Star Trek Torpedo Yields

posted on May 30th, 2011, 11:39 am

Does Star Trek ever mention the yields of their torpedoes?

posted on May 30th, 2011, 11:42 am

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Photon_torpedo and http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Isoton

[Anonymous]

posted on May 30th, 2011, 11:43 am

Last edited by Anonymous on May 30th, 2011, 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Does Star Trek ever mention the yields of their torpedoes?

occasionally when they need some technobabbly filler. they are rarely consistent between episodes, and they use made up measurements such as iso-stuff (they love iso-).

ninjad by zebh

---

EDIT: was reading that article on isoton and i find it funny that 90 isotons could only get a ketracel facility asteroid, but 54 isotons could destroy an entire small planet.

EDIT: my favourite silly maths in that isoton article is about the malon.

their civilisation makes 6 billion isotons of antimatter waste per day (thats 6,000,000,000)

the smaller waste tanker (from night, the export vessel eleventh gradient) can hold 90 million (90,000,000)

so they would need dozens of these ships making daily trips (impossible as they have to go far to dump) to dump the waste.

the malon export vessel in juggernaut can hold 4 trillion isotons of waste.

apparently nobody writing this crap had a computer or any understanding of big numbers, because if we assume that this big ship can make 1 trip per (earth) year (thats pretty inefficient) the entire malon civilisation would still only need ONE ship of that class to dump all their waste.

365*6 billion per day is only roughly 2 trillion per year, which is half the capacity of that huge ship (which somehow only needs 100 pigs running it, on 42 decks).

[Anonymous]

posted on May 30th, 2011, 11:59 am

Last edited by Anonymous on May 30th, 2011, 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Interesting.  According to that page, 2.6 megatons equals 1 isoton.  It also says something about the torpedo yields being 25 isotons (65 megatons), which is more than enough to completely vaporize an unshielded Borg cube.

Interesting results on how much it takes to destroy something.  Those shields are pretty strong if they can resist an explosion powerful enough to destroy an entire city.

EDIT:
I underestimated the shields.  Apparently, they can withstand an explosion powerful enough to destroy a small planet.  That's way more than 2.6 megatons/isoton.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 12:05 pm

Interesting.  According to that page, 2.6 megatons equals 1 isoton.  It also says something about the torpedo yields being 25 isotons (65 megatons), which is more than enough to completely vaporize an unshielded Borg cube.

Interesting results on how much it takes to destroy something.  Those shields are pretty strong if they can resist an explosion powerful enough to destroy an entire city.

thats where some of the inconsistency of trek lies.

if a torpedo really did have an explosion equivalent to 2.6 megatons of TNT (the meaning of measuring explosions on earth in tons) then each torp would be like a nuclear bomb in power. which is reasonable if you consider that current earth technology can make an explosion of 50 megatons confirmed. future explosives should be more powerful.

but then we see unshielded ships get directly hit by a torpedo and the damage is tiny. like in wrath of khan, the enterprise scores a direct hit with a photon, now if that really was 2.6 megatons of tnt it would have vapourised the reliant easily.

thats why the stick to isotons in the dialogue, cos they made it up and we have no idea how much power that really is.

but then we have the problem that in big battles (like the dominion war battles) everyone is firing these tiny explosives around, when they should easily be nuking each other with 100s of megatons of boom.

i mean maybe trek explosives are designed to impart the energy into the enemy ship rather than just a massive explosion. so that the enemy ship's systems overload due to the power coming into them. would explain consoles exploding

posted on May 30th, 2011, 12:14 pm

If I made a Star Trek series, I'll stick with the megaton/gigaton.  That way, everyone knows how powerful the torpedoes are.

The bomb used to end the war between the US and Japan in 1945 (was it 1945) was 5 megatons I think.  A few grams of antimatter would easily create a yield that powerful.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 12:32 pm

i dont think its that inconsistant, as the pure explosive power of a weapon is only one of many factors. if the hiroshima bomb would have detonated upon impact, but in a distance above the city, the damage would have been very very limited. As their is no medium in space, the explosive power of weapons should be much less significant, compared to their correct usage. And armor and similar defensive mechanisms have to be taken into account, too

[Anonymous]

posted on May 30th, 2011, 12:33 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on May 30th, 2011, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the bombs (there were 2) dropped on japan had 13-18 kilotons for one and 21 kilotons for the other. nowhere near 5 megatons.

