NX Photon torpedoes (some spoilers for The Expanse)
Graham Kennedy
Some spoiler space...
Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
Any ideas as to what sort of yield it takes to make a 3 km
crater, anybody?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Lord Edam de Fromage
>
>
>
>
> Some spoiler space...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>
> "Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
> than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
> yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
> scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
> into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>
> Any ideas as to what sort of yield it takes to make a 3 km
> crater, anybody?
a 20MT surface burst creates a crater between 1 mile (wet soil / wet
soft rock) and 1.5 mile (dry hard rock) in diameter (not counting
ejecta), so you're looking at maybe 30MT+ for a 3km diameter crater.
(20MT figure taken from Nuclear Bomb Effects Calculator, Effects of
Nuclear Weapon, DoD, 1977)
Noname
1. the torp dislodges a piece from the asteroid... it doesn't vaporize any
of the asteroid nor does it reduce the part it dislodges into stardust.
2. the crater is spherical
3. the asteroid is made of ordinary rock with the same properties as rock on
earth.
I think merely splitting several tens of square kilometers of rock to
seperate the rock inside of the crater from the rock outside the crater
would require a huge amount of energy. This will at the very least give you
a bottom estimate.
well you could always have a look at the Nasa site...
--
I am a signature virus.
Please copy me into your sig to help me spread.
http://www.liacs.nl/~rdjong/
Si vis pacem, cole Iustitiam
Graham Kennedy heeft geschreven in bericht <3ECCFDE8...@ditl.org>...
Keith Morrison
> Any ideas as to what sort of yield it takes to make a 3 km
> crater, anybody?
Well, there are a couple of craters of the right size known on
Earth. At this point, I feel obligated to point out the most
comprehensive listing is at my alma mater and run by folks I
know at http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html
There's also results from tests roughly in the right size range.
Roughly speaking, somewhere in the range of 30-50 megatons should
be sufficient.
--
Keith
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Some spoiler space...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>
> "Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
> than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
> yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
> scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
> into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>
> Any ideas as to what sort of yield it takes to make a 3 km
> crater, anybody?
There in lies the rub; how deep is this 3 km crater? If the crater is as
deep as it is wide, that would be pretty dammed impressive, especially if
the material was being mostly vaporized in the process.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
That's about right, assuming Reed ment the depth of the crater will be
same as the diameter. Reed never gave one. But if the 30-50 MT figure
were correct, it would bolster the case for the 100 MT and 500 MT TNG era
photon torpedoes.
-Mike
Graham Kennedy
Aren't all craters much the same diameter to depth ratio?
I mean, so long as you don't plant your weapon underground
or something.
Mike Dicenso
It been a while since I studied cratering mechanics. But it depends on a
number of factors; how close to the target is the torp when it dedonates,
for instance. Airburst, groundburst, and underground denonations would all
have different cratering effects depending on the target's material
compostion. Most scooped out craters tend to be the results of a kinetic
impactor; i.e. a meteor strike.
To really be sure, we'd have to see one of these babies used against an
asteroid to really see what it would do.
-Mike
Graham Kennedy
We should assume that the 3 km is a maximum, the biggest
crater the torp could possibly make. A ground burst makes
the biggest hole, does it not?
The range of numbers being thrown around indicates between
30 and 50 megatons; I would suggest 40 Megatons is a sensible
number for the yield until somebody comes up with something
better, or until we see something on screen which exceeds
this.
> To really be sure, we'd have to see one of these babies used against an
> asteroid to really see what it would do.
Yes indeed.
Cory C. Albrecht
>The range of numbers being thrown around indicates between
>30 and 50 megatons; I would suggest 40 Megatons is a sensible
>number for the yield until somebody comes up with something
>better, or until we see something on screen which exceeds
>this.
Your average meteorite makes a crater about 10-15 wider than it's own
diameter, depending on what type of meteor it was ("soft" carbonaceous
chondrite or "hard" iron). A 3km crater would require a meteor of 200m
to 300m in size. If somebody knows how much 1m^3 of meteorite masses,
then we just use (4/3)pi*r^3 to find out the meteor's volume (assuming
spherical meteor, just to make it easy) and thus total mass, plug that
into e = mc^2 and away we go.
