a PHOTON TORPEDO

[RobertScorpio]

I had a debate with a friend of mine..maybe one of you smart folks can help. If the enterprise-A, for example, shot a torpedo from orbit of Earth, would the torpedo arrive at the moon at full power? Or would it dissapate before getting there? What effects would the vacume of space have on a photon-torpedo's range?

Rob

 

[Timo]

Some aspects of technobabble would have us believe that a photon torpedo taps its own warhead for fuel during flight - so it would indeed "dissipate" eventually, unless it was programmed to rather stop accelerating than to consume the last bits of warhead antimatter.

However, the distance from Earth to Moon, about 380,000 km, is similar to the range quoted in TNG "The Wounded" - a range at which Cardassian phasers could no longer harm USS Phoenix, but at which the torpedoes of the Phoenix could easily destroy the Cardassians. So a TNG-era torpedo from a Nebula class vessel would still create a big boom on lunar surface.

Whether the torpedoes of the E-A would be somehow "lesser" is unknown, but they probably wouldn't be too much inferior. Yet admittedly, in TOS, torpedoes were usually lobbed at distances of several tens of thousands of kilometers, not hundreds of thousands.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Some aspects of technobabble would have us believe that a photon torpedo taps its own warhead for fuel during flight - so it would indeed "dissipate" eventually, unless it was programmed to rather stop accelerating than to consume the last bits of warhead antimatter.

However, the distance from Earth to Moon, about 380,000 km, is similar to the range quoted in TNG "The Wounded" - a range at which Cardassian phasers could no longer harm USS Phoenix, but at which the torpedoes of the Phoenix could easily destroy the Cardassians. So a TNG-era torpedo from a Nebula class vessel would still create a big boom on lunar surface.

Whether the torpedoes of the E-A would be somehow "lesser" is unknown, but they probably wouldn't be too much inferior. Yet admittedly, in TOS, torpedoes were usually lobbed at distances of several tens of thousands of kilometers, not hundreds of thousands.

Timo Saloniemi

Waitaminute... why would distance mean anything... in SPACE?

Once you achieve your target velocity vector (speed and direction)... you don't need to burn ANY more fuel. The only way what you said makes a lick of sense is if you assume that there's a drag-inducing atmosphere in space (which, I hope we're all aware, isn't the case!)

So, there's no reason to assume that the impact at just outside of earth's atmosphere, or the impact at the surface of the moon, would be in any way different... assuming that the torpedo wasn't going so slowly (and/or had such a "dumb" targeting system) that it would have to continuously correct its own course. The moon... being significantly larger than the broad side of a barn, ought to be pretty damned easy to track.

**************

This, of course, assumes a TWOK-style physical torpedo. Realize that, up 'til then, it was always accepted that photon torpedoes had no physical component... they were basically energy-weapons sent as "packets" rather than as "beams." In THAT case... the torpedo might lose integrity over time (not DISTANCE, but time) and eventually dissipate.

 

[JNG]

I had a debate with a friend of mine..maybe one of you smart folks can help. If the enterprise-A, for example, shot a torpedo from orbit of Earth, would the torpedo arrive at the moon at full power? Or would it dissapate before getting there? What effects would the vacume of space have on a photon-torpedo's range?

Rob

Vacuum would have no effect on the progress of the torpedo, and it would only have to consume fuel to make course changes to find its target if it were fired off in some other direction initially. As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, this seems to be well within the range of TNG-era torpedoes anyway. As for Enterprise-A torpedoes (I'll assume ordnance contemporary with when she was in service), I can't be certain, but the TNG TM suggests that the torpedoes had changed little since 2271.

 

[Crewman47]

I was wondering about the velocity a Torpedo is fired at and I came across this piece from the Photon Topedo page on DITL where the source is from the DS9 Tech manual.

Also included in the torpedo are target acquisition, guidance and detonation assemblies and a warp sustainer unit. The latter is charged by the launching vessels own drive field at launch, boosting the torpedo speed up to Vmax = Vl + (0.75 Vl / c), where Vl is the velocity of the launching vessel. If launched at low impulse flight the torpedo will accelerate to a 75% higher sublight velocity; launch at high impulse speed will not push the torpedo into warp. If launched during warp flight the torpedo will continue at warp until the sustainer is exhausted. Torpedo range can be extended by utilizing the matter / antimatter warhead to power the sustainer, although this causes a corresponding loss of warhead yield. For a mid-range yield the torpedo can achieve ranges of some 3,500,000 kilometres at sublight speeds

 

[Timo]

Once you achieve your target velocity vector (speed and direction)... you don't need to burn ANY more fuel. The only way what you said makes a lick of sense is if you assume that there's a drag-inducing atmosphere in space (which, I hope we're all aware, isn't the case!)

