ST-v-SW.net: Rise calcs

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Post Reply
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:44 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:Correction of sorts: We do know the effects, not only visually, but Tuvok also describes it:


NEZU AMBASSADOR: The central desert. Fortunately that region isn't heavily populated.

TUVOK: Substantial cratering, atmospheric shockwaves, and large concentrations of dust and other stratospheric contaminants.


These fragements also were large enough that they survived a high-speed, relatively steep atmospheric entry, as well.
-Mike
Actually, if we can guesstimate the strength of the buffeting and either the distance of the shuttle from the impact site or the time between the two events, we can put those together quite interestingly.

Still, given the fact that a half kilometer asteroid was described as "huge," we can ballpark that as a clear upper limit for the first asteroid. I am not fully convinced by the scalings of the glow itself at the moment; glow size seems to be highly variable, and could easily vary during the flight.

If we do assume constant glow size, we can also give a precise measurement of the asteroid relative to the torpedo glow by taking multiple frames in sequence and running it in a best-fit regression. Recall that we have a few good possibilities; we should be able to assume one of the following for the viewpoint and the photon torpedo with reasonable precision:

1.) Constant acceleration.
2.) Constant velocity.

This should give us greater precision than a single frame.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:24 pm

2046 wrote:I don't think the two we see impacting are the same two biggest chunks that go flying off the asteroid.

The two biggest chunks go flying off in separate directions. The two pieces we see impacting hit within miles-or-less of one another, which is . . . orbitally speaking . . . highly unlikely.

They also appear generally smaller based on rough eyeball scaling of terrain features, fire characteristics, and so on, though this element to the argument is not required due to the overwhelming nature of the direction case.
I never intended to suggest that the two large fragments seen flying off in seperate directions are the same asteroids, merely that the two which made it to the Nezu's planet are still fairly substantial in size.

However, you do remind me of an interesting point to make; some might say that the fact that the artifical asteroids were identified as having their own guidence systems might suggest that somehow those two pieces could still have flown off in different directions initially, but then reconverged to impact later. This line of thinking can be countered by noting that neither Tuvok, nor anyone else noticed that the fragements (remember the fragments were being targeted and destroyed) were doing any odd orbital maneuvers. Therefore, the two large fragments cannot be the ones seen impacting scant seconds later.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:10 pm

Viv, what about conservatively doubling each yield by two, considering that we're dealing with surface impacts, and that you numbers you got are obtained from devices planted in the core of asteroids?

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:31 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Viv, what about conservatively doubling each yield by two, considering that we're dealing with surface impacts, and that you numbers you got are obtained from devices planted in the core of asteroids?
Remember though that photon torpedos are directional weapons, at least the ones after early TNG are, rather than omni-directional weapons.

I honestly don't know what the better way to calc this is. If anyone knows how to calc a directional explosive that detonates from a specific point on the surface at the center of the side of the asteroid it's targetting, then by all means please chime in :D

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:50 pm

vivftp wrote:Remember though that photon torpedos are directional weapons, at least the ones after early TNG are, rather than omni-directional weapons.
Really?
Where did you get that from?

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:05 pm

Praeothmin wrote: Really?
Where did you get that from?
Through direct observation and some dialogue, really.

In early TNG, the backlash from photon torpedo detonations a few kilometers away had a very high probability of destroying the Enterprise without shields (TNG's Q Who at the end). That would indicate a pretty substantial amount of energy would be comming from the omni-directional photon torpedo explosion at that close range.

Now fast forward to TNG's Conundrum where only 1.2 megajoules from the Lysian Destroyers weapons was quite capable of shaking the Enterprise through its shields. To clarify, that's about the same power output as a phaser rifle.

Now notice that never again after early TNG, be it later TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the movies did photon torpedos ever upon detonation shake the ship that fired them, even when they were fired from only a few kilometers away or less. The only exceptions were instances like Voyager's Scorpion or Voyager's Workforce where photon torpedos were detonated in open space in a clearly omni-directional explosion.

This tell us that something has changed, if early TNG photon torpedos could cause enough of a backlash to destroy an unshielded ship from a few kilometers away, yet later photon torpedos don't even so much as rock the ship.


Then we have this dialogue from TNG's Quality of Life:


RIKER
What if we detonated a low-yield
photon torpedo within the particle
stream? Wouldn't that shut it
down?

FARALLON
We'd have to configure the torpedo
very carefully... the shape of
the shock wave would be critical.
But it could work.

RIKER
How long would it take to set up?

DATA
I estimate that it would take a
minimum of sixty-five minutes to
properly configure the torpedo.


