which generally compute for the 5psi line or so) makes the weapon look too weak :-) The difficulty of assessing proper yield from the size of the fireball alone is the reason why firepower calcs tend to start by assessing the damage to "known objects" like asteroids. It is easier to assess how big the crater was and what it really means that way. Even if the torpedo made a dent, it is hard to tell the precise yield because we don't know what a hull is made of and so on. A focused detonation may also screw up the equation and there are a lot of others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:58:39 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes - Addendum Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad4ifh$uaut5$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > what a hull is made of and so on. A focused detonation may also screw up > the equation and there are a lot of others. The focused detonation means more of the energy is committed to going underground. That may mean a somewhat lesser flash than is appropriate for the size...maybe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:26:55 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad4ifh$uaut5$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > Again, that's meaningless for figuring out what the yield on the > Enterprise > > torpedoes was against the shields of a spaceborne adversary at warp > speeds, > > since the equation deals with nuclear weapons against unshielded > targets in > > airburst situations within the atmosphere of a planet at sublight > speed > > (whew! long sentence), but it's fun anyway. :) > > The radius is HALF the width of a circle or sphere. It is 1640 feet, NOT > 3280. Here's how you really do it using this formula: > > R=1640 > > (145)(Y^0.39)=1640 > 11.31=Y^0.39 > 11.31^(1/0.39)=Y > Y=502.59kT > > Check: > 502.59^0.39=11.31 > > Using this formula, and we conclude that the fireball is only about 500 > kilotons. If not for the fact that I make similar screwups of confusing > radius with diameter, missing the term "1/2" in 1/2mv^2 and so on, I > might have called this a deliberate falsification attempt. Besides, you > were right in that using the overpressure radius calculations (which > generally compute for the 5psi line or so) makes the weapon look too > weak :-) Well, thanks for suggesting I was right on something (I was only partially right... see my second reply), but you're a little overzealous about the math. Yes, I accidentally put giga- instead of kilo- in another post (the hazard of using a conversion program more often than just counting the zeroes), and yes, I accidentally used a diameter for radius (I haven't had to do lots of geometric/mathematic calculations in years). The first instance caused you to jump on me like crazy, and the second almost got me accused of a "deliberate falsification attempt". Dude, chill. This is for fun, and the fireball calculation was certainly just for fun (that is why I said, twice, and at length, that it was not applicable to anything), so take a quaalude or something. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:53:10 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:jnlJ8.67900$%o.6590344@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:ad4ifh$uaut5$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > Using this formula, and we conclude that the fireball is only about 500 > > kilotons. If not for the fact that I make similar screwups of confusing > > radius with diameter, missing the term "1/2" in 1/2mv^2 and so on, I > > might have called this a deliberate falsification attempt. Besides, you > > were right in that using the overpressure radius calculations (which > > generally compute for the 5psi line or so) makes the weapon look too > > weak :-) > > Well, thanks for suggesting I was right on something (I was only partially > right... see my second reply), but you're a little overzealous about the > math. Yes, I accidentally put giga- instead of kilo- in another post (the > hazard of using a conversion program more often than just counting the > zeroes), and yes, I accidentally used a diameter for radius (I haven't had > to do lots of geometric/mathematic calculations in years). The first > instance caused you to jump on me like crazy, and the second almost got me > accused of a "deliberate falsification attempt". Yeah, well. First of all, it was "almost". I can sympathize with what happened to you both times, really. As a matter of interest, even Mike Wong makes such mistakes from time to time (he even admitted it - Check his What's New page and you'll see the story of how a 180 pound rock was reduced to a 30 pound rock). However, there are two things: 1) I'm the fanatical "zampolit" of this group. I tried to say I'm not. No one believes me. Might as well go with the flow. 2) Wrong is wrong and should be pointed out, no matter how minor, how ridiculous... Linguistically, kilo and giga is just one prefix different, for instance. Not a big error. However, mathematically, even a small difference from the correct value is technically wrong (unless the difference is arbitrarily small, at which time it becomes calculus). Scientifically, of course, there is a limit to error, but some error is allowed for the inherent inaccuracies in observation. They generally don't allow for six orders of magnitude of difference. That is a HUGE ERROR! :-) 3) Coupled with two, I can get pretty aggressive on "small" (depending on your POV) errors. Even one that's part of a red herring :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "His Divine Shadow" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:58:39 +0300 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad50ct$s7bji$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:jnlJ8.67900$%o.6590344@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:ad4ifh$uaut5$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > Using this formula, and we conclude that the fireball is only about > 500 > > > kilotons. If not for the fact that I make similar screwups of > confusing > > > radius with diameter, missing the term "1/2" in 1/2mv^2 and so on, I > > > might have called this a deliberate falsification attempt. Besides, > you > > > were right in that using the overpressure radius calculations (which > > > generally compute for the 5psi line or so) makes the weapon look too > > > weak :-) > > > > Well, thanks for suggesting I was right on something (I was only > partially > > right... see my second reply), but you're a little overzealous about > the > > math. Yes, I accidentally put giga- instead of kilo- in another post > (the > > hazard of using a conversion program more often than just counting the > > zeroes), and yes, I accidentally used a diameter for radius (I haven't > had > > to do lots of geometric/mathematic calculations in years). The first > > instance caused you to jump on me like crazy, and the second almost > got me > > accused of a "deliberate falsification attempt". > > Yeah, well. First of all, it was "almost". I can sympathize with what > happened to you both times, really. As a matter of interest, even Mike > Wong makes such mistakes from time to time (he even admitted it - Check > his What's New page and you'll see the story of how a 180 pound rock was > reduced to a 30 pound rock). However, there are two things: > > 1) I'm the fanatical "zampolit" of this group. I tried to say I'm not. > No one believes