Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 12:26pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Posts: 1154
Location: Blighty
Destructionator XIII wrote:
I wish people would stop repeating this myth. In Pegasus, they considered blowing the shit out of the asteroid as being a realistic option - they could do it, but the commanders decided it wasn't the best way to achieve their real objective of recovery while avoiding the Romulans.


It would also have taken most of their torpedoes to do it. Given the size of the asteroid and the number of torpedoes the ship carries, this makes a PT about 1 Mt. This fits well with Rise, which also makes a torpedo about a megaton, and BoBW/Deja Q which make phasers about 100kT/sec. This is considerably less than the 43GT warhead on Dreadnought.



Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 12:39pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Posts: 1154
Location: Blighty
Destructionator XIII wrote:
That 1 MT is based on a number of shaky assumptions too (I'd put it closer to 10; about the same ballpark as the TM number)... but indeed, it's certainly less than the big thing.


While it's certainly only a rough figure, if anything I'd say it's an overestimate in both cases, as it assumes the asteroids are solid cylinders. They're clearly much less voluminous than that.



Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 12:44pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Azron_Stoma wrote:
Lmao, are you honestly trying to use the fact that it's an Interstellar Balistic Missile as some evidence AGAINST it being a superweapon?!


No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.


Quote:
Oh okay fine, it carries roughly 666 times the payload (1000 / 1.5 = 666.6R) the 671x was from the 43000/64 = 671.875 which was more of a rough estimate (hell I even rounded down).


And again you use non-canon material.

You do know that the tech manuals and the 1.5kg of m/am material that is from them is not canon right?.

Quote:
It's more like a Strategic weapon than a Tactical one, blowing up a small moon = Well beyond the capabilities of a Photon torpedo, or even an entire ship-full of photon torpedoes (TNG: Pegasus). a Tactical Weapon would be one that only carries the power of a regular torpedo (or maybe five to ten) not hundreds. It would take 3 galaxy classes firing most of their torpedoes all in one salvo to match the yield of the Dreadnought. That (at least as far as I'm concerned) is a Superweapon. It may not be on the order of a trilithium sun exploder or biogenic weaponry, but it still counts. (much like how an atom bomb isn't on the order of a hydrogen bomb, but both are still super weapons.)

This isn't some 24th century cruise missile, it's an ISBM.


Again you are welcome to call it a "superduperwhoppaweapon" if you wish but unless you can provide material supporting it being designated such it is merely a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and take out a base and a marquis base at that (so likely small and poorly defended/shielded).

TNG: Pegasus is a oddity in several regards like some of the attributes of the asteroid in question as well as the effect they wanted to achieve, they also wanted to destroy it before the Romulans could close and gain any tech so Riker could have more likely been referring to the torpedoes they had actually loaded in the tubes ready to fire rather than the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 12:59pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2403
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
Lord Helmet wrote:
No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

What would that be? And don't give me any one-off deals or accidents like Genesis, the Soliton wave or any of the various sunbusters. The dreadnaught missile was projected to kill two million people upon impact of a heavily populated class M world, anything in canon magnitudes above that?



People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 01:49pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Posts: 1154
Location: Blighty
Destructionator XIII wrote:
I'm willing to say most of that is hidden in the order of magnitude estimate except for the underkilling aspect of the asteroid calculator. Scaling is surely imprecise too, but 10m x 10m x 10m fragments of hard rock shaken loose from a big boom is well below what's needed to wreck ship equipment in the given asteroid.


Why? The fact that there are inefficiencies is more than made up for by the extremely rough scaling. You also don't need to worry about the ship too much - simply use the PTs to smash the asteroid and you'll expose the ship. Any big lumps can be mopped up with phaser fire.

The Rise rock also fits very well with the 1 Mt figure. I make it to be 2.2 Mt assuming vaporisation and again modelling the rock as a cylinder. Since it's a) not a solid cylinder and b) was not expected to be vaporised, this is obviously an overestimate. Finally, phasers at 100 kT/sec would require 5 seconds to match a single 1 Mt PT. At the 10 Mt you suggested earlier it would take almost a minute. The former fits better with the rough tactical equivalence we observe between the two than the latter.



Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 01:54pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-18 08:37am
Posts: 353
Location: HIMS Korthox III, Assertor Class Star Dreadnought
Lord Helmet wrote:
No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.