--
Cory C. Albrecht
Keith Morrison
> Your average meteorite makes a crater about 10-15 wider than it's own
> diameter, depending on what type of meteor it was ("soft" carbonaceous
> chondrite or "hard" iron). A 3km crater would require a meteor of 200m
> to 300m in size. If somebody knows how much 1m^3 of meteorite masses,
> then we just use (4/3)pi*r^3 to find out the meteor's volume (assuming
> spherical meteor, just to make it easy) and thus total mass, plug that
> into e = mc^2 and away we go.
No you don't go anywhere because you're not dealing with nuclear
energy but kinetic. The proper equation is ke=0.5mv^2.
--
Keith
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Mike Dicenso wrote:
> >>>>"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
> >>>>than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
> >>>>yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
> >>>>scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
> >>>>into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
> >>>>
> >>>>Any ideas as to what sort of yield it takes to make a 3 km
> >>>>crater, anybody?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There in lies the rub; how deep is this 3 km crater? If the crater is as
> >>>deep as it is wide, that would be pretty dammed impressive, especially if
> >>>the material was being mostly vaporized in the process.
> >>
> >>Aren't all craters much the same diameter to depth ratio?
> >>I mean, so long as you don't plant your weapon underground
> >>or something.
> >
> >
> > It been a while since I studied cratering mechanics. But it depends on a
> > number of factors; how close to the target is the torp when it dedonates,
> > for instance. Airburst, groundburst, and underground denonations would all
> > have different cratering effects depending on the target's material
> > compostion. Most scooped out craters tend to be the results of a kinetic
> > impactor; i.e. a meteor strike.
>
> We should assume that the 3 km is a maximum, the biggest
> crater the torp could possibly make. A ground burst makes
> the biggest hole, does it not?
I believe actually that a below ground weapon is the most efficent,
creating a subsidence crater in the process. But for these purposes a
"ground burst" effect would be the next best thing. The only thing I
could find online was a reference to a 350 foot diameter, 30 foot deep
crater created by the 18 kt Cactus test on May 5, 1958. I'am trying to
find out the crater created by the Ivy Mike dedonations (10.4 MT
yeilds).
Any cratering information on the 15 MT Castle Bravo test would be great to
find as well.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 22 May 2003, Mike Dicenso wrote:
> > We should assume that the 3 km is a maximum, the biggest
> > crater the torp could possibly make. A ground burst makes
> > the biggest hole, does it not?
>
>
> I believe actually that a below ground weapon is the most efficent,
> creating a subsidence crater in the process. But for these purposes a
> "ground burst" effect would be the next best thing. The only thing I
> could find online was a reference to a 350 foot diameter, 30 foot deep
> crater created by the 18 kt Cactus test on May 5, 1958. I'am trying to
> find out the crater created by the Ivy Mike dedonations (10.4 MT
> yeilds).
>
> Any cratering information on the 15 MT Castle Bravo test would be great to
> find as well.
What do you know, as soon as I posted this I just happened to find the
Castle bravo crater size details at:
"http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Castle.html"
According to the article the 15 MT surface device left a crater some 6,510
ft in diameter, with a depth of just 250 feet. Given the diamter scaling,
this most certainly places a *lower* limit on the photoic torpedoes'
yields given that a 3km crater is substantially larger than this.
-Mike
Graham Kennedy
Don't blast radius effects go up with the inverse cube of yield?
That would mean a 3 km crater would take about 50 Megatons.
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Mike Dicenso wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 May 2003, Mike Dicenso wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>We should assume that the 3 km is a maximum, the biggest
> >>>crater the torp could possibly make. A ground burst makes
> >>>the biggest hole, does it not?
> >>
> >>
> >>I believe actually that a below ground weapon is the most efficent,
> >>creating a subsidence crater in the process. But for these purposes a
> >>"ground burst" effect would be the next best thing. The only thing I
> >>could find online was a reference to a 350 foot diameter, 30 foot deep
> >>crater created by the 18 kt Cactus test on May 5, 1958. I'am trying to
> >>find out the crater created by the Ivy Mike dedonations (10.4 MT
> >>yeilds).
