Estimating the Size of The Bre'el Moon

[Roondar]

I don't know how I did this, but I've now ended up arguing against high yields with Mike and for high yields with Mr. Oragahn.

I'll have to think about this a bit before continuing - it's making my head spin ;)

[Mike DiCenso]

Well, you could always try arguing for moderate range weapon yeilds. ;-)

But seriously, if your confusion as to which way to argue shows us anything about this episode, is that it is too contradictory with other episdoes and the previously and later shown performance of Trek weapons in general to be taken at face value. At least as far as Data's statement is concerned.
-Mike

[Roondar]

Well, you could always try arguing for moderate range weapon yeilds. ;-)

But seriously, if youu confusion as to which way to argue shows us anything about this episode, is that it is too contradictory with other episdoes and the previously and later shown performance of Trek weapons in general to be taken at face value. At least as far as Data's statement is concerned.
-Mike

I think thats a good conclusion.

Anyway, the point is that in my view a 64 MT weapon stuck in a 2x1x1m tube is well, fantastically powerful for it's size. The best of the best modern day nukes would be many times bigger for the same yield. And thats not talking about the rather impressive ranges for such a small device (even if it would 'only' make 300.000 KM effectively -which I'm not sure is an upper limit- it's way ahead of anything we could build for propulsion).

Now, if ST fielded much larger torpedoes -or had less inconsistent yield figures- I guess my problems with very high yields (and yes, 150MT+ is a very high yield. Think for a second what that means for the E-D's total photon torpedo yields if they have 150MT explosives for all 250 of them) would be smaller.

The truth is that even the 'lowly' photon torpedo (compared to some known Sci-Fi yields ST photon torpedoes are not exactly at the top tier, that's for sure) are already out of the realm of science and straight into the realm of pure fantasy (that is, considering what is said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is).

People arguing for hundreds of gigatons or even teraton level yields (in tiny packages) in Sci-Fi universes are obviously not aware of what the Sci part in Sci-Fi stands for.

[l33telboi]

Anyway, the point is that in my view a 64 MT weapon stuck in a 2x1x1m tube is well, fantastically powerful for it's size. The best of the best modern day nukes would be many times bigger for the same yield.

Seen from a modern perspective it might seem impressive, but the funny thing is that it really isn't from sci-fi viewpoint. When you factor in that this is an anti-matter torpedo, it's actually a pretty horrible design. It's got about 1.5kg of anti-matter in it. Usually when you build a bomb, you want as much explosive content to it as is possible and still have the torpedo operational. Barring extreme requirements when it comes to anti-matter, the warhead on that thing just doesn't make sense.

How many modern bombs or missiles can you find that have about 1.5kg of explosives in them?

[Who is like God arbour]

(...) that is, considering what is said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is (...)

What was said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is?

That is the second time, that you are refering to on-screen explanations without giving any quotes. To be honest, I can't remember any on-screen explanations, what a photon torpedo actually is and what it does.

I know that there are many off-canon descriptions of photon-torpedos. But these are not canon and certainly not on-screen descriptions.

[Praeothmin]

It's got about 1.5kg of anti-matter in it.

That's from the TNG Technical Manual which isn't cannon at all.
What is cannon is that Torpedoes, as early as the "Photonic Torpedoes" of Ent are variable yield weapons, able to "knock of an antenna or blow a 3km hole in an asteroid"...

That was stated for the older, and smaller, Photonic Torpedoes...

[Roondar]

(...) that is, considering what is said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is (...)

What was said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is?

That is the second time, that you are refering to on-screen explanations without giving any quotes. To be honest, I can't remember any on-screen explanations, what a photon torpedo actually is and what it does.

I know that there are many off-canon descriptions of photon-torpedos. But these are not canon and certainly not on-screen descriptions.

It is well established in Startrek lore (as in there is more than one relevant quote and I don't feel like digging them all up) that photon torpedoes are basically matter/antimatter missiles.

--

Futhermore, I don't believe it is necessary to back every well-known element of Startrek up by quoting episodes every time it crops. I mean, we're not quoting episodes to establish the Warp core is a matter/antimatter reactor either. We know that. There is no need to keep digging up references to it.