Again just because they have more powerful weapons of the biological variety (remember the feds can't "pop" stars, only the Dominion and 1 El Aurian have shown to have that ability) doesn't mean this is not a super weapon, it's certainly not a conventional one.

Quote:
You do know that the tech manuals and the 1.5kg of m/am material that is from them is not canon right?.


Obviously, but it's more in line with what we see on screen for the torpedoes, especially if we take efficiency and blast pattern into account.

Quote:
Again you are welcome to call it a "superduperwhoppaweapon" if you wish but unless you can provide material supporting it being designated such it is merely a tactical weapon designed to get past defenses and take out a base and a marquis base at that (so likely small and poorly defended/shielded).


Lol if it was small and poorly defended I doubt a < 43 gigaton weapon would be nessescary.

You can repeat the same "tactical weapon designed to blah blah blah" It doesn't change the fact that the weapon carries more firepower than at LEAST 2 and a half galaxy class photon torpedo payloads, and that's being generous. I don't need them to explicitly say it's a super weapon on screen, as they clearly treat it as one.

[quote]TNG: Pegasus is a oddity in several regards like some of the attributes of the asteroid in question as well as the effect they wanted to achieve, they also wanted to destroy it before the Romulans could close and gain any tech so Riker could have more likely been referring to the torpedoes they had actually loaded in the tubes ready to fire rather than the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire. [/quite]

He stated that it would take "most of our torpedoes" no hint that he meant "most of our torpedoes we've already loaded" since they have no qualms about firing full spreads in relation to any sort of inventory. It's also hardly an oddity since it fits in pefectly with what we saw in Rise and TDiC as far as yields go, I guess the only oddity is that for once the dialogue actually supports the visuals (even if they are visuals from other episodes as we never saw them fire at the asteroid).

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 02:22pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Metahive wrote:
Lord Helmet wrote:
No i am pointing out that it was stated to be a tactical weapon in canon, that they have far more powerful weapons that would be considered "super" if such a term was used and that you nor i get to ascribe "super" to any weapon in the first place just because we want to.

What would that be? And don't give me any one-off deals or accidents like Genesis, the Soliton wave or any of the various sunbusters. The dreadnaught missile was projected to kill two million people upon impact of a heavily populated class M world, anything in canon magnitudes above that?


A weapon of a few kilotons could achieve that in spades easily by hitting a population center on a "heavily populated class M world" so quoting a projected death toll is really a poor way to judge yield.


Quote:
Again just because they have more powerful weapons of the biological variety (remember the feds can't "pop" stars, only the Dominion and 1 El Aurian have shown to have that ability) doesn't mean this is not a super weapon, it's certainly not a conventional one.


A few modified photon torps nova'd a sun in half a life.

But regardless we cannot ascribe "superweapon" to a missile, well unless you happen to be head of Viacom or Paramount obviously..

Quote:
Obviously, but it's more in line with what we see on screen for the torpedoes, especially if we take efficiency and blast pattern into account.


Again you are trying to ascribe nuke effects to weapons that obviously have little relation to such things, it is like ascribing DET to phasers it just does not work.

Quote:
Lol if it was small and poorly defended I doubt a < 43 gigaton weapon would be necessary.


And yet every marquis base we saw was at best a small cave or village.

Quote:
He stated that it would take "most of our torpedoes" no hint that he meant "most of our torpedoes we've already loaded" since they have no qualms about firing full spreads in relation to any sort of inventory. It's also hardly an oddity since it fits in perfectly with what we saw in Rise and TDiC as far as yields go, I guess the only oddity is that for once the dialog actually supports the visuals (even if they are visuals from other episodes as we never saw them fire at the asteroid).


Considering the time constraints regarding the nearby Romulan ship it makes perfect sense that he was referring to the torps in the tubes and not the entire ships compliment that would have taken a very long time to load and fire and way longer than it would have taken the Warbird to fly over and start beaming over parts of the soon to be exposed ship. They also knew the ships position inside the asteroid so it also makes sense from the point that all they needed to do was blast away the area covering the ship and then blow the ship apart and we also know they can cut through normal rock with the ships phasers very easily and quickly to the sort of depth the ship was at.

There is no reason to assume that rise had the torps set to max and in fact it would be pointless for them to have done so and counter productive to the fact they tended to be low on fuel quite regularly.

