Out of Pod Experience

Oh god, you just HAD to remind me about that show.

Anyway, those are bizarre alien weapons (which kill the planet with some kind of "trick", not massive firepower like a death star), not photon torpedoes. I suppose I should clarify that I'm talking about torpedoes and other comparable weapons (phasers, disruptors, etc).



Too bad it doesn't actually happen. Given the examples of pathetic firepower from Star Trek ships, the most likely interpretation is that he's exaggerating for effect, and the real result would be merely massive deaths and the end of their civilization. Just like we talk about "wiping out humanity" in a nuclear war even though there would be a lot of people (and a functioning civilization) left.



How exactly does this prove anything when the dialogue explicitly says "they're giving us false sensor readings"?

*Runs through thread naked waving Star Trek flag*

Wrath of Khan. Nebula fight scene is the best fight scene.

First, it's not necessarily all life. Like I said, we often talk about "wiping out humanity" even though we don't mean a 100% kill rate.

Second, there's a huge difference. Killing most human-like life on a planet is MUCH easier than blowing it to dust like the death star. One is within the capabilities of modern earth, one requires near-magical technology just to get the unbelievably huge amount of energy required.




What part of "the whole thing is fake" is so hard to understand? You can't get any useful numbers on firepower from the Star Trek equivalent of photoshop.



If it was unguided, it would have a useful range of under 100km (see WWII battleship guns for example), and anything beyond point blank range would involve simply throwing up a wall of fire and hoping for a lucky hit. Conclusion: it's a guided weapon, and quoting a single maximum range limit is just stupid.

And even if it runs out of warp fuel, there's a huge difference between a target moving at warp speed towards to torpedo, and one moving away from it. The ranges would be completely different (in the latter case, it might have an effective range of ZERO), so quoting a single number makes no sense.



Ok, so it came from a non-canon book (all Star Trek books are non-canon according to the producers). Whether or not some third-party site quotes it is irrelevant.

Pay attention. In the dialogue they explicitly say "WTF they're photoshopping our sensors!!!!". The "33% of the crust destroyed" didn't happen.

Of course this should be pretty obvious from the fact that the clip of the shots hitting the planet don't show anything even remotely like 33% of the planet's crust being destroyed.



No, it's complete stupidity. One more time:

If a target is traveling towards the firing ship the torpedo will have an effective range of more than 4m km (4m + whatever distance the target ship covers in the time it takes the torpedo to reach it).

If a target is traveling away from the firing ship, the torpedo will have an effective range of less than 4m km (IOW, you have to launch when the target is at a range such that it will be at 4m km when the torpedo reaches it).

If a target is traveling away from the firing ship faster than the torpedo, it can't hit at all.

If a target is stationary, the torpedo has infinite range (fire on a ballistic trajectory and only burn fuel for minor aim corrections).

Since all of these situations give a different maximum range, citing a single number is just stupid.



I didn't ignore it, I very clearly stated that it proves nothing since a projectile in space has unlimited range. In fact, I even quoted your link when I said it.

The source I'm disputing is about torpedofirepower, not range.



You're the one who posted pointless technobabble in response to my simple "IRL > Star Trek" comment. And it's not nitpicking, it's simply pointing out that Star Trek consistently shows things which do not match up with your claims.

In Star Trek, home of bizarre physics? They were probably too busy being thankful that their holodeck didn't become sentient and kill them all.

But more seriously, this would hardly be the first time a military officer was wrong about something. It's entirely plausible that they simply didn't realize how absurd a claim it was until after the deception was discovered.



Nonsense. The whole scene is CGI, and it would've taken little or no additional effort to show massive damage. Instead, they very deliberately chose to show something which is clearly not "30% of the crust destroyed".



"Range" for a weapon means "how close do I have to get to the target before I can expect my weapon to hit it".

And even if you only consider the distance traveled from the launching ship you still get different ranges:

If the launching ship is motionless the torpedo will cover X distance before the time limit expires.

If the launching ship is moving, the torpedo will cover more than X distance since the ship's velocity is added to the torpedo's.

If the launching ship is moving in the opposite direction, the torpedo will cover less than X distance since it has to cancel its backwards movement and then reverse course.

End result: you still can't give any useful information with a single range number.



It has been stated, yes. Unfortunately it has not been shown. Time after time we see weapon effects which are not consistent with the level of firepower you're claiming, so the only possible conclusion is that "28 isotons" is not a very large yield.



So what? You can create an 800km explosion with a firecracker. Sure, the pressure wave at 800km will be insignificant, but it's still non-zero. Citing the explosion diameter is absolutely meaningless unless you also know the level of damage done at that distance.

Also, 800km is less than 1% of the diameter of the earth. If the destructive effect of a 200 isoton bomb is limited to such a tiny volume, how exactly does a 50 isoton bomb destroy a planet?

And please give me a video link for this "Data takes the top off a mountain" claim, because I don't believe it exists.

NERDS!!!!

That makes me a sexual deviant with an equestrian fetish

ST technology isnt all that realistic anyway. They keep on changing thier stuff to match the plot all the time.

Also, a phaser is more like a laser than a turbo laser is.

Yea but, a turbolaser has recoil. When was the last time you saw a laser with recoil?