This tells us that they can indeed shape the charge of a photon torpedo, it'd just take a while to properly configure that shape in this particular instance.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:48 pm

Yes, that's even a reference that I know, but it does not mean all standard torps became shaped after that.
More mind bogling, if it was just so quick to do, why didn't they have them earlier?

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:45 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yes, that's even a reference that I know, but it does not mean all standard torps became shaped after that.
More mind bogling, if it was just so quick to do, why didn't they have them earlier?
What do you mean? What I'm suggesting is that sometime in early TNG (possibly even in their development of better weapons to fight the Borg), the Feds developed the ability to shape the explosion from their photon torpedos.

Why should we believe that this became the standard type of torpedo? Simply because after early TNG, we never saw photon torpedos behave like that again. If there were instances of torpedos still behaving like that later on, then sure the point could be argued, but I know of none. It seems like that became the norm for photon torpedo technology, maybe even quantum torpedo technology.

Why didn't they have them earlier? I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're asking why the Feds didn't develop this tech earlier? Quite likely because they just hadn't figured out how to do so as of yet.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:55 pm

vivftp wrote:

Then we have this dialogue from TNG's Quality of Life:

[snipped]

This tells us that they can indeed shape the charge of a photon torpedo, it'd just take a while to properly configure that shape in this particular instance.

Does that come from the actual as-filmed episode, or a script?
-Mike

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:15 am

I think you're line of reasoning is a bit flawed. Here's the dialog from "Q Who" and "The Nth Degree":

DATA
Without our shields -- at this
range there is a high degree of
probability that a photon
detonation
could destroy the
Enterprise.





RIKER
We can't use photon torpedoes.
An explosion this close to the
ship could cripple us.



BARCLAY
(keys insignia)
Lieutenant Barclay to Captain
Picard. You can fire photon
torpedos. Maximum yield, full
spread
.



In "Q Who", it is suggested that without full shields, a point-blank dedonation would possibly destroy the E-D, while in "The Nth Degree", it would require a full yeild, full spread (mulitple torpedoes) to cripple the ship at a similar range. If we use the Nth Degree example, it takes several torpedoes (a least four) at maximum yeild to cause harm this way, and so assuming that one or two fired point-blank in later episodes are proof alone of directed energy photon torpedoes is stretching things a bit much.
-Mike

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:38 am

Mike DiCenso wrote: Does that come from the actual as-filmed episode, or a script?
-Mike
I copied and pasted from the script, but it's completely accurate to the episode.

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:47 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:I think you're line of reasoning is a bit flawed. Here's the dialog from "Q Who" and "The Nth Degree":

DATA
Without our shields -- at this
range there is a high degree of
probability that a photon
detonation
could destroy the
Enterprise.





RIKER
We can't use photon torpedoes.
An explosion this close to the
ship could cripple us.



BARCLAY
(keys insignia)
Lieutenant Barclay to Captain
Picard. You can fire photon
torpedos. Maximum yield, full
spread
.



In "Q Who", it is suggested that without full shields, a point-blank dedonation would possibly destroy the E-D, while in "The Nth Degree", it would require a full yeild, full spread (mulitple torpedoes) to cripple the ship at a similar range. If we use the Nth Degree example, it takes several torpedoes (a least four) at maximum yeild to cause harm this way, and so assuming that one or two fired point-blank in later episodes are proof alone of directed energy photon torpedoes is stretching things a bit much.
-Mike
The Enterprise had no shields at all in Q Who when Data made his statement.

Your use of the copy/paste command is deceptive for The Nth Degree. When Riker made his statement about a photon torpedo explosion crippling them, it was quite a while before Barclay gave the statement about torpedos at maximum yield and a full spread. There was absolutely no yield or numerical value applied to the photon torpedos in Rikers statement.

These episodes support what I'm saying perfectly. A close range photon torpedo detonation in these early TNG episodes produces an omni-directional explosion which would damage/destroy the ship depending on its shield status. They in no way contradict one another.

And I'm not using "one or two" examples from later episodes, I'm using EVERY SINGLE example from later episodes. Never again do photon torpedos behave like this. Not in later TNG, not in DS9, not in Voyager, not in the TNG movies.

We constantly see photon torpedos fired at targets only a few hundred meters away with absolutely none of the torpedo explosion causing a backlash that affects the firing ship. This is in direct contradiction to these early TNG examples.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:11 am

Hardly deceptive:


DATA
Captain. The probe's energy
output is overloading our shields.
Failure anticipated in forty-seven
seconds.


Shields were being overloaded. I doubt having shields up at this point would make a lot of difference over no shields. Also, it's not hard to reason out that by mulitple torpedoes being mentioned by Riker earlier, he could well have ment full yeild and full spread. Barclay's making of the shields just 300% stronger suggests this.