TDIC was clearly stated to have destroyed a large amount of the planets surface, you cannot dispute direct canon material buddy.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 02:32pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Lord Helmet wrote:
Norade wrote:

Okay, still no reason to assume they lived deep enough to require a sub surface detonation.


You mean apart from the fact they could be the surface (and were in regards to being a large lake or sea) and have no above surface structures and are nothing like human?.

In fact the only structure we see is subsurface as that is where sisko ect are being held.


If they were the surface that's even less reason to detonate a nuke anywhere but above them.


Quote:
Quote:
Show me a way that they could have a lower duration fireball. Wait, you can't. Until you can show evidence that a high yield explosive weapon would not produce a fireball that lingers as long as a modern nuke you haven't a leg to stand on.


I really do not need to show you anything apart from the canon fact that the fireball expands 300+km in a fraction of a second, now you may want to focus on the duration for obvious reasons but the destructive blast wave traveling at that speed is the real money shot.


No, you really do need to show me how that fireball works otherwise it simply can't be a high yield explosion. No nuclear device tested in real life has a short duration fireball so you've got some explaining to do if you want anybody to buy that those 300+km blobs are fire caused by anything like a traditional explosion.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, those TM's would be wrong as they are backed up by on screen events that show a far lower firepower even in situations where using maximum force would be prudent.


As long as you not only limit your perspective to the nuke calculator and not just that but to the duration part of it (for rather obvious reasons) you are always going to hit the same problem when discussing photon torpedoes and phasers as well for that matter.


So as long as I ignore real life physics and make no attempt to analyze things...



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 03:00pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-18 08:37am
Posts: 353
Location: HIMS Korthox III, Assertor Class Star Dreadnought
Lord Helmet wrote:
A few modified photon torps nova'd a sun in half a life.


That was already very unstable/dying, not a normal sun.

Quote:
But regardless we cannot ascribe "superweapon" to a missile, well unless you happen to be head of Viacom or Paramount obviously..


Given it's obvious role, I don't have to be anyone of the kind.

Quote:
Again you are trying to ascribe nuke effects to weapons that obviously have little relation to such things, it is like ascribing DET to phasers it just does not work.


Given what we know about M/AM reactions it's perfectly reasonable.

Quote:
And yet every marquis base we saw was at best a small cave or village.


And we never heard of anything like the Dreadnought going after any of those.

Quote:
snip'd unsubstantiated nonsense


We know that the proximity to the Romulans would have limited the timeframe, but your interpretation again doesn't jive with Riker pointing out the ammunition problem, which if they were just going to fire a few salvos he wouldn't have even brought up.

Quote:
There is no reason to assume that rise had the torps set to max and in fact it would be pointless for them to have done so and counter productive to the fact they tended to be low on fuel quite regularly.


Then give us a clear example of greater firepower, you have yet to do so.

Quote:
TDIC was clearly stated to have destroyed a large amount of the planets surface, you cannot dispute direct canon material buddy.


Yet we saw none of said destruction, it's only canon that they said it, not that it's true. Visuals Trump Dialogue and in this case 30% of the crust was obviously not destroyed, not even close.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 03:11pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Norade wrote:

If they were the surface that's even less reason to detonate a nuke anywhere but above them.


Not really considering the weapon types in trek, their known effects and the type of creatures the founders are.



Quote:
No, you really do need to show me how that fireball works otherwise it simply can't be a high yield explosion. No nuclear device tested in real life has a short duration fireball so you've got some explaining to do if you want anybody to buy that those 300+km blobs are fire caused by anything like a traditional explosion.


I really need to do no such thing in fact all i need do is point out that the fireball does expand 300+km in a fraction of a second and consider what such a blast wave would do in regards to damage, it is those like you who try to use a nuke as the bench mark that have the problem.




Quote:
So as long as I ignore real life physics and make no attempt to analyze things...


You can ignore them or use them as you please but you cannot ignore the fact that the fireball did expand 300+km in a fraction of a second, but by all means use physics to analyze and calculate the energy of such a blast wave.


So considering the "blast" accounts for roughly 40-50% of the total energy of a nuke and the diameter of the fireball was at least 300km the nuke calculator gives us 1500gt for a fireball with a radius of 156km (for a air burst and a 127km minimum), now 50% of that for blast only gives us 750gt. However as it was a fireball we see expanding we cannot exactly ignore thermal altogether but leaving it for now at 750gt will do and cover any minor errors.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 03:23pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Azron_Stoma wrote:

That was already very unstable/dying, not a normal sun.


