Civilian Ships

[Graham Kennedy]

Torpedo yields are certainly variable. Quite apart from their varying effects, we've dialogue to prove it. From Redemption Part 2 :

DATA : "Reconfigure the photon torpedo warhead yields. Set for a high-energy burst at level six."
HOBSON : "At level six? But that won't even-"
DATA : "Do it!"

So far as I know that's the only example specifically proving that they can vary the yield, though there are one or two others that can be interpreted that way.

In Skin of Evil, a torp creates a fireball on a planet some 300 km across, which is in the 500 megaton range or more. And then there's the Die is Cast, which shows torps sending shockwaves across thousands of kilometres. and destroying a third of a planetary crust in a single twenty ship volley. Yield there is heavily dependent on what assumptions you want to go with, but can easily range up into gigatons. In that case one could argue that the phasers/disrupters did all the real damage, but really, if so then why waste the torpedoes at all?

[Captain Seafort]

In Skin of Evil, a torp creates a fireball on a planet some 300 km across

A torpedo hitting an interstellar shuttle, and therefore releasing its antimatter.

And then there's the Die is Cast, which shows torps sending shockwaves across thousands of kilometres. and destroying a third of a planetary crust in a single twenty ship volley. Yield there is heavily dependent on what assumptions you want to go with, but can easily range up into gigatons.

Then why don't we see lumps of crust thrown out into space. The visual effects of the volley strongly implied that most of the effects were due to the disruptors magicking bits of the crust away, not explosive effects from torpedoes.

In that case one could argue that the phasers/disrupters did all the real damage, but really, if so then why waste the torpedoes at all?

Because phasers and disruptors are heavily dependant on the density of their target - look at the way they can make people disappear in a flash, drill huge holes in rock, but are singularly ineffective against metals (ie ship-to-ship combat and Paris' tire-bursting shot in Future's End).

[Graham Kennedy]

In Skin of Evil, a torp creates a fireball on a planet some 300 km across

A torpedo hitting an interstellar shuttle, and therefore releasing its antimatter.

Pure assumption that there was any onboard. Better to assume that there isn't because they ejected it before the crash, which is after all what they would try to do.

Then why don't we see lumps of crust thrown out into space.

Don't know, don't really care.

The visual effects of the volley strongly implied that most of the effects were due to the disruptors magicking bits of the crust away, not explosive effects from torpedoes.

And I say again, if phasers and thousands of times more destructive that torpedoes, then why did they use torpedoes? Why would anybody EVER use torpedoes? Everything we see of the weapons indicates that they are on a par with one another.

Because phasers and disruptors are heavily dependant on the density of their target - look at the way they can make people disappear in a flash, drill huge holes in rock, but are singularly ineffective against metals (ie ship-to-ship combat and Paris' tire-bursting shot in Future's End).

Another pure assumption. We have no idea whatsoever that this is due to the density of the object involved.

[Captain Seafort]

Pure assumption that there was any onboard. Better to assume that there isn't because they ejected it before the crash, which is after all what they would try to do.

Or the antimatter was still on board, which neatly explains why that shot was an order of magnitude or two greater than any other PT shot.

Don't know, don't really care.

In which case the shots are highly unlikely to be gigaton-range.

And I say again, if phasers and thousands of times more destructive that torpedoes, then why did they use torpedoes? Why would anybody EVER use torpedoes? Everything we see of the weapons indicates that they are on a par with one another.

As I pointed out below - because their effects aren't entire dependant on the material they hit, unlike phasers/disruptors.

Another pure assumption. We have no idea whatsoever that this is due to the density of the object involved.

It does, however, fit the evidence. Hand phasers are very effective against the least dense targets - people. They're less effective against rock, usually producing blasting effects rather than making it disappear, and they're all but useless against metal (demonstrated against every packing crate except Quark's, Paris' shot in Future's End, and ship-to-ship combat).