me. Might as well go with the flow. > 2) Wrong is wrong and should be pointed out, no matter how minor, how > ridiculous... Linguistically, kilo and giga is just one prefix > different, for instance. Not a big error. However, mathematically, even > a small difference from the correct value is technically wrong (unless > the difference is arbitrarily small, at which time it becomes calculus). > Scientifically, of course, there is a limit to error, but some error is > allowed for the inherent inaccuracies in observation. They generally > don't allow for six orders of magnitude of difference. That is a HUGE > ERROR! :-) > 3) Coupled with two, I can get pretty aggressive on "small" (depending > on your POV) errors. Even one that's part of a red herring :-) In short, you're an evil evil bitter little man :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:19:28 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- Being His Usual Anal Fanatical Self"His Divine Shadow" wrote in message news:iFnJ8.126$Eq3.9044@read2.inet.fi... > In short, you're an evil evil bitter little man :) I don't think I'm evil. However, I shall not deny the word "bitter". "Little"? I object! :-) -- Kaz Being His Usual Anal Fanatical Self ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 05:49:06 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ad4c4t$u469h$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > Lets assume for a mintue that the explosion was roughly analogous to the > blast radius of a nuclear weapon (not true because of a multitude of factors > but suffice to say this would be an overestimate). The common equation is > that blast_radius = Yield(in multiples of 2.5 Kt) ^0.33. > > For your equation the blast_radius is equal to 1.5 Km (again generous > because that is the circle within which the square Borg cube would be > inscribed). Plug this into the equation and your yield is a whopping 8.4 Kt. Actually, we're both wrong. A better equation is here: http://home.fnal.gov/~smaria/jdj/sld006.htm But, it is making my head hurt to look at it, so I'm not going to do the math right now. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:19:56 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf58c11.24536469@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On 29 May 2002 16:30:33 -0700, afinalunity@hotmail.com (DarkStar) wrote: >People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > >Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of >antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star >Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > >But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical >Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > >So, where is 64 megatons coming from? What's the name of the Omega episode on Voyager? IIRC Janeway redesigns a standard torp to a much higher rating than normal, and there's a Harry quote where he says that it could destroy something... what is it he says it's powerful enough to destroy? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:38:23 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3cf58c11.24536469@news.freeserve.co.uk... > On 29 May 2002 16:30:33 -0700, afinalunity@hotmail.com (DarkStar) > wrote: > > >People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > > >Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > >antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > >Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > > >But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > >Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > > >So, where is 64 megatons coming from? > > What's the name of the Omega episode on Voyager? IIRC Janeway > redesigns a standard torp to a much higher rating than normal, and > there's a Harry quote where he says that it could destroy something... > what is it he says it's powerful enough to destroy? "a small moon", I think. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 03:05:12 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf596b3.27258914@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 02:38:23 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3cf58c11.24536469@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> On 29 May 2002 16:30:33 -0700, afinalunity@hotmail.com (DarkStar) >> wrote: >> >> >People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. >> > >> >Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of >> >antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star >> >Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. >> > >> >But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical >> >Manual isn't considered a valid info source. >> > >> >So, where is 64 megatons coming from? >> >> What's the name of the Omega episode on Voyager? IIRC Janeway >> redesigns a standard torp to a much higher rating than normal, and >> there's a Harry quote where he says that it could destroy something... >> what is it he says it's powerful enough to destroy? > >"a small moon", I think. > Yes, right, there we go then, this is what should be taken as the upper limit for a warhead which can be easily and readily made by Starfleet and encased in a standard photon torpedo casing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 30 May 2002 04:39:32 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020530003932.28333.00000724@mb-fu.aol.com> -------- >On Thu, 30 May 2002 02:38:23 GMT, "DarkStar" >wrote: > >> >>"The Baron" wrote in message >>news:3cf58c11.24536469@news.freeserve.co.uk... >>> On 29 May 2002 16:30:33 -0700, afinalunity@hotmail.com (DarkStar) >>> wrote: >>> >>> >People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. >>> > >>> >Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of >>> >antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star >>> >Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. >>> > >>> >But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical >>> >Manual isn't considered a valid info source. >>> > >>> >So, where is 64 megatons coming from? >>> >>> What's the name of the Omega episode on Voyager? IIRC Janeway >>> redesigns a standard torp to a much higher rating than normal, and >>> there's a Harry quote where he says that it could destroy something... >>> what is it he says it's powerful enough to destroy? >> >>"a small moon", I think. >> >Yes, right, there we go then, this is what should be taken as the >upper limit for a warhead which can be easily and readily made by >Starfleet and encased in a standard photon torpedo casing. > ........And promptly given to the nearest RedShirts to be used as a bartop. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 05:54:53 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020530003932.28333.00000724@mb-fu.aol.com... > >>> What's the name of the Omega episode on Voyager? IIRC Janeway > >>> redesigns a standard torp to a much higher rating than normal, and > >>> there's a Harry quote where he says that it could destroy something... > >>> what is it he says it's powerful enough to destroy? > >> > >>"a small moon", I think. > >> > >Yes, right, there we go then, this is what should be taken as the > >upper limit for a warhead which can be easily and readily made by > >Starfleet and encased in a standard photon torpedo casing. > > > > ........And promptly given to the nearest RedShirts to be used as a bartop. Nah. They would use it as a fuse in one of the control panels on the bridge. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020530003932.28333.00000724@mb-fu.aol.com... > >On Thu, 30 May 2002 02:38:23 GMT, "DarkStar" > >wrote: > >>"a small moon", I think. > >> > >Yes, right, there we go then, this is what should be taken as the > >upper limit for a warhead which can be easily and readily made by > >Starfleet and encased in a standard photon torpedo casing. > > > > ........And promptly given to the nearest RedShirts to be used as a bartop. It is generally considered hyperbole by Kim, and it was never actually done. Besides, the moon could be AWFULLY small (I think Deimos is supposed to be a moon around Mars, but it is the size of a large asteroid, or was Phobos smaller?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 06:16:26 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >"Sir Nitram" wrote in message >news:20020530003932.28333.00000724@mb-fu.aol.com... >> >On Thu, 30 May 2002 02:38:23 GMT, "DarkStar" > >> >wrote: > >> >>"a small moon", I think. >> >> >> >Yes, right, there we go then, this is what should be taken as the >> >upper limit for a warhead which can be easily and readily made by >> >Starfleet and encased in a standard photon torpedo casing. >> > >> >> ........And promptly given to the nearest RedShirts to be used as a >bartop. > >It is generally considered hyperbole by Kim, and it was never actually >done. Besides, the moon could be AWFULLY small (I think Deimos is >supposed to be a moon around Mars, but it is the size of a large >asteroid, or was Phobos smaller?) > > There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present who doesn't contradict him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... > On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" > wrote: > There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on > the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the > modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him > to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present > who doesn't contradict him. Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a literal level. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:16:30 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf5d16c.42294927@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" >> wrote: > >> There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on >> the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the >> modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him >> to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present >> who doesn't contradict him. > >Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 >isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? >How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? >At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at >least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify >it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything >to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a >literal level. > An isoton is an unquantified unit, we don't know what it equates to you fool. You can give as many examples of hyperbole as you like, it doesn't mean that Harry was using hyperbole! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:33:33 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3cf5d16c.42294927@news.freeserve.co.uk... > On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" > wrote: > > >"The Baron" wrote in message > >news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" > >> wrote: > > > >> There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on > >> the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the > >> modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him > >> to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present > >> who doesn't contradict him. > > > >Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 > >isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? > >How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? > >At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at > >least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify > >it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything > >to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a > >literal level. > > > An isoton is an unquantified unit, we don't know what it equates to > you fool. You can give as many examples of hyperbole as you like, it > doesn't mean that Harry was using hyperbole! Um, actually, I also think he was using hyperbole. Deimos (a captured asteroid) is the smallest moon I can think of at the moment, and it is 16 x 10 kilometers, or about the same size (maybe, estimates vary) as the asteroid that Riker wanted to use the ship's complement of torpedoes to blow up in "Pegasus". Even the quantum torpedo backstory in the DS9 technical manual (yes, I know you guys don't use it) only referred to the first test of the warhead annihilating a nine-hundred meter diameter sphere underground. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:15:38 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf64fe5.74676752@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:33:33 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3cf5d16c.42294927@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" >> wrote: >> >> >"The Baron" wrote in message >> >news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on >> >> the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the >> >> modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him >> >> to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present >> >> who doesn't contradict him. >> > >> >Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 >> >isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? >> >How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? >> >At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at >> >least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify >> >it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything >> >to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a >> >literal level. >> > >> An isoton is an unquantified unit, we don't know what it equates to >> you fool. You can give as many examples of hyperbole as you like, it >> doesn't mean that Harry was using hyperbole! > >Um, actually, I also think he was using hyperbole. Deimos (a captured >asteroid) is the smallest moon I can think of at the moment, and it is 16 x >10 kilometers, or about the same size (maybe, estimates vary) as the >asteroid that Riker wanted to use the ship's complement of torpedoes to blow >up in "Pegasus". > >Even the quantum torpedo backstory in the DS9 technical manual (yes, I know >you guys don't use it) only referred to the first test of the warhead >annihilating a nine-hundred meter diameter sphere underground. It wasn't a standard torpedo, it had a redesigned warhead which Janeway designed and Kim had never seen the likes of before, naturally now that Voyager has made it back home, SF has the plans for that torpedo and can use it if necessary. It is not a standard photon torpedo, it is a super powerful warhead in a photon torpedo casing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Van Wie Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:26:35 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF60C58.2830CA02@yahoo.com> -------- The Baron wrote: > > On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" > wrote: > > >"The Baron" wrote