The one the people lived around must have been stable enough for their planet to support life and that one was supposed to be a close match.

Quote:
Given it's obvious role, I don't have to be anyone of the kind.


Destroying a marquis base?.

If you wish your assignment of the term "super-weapon" to be worth a damn in regards to canoninity you will need to be one or the other or get one or the other to say so buddy.


Quote:
Given what we know about M/AM reactions it's perfectly reasonable.


And yet simple m/am reactions do not fit with the effects we see from photon torpedoes so it is unreasonable.


Quote:
And we never heard of anything like the Dreadnought going after any of those.


The dreadnought was sent after a marquis base but got grabbed by the caretaker and its circuits got scrambled and we have examples of marquis bases.
Quote:
We know that the proximity to the Romulans would have limited the timeframe, but your interpretation again doesn't jive with Riker pointing out the ammunition problem, which if they were just going to fire a few salvos he wouldn't have even brought up.


Apart from the rather obvious fact that instead of facing the warbird with a full load of ready photons and phasers they would have only phasers until the photons were reloaded, so yea it jives perfectly and fits with the fact that phasers could have drilled to the ship in seconds (a fact most people looking to use pegasus to lowball trek ignore).


Quote:
Then give us a clear example of greater firepower, you have yet to do so.


Skin of evil, TDIC, obsession, the immunity syndrome ect ect...


Quote:
Yet we saw none of said destruction, it's only canon that they said it, not that it's true. Visuals Trump Dialog and in this case 30% of the crust was obviously not destroyed, not even close.


You cannot dispute canon dialog just because the removal of the planets surface was obscured, 30% of the crust was stated to be gone and no one was shocked at the result any dispute in visuals are easily explained by how phasers and other trek weapon effect matter.


Last edited by Lord Helmet on 2011-06-25 03:32pm, edited 5 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 03:24pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
sorry double post

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 04:47pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2403
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
Lord Helmet wrote:
A weapon of a few kilotons could achieve that in spades easily by hitting a population center on a "heavily populated class M world" so quoting a projected death toll is really a poor way to judge yield.

Like a photon torpedo that can go off right next to Kirk without mussing a single hair of his toupe?



People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 04:52pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Norade wrote:
No, you really do need to show me how that fireball works otherwise it simply can't be a high yield explosion. No nuclear device tested in real life has a short duration fireball so you've got some explaining to do if you want anybody to buy that those 300+km blobs are fire caused by anything like a traditional explosion.


afaik no bomb tested in real life would be particularly visible from space at all from under heavy clouds...


Hence why I said that due to the shorter duration fireballs and oddities that we saw in TDiC torpedoes are likely optimized for emitting some type of radiation. It explains bother the size of the area we see lit up, and the fact that they produce bright flashes that fade very swiftly. Again the balls in your court to explain how they could possibly burn for a shorter duration on a world where humans can walk around without special equipment.

Lord Helmet wrote:
Not really considering the weapon types in trek, their known effects and the type of creatures the founders are.


Sorry, you're going to have to go into more depth of why the weapons types in Trek work better beneath a body of liquid and why explosives would have issues with killing the founders via airburst.



Quote:
I really need to do no such thing in fact all i need do is point out that the fireball does expand 300+km in a fraction of a second and consider what such a blast wave would do in regards to damage, it is those like you who try to use a nuke as the bench mark that have the problem.


No, you do have to show your work and logic moron. I've asked you for what other possible explanation there could be for a much shorter duration fireball in not one, but two instances, and you've been dodging. It's against the rules to ignore questions and keep repeating the same bullshit so answer or get the fuck out.

Quote:
You can ignore them or use them as you please but you cannot ignore the fact that the fireball did expand 300+km in a fraction of a second, but by all means use physics to analyze and calculate the energy of such a blast wave.

So considering the "blast" accounts for roughly 40-50% of the total energy of a nuke and the diameter of the fireball was at least 300km the nuke calculator gives us 1500gt for a fireball with a radius of 156km (for a air burst and a 127km minimum), now 50% of that for blast only gives us 750gt. However as it was a fireball we see expanding we cannot exactly ignore thermal altogether but leaving it for now at 750gt will do and cover any minor errors.