Likewise, we don't need to quote characters who state what a Photon Torpedo is either - we already know what it is.

[Roondar]

It's got about 1.5kg of anti-matter in it.

That's from the TNG Technical Manual which isn't cannon at all.
What is cannon is that Torpedoes, as early as the "Photonic Torpedoes" of Ent are variable yield weapons, able to "knock of an antenna or blow a 3km hole in an asteroid"...

That was stated for the older, and smaller, Photonic Torpedoes...

It'd also require less than said 1.5 KG of antimatter to achieve ;)

(But yes, the TM is not canon. I merely use the 64MT figure as a lowish yield figure that'd work out somewhat. Not as a factual limit of the photon torpedo yield)

[Roondar]

Anyway, the point is that in my view a 64 MT weapon stuck in a 2x1x1m tube is well, fantastically powerful for it's size. The best of the best modern day nukes would be many times bigger for the same yield.

Seen from a modern perspective it might seem impressive, but the funny thing is that it really isn't from sci-fi viewpoint. When you factor in that this is an anti-matter torpedo, it's actually a pretty horrible design. It's got about 1.5kg of anti-matter in it. Usually when you build a bomb, you want as much explosive content to it as is possible and still have the torpedo operational. Barring extreme requirements when it comes to anti-matter, the warhead on that thing just doesn't make sense.

How many modern bombs or missiles can you find that have about 1.5kg of explosives in them?

You're forgetting that the same mini package has an impressive self-propelled range, a guidance system, etc. It's not merely a dumb bomb.

For an example why this is relevant: ICBM's have a downright pathetic warhead size and weight compared to their overall size and weight. Plain bombs don't, but then they're a much simpler design. The same lowish-yield-compared-to-size goes for most modern guided missiles as well.

[Who is like God arbour]

(...) that is, considering what is said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is (...)

What was said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is?

That is the second time, that you are refering to on-screen explanations without giving any quotes. To be honest, I can't remember any on-screen explanations, what a photon torpedo actually is and what it does.

I know that there are many off-canon descriptions of photon-torpedos. But these are not canon and certainly not on-screen descriptions.

It is well established in Startrek lore (as in there is more than one relevant quote and I don't feel like digging them all up) that photon torpedoes are basically matter/antimatter missiles.

--

Futhermore, I don't believe it is necessary to back every well-known element of Startrek up by quoting episodes every time it crops. I mean, we're not quoting episodes to establish the Warp core is a matter/antimatter reactor either. We know that. There is no need to keep digging up references to it.

Likewise, we don't need to quote characters who state what a Photon Torpedo is either - we already know what it is.

It was not established on-screen.

Fact is, that neither the assembling nor the functional principle of photon torpedos were ever explained on-screen - as far as I know and can remember.

As I have said, different secondary literature are describing photon torpedos and your well established conviction may come from there.

But that is not canon.

Your pointer to the well-established knowledge regarding the warp core is fallacious.

If and when someone would ask you to provide quotes from canon sources to prove your assertion, you have to provide such quotes, regardless how well established you think your assertion is. You are not authorized to decide, what is well-established and what is not well-established.

Not all have read each avaible secondary literature and some may know only the movies and the serieses and even may not have watched each episode of each serie.

If your conviction is founded on canon, you should have no problem to provide such quotes. But if it is only founded on secondary literature, your conviction is unwarranted.

Regarding the warp-core, even those, who have only watched the movies and serieses, should know from there, that the warp-core is a matter/anti-matter reactor because that was indeed established on-screen in many episodes. But that may only be the reason, why you get not asked to provide quotes from canon sources to prove your assertions regarding the warp core in the first place. It does not change your burden of proof, if and when you get asked.

As Praeothmin has said, what was indeed established on-screen regarding photon torpedos is pitiful little to nothing.

[l33telboi]

That's from the TNG Technical Manual which isn't cannon at all.
What is cannon is that Torpedoes, as early as the "Photonic Torpedoes" of Ent are variable yield weapons, able to "knock of an antenna or blow a 3km hole in an asteroid"...