Moreover, if torpedoes are gigaton-range, why can starships survive more than a single hit, when their shields are demonstrably vulnerable to GW-range particle weapons (The Survivors) TW-range energy fields (The Nth Degree) TW-range solar radiation (albeit while damaged and for several hours, Relics) and GJ-range energy bolts for runabouts (Battle Lines - this extrapolates to TJ-range for a GCS).

[Graham Kennedy]

Pure assumption that there was any onboard. Better to assume that there isn't because they ejected it before the crash, which is after all what they would try to do.

Or the antimatter was still on board, which neatly explains why that shot was an order of magnitude or two greater than any other PT shot.

Or it wasn't, and there are other reasons for other yields being used in other cases.

In which case the shots are highly unlikely to be gigaton-range.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

As I pointed out below - because their effects aren't entire dependant on the material they hit, unlike phasers/disruptors.

Which, again, is a guess. You're simply making as series of guesses, then saying "hey, this all holds together, so it's probably the truth".

It does, however, fit the evidence. Hand phasers are very effective against the least dense targets - people. They're less effective against rock, usually producing blasting effects rather than making it disappear, and they're all but useless against metal (demonstrated against every packing crate except Quark's, Paris' shot in Future's End, and ship-to-ship combat).

Uh huh. So what material are those packing crates made of, and what is the density of it please?

And you say they are effective against people, and less effective against rock? But destroying the crust of the planet involved firing on mostly rock... the thing the weapons are not so good at? Do I have that right?

Moreover, if torpedoes are gigaton-range, why can starships survive more than a single hit, when their shields are demonstrably vulnerable to GW-range particle weapons (The Survivors) TW-range energy fields (The Nth Degree) TW-range solar radiation (albeit while damaged and for several hours, Relics) and GJ-range energy bolts for runabouts (Battle Lines - this extrapolates to TJ-range for a GCS).

You're comparing completely different weapons in different circumstances. I might as well complain that the MOAB bomb cannot possibly have a warhead in the region of 21,000 lbs based on the fact that a stinger missile demonstrates a warhead of about 6 pounds. "Well why don't we put 20,000 pound warheads on Stingers then, if such a thing can exist!"

A warhead with a yield in the gigatons, at least, would weigh thousands of times more than one in the megaton range. It's obvious why we don't put them on surface to air or air to air weapons. I can easily see why you wouldn't want the warhead mass on an anti ship torpedo to be a thousand times heavier, too.

And you want to assume that phasers affect some material better than others, based on little evidence. Yet there's the demonstrated fact that different types of energy affect shields very differently too. What makes you think ships aren't just very resistant to high energy torpedoes and not to other effects?

It's ALL just guesswork. You pick assumptions you like, go to a conclusion, then use whatever means you can to explain away the facts that contradict your conclusion. And that's being generous; it looks more like you pick the conclusion you like and then include the facts that support it and exclude those that don't.

[Captain Seafort]

Or it wasn't, and there are other reasons for other yields being used in other cases.

Then why don't they use these super-weapons in ship-to-ship combat? The SoE torp was visually indistinguishable from any of the others - why didn't they use it against the Borg (for example)? Moreover, even taking the highest figure for warp-core output we've ever heard (True Q) would produce less than a hundred GT over the 30 seconds the deflector dish weapon was active in BoBW II (that kept firing longer than they expected they'd have to) - "more than our phasers or photon torpedoes could ever produce". 250 500 MT PTs (only 23 kg of reactants) would produce well over 100 GT.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Correct. Pointing out that they're not producing gigaton-range effects makes it so.

Which, again, is a guess. You're simply making as series of guesses, then saying "hey, this all holds together, so it's probably the truth".

You call them guesses - I call them logical deductions from the available evidence.

Uh huh. So what material are those packing crates made of, and what is the density of it please?

Metal of some kind, density unknown but probably higher than rock. Metals almost universally are, and those that aren't are either junk (such as aluminium) or very expensive (such as titanium).