Except that the fireball in all of those cases would burn for how long again? Just because it is a M/AM blast doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore the way explosions work. Hell, you can't even claim that they somehow release less heat because friction would ignite the air anyway in that case. So far you've shown that you can use a calculator, but that you can't actually do any math or put any real thought into anything outside of your preconceived notions. Hell, you can't even cite the false 690GT torpedo from the right source.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:04pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Oh, and the upper atmospheric nuclear tests would have been visible from space even with the low yields tested.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:09pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Posts: 1154
Location: Blighty
Norade wrote:
Oh, and the upper atmospheric nuclear tests would have been visible from space even with the low yields tested.


Pretty much any atmospheric nuclear event is visible from space. The Vela Incident was estimated to be 2-3 kT, at the only argument is over what it actually was, not whether the satellite could have picked up a surface test of that yield.



Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:12pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14055
Photon torpedoes are used not just for military purposes, but also for various nonmilitary and scientific ones - caskets, probes, transportation and so on. It doesn't take a really big stretch of the imagination to consider that they're multi-functional and highly adaptable, especially considering many other pieces of ST technology tend to be just as adaptable (especially weapons like phasers.)

By that same token, I'd imagine that photon torpedoes won't have one specific, absolute yield - we already have "dial-a yield" nuclear weapons IRL, and we can also make megaton range warheads with fission (nevermind something more advanced) within certain limits, so I don't see why ST would be completely incapable of that if they needed to (hell even if for some reason antimatter can't reach megaton range, there's *still* fusion.) And it would be pretty silly NOT to scale your weapons to meet a given circumstance. antimatter on a federation starship is not infinite when you're out on a voyage and you don't just go wasting shit. You use what is needed to meet the task, nevermind other consideratons for usage (EG not wanting to kill nearby bystanders, etc.)

This also impacts specific calcs. Its a context specific limit, based on the circumstances (EG resources available) at hand. It's not neccesarily an absolute upper limit. (EG we dont know how many photorps there are onboard, how much antimatter is available, etc.). All Pegasus really says is that the Enteprrise-D could not just casually blow apart enormous asteroids with single torpedoes, which I am pretty sure noone hear has tried claiming.

Also, if you have massive hundreds of km wide fireballs appearing in a fraction of a second, we're talkign some pretty hefty expansion velocities, which would have some pretty telling implications as far as frictional heating and atmosphere are concerned (nevermind about durations.) That is, assuming it is a normal fireball.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:17pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Captain Seafort wrote:
Norade wrote:
Oh, and the upper atmospheric nuclear tests would have been visible from space even with the low yields tested.


Pretty much any atmospheric nuclear event is visible from space. The Vela Incident was estimated to be 2-3 kT, at the only argument is over what it actually was, not whether the satellite could have picked up a surface test of that yield.


Oh, so DXIII is just right full of shit today. Good to know.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Photon torpedoes are used not just for military purposes, but also for various nonmilitary and scientific ones - caskets, probes, transportation and so on. It doesn't take a really big stretch of the imagination to consider that they're multi-functional and highly adaptable, especially considering many other pieces of ST technology tend to be just as adaptable (especially weapons like phasers.)

By that same token, I'd imagine that photon torpedoes won't have one specific, absolute yield - we already have "dial-a yield" nuclear weapons IRL, and we can also make megaton range warheads with fission (nevermind something more advanced) within certain limits, so I don't see why ST would be completely incapable of that if they needed to (hell even if for some reason antimatter can't reach megaton range, there's *still* fusion.) And it would be pretty silly NOT to scale your weapons to meet a given circumstance. antimatter on a federation starship is not infinite when you're out on a voyage and you don't just go wasting shit. You use what is needed to meet the task, nevermind other consideratons for usage (EG not wanting to kill nearby bystanders, etc.)

This also impacts specific calcs. Its a context specific limit, based on the circumstances (EG resources available) at hand. It's not neccesarily an absolute upper limit. (EG we dont know how many photorps there are onboard, how much antimatter is available, etc.). All Pegasus really says is that the Enteprrise-D could not just casually blow apart enormous asteroids with single torpedoes, which I am pretty sure noone hear has tried claiming.

Also, if you have massive hundreds of km wide fireballs appearing in a fraction of a second, we're talkign some pretty hefty expansion velocities, which would have some pretty telling implications as far as frictional heating and atmosphere are concerned (nevermind about durations.) That is, assuming it is a normal fireball.


I'm not saying that torpedoes can't vary in yield, in fact they rather clearly can to the point where they can deal less damage than an empty casing at terminal velocity would. I am saying that TDiC should show us the maximum yield for a contemporary power as they had no reason to hold anything back.