> >>
> >>Any cratering information on the 15 MT Castle Bravo test would be great to
> >>find as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you know, as soon as I posted this I just happened to find the
> > Castle bravo crater size details at:
> >
> > "http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Castle.html"
> >
> >
> > According to the article the 15 MT surface device left a crater some 6,510
> > ft in diameter, with a depth of just 250 feet. Given the diameter
scaling,
> > this most certainly places a *lower* limit on the photoic torpedoes'
> > yields given that a 3km crater is substantially larger than this.
>
> Don't blast radius effects go up with the inverse cube of yield?
> That would mean a 3 km crater would take about 50 Megatons.
I think that's correct. 30 to 50 MT was what others were calculating as
well, too. That's not too bad for a first generation prototype photon
torpedo. In fact, given that we've seen 100-500 MT torpedo blasts in TNG
and VGR, this would be yet another nail in the coffin of the TNG TM.
-Mike
Cory C. Albrecht
>torpedo. In fact, given that we've seen 100-500 MT torpedo blasts in TNG
>and VGR, this would be yet another nail in the coffin of the TNG TM.
Speaking of which, has anybody ever tried to make the definitive list of
things form the TMs that have been contradicted on screen?
--
Cory C. Albrecht
Mike Dicenso
Yikes! That's a very extensive list. I'll try to cover some of the genreal
areas, though.
- The warp speed charts are questionable at best
- The phaser and photon torp output and yeild.
- Shield strength.
- Maybe ship's power output, and how the antimatter is stored.
- Some of the warp nacelle and warp dilithium chamber details.
- Size of the Captain's Yacht size really 44 x 18 meters, not 18 x 10
meters.
- Design and construction time for the E-D is apparently far less in the
on-screen canon than the TNG TM.
- The Nova class concepts involving trains of modules is thrown into wack
as possibly is the whole idea of the next ship after the Galaxy class
being called Nova class in teh first place.
This is really a short, general list. Getting detailed and nitpicky would
require a major essay, and I don't feel like that right now.
-Mike
Joseph Nebus
It's quicker to list what hasn't been contradicted.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptJosh
> coryal...@hotmail.com (Cory C. Albrecht) writes:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.51.03...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu>,
>> Mike Dicenso <mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>> torpedo. In fact, given that we've seen 100-500 MT torpedo blasts
>>> in TNG
>>> and VGR, this would be yet another nail in the coffin of the TNG TM.
>
>> Speaking of which, has anybody ever tried to make the definitive
>> list of
>> things form the TMs that have been contradicted on screen?
>
> It's quicker to list what hasn't been contradicted.
Yeah. How can you possibly have a deffinitive list when things keep getting
contradicted?
Cyril Meynier
wrote:
>Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>
>"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
>than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
>yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
>scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
>into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
This is unconsistant with Scotty's statement that romulan war was
fought with atomic weapons.
Except if photon trops were very expensive and/or unsafe in the
2150's, so that UE preffered simpler, atomic warheads for
mass-produced torps.
There is only one NX, for Romulan war Eatrh will likely launch dozens
of starships, so that the best technologies (like M/AM warheads) will
maybe not be ready for a mass production.
Graham Kennedy
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:42:16 +0100, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>>
>>"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
>>than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
>>yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
>>scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
>>into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>
>
> This is unconsistant with Scotty's statement that romulan war was
> fought with atomic weapons.
Well, not necessarily. It could simply mean that they
do not use photons in the Romulan war, even though they
are available.
> Except if photon trops were very expensive and/or unsafe in the
> 2150's, so that UE preffered simpler, atomic warheads for
> mass-produced torps.
Or perhaps thermonukes of this era are far more poewrful
but lack the same variance in yield and so are less flexible.
Reed's statement pegs photons at something like 50 MT; maybe
there are standard easy to make 500 MT nuclear warheads, but
of fixed yield, that were used in the Romulan war.
> There is only one NX, for Romulan war Eatrh will likely launch dozens
> of starships, so that the best technologies (like M/AM warheads) will
> maybe not be ready for a mass production.