As for your other examples, I think you go too far in suggesting that every example is of an identical situation. In "Relics", "Genesis", "Preemptive Strike", "Home coming", ect. The ship is at further range, often with shields up, or simply no where near when it fires. It is also unclear what the yeild settings are at most of the time.
-Mike

vivftp
Redshirt
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:16 pm

Post by vivftp » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:51 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Hardly deceptive:


DATA
Captain. The probe's energy
output is overloading our shields.
Failure anticipated in forty-seven
seconds.


Shields were being overloaded. I doubt having shields up at this point would make a lot of difference over no shields. Also, it's not hard to reason out that by mulitple torpedoes being mentioned by Riker earlier, he could well have ment full yeild and full spread. Barclay's making of the shields just 300% stronger suggests this.
Rikers statement about the photon torpedos came a full 1 minute, 5 seconds of on-screen time before Datas statement about the shields overloading. Long before the probe posed a serious threat to the Enterprise.

Also, Riker never mentioned multiple photon torpedos, he just said, "we can't use photon torpedos, an explosion this close would cripple us". Using them in the plural in this case is a very common usage when referring to something like that. It doesn't mean he's talking about a single torpedo or multiple torpedos, just torpedos themselves. There's no way you can figure out what yield Riker was referring to either.
As for your other examples, I think you go too far in suggesting that every example is of an identical situation. In "Relics", "Genesis", "Preemptive Strike", "Home coming", ect. The ship is at further range, often with shields up, or simply no where near when it fires. It is also unclear what the yeild settings are at most of the time.
Do I really honestly have to spell it out? Every example in which photon torpedos are fired at a target in close proximity then. It's quite obvious I'm not talking about instances where photon torpedos are fired at targets at great range.

Every single instance where photon torpedos are fired at targets at close range though, they all display the same characteristics I'm talking about.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:49 pm

vivftp wrote:
Rikers statement about the photon torpedos came a full 1 minute, 5 seconds of on-screen time before Datas statement about the shields overloading. Long before the probe posed a serious threat to the Enterprise.

Also, Riker never mentioned multiple photon torpedos, he just said, "we can't use photon torpedos, an explosion this close would cripple us". Using them in the plural in this case is a very common usage when referring to something like that. It doesn't mean he's talking about a single torpedo or multiple torpedos, just torpedos themselves. There's no way you can figure out what yield Riker was referring to either.
Again, take the quotes in their proper context; Riker says photon torpedoes, while later Barclay follows up with giving the go-ahead for multiple (full spread) full-yeild photon torpedoes. Also take into account that only a 300% increase was needed over whatever the shields either started at, or were currently at, therefore Riker probably again ment the use of full-yeild, multiple torpedoes, and was not speaking just in the generic sense.

As for your other examples, I think you go too far in suggesting that every example is of an identical situation. In "Relics", "Genesis", "Preemptive Strike", "Home coming", ect. The ship is at further range, often with shields up, or simply no where near when it fires. It is also unclear what the yeild settings are at most of the time.
Do I really honestly have to spell it out? Every example in which photon torpedos are fired at a target in close proximity then. It's quite obvious I'm not talking about instances where photon torpedos are fired at targets at great range.

And again, do I have to spell out that in the vast majority of those instances, a yeild setting is never made.
Every single instance where photon torpedos are fired at targets at close range though, they all display the same characteristics I'm talking about.
Again, meaningless to default assume that every torpedo fired at close range is on it's maximum setting. For instance, in ST6, you would have to explain away why the Excelsior and Enterprise-A would open up on Chang's BoP with a barrage of full-yeild torps with a shieldless and heavily damaged E-A sitting only a few hundred meters away! And this is well before your theoretical directed energy photon torpedoes. The same goes for the Reliant-Enterprise battles in ST2, and the E-BoP battle in ST3. All of those are engagements at a few hundred or so meters average distance, maybe a few km.

My point with the "Nth Degree" example, is that it is clearly made out by what they mean: dangerous for full-yeild torps to be dedonated near the ship, even with shields, and in the case of "Q Who", extremely dangerous for even a single torp without them (most likely full-yeild setting).

What you have to prove is this:

* That the torpedo mentioned in your example actually directs the energy totally in one direction only, or at least most of it.

* That there is evidence of torp yeilds stated, while ships are in very close proximity when those statements are made.

* That there is not another explanation which is simpler and serves equally well: e.g. That there was an improvement in starship shielding, ala enhanced Barclay's in "The Nth Degree", that made such a thing possible. Conversely, it could be a combination of some directed energy, and some significant shield improvements.

See my point?
-Mike

Post Reply