Also, glad to see that somebody else here understands that you can't have a 300km fireball that lasts only a few seconds. It's not possible by any laws of physics.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:26pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14055
I wasn't addressing fireball duration. I was addressing atmospheric heating. As far as cloud cover goes, I'm not sure why we'd be seeing anything if there was cloud cover.

In any case this is also why I explicitly said "if it is a normal fireball." We dont even know what sort of destructive mechanism was used to destroy the planet. Since they're not shooting huge plumes of ejecta into space (and beyond a certain yield I doubt whether you can really HAVE just airbursts or ground bursts) I'm wondering if they're using some other kind of planet-killing weapon to 'destroy' the crust/mantle.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:43pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Posts: 2424
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Go to hell, dumbass. Apparently, there's some part of "under heavy clouds" cover you skipped over. The Vela Incident explanations specifically included cloud cover as part of the equation.


You're still a fucking moron given that an weapon of exceptional yield will push the clouds away meaning you would still see it from space. The Tsar bomb, a mere 50 megatons had a mushroom clouds that was above the level of cloud formation as can be clearly seen here.

Image

Thus unless you're arguing that Trek has smaller weapons you're roundly wrong on the matter of the viability of nukes from space.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I wasn't addressing fireball duration. I was addressing atmospheric heating. As far as cloud cover goes, I'm not sure why we'd be seeing anything if there was cloud cover.

In any case this is also why I explicitly said "if it is a normal fireball." We dont even know what sort of destructive mechanism was used to destroy the planet. Since they're not shooting huge plumes of ejecta into space (and beyond a certain yield I doubt whether you can really HAVE just airbursts or ground bursts) I'm wondering if they're using some other kind of planet-killing weapon to 'destroy' the crust/mantle.


Given that high yield weapons break cloud cover with their mushroom clouds that would make them visible. The fact that the flash from the explosion of a fifty megaton device could be seen from a thousand kilometers away says the clouds would light up. Given that we can see lightning from space and that is a much less energetic event than detonating even a tiny nuke I'd say no matter the cloud cover they would be visible.

The level of atmospheric heating from a blast traveling at 150,000m/s would be retardedly high. Given that heating of materials from the shock wave of say, HMX are noticeable and that only expands at 9,200m/s I would expect to see massive thermal and thus visual effects from such a shock wave. This isn't even to mention that the largest rings seen in TDiC are even further out than that at around two thousand kilometers meaning that the shock wave would need to have traveled at 1,000,000m/s.

Thus these devices either weren't explosives, or they were designed to release radiation with a minimal explosive component.



School requires more work than I remember it taking...

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:55pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14055
I'm not even sure what yields are being talked about. I'm also not sure if the individual people involved in here are having different ideas of firepower involved and exactly what we are seeing. I'm not convinced, for example that what we're seeing are actually shockwaves, fireballs or anything like that. Whatever it is, its still persisting after the initial bombardment though (we see just before the Jem'Hadar arrive that there's still those same effects going on - it doesnt look liek any fireball I've ever seen though, although I admit I'm not an expert on such matters.)

i also don't think we're dealing with airbursts really, their goal is to destroy the "surface/crust" (whatever "destroy" means) and that implies something more akin to surface or ground detonations.

What I find curious, and telling, however, is the lack of more secondary effects. If they were gouging huge holes in the ground we'd be seeing stuff like ejecta and the related effects (atmospheric heating, etc.) Also curious is that the torpedoes appear to be travelling at tens/hundreds of km/s (at least) yet the atmosphere isn't getting heated in the least bit, despite a clearly hypervelocity atmostpheric entry, and the fact we know the surface of the founder homeworld is meant to be habitable.

And yet, none of these are a dead tipoff something is wrong either. If they were intendeding to blow off/vaporize/destroy the crust in some brute force manner involving explosives, you think they'd be worried more about lack of ejecta and such rather than lifesigns.

Maybe it would be better to decide first on exactly what sort of outcome we are expecting (EG what is "destroy" supposed to mean), then figure out what is needed to accomplish that, and THEN decide whether or not it fits with what we see or not?



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 05:56pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Metahive wrote:
Lord Helmet wrote:
A weapon of a few kilotons could achieve that in spades easily by hitting a population center on a "heavily populated class M world" so quoting a projected death toll is really a poor way to judge yield.