And you say they are effective against people, and less effective against rock? But destroying the crust of the planet involved firing on mostly rock... the thing the weapons are not so good at? Do I have that right?

Correct - "less effective" =/= "completely useless".

A warhead with a yield in the gigatons, at least, would weigh thousands of times more than one in the megaton range.

Yep - and it requires a small starship to carry it around. Dreadnought.

And you want to assume that phasers affect some material better than others, based on little evidence.

Based on the fact that people disappear with little difficulty, while rock is far more resilient and metal often appears impervious to hand phasers. On the shipboard scale planetary crust can be drilled through with a little difficulty, while opposing starships' hulls resist the weapons very well.

[stitch626]

And you say they are effective against people, and less effective against rock? But destroying the crust of the planet involved firing on mostly rock... the thing the weapons are not so good at? Do I have that right?

He said hand phasers.
And of course, even less effective can still do damage. You take a small ball of lead and shoot it from a musket it won't damage a tank (though it could kill a person, if aimed right). You take a 60 lb lead ball and launch it from a cannon, it probably would do some damage.

[Sionnach Glic]

Regarding the theoretical max yield of a protorp, couldn't we just guestimate how much anti-matter/matter it could hold if everything was crammed in, and then calc how powerful such a detonation would be? It wouldn't be precise, but it would give us a rough number to work with. And it would help remove external problems, such as the question of the target's properties making the detonation seem larger.

[Tyyr]

Fairly simple actually.

A torp is about 1m x 2m x.5m so your internal volume is about a cubic meter. Liquid deuterium has a density of about 164kg/m^3. So your theoretical max output if there was nothing but liquid deuterium and anti-deuterium sloshing around inside is about 7,052 megatons or 7.052 gigatons. The downside is that about 70% of that energy is released as neutrinos so actual damaging energy output is down to about 2,116 megatons or 2.116 gigatons.

Of course that assumes the interior is nothing but reactants for the warhead.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, we can probably assume that at least half the torp's interior is taken up by machinery. So with that we get a theoretical maximum possible yield of a gigaton.

Of course, then we're stuck with the question of why we've only seen an indication of such a powerful yield in one instance.

[Tyyr]

Well the first is mixing. How do you get all that material together at once to get it to detonate. You have to be able to control the weapon. So you have to store the reactants separately then bring them together rapidly at a time of your choosing. If you don't mix them uniformly and well before detonation the force of the reaction will blow the constituent bits apart and drastically slow the reaction.

[Aaron]

He said hand phasers.
And of course, even less effective can still do damage. You take a small ball of lead and shoot it from a musket it won't damage a tank (though it could kill a person, if aimed right). You take a 60 lb lead ball and launch it from a cannon, it probably would do some damage.

To a modern tank? Not a chance, only thing that will happen is damage the external sensors, lights or the external racks. It'll make one hell of a racket though.

[stitch626]

He said hand phasers.
And of course, even less effective can still do damage. You take a small ball of lead and shoot it from a musket it won't damage a tank (though it could kill a person, if aimed right). You take a 60 lb lead ball and launch it from a cannon, it probably would do some damage.

To a modern tank? Not a chance, only thing that will happen is damage the external sensors, lights or the external racks. It'll make one hell of a racket though.

I meant an old tank, but still damage is damage.

1m x 2m x.5m so your internal volume is about a cubic meter.

Um, wouldn't that be a volume of 10 m³. Unless I missed something...

Also, is it possible that there is more antimatter than matter in a PT, thus increasing its effectiveness towards physical targets?

[Aaron]

To a modern tank? Not a chance, only thing that will happen is damage the external sensors, lights or the external racks. It'll make one hell of a racket though.

I meant an old tank, but still damage is damage.[/quote]

Any tank would be virtually immune to a cannonball. Damaging any of that stuff I mentioned doesn't actually render it combat ineffective.

[Reliant121]

Dun'it (the tank shell) have to be designed to penetrate the armour to actually do anything?