Talk:Photon torpedo

References

Why can't this just be part of Weapons of Star Trek?

Could references to episodes, etc, which the assertions added to the article are based on be added to the text? Then they could more easily be merged with those articles refered to (e.g. The use of a photon torpedo to bury Spock could go to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) then those in turn be linked back to Weapons of Star Trek?

Mr. Jones 15:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is this only from Star Trek?

I do realise the claim is being made that TPs are ferered to by Science Fiction other than Star Trek. Could someone substantiate these claims?

Mr. Jones 15:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you people need to read some Noam Chomsky :-)

I think YOU need to get over the slavish devotion to Chomsky's every uttering.

Is this from Star Trek?

"The description below is written within Star Trek context, but is by no means part of official Star Trek canon. (Comment is invited.) "

I am asking myself what then is the point in adding this information to the wikipedia? Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about Star Trek. -- mkrohn 00:11 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

It makes sense now. Dietary Fiber

Thanks it is now much better :-) -- mkrohn 09:27 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Theoretical vs Imaginary

Is it really theoretical? I.e., is there some actual theory of physics that postulates this weapon or entails its possibility? Or was this written by someone who thinks "theoretical" means fancifully made-up? Michael Hardy 01:08 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly the same I thought too. I was very unhappy with using the word "theoretical" and then linking it to theory, but it seems that someone now has changed it to "imaginary weapon" which is a lot better IMHO.

Star Trek inconsistencies

If a normal fusion weapon has a mass-energy conversion rate of about 0.7 percent, how can 3 kg of matter and anti-matter with a mass-energy conversion of close to 100 percent yield _only_ a 64 megaton explosion? Wouldn't any matter/anti-matter weapon be just so ginormously powerful as to wipe out any ship with a single hit?

If a photon torpedo has a 64 megaton yield, why does it take 6 to take out a city? 6 64 megaton bombs would take out the entire State of Texas.

Just some thoughts. (Epstein's Mother 11:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

Well we must assume that space ships in the star trek universe are build to withstand at least a few Photon Torpedo hits and not be destroyed, so it is not necessarily going to be one Hit one Kill.

As for the 6 Bombs to take out a city, well perhaps future cities are built of more durable materials than modern cities so it takes allot of Firepower to destroy them.

And I don't think a 64 Megaton Bomb would take out all of Texas, according to this site at least http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html, a 64 MT Nuke would only cause widespread destruction to about a 28.5 KM radius. (Though I agree that Star trek has lots of inconsistencies).

--Hibernian 07:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: The "6 bombs to take out a city" was incorrect in the first place, and there is no verifiable canon statement anywhere in Trek that seems to back that up. The closest I'am aware of is the "Apocalypse Rising" statements, but that is for attacking a heavily defended fortress, not a vunerable city.

The next closest is a statement from VOY's "Living Witness" where a museum curator mentions to someone that a torpedo taken from Voyager had a "twenty five isoton yeild. It could destroy a city in seconds". However this statement is vauge. How large a city, for example? Also given the mistakes made by the Kyrians and Vaskans over Voyager and the role it played in their history, his information is highly suspect at best.

There yield is variable.--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many of the things just said. First, I'm not sure about the 64 Kilotons, but e=mc2 gives E in joules, and I'm not sure how to convert joules to kilotons, so I'll accept that for now. I'll also accept that shields more than 300 years from now could have tremendous strength, especially since in other media using energy shields, such as C&C Red Alert's Iron Curtain, shields are indestructable by conventional weapons. However, inconsistancies remain. First, I don't think regular torpedos would be built with such super-strong armor that they actually significantly hinder the torpedo's explosive power. Second, I remember some Star Trek episodes where they were hit with shields down, and some sparks flew. It that's bogus. They're saying that the armor is so strong, so powerful that it can take a multiple-megaton explosion with heat, microwaves, other types of radiation, and most likely high-velocity fragments relatively unharmed. Even if the armor was super ablative or something, as soon as the armor was penetrated a torpedo could probably cook the starship inside out, leaving a shell of ablative sheilding. Third, even if you do assume their cities are made of some super-metal or somesuch, you'd also have to assume there's eather a shield, it's completely enclosed, or every man, woman, and child is wearing armor, because an antimatter explosion would still kill unprotected person for miles around.

(I just looked it up, and 3kg would have about 63 megatons, not kilotons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E=mc%C2%B2#Practical_examples )

Today we have nuclear weapons, where a pound or two of matter can undergo fusion to destroy everything miles around and obliterate even the largest megalopolis. If only .3% the fuel in a fusion reaction is converted to energy, the result would be each torpedo would be more powerful than a Tsar Bomba. As of today, it's inconcevable to think that any roughly half-km long spaceship could ever take that much energy unsheilded. In light of this, Star Wars space combat actually seems more concievable, since even though their space "lasers" are definately not lasers, they use comparably powerful weapons for both ground and space combat. They don't use weapons that can destroy cities on the ground, yet can only maybe knock out the tractor beam on a ship :-/. (Though I'm not saying SW doesn't have inconsitancies, I'm just saying that when you think of space combat, SW space combat is somewhat more realistic than ST) Kevin

Section I just Removed

I've just removed this section put in by User 150.135.161.23, as it uses Unencyclopaedic language (i.e. saying that another part of the article is wrong)...

Note: The previous paragraph in this section contains inaccurate information. In the Deep Space Nine episode, "Apocalypse Rising", Damar states that a "full spread" of photon torpedoes is sufficent to destroy the "Klingon High Command and everyone else within a few hundred kilometers". To which Chief O'Brien states that attacking Ty'Gokor (a heavily fortified, planetoid-based facility), would be futile, as the Bird of Prey starship they are on will likely be shot down before even a single shot can be fired, and that the facilities's shields can readily absorb "a dozen" photon torpedoes. Photon torpedoes creating devastation across hundreds of kilometers (assuming no shields), indicates that a full spread of torpedoes (no number has been specified, and Klingon starships rarely have ever shown more than 2 torpedoes being fired in a single spread) from a relatively small klingon vessel can create an explosion in the hundreds of megatons.

Now there may be some truth in this paragraph but it can't be in the article the way it is now, User 150.135.161.23 (or someone else) will have to rewrite it so it can be included in the article. --Hibernian 11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)