But it makes no sense for a torpedo to coast. Tactically, the only reasonable thing to do is to keep on accelerating so that as great a velocity as possible is achieved before terminal engagement and impact. Letting the torpedo coast would be a bit similar to setting all shields on 30% strength because that already helps a bit, or setting phasers at 20% because that already does some damage.

And of course, at warp there is a constant need for consuming fuel; a torpedo that spans 380,000 km in a matter of seconds is likely to employ something akin to warp rather than a conventional reaction drive, even if the actual speed isn't exactly superluminal.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Once you achieve your target velocity vector (speed and direction)... you don't need to burn ANY more fuel. The only way what you said makes a lick of sense is if you assume that there's a drag-inducing atmosphere in space (which, I hope we're all aware, isn't the case!)

But it makes no sense for a torpedo to coast. Tactically, the only reasonable thing to do is to keep on accelerating so that as great a velocity as possible is achieved before terminal engagement and impact.

Since when? Modern antiship missiles cruise at relatively low speeds until the terminal phase and THEN they suddenly accelerate There's no reason for a missile to try to accelerate to high speeds right away or even sustain high speeds before then.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Once you achieve your target velocity vector (speed and direction)... you don't need to burn ANY more fuel. The only way what you said makes a lick of sense is if you assume that there's a drag-inducing atmosphere in space (which, I hope we're all aware, isn't the case!)

But it makes no sense for a torpedo to coast. Tactically, the only reasonable thing to do is to keep on accelerating so that as great a velocity as possible is achieved before terminal engagement and impact.

Since when? Modern antiship missiles cruise at relatively low speeds until the terminal phase and THEN they suddenly accelerate There's no reason for a missile to try to accelerate to high speeds right away or even sustain high speeds before then.

Very true.

The question is... "how fast is fast enough" and, by correlary.... "how fast is too fast?"

"Too fast" you say? Well... yeah... if you require end-of-travel course corrections, it's easy to envision a "too fast" situation where you might well miss your target if moving too fast.

"Fast enough" would be the optimal "course correction" velocity for the torpedo. Meaning... traveling fast enough to be difficult to evade, but slow enough to be able to correct for efforts to do so.

 

[Timo]

But if the target is the Moon, then maximal terminal velocity is definitely an asset. The Moon won't evade. And the torp may try to evade lunar defenses, but it will still do that best when the time spent under the effect of those defenses is minimized.

Modern missiles coast because our primitive technology doesn't allow us to pack enough fuel in them, or to make them operable at high speed. If we could, we would vastly prefer to have antiship missiles that move at mach 200 and forget all about that silly maneuverability thing.

In the vacuum of space, one can have that sort of relative speed if one bothers to try. And we almost always see the torpedoes employed as boresight/straight-run weapons, even though we know that they are capable of sharp course changes immediately after launch and in mid-run. It does seem that Starfleet prefers speed over maneuverability, in which case it doesn't make sense to coast.

Indeed, I rather doubt that starships ever coast at sublight, either. That would only delay them from arriving at their destination, when they in any case have virtually infinite fuel reserves for acceleration and deceleration. (Okay, so perhaps Kirk ordered some coasting in "Elaan of Troyius", where the goal was to not reach the destination in any reasonable time!)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RobertScorpio]

But if the target is the Moon, then maximal terminal velocity is definitely an asset. The Moon won't evade. And the torp may try to evade lunar defenses, but it will still do that best when the time spent under the effect of those defenses is minimized.

Modern missiles coast because our primitive technology doesn't allow us to pack enough fuel in them, or to make them operable at high speed. If we could, we would vastly prefer to have antiship missiles that move at mach 200 and forget all about that silly maneuverability thing.

In the vacuum of space, one can have that sort of relative speed if one bothers to try. And we almost always see the torpedoes employed as boresight/straight-run weapons, even though we know that they are capable of sharp course changes immediately after launch and in mid-run. It does seem that Starfleet prefers speed over maneuverability, in which case it doesn't make sense to coast.