They'd better get cracking on those ships... there are
only a few years to the war and their build rate thus far
is way below what you would expect from the NX build timeline.
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:42:16 +0100, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>>
>>"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
>>than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
>>yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
>>scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
>>into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>
>This is unconsistant with Scotty's statement that romulan war was
>fought with atomic weapons.
What are these "atomic weapons", though? The terminology has not
been applied to fission bombs for decades in the real world. And
when it *was* being applied that way in reality, science fiction
in turn applied it to the sidearms of its heroes and villains.
After the concept of "atomic weapons" got vacated, it could have
been adopted for just about any type of weaponry, considering that
there are atoms and inter- and intra-atomic forces at play with
just about any piece of technology imaginable. The new identity
of "atomics" could be completely counterintuitive to us, as
undechipherable as "chips", "booting" or "buses" would be to a
pre-1970s-ite.
>Except if photon trops were very expensive and/or unsafe in the
>2150's, so that UE preffered simpler, atomic warheads for
>mass-produced torps.
Perhaps. Assuming photon(ic) torpedoes, phase(r) cannon and
plasma cannon are not considered atomic weapons.
>There is only one NX, for Romulan war Earth will likely launch dozens
>of starships, so that the best technologies (like M/AM warheads) will
>maybe not be ready for a mass production.
There may only be one NX, but Earth still had three ships armed with
the modern phaser cannon in "The Expanse". One of which looked basically
the same as the NX class, just with one longitudal boom instead of two
(and presumably with lower-performance warp engines). It might be a
matter of months to refit a hundred pre-existing NX-lookalikes with photonic
torpedoes, or at least with phase cannon, even if it were economically
unviable to turn them into real NX peers by installing the warp five
engine.
Besides, the Xindi scare of "The Expanse" should now prompt Earth to
escalate, meaning that there should be stockpiles of modern weapons by
the time the Romulans waltz in...
Timo Saloniemi
Mike Dicenso
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Cyril Meynier wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:42:16 +0100, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
> >
> >"Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
> >than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
> >yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
> >scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
> >into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>
> This is unconsistant with Scotty's statement that romulan war was
> fought with atomic weapons.
Scotty never made any such statement. Spock did. Scotty is (in)famous for
the "simple impulse" statement. Which of course is massively contradicted
throughout BoT and the later "The Deadly Years".
> Except if photon trops were very expensive and/or unsafe in the
> 2150's, so that UE preffered simpler, atomic warheads for
> mass-produced torps.
In essence, the so-called 'spatial' torpedoes appear to be nuclear weapons
of some sort. Otherwise there's no resaon for Reed to distinguish the
photonic torpedoes having antimatter warheads.
> There is only one NX, for Romulan war Eatrh will likely launch dozens
> of starships, so that the best technologies (like M/AM warheads) will
> maybe not be ready for a mass production.
We don't know how the timeline and the technologies used were screwed up
by the events of ST:FC, and the fighting of the Temporal Cold War in the
22nd century. It is likely that originally the photon torpedoes were being
developed, but full-scale production was delayed until much later.
-Mike
CaptJosh
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Cyril Meynier wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:42:16 +0100, Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Reed's description of his new weapons is as follows :
>>>
>>> "Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
>>> than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable
>>> yield. They can knock the comm array off a shuttle pod without
>>> scratching the hull, or they can put a three kilometre crater
>>> into an asteroid." - Reed to Trip.
>>
>> This is unconsistant with Scotty's statement that romulan war was
>> fought with atomic weapons.
>
> Scotty never made any such statement. Spock did. Scotty is (in)famous
> for the "simple impulse" statement. Which of course is massively
> contradicted throughout BoT and the later "The Deadly Years".
>
>
>> Except if photon trops were very expensive and/or unsafe in the
>> 2150's, so that UE preffered simpler, atomic warheads for
>> mass-produced torps.
>
>
> In essence, the so-called 'spatial' torpedoes appear to be nuclear
> weapons of some sort. Otherwise there's no resaon for Reed to
> distinguish the photonic torpedoes having antimatter warheads.