I know it's not canon, that's exactly why I'm taking offense to people using those figures. The photonic torpedoes you're talking about were pegged to around 50 megatons on spacebattles not long ago. Minimum, that is.

You're forgetting that the same mini package has an impressive self-propelled range, a guidance system, etc. It's not merely a dumb bomb.

That's part of the problem. Why would anyone want to build such an impressive guidance system in it that it takes up that much valuable mass? I mean, take a look at the tricorders, those weigh, what, a few hundred grams? So why would you need something weighing several hundred kilograms in a torpedo? And propulsion is something even modern rockets have, and yet they have a really massive warhead.

I can understand that some special-purpose torpedoes with an extremely small warhead and nice array of other sub-systems would be useful in certain situations. But not the most basic torpedoes that are simply meant to fly at the enemy and then explode. The torpedoes primary function is to blow stuff up, so that should be prioritized.

A missile to explosive compound mass-ratio of 1000:1 is weird to say the least.

For an example why this is relevant: ICBM's have a downright pathetic warhead size and weight compared to their overall size and weight. Plain bombs don't, but then they're a much simpler design. The same lowish-yield-compared-to-size goes for most modern guided missiles as well.

Yes, but things change in space. The ICBM has to have enough fuel to continuously propel it, and this from one continent to another. In space you don't need fuel for anything but initial acceleration and then maneuvering.

Given some of the engagements, they could make use of torpedoes with almost no thrust at all, just enough to get them going towards the enemy.

How about this comparison: A tomahawk cruise-missile, it has nice propulsion, nice guidance system, it could be used for the same purposes. A 1440 ton missile with a 450kg warhead, so a missile to warhead ratio of 10:1. That’s what a photon torpedo should be like.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Anyway, the point is that in my view a 64 MT weapon stuck in a 2x1x1m tube is well, fantastically powerful for it's size. The best of the best modern day nukes would be many times bigger for the same yield.

Seen from a modern perspective it might seem impressive, but the funny thing is that it really isn't from sci-fi viewpoint. When you factor in that this is an anti-matter torpedo, it's actually a pretty horrible design. It's got about 1.5kg of anti-matter in it. Usually when you build a bomb, you want as much explosive content to it as is possible and still have the torpedo operational. Barring extreme requirements when it comes to anti-matter, the warhead on that thing just doesn't make sense.

How many modern bombs or missiles can you find that have about 1.5kg of explosives in them?

On the other hand, antimatter is very dangerous, and the torpedo, yield aside, are some of the best missiles ever devised.
Depending on the day, they can have good maneouverability, very good ranges, the ability to be quickly modified, they're dialable, possibly capable to burrow (but under certain conditions only) and above all are shielded.

I know it's not canon, that's exactly why I'm taking offense to people using those figures. The photonic torpedoes you're talking about were pegged to around 50 megatons on spacebattles not long ago. Minimum, that is.

Actually, it was around 48.x megatons, and given the way it's calculated, it doesn't allow much for variance. If it did, that obtained yield would be a middle ground more than anything else.
I've got in touch with Squish, and I've seen that the formula itself is based upon the final crater's size, not the transient one, and rather accurate based on the final crater's diameter.

It wouldn't be out of the realm of credibility to have TNG+ torps being able of 50-150 MT, if not more. I mean, there's lot of room in a torp, and based on the blue wax stuff, it would be rather easy to inflate yields dramatically.

Blue wax... we talked about that stuff back during the "ISOTON..." thread. Are we sure that the blue thing was the AM, and not a shell of something, possibly reactants or else?
Oh well, that's off topic.

[l33telboi]

Actually, it was around 48.x megatons, and given the way it's calculated, it doesn't allow much for variance. If it did, that obtained yield would be a middle ground more than anything else.

From memory, it was actually above 50, but I could be wrong. However, it was for a nuke detonated on earth, which means ground will be composed of dirt and grime, in contrast to an asteroid which would be solid rock, or perhaps even nickel/iron.

[Roondar]

What was said on-screen about what a photon torpedo actually is?

