Phase Cannon vs the Spatial Torpedo

[Mark]

Hey the speed of the ship is always the same. They just change how far apart things are.

Exactly. The ships speed is cannon. But it seems the universe and the laws of physics are not.

[Thorin]

If photon torpedos are comparable to 60 megaton warheads, I'd say the spatial ones are about 5 megatons - presumably they're fusion missiles.

[Sionnach Glic]

What make conclude that figure? Was the yield stated somewhere or is that just a guess?

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not sure about the original spatial torpedoes, but phontics could "put a three kilometre crater in and asteroid". Yield should be calaculable from that.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's hard to find a guide to crater size vs yield. I've been looking around google and did come across a reference to a "600 KILOTONS GROUND BURST CRATER IS 2112 FEET WIDE AND 211 FEET DEEP."

I also found "NUCLEAR BOMB "OAK" 8.9 MEGATON, ENEWETAK, JUNE 29 1958, 5740 FEET WIDE 204 DEEP CRATER." So 9 Megatons is still less than two thirds of the crater size.

I'd say something in the range of 20 Megatons seems about right for an Enterprise photonic torp.

[Graham Kennedy]

Better data on the Oak test

"The test was conducted in very shallow water (12 feet). The device was horizontal on the barge, with the axis 3 feet above the barge deck, which was in turn 5.6 feet above the water line. The barge weighed 223 tons and was unballasted to provide a shallow draft. The subsurface crater produced was 5740 feet diameter and 204 feet deep."

[stitch626]

Wow.

[Mark]

So a quantum torp SHOULD give us a crater comparable to what we see the Borg leave behind on a planet then.

[Captain Seafort]

Why?

[Mark]

If it's supposed to have 2.5 times the yield of a 24th century photon torpedo, I'm making a guestiment.

[Captain Seafort]

There's no mention of the yield of a QT (relative or absolute) in any canon Trek. Indeed, the fact that they don't seem to make any bigger a bang suggests that they're merely shaped sharges, or have better ECCM, or some such.

[Tsukiyumi]

Another topic we've discussed before. I tend to agree with Seafort on this one; QTs may be better at passing through shields, or otherwise provide a more effective delivery of the same or similar yield. The modern JDAM system took old bombs, and made them 10 times more effective, with the same yield. Could be something like that.

[Teaos]

I agree with Tsu, I dont think a QT is stronger than a PT so much as just better. It focuses the same amount of power or more into a smaller area causing more damage.

A PT is M/AM explosion, so you can make it as powerful as you like by just adding more. A QT doesnt have to be more powerful, it just needs to be more effective.

[Thorin]

There's no mention of the yield of a QT (relative or absolute) in any canon Trek. Indeed, the fact that they don't seem to make any bigger a bang suggests that they're merely shaped sharges, or have better ECCM, or some such.

Bangs in space mean nothing. And if they're shaped charges as you suggest, then it also means that the bang may be considerably smaller - even if the yield is actually much greater.

Still, in this case I'm happy enough to take the TM as canon enough as there's no evidence to the contrary of QTs having lesser yields. Shaped charges and higher yields may counteract each other giving the same bang [in an atmosphere], but in space the explosion size is irrelevant.

What make conclude that figure? Was the yield stated somewhere or is that just a guess?

And it was a guess, based on their size and role compared to modern day fusion weapons.

[Captain Seafort]

If they were ominidirectional, surely higher yields would produce brighter flashes. The lack of such seems to indicate that they are, at the very least, shaped charges since I don't recall any QT impacts producing an omnidirectional flash you'd expect otherwise.