Indeed, I rather doubt that starships ever coast at sublight, either. That would only delay them from arriving at their destination, when they in any case have virtually infinite fuel reserves for acceleration and deceleration. (Okay, so perhaps Kirk ordered some coasting in "Elaan of Troyius", where the goal was to not reach the destination in any reasonable time!)

Timo Saloniemi

is there a limit to acceleration in space? Why wouldn't an object just keep speeding up (provided there are no planets around or other gravitational pulls)

Rob

 

[Cary L. Brown]

is there a limit to acceleration in space? Why wouldn't an object just keep speeding up (provided there are no planets around or other gravitational pulls)Rob

It's really quite simple... basic math.

Any force acting on a mass results in an acceleration on that mass. Apply an acceleration to a mass over a period of time and you get a change in the velocity of that mass. Depending on the direction of the velocity, and the direction of acceleration, you can speed up or you can slow down, or you can just "divert" with no net change in nominal velocity.

Of course there is no limit to acceleration in space (at least none that isn't there everywhere else... and even that is not 100% understood. I'm talking, of course, about C... the speed of light). Keep applying force in one direction and you keep accelerating in that direction.

Again, the real question is "how fast is fast enough" and "how fast is too fast?" You want to accelerate to some velocity inside of that range... and then stop expending energy (since you have a limited supply of energy, inevitably, and you'll to be as efficient in its use as possible.)

 

[Vance]

Waitaminute... why would distance mean anything... in SPACE?

Maintaining a warp-field for the torpedo so that it can actually hit things that are thousands of miles away and travelling multiples of the speed of light?

This, of course, assumes a TWOK-style physical torpedo. Realize that, up 'til then, it was always accepted that photon torpedoes had no physical component... they were basically energy-weapons sent as "packets" rather than as "beams." In THAT case... the torpedo might lose integrity over time (not DISTANCE, but time) and eventually dissipate.

Wrong, the first torpedo casing designs showed up in TMP as diagram art, and that design would then be used for TWOK as a physical piece. Also, remember, Photon Torpedoes were never technologically laid out for either TAS or TOS, and weren't even in the writer's guides for either series.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Waitaminute... why would distance mean anything... in SPACE?

Maintaining a warp-field for the torpedo so that it can actually hit things that are thousands of miles away and travelling multiples of the speed of light?

This, of course, assumes a TWOK-style physical torpedo. Realize that, up 'til then, it was always accepted that photon torpedoes had no physical component... they were basically energy-weapons sent as "packets" rather than as "beams." In THAT case... the torpedo might lose integrity over time (not DISTANCE, but time) and eventually dissipate.

Wrong, the first torpedo casing designs showed up in TMP as diagram art, and that design would then be used for TWOK as a physical piece. Also, remember, Photon Torpedoes were never technologically laid out for either TAS or TOS, and weren't even in the writer's guides for either series.

The Earth is like 250 thousand miles from the moon right? So if the Enterprise was right next to the Earth, in space, and fired a photon torpedo, would it get to the moon or not? I'm still confused..

Rob

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Waitaminute... why would distance mean anything... in SPACE?

Maintaining a warp-field for the torpedo so that it can actually hit things that are thousands of miles away and travelling multiples of the speed of light?

This, of course, assumes a TWOK-style physical torpedo. Realize that, up 'til then, it was always accepted that photon torpedoes had no physical component... they were basically energy-weapons sent as "packets" rather than as "beams." In THAT case... the torpedo might lose integrity over time (not DISTANCE, but time) and eventually dissipate.

Wrong, the first torpedo casing designs showed up in TMP as diagram art, and that design would then be used for TWOK as a physical piece. Also, remember, Photon Torpedoes were never technologically laid out for either TAS or TOS, and weren't even in the writer's guides for either series.

You might want to ask Andrew Probert about that "torpedo casings in TMP" thing. I suspect he'd have something to say on the matter, especially since I've taken part in conversations including him on this very topic.

Care to show me the "diagram art" you're referring to? (Perhaps you're thinking of Lee Cole's imagery on Chekov's bridge console with its ovoids representing "load status?")

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Waitaminute... why would distance mean anything... in SPACE?