In all likelihood, thermonuclear, rather than simple nuclear. Just because
you want the most bang for the buck.
CaptJosh
WMerc48948
already have anti-matter.
Cyril Meynier
>It would make sense to have weapons with anti-matter payloads since they
>already have anti-matter.
They have had antimatter for a long time, since Frienship one,
launched in 2067 (iirw) learnt some aliens how to use M/AM
annihilation.
This could indicate that M/AM power was used as soon as 2063 in warp
propulsion. However :
- Most fan sites show early starships powered byy fusion, and a
latter (XXIIth century) switch to M/AM power cores
- Fusion-powered warp core would explain Scotty's statement : "[the
Romulan's] power is simple impulse".
- Use of M/AM can be exactly what made NX program revolutionnary in
terms of performances (for a given "fuel" mass, M/AM annihilation give
300 more energy than nuclear fusion) and dangerous to develop.
- Since he had difficulties to find Titanium, it is unlikely that
Cochrane could find enough antimateer (a microgram of antimatter is
more expansive than tons of titanium).
- It is unlikely that industrial AM use will be feasable only 60
years from now.
I think there is an intermediate solution. Here is my theory.
Today, world antimatter production is in the order of some dozens of
nanogram per years.
In 2063, this figure has gained three orders of magnitude and reached
some dozens of micrograms.
This is much more, but not enough to power a starship. A microgram of
AM gives 90 000 000 000 Joules, or 1 GW (the output of a large nuclear
plant) for 90 seconds. This could have been enough for the Phoenix
(but Cochrane couldn't afford a microgram of AM), not for bigger,
interstellar ships whose warp core had to be used for weeks, or years,
and need much more power.
So nuclear fusion was the only choice. To trigger fusion, one need an
extreme temperature. There are several ways to get it :
- An A-bomb. Efficient, but brutal method, this can't be call
"controlled fusion".
- A tokamak. Hydrogen is confined in a magnetic field. However, this
is an enormous facility, too heavy for a ship (especially for the
Phoenix!).
- Lasers. Once again, you need a huge amout of materiel.
- Antimatter.
This is a perfectly real proposition, studied by the JPL and other
institutions.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm
http://www.islandone.org/APC/Antimatter/07.html
You can use antimateer to ignite the fusion of a pellet of nuclear
"fuel". This could lead to a fusion device simpler, smaller and
lighter than lasers, tokamaks, muon-catalysed fusion, aso.
The amout of antimatter you need is several orders of magnitude below
what you would need to directly power the vessel with antimatter.
so, early warp vesses (Phoenix, Conestoga, Frienship one, Valiant, Y
class), used antimatter-triggered fusion.
In the 2120's, the production of AM had progressed, and reached
hundred of milligram. A symbolic threshold, one gram, was crossed in
2123. So Cochrane felt that it could be soon possible to use AM as
main power source, not as fusion trigger. He was encouraged in this
way by the fact Vulcan ships used this kind of technology.
Using AM as power source was not easy. Fist, the amountof AM carried
in a starship had to be multiplied by 10 billions ! This requiered new
technologies to handle it. In addition, developping the warp core was
difficult too. This requiered extensive ressources. Cochrane was
famous, and Earth's economy was in expansion, so he got these
ressources and launched the NX program.
The vulcans were unhappy. They fought humans were not ready to go in
deep space, and were concerned about the resuylts of a contact between
humans and klingons or romulans.
The larger amount of energy allowed AM powered vessls to go well
faster, he set his objective at warp 5.
And as of 2153, the project is a success, and the second Nx will be
launcheed soon. I wonder what name she will get, but i'm almost sure
it will a name we've already heard in the ST universe (Unless she is
named Cochrane). Be decreasy order of likelihood : Constellation,
Voyager, Galaxy, Prometheus, Miranda, Defiant,Stargazer, Nebula,
Intrepid, Yorktown, Odissey, Lexington, Saratoga, Akira.