Like a photon torpedo that can go off right next to Kirk without mussing a single hair of his toupe?


So you are going to claim that one was set to max as well i assume?..


Quote:
Sorry, you're going to have to go into more depth of why the weapons types in Trek work better beneath a body of liquid and why explosives would have issues with killing the founders via airburst.


Because the body of liquid was the founders so the explosion going off in the sea/lake means 100% of the energy hits them.



Quote:
No, you do have to show your work and logic moron.


And that comment gets you told to go fuck yourself asshole.

Quote:
I've asked you for what other possible explanation there could be for a much shorter duration fireball in not one, but two instances, and you've been dodging. It's against the rules to ignore questions and keep repeating the same bullshit so answer or get the fuck out.


And i have told you that i have no fucking reason at all or fucking need to explain the issue with your obsession with the duration so go fuck yourself.


Quote:
Except that the fireball in all of those cases would burn for how long again?

Just because it is a M/AM blast doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore the way explosions work. Hell, you can't even claim that they somehow release less heat because friction would ignite the air anyway in that case. So far you've shown that you can use a calculator, but that you can't actually do any math or put any real thought into anything outside of your preconceived notions. Hell, you can't even cite the false 690GT torpedo from the right source.


Considering the figure i just calculated did not include the thermal radiation the answer is clear moron.

And the fact is that we see photon torpedoes go off on literally dozens of occasions and only a fucking retard would claim they are pure M/AM reactions in pretty much any of the examples apart from perhaps a couple of scenes in TOS.

All you have shown is that you can preach about the duration and whine about nukes while also ignoring the fact that virtually every example is nothing like a nuke or simple a m/am reaction in pretty much every aspect a photon torpedo blast has not just fucking duration.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 06:04pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Connor MacLeod wrote:

i also don't think we're dealing with airbursts really, their goal is to destroy the "surface/crust" (whatever "destroy" means) and that implies something more akin to surface or ground detonations.

What I find curious, and telling, however, is the lack of more secondary effects. If they were gouging huge holes in the ground we'd be seeing stuff like ejecta and the related effects (atmospheric heating, etc.) Also curious is that the torpedoes appear to be traveling at tens/hundreds of km/s (at least) yet the atmosphere isn't getting heated in the least bit, despite a clearly hypervelocity atmospheric entry, and the fact we know the surface of the founder homeworld is meant to be habitable.

And yet, none of these are a dead tipoff something is wrong either. If they were intendeding to blow off/vaporize/destroy the crust in some brute force manner involving explosives, you think they'd be worried more about lack of ejecta and such rather than lifesigns.


Those are some very good questions and as far as ejecta is concerned it is well known that trek phasers and disruptor's disintegrate large amounts of matter without the usual explosive effects you get with normal vaporisation and in a lot of cases they do not even heat material connected to a object that is being disintegrated. This obviously does not explain the issue with the photon torps but the effects of those are so varied (cannon balls ect) that we have no idea what they may have been set to do.


Last edited by Lord Helmet on 2011-06-25 06:09pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 06:06pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2403
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
Lord Helmet wrote:
So you are going to claim that one was set to max as well i assume?..

There was no level mentioned (as variable yields were a retroactive addition introduced in VOY and ENT of all places), but tell me what's so great about having a setting that apparently means "weaker than 19th century HE shell".

Hey, I'm also still waiting for you to mention all these "genuine" ST superweapons that declass the dreadnaught missile in sheer firepower (with the exceptions I noted).



People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why do people assume that the Empire has better tech? PostPosted: 2011-06-25 06:14pm
Offline
Transphobic Ignoramus

Joined: 2011-04-21 07:44am
Posts: 57
Metahive wrote:
Lord Helmet wrote:
So you are going to claim that one was set to max as well i assume?..

There was no level mentioned (as variable yields were a retroactive addition introduced in VOY and ENT of all places), but tell me what's so great about having a setting that apparently means "weaker than 19th century HE shell".


You mean apart from the rather obvious fact you mentioned yourself where they fire near a friendly position?.

Quote:
Hey, I'm also still waiting for you to mention all these "genuine" ST superweapons that declass the dreadnaught missile in sheer firepower (with the exceptions I noted).


Why would i need to when doing so or not does not allow you or anybody else to make the application of the word "superweapon" in regards to the dreadnought canonically correct anyway?.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group