in message > >news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" > >> wrote: > > > >> There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on > >> the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the > >> modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him > >> to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present > >> who doesn't contradict him. > > > >Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 > >isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? > >How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? > >At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at > >least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify > >it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything > >to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a > >literal level. > > > An isoton is an unquantified unit, we don't know what it equates to > you fool. You can give as many examples of hyperbole as you like, it > doesn't mean that Harry was using hyperbole! the prefix iso means "is equivalent to". so isotons means tons. MattV ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:18:45 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf65031.74752396@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 11:26:35 GMT, Matthew Van Wie wrote: >The Baron wrote: >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:33:14 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" >> wrote: >> >> >"The Baron" wrote in message >> >news:3cf5c37a.38723603@news.freeserve.co.uk... >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:03:54 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> There's no reason to assume it's hyperbole, Kim is well up to date on >> >> the destructive potential of such a weapon (hence it's him doing the >> >> modifications with Tuvok!) and there is absolutely no reason for him >> >> to exaggerate at all, especially not with a pedantic Vulcan present >> >> who doesn't contradict him. >> > >> >Even after his five million gigawatt comment and the fact that if 54 >> >isotons makes sense, it means the weapon is 54 tons of TNT equivalent? >> >How about the fact that kind of power was never actually demonstrated? >> >At least IMHO, something like Pegasus takes precedence, for you can at >> >least see the target that they're trying to blow up and try and quantify >> >it. Ever said "He seems ready to conquer the world today?" or anything >> >to that effect. Most people of course can't conquer the world on a >> >literal level. >> > >> An isoton is an unquantified unit, we don't know what it equates to >> you fool. You can give as many examples of hyperbole as you like, it >> doesn't mean that Harry was using hyperbole! > >the prefix iso means "is equivalent to". >so isotons means tons. Baseless assumption, if that's the case there's no point in having the prefix, what's the point in having a prefix that cancels itself out? You're using your assumptions of the meaning of words in the 21st century to explain things in the 24th. Clearly this is a fallacy. If a 17th century person was described to be gay, do you think he'd think you meant homosexual? Do you deny that the meaning of words can change over the course of time, and that 300 years is not an implausible length of time for the meaning of a prefix to change and come into common usage? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Doomriser" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf65913_2@news.cybersurf.net> -------- "The Baron" wrote in message > Baseless assumption, if that's the case there's no point in having the > prefix, what's the point in having a prefix that cancels itself out? > You're using your assumptions of the meaning of words in the 21st > century to explain things in the 24th. Clearly this is a fallacy. If a > 17th century person was described to be gay, do you think he'd think > you meant homosexual? Do you deny that the meaning of words can change > over the course of time, and that 300 years is not an implausible > length of time for the meaning of a prefix to change and come into > common usage? If you were explaining homosexuality to someone from the 17th century, would you use the word gay? No. Same goes for Trek - it is for a 20-21st century audience. Therefore, they _should_ use 20th century meanings in the transcript. Otherwise, we open the units up for interpretation. And kilometres could mean metres, etc... -=Doomriser ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:20:13 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf68965.89398967@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 12:53:37 -0400, "Doomriser" wrote: >"The Baron" wrote in message > Baseless assumption, if >that's the case there's no point in having the >> prefix, what's the point in having a prefix that cancels itself out? >> You're using your assumptions of the meaning of words in the 21st >> century to explain things in the 24th. Clearly this is a fallacy. If a >> 17th century person was described to be gay, do you think he'd think >> you meant homosexual? Do you deny that the meaning of words can change >> over the course of time, and that 300 years is not an implausible >> length of time for the meaning of a prefix to change and come into >> common usage? > >If you were explaining homosexuality to someone from the 17th century, would >you use the word gay? No. Same goes for Trek - it is for a 20-21st century >audience. Therefore, they _should_ use 20th century meanings in the >transcript. Otherwise, we open the units up for interpretation. And >kilometres could mean metres, etc... > The DS9 episode The Ship uses isoton as a weight value, hence your assumptions about it WERE wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:11:14 -0600 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF6B192.8B876C27@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- The Baron wrote: > > On Thu, 30 May 2002 12:53:37 -0400, "Doomriser" > wrote: > > >"The Baron" wrote in message > Baseless assumption, if > >that's the case there's no point in having the > >> prefix, what's the point in having a prefix that cancels itself out? > >> You're using your assumptions of the meaning of words in the 21st > >> century to explain things in the 24th. Clearly this is a fallacy. If a > >> 17th century person was described to be gay, do you think he'd think > >> you meant homosexual? Do you deny that the meaning of words can change > >> over the course of time, and that 300 years is not an implausible > >> length of time for the meaning of a prefix to change and come into > >> common usage? > > > >If you were explaining homosexuality to someone from the 17th century, would > >you use the word gay? No. Same goes for Trek - it is for a 20-21st century > >audience. Therefore, they _should_ use 20th century meanings in the > >transcript. Otherwise, we open the units up for interpretation. And > >kilometres could mean metres, etc... > > > The DS9 episode The Ship uses isoton as a weight value, hence your > assumptions about it WERE wrong. You do realize that a megaton is also defined as a million tons? Graeme Dice -- Kids Make Nutritious Snacks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:24:58 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf6b4b4.5028185@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 30 May 2002 17:11:14 -0600, Graeme Dice wrote: >The Baron wrote: >> >> On Thu, 30 May 2002 12:53:37 -0400, "Doomriser" >> wrote: >> >> >"The Baron" wrote in message > Baseless assumption, if >> >that's the case there's no point in having the >> >> prefix, what's the point in having a prefix that cancels itself out? >> >> You're using your assumptions of the meaning of words in the 21st >> >> century to explain things in the 24th. Clearly this is a fallacy. If a >> >> 17th century person was described to be gay, do you think he'd think >> >> you meant homosexual? Do you deny that the meaning of words can change >> >> over the course of time, and that 300 years is not an implausible >> >> length of time for the meaning of a prefix to change and come into >> >> common usage? >> > >> >If you were explaining homosexuality to someone from the 17th century, would >> >you use the word gay? No. Same goes for Trek - it is for a 20-21st century >> >audience. Therefore, they _should_ use 20th century meanings in the >> >transcript. Otherwise, we open the units up for interpretation. And >> >kilometres could mean metres, etc... >> > >> The DS9 episode The Ship uses isoton as a weight value, hence your >> assumptions about it WERE wrong. > >You do realize that a megaton is also defined as a million tons? > You don't get the point I'm trying to convey... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 07:50:08 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3cf6b4b4.5028185@news.freeserve.co.uk... > You don't get the point I'm trying to convey... I'll bite. Tell me the point that is supposed to shatter our arguments. And no, the mere revelation that tons is a unit of mass doesn't cut it, because we knew that for a thousand years already. Tell me something else, like they used isoton to represent the mass of a large object, then explain to us how large it is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:56:56 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3cf6c63b.3763375@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Fri, 31 May 2002 07:50:08 +0800, "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote: >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3cf6b4b4.5028185@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >> You don't get the point I'm trying to convey... > >I'll bite. Tell me the point that is supposed to shatter our arguments. >And no, the mere revelation that tons is a unit of mass doesn't cut it, >because we knew that for a thousand years already. Tell me something >else, like they used isoton to represent the mass of a large object, >then explain to us how large it is. > I didn't actually have a point, haha. But I've been mulling this over in the bath, and I had a few thoughts... It was a really good bath, candles and bubbles and it was so ace. Anyway. In Scorpion Part II a 5 million isoton yield warhead would destroy an entire system. Are you claiming that this means a 5 MT warhead in ST affects entire star systems? Does this mean that a photon torpedo can destroy a few systems on its own? Clearly isoton does not mean ton, as is claimed. I need more than one example, hmm... Kim : "This looks like enough for a 50 isoton explosion." Tuvok : "Fifty four, to be exact." Kim : "What are we planning to do, blow up a small planet?" Tuvok : "I don't know." Tuvok's 'I don't know' categorically rules out Kim using hyperbole there, it just isn't in his character to say something like that in response to what would basically be a lie. These figures seem pretty consistant, 50 isotons blows up a small planet, 5 million destroys an entire star system, seems like pretty nice scaling to me! *watches more voyager* NICE! Janeway : "Mr. Kim, you ask too many questions. Change of plans, gentlemen. Increase the charge to 80 isotons." Tuvok : "Aye captain." 80 isotons, enough to blow up a medium sized planet? Even if you put what Kim says down to exaggeration, it's somewhat unlikely that he would be talking in the realms of many orders of magnitude greater than the torpedo could accomplish, so at the very least, surely it's safe to assume that they could destroy very large asteroids? This isn't a standard photon torp warhead, note, it's a grativic warhead which presumably does significantly more damage than a normal torp. The entire complement of Voyager's torpedoes is 200 isotons (Scorpion: Part 2) Whatever your view on the exact rating of an isoton, it should now be clear that 1 isoton != 1 ton, unless you seriously want to say that a 5MT warhead can destroy an entire system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 03:05:44 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF6E8B5.20600@shaw.ca> -------- The Baron wrote: > In Scorpion Part II a 5 million isoton yield warhead would destroy an > entire system. I think you need to look up that quote a little more carefully. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: 31 May 2002 04:57:30 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020530235729677-0500@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- The voice in my head named The Baron told me: > In Scorpion Part II a 5 million isoton yield warhead would destroy an > entire system. Are you claiming that this means a 5 MT warhead in ST > affects entire star systems? Does this mean that a photon torpedo can > destroy a few systems on its own? Clearly isoton does not mean ton, as > is claimed. Actually, a 5MT warhead could easily affect an entire star system. Blow up a small asteroid with it, and you've affected the gravity of the entire *universe*. > I need more than one example, hmm... > Kim : "This looks like enough for a 50 isoton explosion." > Tuvok : "Fifty four, to be exact." > Kim : "What are we planning to do, blow up a small planet?" > Tuvok : "I don't know." > Tuvok's 'I don't know' categorically rules out Kim using hyperbole > there, it just isn't in his character to say something like that in > response to what would basically be a lie. Or it just means that he was annoyed with Kim and didn't want to bother correcting him. > These figures seem pretty consistant, 50 isotons blows up a small > planet, 5 million destroys an entire star system, seems like pretty > nice scaling to me! > *watches more voyager* > NICE! > Janeway : "Mr. Kim, you ask too many questions. Change of plans, > gentlemen. Increase the charge to 80 isotons." > Tuvok : "Aye captain." > > 80 isotons, enough to blow up a medium sized planet? > Even if you put what Kim says down to exaggeration, it's somewhat > unlikely that he would be talking in the realms of many orders of > magnitude greater than the torpedo could accomplish, so at the very > least, surely it's safe to assume that they could destroy very large > asteroids? In Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio's character says that he is the "king of the world." According to you, he may not be the king of the world, but he's got to be the king of something. Don't forget Dak in TESB: "I feel like I could take on the whole Empire myself!" That's overstating something by many orders of magnitude. Guess what? People do that stuff, and Kim's idiotic exclamations certainly fit into that category. What did they ever use that warhead for, anyway? -- Damien Sorresso [AOL IM: durandal64] | [ICQ: 12183859] http://homepage.mac.com/durandal64 "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." -Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fenix_burns@yahoo.com (Eleas) Date: 31 May 2002 02:54:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- Durandal wrote in message news:<20020530235729677-0500@news.cis.dfn.de>... > The voice in my head named The Baron told me: > > What did they ever use that warhead for, anyway? They intended to use it against S8472, but (IIRC) they were forced to go with a smaller model due to the lack of enough nanoprobes to charge it with. -- Björn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:36:35 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3CF7A6C4.6060401@shaw.ca> -------- Eleas wrote: > Durandal wrote: >>What did they ever use that warhead for, anyway? > > They intended to use it against S8472, but (IIRC) they were forced to > go with a smaller model due to the lack of enough nanoprobes to charge > it with. Yep, the 5 Million Isoton warhead was never meant to damage anything, just spread nanaprobes. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:45:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message news:Xns922018B0D695DC8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > "rob.wn5" wrote in > news:ejVJ8.3903$6S.219169@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > > > > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message > > news:Xns922015EE75B21C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > >> "rob.wn5" wrote in > >> news:v1VJ8.3792$6S.216695@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > >> > >> > > >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in > >> > message news:Xns9220DEA72E89C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... > >> >> "rob.wn5" wrote in > >> >> news:TjUJ8.3529$6S.210703@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in > >> >> > message news:Xns921FEE8B52CB9C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > >> >> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in > >> >> >> news:3CF7D7A2.2050907 @shaw.ca: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Turbolaser - A laser with red stripes along either side. > >> >> > > >> >> > No a Turbo laser is one that has a boost from the engine > >> >> > exhaust. That's why they glow, the heat from the exhaust gases. > >> >> > > >> >> > The one with the red strips is the EssexLaser. > >> >> > >> >> You mean the Turbolaser GTi. > >> > > >> > No that's the black beam with recaro gunner seats in the turret > >> > that fired it. > >> > >> *ISD with body kit, drastically lowered suspension and huge "VTEC" > >> sticker running along its kilometer long length hoves into view, > >> drum'n'bass version of Imperial March plays in background* > > > > 100m Alloy rims around the Engines, plus tinted bridge windows - with > > Darth and Piett stickers along the top. > > Neon tubes running along each side of the docking bay. > 450m tall spoiler rising off the top of the Bridge Tower. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Ambivalent DMZ Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 01:58:36 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in news:ad995j$vcdus$1@ID- 97732.news.dfncis.de: > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message > news:Xns922018B0D695DC8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> "rob.wn5" wrote in >> news:ejVJ8.3903$6S.219169@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> >> > >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message >> > news:Xns922015EE75B21C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> >> "rob.wn5" wrote in >> >> news:v1VJ8.3792$6S.216695@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >> >> > message news:Xns9220DEA72E89C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... >> >> >> "rob.wn5" wrote in >> >> >> news:TjUJ8.3529$6S.210703@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >> >> >> > message news:Xns921FEE8B52CB9C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> >> >> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in >> >> >> >> news:3CF7D7A2.2050907 @shaw.ca: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Turbolaser - A laser with red stripes along either side. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > No a Turbo laser is one that has a boost from the engine >> >> >> > exhaust. That's why they glow, the heat from the exhaust gases. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The one with the red strips is the EssexLaser. >> >> >> >> >> >> You mean the Turbolaser GTi. >> >> > >> >> > No that's the black beam with recaro gunner seats in the turret >> >> > that fired it. >> >> >> >> *ISD with body kit, drastically lowered suspension and huge "VTEC" >> >> sticker running along its kilometer long length hoves into view, >> >> drum'n'bass version of Imperial March plays in background* >> > >> > 100m Alloy rims around the Engines, plus tinted bridge windows - with >> > Darth and Piett stickers along the top. >> >> Neon tubes running along each side of the docking bay. > > 450m tall spoiler rising off the top of the Bridge Tower. A caption at the bottom of the mental image reads: "Attention Flash Programmers: This image has been generated by professional stunt linguists. Do not try this or any other inane image at home." -- DMZ mhm33x4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 04:38:50 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ad995j$vcdus$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message > news:Xns922018B0D695DC8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > > "rob.wn5" wrote in > > news:ejVJ8.3903$6S.219169@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > > > > > > > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message > > > news:Xns922015EE75B21C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > > >> "rob.wn5" wrote in > > >> news:v1VJ8.3792$6S.216695@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in > > >> > message news:Xns9220DEA72E89C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... > > >> >> "rob.wn5" wrote in > > >> >> news:TjUJ8.3529$6S.210703@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in > > >> >> > message news:Xns921FEE8B52CB9C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... > > >> >> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in > > >> >> >> news:3CF7D7A2.2050907 @shaw.ca: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Turbolaser - A laser with red stripes along either side. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > No a Turbo laser is one that has a boost from the engine > > >> >> > exhaust. That's why they glow, the heat from the exhaust gases. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > The one with the red strips is the EssexLaser. > > >> >> > > >> >> You mean the Turbolaser GTi. > > >> > > > >> > No that's the black beam with recaro gunner seats in the turret > > >> > that fired it. > > >> > > >> *ISD with body kit, drastically lowered suspension and huge "VTEC" > > >> sticker running along its kilometer long length hoves into view, > > >> drum'n'bass version of Imperial March plays in background* > > > > > > 100m Alloy rims around the Engines, plus tinted bridge windows - with > > > Darth and Piett stickers along the top. > > > > Neon tubes running along each side of the docking bay. > > > > > 450m tall spoiler rising off the top of the Bridge Tower. Shouldn't the bridge tower have hydraulics that make it jump up and spin around? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: The Ambivalent DMZ Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 04:58:51 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in news:udYJ8.88090$Oa1.8253862@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ad995j$vcdus$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message >> news:Xns922018B0D695DC8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> > "rob.wn5" wrote in >> > news:ejVJ8.3903$6S.219169@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> > >> > > >> > > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >> > > message news:Xns922015EE75B21C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> > >> "rob.wn5" wrote in >> > >> news:v1VJ8.3792$6S.216695@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >> > >> > message news:Xns9220DEA72E89C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... >> > >> >> "rob.wn5" wrote in >> > >> >> news:TjUJ8.3529$6S.210703@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > "The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote >> > >> >> > in message news:Xns921FEE8B52CB9C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >> > >> >> >> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in >> > >> >> >> news:3CF7D7A2.2050907 @shaw.ca: >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Turbolaser - A laser with red stripes along either side. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > No a Turbo laser is one that has a boost from the engine >> > >> >> > exhaust. That's why they glow, the heat from the exhaust >> > >> >> > gases. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > The one with the red strips is the EssexLaser. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> You mean the Turbolaser GTi. >> > >> > >> > >> > No that's the black beam with recaro gunner seats in the >> > >> > turret that fired it. >> > >> >> > >> *ISD with body kit, drastically lowered suspension and huge >> > >> "VTEC" sticker running along its kilometer long length hoves >> > >> into view, drum'n'bass version of Imperial March plays in >> > >> background* >> > > >> > > 100m Alloy rims around the Engines, plus tinted bridge windows - >> > > with Darth and Piett stickers along the top. >> > >> > Neon tubes running along each side of the docking bay. >> > >> >> >> 450m tall spoiler rising off the top of the Bridge Tower. > > Shouldn't the bridge tower have hydraulics that make it jump up and > spin around? You're thinking of Leia's hair style. -- DMZ mhm33x4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tyralak Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:08:18 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <3D1984E0.9040203@earthlink.net> -------- The Ambivalent DMZ wrote: > "DarkStar" wrote in > news:udYJ8.88090$Oa1.8253862@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com: > > >>"Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message >>news:ad995j$vcdus$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... >> >>>"The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in message >>>news:Xns922018B0D695DC8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >>> >>>>"rob.wn5" wrote in >>>>news:ejVJ8.3903$6S.219169@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >>>>>message news:Xns922015EE75B21C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >>>>> >>>>>>"rob.wn5" wrote in >>>>>>news:v1VJ8.3792$6S.216695@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote in >>>>>>>message news:Xns9220DEA72E89C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.77... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"rob.wn5" wrote in >>>>>>>>news:TjUJ8.3529$6S.210703@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"The Ambivalent DMZ" wrote >>>>>>>>>in message news:Xns921FEE8B52CB9C8H10N4O2@158.152.254.78... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote in >>>>>>>>>>news:3CF7D7A2.2050907 @shaw.ca: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Turbolaser - A laser with red stripes along either side. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No a Turbo laser is one that has a boost from the engine >>>>>>>>>exhaust. That's why they glow, the heat from the exhaust >>>>>>>>>gases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The one with the red strips is the EssexLaser. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You mean the Turbolaser GTi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No that's the black beam with recaro gunner seats in the >>>>>>>turret that fired it. >>>>>> >>>>>>*ISD with body kit, drastically lowered suspension and huge >>>>>>"VTEC" sticker running along its kilometer long length hoves >>>>>>into view, drum'n'bass version of Imperial March plays in >>>>>>background* >>>>> >>>>>100m Alloy rims around the Engines, plus tinted bridge windows - >>>>>with Darth and Piett stickers along the top. >>>> >>>>Neon tubes running along each side of the docking bay. >>>> >>> >>> >>>450m tall spoiler rising off the top of the Bridge Tower. >> >>Shouldn't the bridge tower have hydraulics that make it jump up and >>spin around? > > > You're thinking of Leia's hair style. > Don't forget the giant radar detector on the bridge, and the black car bra on the nose. -- Your powers are useless! I'm Wearing Tin-Foil underwear! Tyralak, Supreme Commander Of The Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax Troll Hunter For Hire [END SUBSPACE TRANSMISSION] - To e-mail, remove NOSPAM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:13:35 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:80ae86b7.0205291530.4d38327a@posting.google.com... > People keep saying that torpedoes are only 64 megatons or so, max. > > Now, from what I understand, that is derived from the amount of > antimatter they carry, which is 1.5 kilograms according to the Star > Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. > > But, I'm also getting the idea from reading on here that the Technical > Manual isn't considered a valid info source. > > So, where is 64 megatons coming from? You see, it is a holdover. For a long time, 64MT was adequate to explain just about every calc. The Trekkies would claim low yields to explain the embarassing incidents where the yield is lower than 64MT (even though in many situations there is little excuse, but then back then it was thought to be official, and besides by then, we were already up the GT class turbolasers so we let them get away with it) That produced something of an atrophy in the development of canon torpedo calculations. Only rare cases like Pegasus where there seemed there was _potential_ to exceed 64MT were investigated at all (IIRC, none survived the Warsie counterfire that followed). Then we realized the TM did not wash. But no new calcs were immediately available. Most of the new calcs that could now be taken independently showed kT yields. According to Wong, even the destruction of the Pegasus asteroid showed about 3MT, even if it was a solid thing. So somewhere between our laziness, familiarility with this number, and generosity, we let it stand :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:55:44 +0800 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad490g$uc0go$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > Then we realized the TM did not wash. But no new calcs were immediately > available. Most of the new calcs that could now be taken independently > showed kT yields. According to Wong, even the destruction of the Pegasus > asteroid showed about 3MT, even if it was a solid thing. So somewhere > between our laziness, familiarility with this number, and generosity, we > let it stand :-) Sorry, my bad. It should be TWELVE megatons. Linguistically, that's a one word error. Mathematically, I'm dead wrong, and scientifically, I am way off too. I know I've repeated this mistake somewhere because I forgot to check, but I forgot where it is. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Campaign/index.html#sdfootnote1anc -- Kaz With a pink face for the error ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:37:59 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ad57ja$u83le$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:ad490g$uc0go$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > Then we realized the TM did not wash. But no new calcs were > immediately > > available. Most of the new calcs that could now be taken independently > > showed kT yields. According to Wong, even the destruction of the > Pegasus > > asteroid showed about 3MT, even if it was a solid thing. So somewhere > > between our laziness, familiarility with this number, and generosity, > we > > let it stand :-) > > Sorry, my bad. It should be TWELVE megatons. Linguistically, that's a > one word error. Mathematically, I'm dead wrong, and scientifically, I am > way off too. I know I've repeated this mistake somewhere because I > forgot to check, but I forgot where it is. > http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Campaign/index.html#sdfootnote1anc > -- > Kaz > With a pink face for the error You BASTARD! You were WRONG! Oh my God, I can't believe how utterly and totally in ERROR you were! That was deliberate, wasn't it? You were trying to LIE! This is RE-GODDAMN-DICULOUS! I'm calling the cops. I'm calling my congressman. I'm calling the U.N.! We must impose sanctions on you immediately! (thinks for a moment) Nah, you're okay. :) hehe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: big_red901@hotmail.com (CaptainSheridan) Date: 2 Jun 2002 13:59:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <2d3e5dbf.0206021259.7a369533@posting.google.com> -------- 1. The Iso-Kenetic Mine would only "effect" a solar system, not destoy one. And even if the mine had infinite energy, not only would it kill the nano-probes, but it would only get up to 1 c and take 5 years to cover 5 ly. And the nanoprobes would have infinite mass therefore infinite gravity and kill the universe. Oops. 2. To destroy a earth sized planet it'd take 2e32 J. A kg of M and a kg of AM~42 megatons. It'd take ~1E15 kg of M/AM each. A photon torpedo is ~2x1x1 meters=2 cubic meters. That's 5e14 kg per meter³. Uranium is ~19050 kg/m³. Think about it. 3. Using above's figures, the 1000 kg M/AM each warhead in the "Dreadnought" missle is super weak. A torp would be 1138122553036.5 times a powerful! Does that make sense? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:02:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- CaptainSheridan wrote in message news:2d3e5dbf.0206021259.7a369533@posting.google.com... > 1. The Iso-Kenetic Mine would only "effect" a solar system, not destoy > one. And even if the mine had infinite energy, not only would it kill > the nano-probes, but it would only get up to 1 c and take 5 years to > cover 5 ly. And the nanoprobes would have infinite mass therefore > infinite gravity and kill the universe. Oops. > > 2. To destroy a earth sized planet it'd take 2e32 J. A kg of M and a > kg of AM~42 megatons. It'd take ~1E15 kg of M/AM each. A photon > torpedo is ~2x1x1 meters=2 cubic meters. That's 5e14 kg per meter³. > Uranium is ~19050 kg/m³. Think about it. > > 3. Using above's figures, the 1000 kg M/AM each warhead in the > "Dreadnought" missle is super weak. A torp would be 1138122553036.5 > times a powerful! Does that make sense? You're forgetting that ST antimatter yields far more energy per kilo than our understanding of physics suggests. 1 ounce=10,000 cobalt bombs or some such. Enough to hit a ship in orbit with an atmospheric shockwave, anyway. 1000 kg might concievably be sothing like 30,000 ounces. 30,000 * 10,000= 300,000,000 cobalt bombs. Cobalt bombs are thermonuclear weapons designed to generate enough Co-60 to fatally contaminate about 200,000,000 sq miles.(A planet,see ?) If it requires 1 kg/ sq mile, then it's 2*10^8 kilos = 3*10^7 moles, which requires an equivalent number of neutrons, which requires 3*10^7 fusion reactions of D-D to provide...so 6*10^7 moles of deuterium....3*10^7 grams. 3*10^5 kilos * .001 (to be really conservative) = 3*10^2 kilos of mass to energy * 20 megatons/kilo gives us 6000 megatons. Now multiple by 300,000,000 giving that Dreadnought thing an explosive yield of 1800 million gigatons. Guess we better express in Joules. 9*10^10 * 9*10^16 =~ 8.1*10^27 J. Which is still a good comfortable 11 orders of magnitude less than a DS hit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 05 Jun 2002 21:15:56 GMT Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: <20020605171556.22431.00000004@mb-fp.aol.com> -------- >CaptainSheridan wrote in message >news:2d3e5dbf.0206021259.7a369533@posting.google.com... >> 1. The Iso-Kenetic Mine would only "effect" a solar system, not destoy >> one. And even if the mine had infinite energy, not only would it kill >> the nano-probes, but it would only get up to 1 c and take 5 years to >> cover 5 ly. And the nanoprobes would have infinite mass therefore >> infinite gravity and kill the universe. Oops. >> >> 2. To destroy a earth sized planet it'd take 2e32 J. A kg of M and a >> kg of AM~42 megatons. It'd take ~1E15 kg of M/AM each. A photon >> torpedo is ~2x1x1 meters=2 cubic meters. That's 5e14 kg per meter³. >> Uranium is ~19050 kg/m³. Think about it. >> >> 3. Using above's figures, the 1000 kg M/AM each warhead in the >> "Dreadnought" missle is super weak. A torp would be 1138122553036.5 >> times a powerful! Does that make sense? > >You're forgetting that ST antimatter yields far more energy per kilo than >our understanding of physics suggests. I'm almost afraid to ask... But how did you figure this and the resulting calc's? -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius The most powerful attack of them all... DALTONDOKEN! Brought to you by cheese. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:31:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Photon Torpedoes Message-ID: -------- "Sir Nitram" wrote in message news:20020605171556.22431.00000004@mb-fp.aol.com... > >CaptainSheridan wrote in message > >news:2d3e5dbf.0206021259.7a369533@posting.google.com... > >> 1. The Iso-Kenetic Mine would only "effect" a solar system, not destoy > >> one. And even if the mine had infinite energy, not only would it kill > >> the nano-probes, but it would only get up to 1 c and take 5 years to > >> cover 5 ly. And the nanoprobes would have infinite mass therefore > >> infinite gravity and kill the universe. Oops. > >> > >> 2. To destroy a earth sized planet it'd take 2e32 J. A kg of M and a > >> kg of AM~42 megatons. It'd take ~1E15 kg of M/AM each. A photon > >> torpedo is ~2x1x1 meters=2 cubic meters. That's 5e14 kg per meter³. > >> Uranium is ~19050 kg/m³. Think about it. > >> > >> 3. Using above's figures, the 1000 kg M/AM each warhead in the > >> "Dreadnought" missle is super weak. A torp would be 1138122553036.5 > >> times a powerful! Does that make sense? > > > >You're forgetting that ST antimatter yields far more energy per kilo than > >our understanding of physics suggests. > > I'm almost afraid to ask... But