Timo S Saloniemi
>This could indicate that M/AM power was used as soon as 2063 in warp
>propulsion. However :
> - Most fan sites show early starships powered by fusion, and a
>latter (XXIIth century) switch to M/AM power cores
It's too bad that "Enterprise" wants to contradict this, as a distinctly
more primitive power system would have been a nice way to show the
"prequel" timeframe of the show. Fusion warp could have been
like steam engines to today's ship propulsion methods...
But we can still pretend that NX-01 is a rare exception in a fleet
of fusion-powered designs, an experiment that will not see mass
production for decades. Much like nuclear propulsion hasn't become
commonplace in real world shipbuilding, antimatter propulsion could
be declared too finicky and dangerous, even though NX-01 works
adequately.
Is there a good dramatic reason to maintain such a pretense?
> - Fusion-powered warp core would explain Scotty's statement : "[the
>Romulan's] power is simple impulse".
> - Use of M/AM can be exactly what made NX program revolutionary in
>terms of performances (for a given "fuel" mass, M/AM annihilation give
>300 more energy than nuclear fusion) and dangerous to develop.
Agreed on both - although the former argument is a bit contrived, and
any alternative (such as Scotty being dead wrong for once) would be
dramatically more pleasing.
> - Since he had difficulties to find Titanium, it is unlikely that
>Cochrane could find enough antimateer (a microgram of antimatter is
>more expansive than tons of titanium).
> - It is unlikely that industrial AM use will be feasable only 60
>years from now.
Well, it's far less likely that FTL propulsion will be feasible only
60 years from now. I'd be ready to believe in "Mr Antimatter" household
appliances by the 2050s, as long as I keep believing the other aspects
of Trek pseudohistory.
> I think there is an intermediate solution. Here is my theory.
> ...To trigger fusion, one need an extreme temperature. There are
> several ways to get it :
>- An A-bomb. Efficient, but brutal method, this can't be call
>"controlled fusion".
>- A tokamak. Hydrogen is confined in a magnetic field. However, this
>is an enormous facility, too heavy for a ship (especially for the
>Phoenix!).
The above two might be further facilitated by advances in containment
methods - such as the magical "forcefields" of Trek. Alas, ENT has
already shown that forcefields are *not* regular, commonplace Earth
technology even in the 2150s.
>- Lasers. Once again, you need a huge amout of materiel.
>- Antimatter.
> This is a perfectly real proposition, studied by the JPL and other
>institutions.
>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm
>http://www.islandone.org/APC/Antimatter/07.html
>
> You can use antimateer to ignite the fusion of a pellet of nuclear
>"fuel".... so, early warp vesses (Phoenix, Conestoga, Frienship one,
>Valiant, Y class), used antimatter-triggered fusion.
> In the 2120's, the production of AM had progressed, and reached
>hundred of milligram. A symbolic threshold, one gram, was crossed in
>2123. So Cochrane felt that it could be soon possible to use AM as
>main power source, not as fusion trigger. He was encouraged in this
>way by the fact Vulcan ships used this kind of technology.
Quite plausible - but I'd expect a quantum leap in AM production
before its practical use becomes possible. Vulcans, if relying on
AM propulsion, should be able to create macroscopic amounts at will.
They might not want to part with the technology, but I'd see it as
vital to Earth's AM propulsion program. If Cochrane could not sidestep
the issue of AM production, I would expect a more gradual approach
than the NX "crash program" which resembles the 1950s space race.
But that's just finesse. Generally, your theory sounds very good,
and it's a pity the writers haven't been more explicit about it.
It would be simple enough for them to have the characters gosh-and-wow
the fact that their ship is "the first powered by antimatter". That's
technobabble that the audience is likely to get and dig, and it can be
interpreted in many ways, including technologically and pseudohistorically
plausible ones like the one you suggest.
> The larger amount of energy allowed AM powered vessls to go well
>faster, he set his objective at warp 5.
I'd think that parallel research on "conventional" propulsion would also
proceed, perhaps challenging AM propulsion until the 23rd century.
That way, fanfic requirements would be satisfied, and there could be
another set of major breakthroughs in the early 2200s, to go with the
"The Cage" dialogue.