Maintaining a warp-field for the torpedo so that it can actually hit things that are thousands of miles away and travelling multiples of the speed of light?

This, of course, assumes a TWOK-style physical torpedo. Realize that, up 'til then, it was always accepted that photon torpedoes had no physical component... they were basically energy-weapons sent as "packets" rather than as "beams." In THAT case... the torpedo might lose integrity over time (not DISTANCE, but time) and eventually dissipate.

Wrong, the first torpedo casing designs showed up in TMP as diagram art, and that design would then be used for TWOK as a physical piece. Also, remember, Photon Torpedoes were never technologically laid out for either TAS or TOS, and weren't even in the writer's guides for either series.

The Earth is like 250 thousand miles from the moon right? So if the Enterprise was right next to the Earth, in space, and fired a photon torpedo, would it get to the moon or not? I'm still confused..

Rob

If it was aimed properly, yes, of course it would. And for that matter, if you aimed a ROCK properly, yes, it would, too.

 

[Vance]

The Earth is like 250 thousand miles from the moon right? So if the Enterprise was right next to the Earth, in space, and fired a photon torpedo, would it get to the moon or not? I'm still confused..

To avoid the obvious pendanictries here, the torpedo would indeed hit the moon, from what we've seen, while still being within its effective range.

 

[Vance]

Care to show me the "diagram art" you're referring to? (Perhaps you're thinking of Lee Cole's imagery on Chekov's bridge console with its ovoids representing "load status?")

It's been awhile, but when I wrote up the torpedoes, I did indeed ask Probert about this. Yes, his take was that torpedoes were 'energy only', but that that idea also didn't work, since they go to warp... The torpedo artwork also appears on other TMP memorabilia, but mileage with 'canon' varies greatly on that.

 

[JNG]

Care to show me the "diagram art" you're referring to? (Perhaps you're thinking of Lee Cole's imagery on Chekov's bridge console with its ovoids representing "load status?")

It's been awhile, but when I wrote up the torpedoes, I did indeed ask Probert about this. Yes, his take was that torpedoes were 'energy only', but that that idea also didn't work, since they go to warp... The torpedo artwork also appears on other TMP memorabilia, but mileage with 'canon' varies greatly on that.

For fun, I'll note that the Romulan plasma bolt from "Balance of Terror" seemed to be a weapon without any casings or anything, but did manage to go at warp speeds.

However, casings the photorps are and I do recall some of that in TMP memorabilia, notably blueprints that mention the number of casings carried by the Enterprise (IIRC, numbers a lot lower than what many fans guessed...I think she carried 20 or something?).

 

[Vance]

For fun, I'll note that the Romulan plasma bolt from "Balance of Terror" seemed to be a weapon without any casings or anything, but did manage to go at warp speeds.

They're pretty nebulous on that in "Balance of Terror", though. There could have been an emitting casing in the center of all that plasma, and it's not like we would know or see it. (Indeed, it would make more sense for one to be there, warp issues aside). But Spock also says, as damning 'canon', that things CANNOT go to warp without a device actually doing it.

However, casings the photorps are and I do recall some of that in TMP memorabilia, notably blueprints that mention the number of casings carried by the Enterprise (IIRC, numbers a lot lower than what many fans guessed...I think she carried 20 or something?).

I've been, depending on the source, anywhere from 20 to 60... 60 seems the most definitive, since we're seeing a load readout explicitly in TUC. (Someone will correct me if I get the number wrong here, to be sure).. but mileage will vary , naturally, plus you could argue that the Refit and A may have had different schemes for the torpedo bay storage anyway.

 

[JNG]

They're pretty nebulous on that in "Balance of Terror", though. There could have been an emitting casing in the center of all that plasma, and it's not like we would know or see it. (Indeed, it would make more sense for one to be there, warp issues aside). But Spock also says, as damning 'canon', that things CANNOT go to warp without a device actually doing it.

Aww, did he say that? I always thought it was okay for a non-casing plasma torpedo to go warp as long as it wasn't maneuvering around (which it seems it wasn't...Kirk seemingly had the Enterprise warp backwards and outrun it)...I didn't find it too hard to imagine some self-perpetuating space warp effect of brief duration. What did Spock say exactly?

(It seems surprising that some people maintain the Romulan ship had no warp capability when it could fire torpedoes that could nearly run down the Enterprise.)