That is the second time, that you are refering to on-screen explanations without giving any quotes. To be honest, I can't remember any on-screen explanations, what a photon torpedo actually is and what it does.

I know that there are many off-canon descriptions of photon-torpedos. But these are not canon and certainly not on-screen descriptions.

It is well established in Startrek lore (as in there is more than one relevant quote and I don't feel like digging them all up) that photon torpedoes are basically matter/antimatter missiles.

--

Futhermore, I don't believe it is necessary to back every well-known element of Startrek up by quoting episodes every time it crops. I mean, we're not quoting episodes to establish the Warp core is a matter/antimatter reactor either. We know that. There is no need to keep digging up references to it.

Likewise, we don't need to quote characters who state what a Photon Torpedo is either - we already know what it is.

It was not established on-screen.

Fact is, that neither the assembling nor the functional principle of photon torpedos were ever explained on-screen - as far as I know and can remember.

As I have said, different secondary literature are describing photon torpedos and your well established conviction may come from there.

But that is not canon.

Your pointer to the well-established knowledge regarding the warp core is fallacious.

If and when someone would ask you to provide quotes from canon sources to prove your assertion, you have to provide such quotes, regardless how well established you think your assertion is. You are not authorized to decide, what is well-established and what is not well-established.

Not all have read each avaible secondary literature and some may know only the movies and the serieses and even may not have watched each episode of each serie.

If your conviction is founded on canon, you should have no problem to provide such quotes. But if it is only founded on secondary literature, your conviction is unwarranted.

Regarding the warp-core, even those, who have only watched the movies and serieses, should know from there, that the warp-core is a matter/anti-matter reactor because that was indeed established on-screen in many episodes. But that may only be the reason, why you get not asked to provide quotes from canon sources to prove your assertions regarding the warp core in the first place. It does not change your burden of proof, if and when you get asked.

As Praeothmin has said, what was indeed established on-screen regarding photon torpedos is pitiful little to nothing.

But what little was established on screen most definitely did include that they where matter/antimatter weapons. As per Enterprise* and TNG**. (Geordi Laforge creates photon torpedoes for the Pakleds. He does so as follows)

*)

Archer: "You've been wanting to test those new torpedoes."
Reed: "What yield?"
Archer: "Start low. We just want to get them off our backs."
(Photonic torpedoes fire and hit the Klingon ship.)
Duras: "What was that?!"
Klingon: "Anti-matter warheads!"
Duras: "Increase shielding!"

**)

GEORDI: I suppose we could increase the anti-matter charges.
... (he goes to work on this. the next bit follows after he's done)
GEORDI: You're now armed to the teeth.
GREBNEDLOG: Teeth are for chewing.
GEORDI: You have photon torpedoes. You are strong.

The implication is clear: increasing the already present anti-matter charges potency turned them into photon torpedoes.

And by virtue of how they act on screen when they are fired and don't always go in a straight line we know very well it's a missile and not say, a bomb. If missile is too strong a word for you, we can just use the term guided projectile if you prefer - but you should know that is basically the same thing.

In all, I think you are mistaken about what I'm saying - I'm not saying I know exactly how a photon torpedo works. Nor is that at all relevant. What I'm saying is that we know what a photon torpedo is.

I'm not claiming anything else. I'm not claiming upper or lower yield limits. I'm not claiming the type of propellant or even how it achieves motion. I'm not claiming what the guidance system is. I'm not claiming what it's made of.

I'm merely claiming they are both matter/antimatter weapons and missiles (i.e. guided projectiles) at that. That is all. No more, no less.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Actually, it was around 48.x megatons, and given the way it's calculated, it doesn't allow much for variance. If it did, that obtained yield would be a middle ground more than anything else.

From memory, it was actually above 50, but I could be wrong. However, it was for a nuke detonated on earth, which means ground will be composed of dirt and grime, in contrast to an asteroid which would be solid rock, or perhaps even nickel/iron.

I don't know. Maybe the softer ground actually being more elastic, absorbs the shockwave and compression which results in ejecta, and may limit the conduction of heat and therefore limit the amount of vapourization.

You may end with smaller craters on soft grounds.