> And as of 2153, the project is a success, and the second Nx will be
>launcheed soon. I wonder what name she will get, but i'm almost sure
>it will a name we've already heard in the ST universe (Unless she is
>named Cochrane). Be decreasy order of likelihood : Constellation,
>Voyager, Galaxy, Prometheus, Miranda, Defiant,Stargazer, Nebula,
>Intrepid, Yorktown, Odissey, Lexington, Saratoga, Akira.
"Intrepid" was already used for an Earth spaceship of the preceding
generation, in "The Expanse, pt I". It sounds likely that the pattern
of naming starships after famous 20th century warships is already
set.
Timo Saloniemi
Cyril Meynier
wrote:
>It's too bad that "Enterprise" wants to contradict this, as a distinctly
>more primitive power system would have been a nice way to show the
>"prequel" timeframe of the show. Fusion warp could have been
>like steam engines to today's ship propulsion methods...
>But we can still pretend that NX-01 is a rare exception in a fleet
>of fusion-powered designs, an experiment that will not see mass
>production for decades. Much like nuclear propulsion hasn't become
>commonplace in real world shipbuilding, antimatter propulsion could
>be declared too finicky and dangerous, even though NX-01 works
>adequately.
Yes, and small, low-warp ships (like civilian liners or freighter) may
remain fusion-powered.
>The above two might be further facilitated by advances in containment
>methods - such as the magical "forcefields" of Trek. Alas, ENT has
>already shown that forcefields are *not* regular, commonplace Earth
>technology even in the 2150s.
Especially since fusion plasma is under a huge pressure. So *very*
strong forcefiels would be needed. In addition, fusion confinment
requires a 99.999999% reliable technology : image what consequence a
breach in confinement could have...
Of course, it is possible that some early warp vessels used
antimatter-triggered fusion, while other used Laser ignition (use
powerfull lasers to heat a fuel pellet), ion beams ignition,
electrostatic acceleration (works somehow like a ion engine, except
that ions are all thrown to the same spot, where fusion is reached,
small devices) , magnetic confinement, muon-calalysed fusion... All
these technologies are under study right now throughout the world, and
the list is likely to get longer in the next decades.
David W
> of fusion-powered designs, an experiment that will not see mass
> production for decades. Much like nuclear propulsion hasn't become
> commonplace in real world shipbuilding, antimatter propulsion could
> be declared too finicky and dangerous, even though NX-01 works
> adequately.
Trouble with Enterprise is you have to pretend and presume too much stuff to
make it work, take the Borg being discovered for example - sure, everybody
has their own theories but nothing's official because B&B don't consider
continuity by what I've seen.
-
David W
George Recker Jr
types of theoretical engines that use antimatter to induce fission and fusion.
The URL is: http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/ . They could be built using
early 21st century technology, and might be what was on the Ares 4 vehicle.
This could be the advance in propulsion mentioned by Lt. McGivers in "Space
Seed" that eliminated the need for cryogenic chambers on vessels.
I think that it sounds very plausible that the NX-class was the first
Starfleet vessel to use antimatter annihilation versus antimatter-induced
nuclear fusion. Based on my own calculations, it would be necessary for them to
be able to be generating antimatter in multiple gram quantities to allow them
to maintain Warp 5 for more than a few minutes, not to mention the warp coils.
We know that they can generate it in metric ton quantities in the 24th century,
so generating it in gram quantities without access to the vast resources of the
Federation is quite an accomplishment.
We can presently generate antimatter in nanogram amounts, but it's horrendously
expensive to do so. Read the articles from the site above. They go into much
greater detail on the physics required, and how it can be improved. Nice work
on the timeline for this process, by the way. It could be part of what actually
happened.
Cyril Meynier
wrote:
>Look in the documents section at the following site. They have a listing for 2
>types of theoretical engines that use antimatter to induce fission and fusion.
>The URL is: http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/ . They could be built using
>early 21st century technology, and might be what was on the Ares 4 vehicle.
Good url, see also :
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html
Yes, in the trekverse AM-triggered fusion or AM-triggered-fission-
triggrer-fusion may have been used for sublight propulsion first, and
latter as power source for warp engines.
Once again, it could have been only one tech, other ways to induce
fusion being used on other ships.
