Rise Scalings: startrek-vs-starwars VS picard578 VS vivftp

[Lucky]

I was reading this debate: http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthre ... ost7129463. When post number 41 made me remember an old question I had
__________
http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... edoes.html


However, vaporization was not expected to be complete, so we are left with total of 180 to 200 megatons. While it is not stated that torpedo was fired with maximum yield, it handily removes argument that "Pegasus" involved fragmentation, not vaporization, of asteroid.

180 to 200 megatons

http://st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html

Now, let's take a look at the asteroid as the more rabid of my opponents look at theirs, so we can get something closer to an upper limit. First, the density will have to be bumped up from 3,000 to 7,000 kg/m3. This gives us a mass of 94,556,441,000 kilograms. Let's assume that the iron (and/or similar nickel) constitute 90% of the asteroid's mass, or 85,100,796,900 kilograms. At 7.6 megajoules per kilogram, this works out to 646,766,056,440 megajoules. That's almost 650,000 TJ, or 154.5 megatons. Then again, given that all this energy must be deposited into the asteroid in a fraction of a second by an explosive device, this, too, is probably a low-end figure.

About 650,000 TJ or about 154.5 megatons

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... ostcount=1

Now the asteroid itself is roughly an ellipsoid, so I'll calc its volume accordingly. Based on these figures, the asteroid has a volume of 1,566,605.47 cubic meters on the low end, and 8,930,875.43 cubic meters on the high end.

Now to work out the volume of a sphere with a volume equal to those figures to plug into the asteroid destruction calculator. On the low end, we're looking at approx. 144 meters and on the high end we're looking at approx. 257 meters.

Plug those figures into the asteroid destruction calculator and we get:

LOW END:

22.4 MEGATONS

HIGH END:

127.1 MEGATONS


Please note that the above figures represent the high end of this calc. I'll now re-do them taking into consideration the partial pixels, so the Rise photon torpedo will now be 4 pixels, instead of 3:

22.4 to 127.1 megatons high end

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... ostcount=1

Now to work out the volume for the asteroid, we get 660,853.65 cubic meters on the low end, and 5,741,780.86 cubic meters on the high end.

Now to work out the volume for spheres equal to the above volumes. We get approx. 104 meters on the low end, and approx. 222 meters on the high end.

Plug those into the asteroid destruction calculator and we get:

LOW END:

8.4 MEGATONS

HIGH END:

81.9 MEGATONS



So there we have it. This should be my final calc on the matter. Thoughts? Opinions? Corrections?

8.4 to 81.9 megatons low end

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthre ... ost3356696

Now that we have the 3 sets of dimensions based on both whole and partial pixels, we can work out the volume of an ellipsoid of each size:

TORPEDO 1:
Whole pixels: 154,968.37 cubic meters
Partial pixels: 65,369.61 cubic meters

TORPEDO 2: Main Body Glow
Whole pixels: 355,839.53 cubic meters
Partial pixels: 150,128.04 cubic meters

TORPEDO 2: Total Body Glow
Whole pixels: 3,680,200.51 cubic meters
Partial pixels: 1,552,403.77 cubic meters


Now to work out the diameter of spheres of equal volume to the above:

TORPEDO 1:
Whole pixels: about 66.6 meters
Partial pixels: about 50 meters

TORPEDO 2: Main Body Glow
Whole pixels: about 88 meters
Partial pixels: about 66 meters

TORPEDO 2: Total Body Glow
Whole pixels: about 191.6 meters
Partial pixels: about 143.6 meters


Okeedokee, after all that, we now have figures to plug into the Asteroid Destruction Calculator:


TORPEDO 1:
Whole pixels: 2.2 megatons
Partial pixels: 935.7 kilotons

TORPEDO 2: Main Body Glow
Whole pixels: 5.1 megatons
Partial pixels: 2.2 megatons

TORPEDO 2: Total Body Glow
Whole pixels: 52.7 megatons
Partial pixels: 22.2 megatons



Well there ya have it. The Rise asteroid scaled from the Rise torpedo. I think it's interesting to note that most of the figures are in the same range as the calcs in the OP.

Decide for yourselves which is the more accurate one. I still feel the Alliances torpedo is the more accurate calc due to the whole "glow grow" issue.

EDIT.

Just making some edits to make everything fit better on the page.

This scaling was clearly botched because the torpedo glow growth was not taken into account. We can ignore it, and it really should be redone.
__________

Am I correct in thinking that vivftp's calculations are for a centrally buried explosive, and Picard578 and ST-v-SW got their results by correctly using a surface explosion which requires a larger yield?

If I am correct, then doesn't that mean that all three results are in fact about the same? (About 100 to 200 megatons)

[Mike DiCenso]

You may wish to save some time and go over this old thread from 2007 wherein most of the issues get hammered out. Pay close attention to Kazeite's photometric analysis where he clearly demonstrates that the torpedo glow is getting bigger and that it is simply not just a trick of perspective.
-Mike

[Lucky]

You may wish to save some time and go over this old thread from 2007 wherein most of the issues get hammered out. Pay close attention to Kazeite's photometric analysis where he clearly demonstrates that the torpedo glow is getting bigger and that it is simply not just a trick of perspective.
-Mike

Thank you, but I've read some of that thread. I couldn't find the information I was looking for.


I am just asking for a simple explanation as to what the differences are between them. vivftp's three scalings seem to be noticeably lower, and i seemed to remember that the SD.net asteroid calculator assumes a sphere, and a centrally buried charge which results in the lowest possible yield you can get. I was hoping the three people who did the scalings would explain the reasons for the differences since all three are members.

[Picard]

Regarding my and Darkstar's estimates, one part is is probably difference in scaling. Which frame is taken for determining size of torpedo, which frame is taken to determine size of asteroid. Quality of screenshots also matters, as do starting assumptions.

Darkstar estimated only 60% vaporization of asteroid... I went with something more like 80 to 90 %, which may be too high, but I doubt it... 1-centimeter fragments expected were maximum size, not average or anything else...

Regarding scaling part, I eyeballed asteroid's volume to be equivalent to cylinder that is some 375 meters long and 220 meters wide; ~14.5 million cubic meters. Darkstar took 210 meters as average width, and 390 meters long; ~13.5 million cubic meters.