---

EDIT: since we dont know how strong these armours and other techs are it is harder to tell what a big explosion would do to a starship in trek. i prefer to think that a real 100 megaton explosion would destroy a ship.

the explosions of torps can be that big as we've seen them hit planet surfaces and do poor damage, obviously not in the megatons.

thats the problem with star trek, humanity at present has already developed some mean ways of killing each other (such as 50 megaton nukes), that the future should have even nastier ways of killing people. and that anybody on a planetary surface should be dead fast in a war.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 1:06 pm

Startrek has never propely spoke of the power of which photon torps or quantums explode at.

If you fired a nuke at a ships shields it would be very ineffective because the explosion is spread in all directions, id imagine an effective anti ship torp would be a shaped charge and would direct the explosion forward. So you wouldnt need something with the power to destroy an entire city because you would want the torp to destroy the target and not everything around it.( like ships starfleet is trying to save)

On top on this logic a shaped charge would be very ineffective at destroying any small planet a shaped charged is made to direct the explosion forward... a very effective bunker buster in this but not a planet destroyer.

All those stupid calculations on these startrek websites make no sense.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 1:30 pm

I thought that they were 60-megaton nukes.

Considering that a standard photon torpedo (25 isotons *2.6 = 65 megatons) can destroy an unshielded ship of non-Borg ship in one shot, I'd say that the shields are pretty strong.  Even though in a vacuum, the explosion doesn't reach as far, it'll still be quite effective.  Especially at point-blank range.  That explains why the ships are destroyed in one shot if the shields are out or penetrated.  One of those photon torpedoes should be able to vaporize everything within 10 miles of the flash point if detonated in an atmosphere.  The fact that they cause little damage on planets indicates that the yield has been lowered.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 1:32 pm

Suddenly I feel so glad that Star Trek is fiction and that I'm stupid enough to not have to understand anything (or at least find it not obligatory to investigate it) of the obove mentioned issues so I can STILL ENJOY what is presented movie, series or game wise. Really - who cares when it more or less looks pretty and feels real?

posted on May 30th, 2011, 1:36 pm

I thought that they were 60-megaton nukes.

the bombs dropped at the end of WW2? no, one was between 13 and 18 kilotons the other was about 21 kilotons. nowhere near megatons. modern bombs are megaton ranges. the biggest publicy known bomb being 50 megatons.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 2:07 pm

the bombs dropped at the end of WW2? no, one was between 13 and 18 kilotons the other was about 21 kilotons. nowhere near megatons. modern bombs are megaton ranges. the biggest publicy known bomb being 50 megatons.

Yeah but that bomb was created by the russians in 1961 and that was only half its potential yeild, im sure in this day and age someone could or may already have something way bigger in their arsenal.

Yes im aware you said publicy known... im just saying.

posted on May 30th, 2011, 2:13 pm

Bombs that are bigger than that release most of their energy through fission, decreasing the output relative to mass of the bomb. At well below this capability, the larger the bomb, the less efficient it becomes; not just for destructive output (radiation decreases drastically, as does overpressure etc), but also economically (gotta build a plane or missile specifically to carry it, as well as breed that much material).

Bigger =/= better in military hardware, except in the public's eye.

Bunker busters anyone?

posted on May 30th, 2011, 2:23 pm

Bunker busters anyone?

Thats exactly what i was getting at, a larger explosion from a huge bomb isnt always the best, a shaped  charge just like a bunker buster would be more effective agaisnt both shields and hull than a massive explosion that would spread out its area of effect is all directions so this "fake" startrek source with made up numbers about a photon torp being as powerfull as the biggest nuke is dumb. Something that can destroy a city with a massive area of effect is going to be useless vs a ship with decent shields.

Altho never mentioned i think these torps are shaped charges with a medium sized warhead, not some OP nuke type bomb. As for quantums i have no idea since they are based on a technology way beyond our understanding with nothing to compare them to.