I think that AM tirggered fission (but no fusion) has aleady been
tested once.
Maybe are Impulse engines still relying on this principle in NX class,
and even latter (up to the XXIVth century?).
What are Ent's writers waiting to give more informations about
Earthling vessels from 2063 to 2151? what was the Valiant like? The DY
series?
And Deadalus ? This class was used for deep-space exploration as late
as 2167 (so it must be fast enough to left the space already explored
by Federation members), but seems older than Enterprise. Il like the
idea that this was a design from the 2120's or 2130's, retrofitted
with warp 5 engines in the 2150's, maybe for romulan war.
>This could be the advance in propulsion mentioned by Lt. McGivers in "Space
>Seed" that eliminated the need for cryogenic chambers on vessels.
In 2018 IIRW, but we have to put it at least ten years forward to
remain consistent with real world.
Considering only interplanetary flights, that's right, travel time
could be cut from years to weeks compared to solar-electric or
nuclear-electric propulsion thanks to fusion.
> I think that it sounds very plausible that the NX-class was the first
>Starfleet vessel to use antimatter annihilation versus antimatter-induced
>nuclear fusion.
Thanks :-)
Timo S Saloniemi
> What are Ent's writers waiting to give more informations about
>Earthling vessels from 2063 to 2151? what was the Valiant like? The DY
>series?
I do think they'd have a good story motivation to mention ships from this
era. The other Enterprises were always rescuing ships lesser than themselves,
often older vessels that had gone missing some time prior. NX-01 has
so far "rescued" one long-lost Earth colony and a couple of Earth
freighters, but could quite plausibly try and trace some long-lost
early exploration ships, too.
...As soon as she clears the Delphic Expanse, that is.
>And Deadalus ? This class was used for deep-space exploration as late
>as 2167 (so it must be fast enough to left the space already explored
>by Federation members), but seems older than Enterprise. Il like the
>idea that this was a design from the 2120's or 2130's, retrofitted
>with warp 5 engines in the 2150's, maybe for romulan war.
Alternately, she might have been roughly parallel to the NX, just built
for a different type of exploration mission. With a bulky hull, she could
count on endurance instead of speed. (Bulky in relative terms, of course
- if we are to believe in the oft-marketed sphere-and-can design, the
Daedalus was *tiny* compared with the NX...)
>>This could be the advance in propulsion mentioned by Lt. McGivers in "Space
>>Seed" that eliminated the need for cryogenic chambers on vessels.
>In 2018 IIRW, but we have to put it at least ten years forward to
>remain consistent with real world.
What possible reason would we have to remain consistent with the real
world? It is 147% certain that none of "ST:FC" will be compatible with
the real world. Why delay the inevitable? Especially when so much of
our past has already been shown to be different in the Trek universe?
>Considering only interplanetary flights, that's right, travel time
>could be cut from years to weeks compared to solar-electric or
>nuclear-electric propulsion thanks to fusion.
Yet somehow, Khan's ship made it to interstellar space *before* these
reputed advances went to public domain. His ship supposedly had the
original, lesser performance when she came off the production lines,
as Kirk and McGivers agree that this is how DY-100 compared to DY-500.
Timo Saloniemi
Ryan McReynolds
news:bdtvoh$jg1$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
> Alternately, she might have been roughly parallel to the NX, just built
> for a different type of exploration mission. With a bulky hull, she could
> count on endurance instead of speed. (Bulky in relative terms, of course
> - if we are to believe in the oft-marketed sphere-and-can design, the
> Daedalus was *tiny* compared with the NX...)
Perhaps the Daedalus is to the NX as the Oberth is to the Constitution.
Nobody ever claimed the Daedalus was anything special...
Ryan
Cyril Meynier
wrote:
>Alternately, she might have been roughly parallel to the NX, just built
>for a different type of exploration mission. With a bulky hull, she could
>count on endurance instead of speed. (Bulky in relative terms, of course
>- if we are to believe in the oft-marketed sphere-and-can design, the
>Daedalus was *tiny* compared with the NX...)
However, with the two hulls (spehere and cylinder), their is probably
as much internal space as in NX class.