Warp Weapons?

[LaughingCheese]

Ok, I have zero clue as to where to put this.

IMO maybe there should be a separate subforum for general Treknology questions? If there is and I'm missing it just let me know and I'll delete this one and post it there.

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

Anyway, I was wondering, with all the long range torpedoes in Star Trek, the torps holding Khan's crew, the Cardassian missile thing (which was like a high explosive with warp engines attached), I'm wondering why no one has thought to create something that's basically akin to a guided concrete bomb with warp engines?


I'm thinking of the concept of the R-Bomb (I'm sure you're familiar but just in case, some large mass launched at C or a certain percentage thereof).

Now sure, the Feds wouldn't think of such things because their primary goal is to be at peace with everyone. But its amazing that the Romulans or the Klingons or whoever else hasn't thought of it.


Get some asteroids, fashion a solid piece of tritanium or whatever, then strap warp engines on it....now you have a W-Bomb.

What the heck happens to a planet when its hit by something going warp 9.6?


The other thought is....I guess ships at warp are sort of outside the universe; since this is Star Trek and now how "real" warp would work, i.e. just warping space, but the ships also enter subspace.



Thoughts?

[Mikey]

Moved to "General" because, well... it's general.

As to an answer... well, I don't know, not being a warp physicist and all that. It seems at face value to be a decent idea, but there might just be a few valid reasons we haven't seen the like:

a) Directed energy weapons. You seem to get a lot more bang for your energy and resource buck with them. Certainly it's seemed that devastating a local ground target with shipboard directed-energy weapons is fairly easy to do; if you can do that, why would you bother trying to do planetwide catastrophic geological damage? Even if that were your goal, it would only be so on relatively rare occasions, and is possible to do with those same shipboard directed-energy weapons.

b) They have photon/quantum torpedoes. They already travel at warp and have warheads, and are suitable both for ground attack AND ship-to-ship combat. A warp-speed impact missile, like you describe, cannot be used in a ship-to-ship role - it can't even be used from a ship, and thusly is only applicable in the very broadest (also read: "rarest") strategic scenarios and in no way in any sort of tactical scenario. That utter lack of flexibility, combined with the time- and energy-intensiveness of simply fielding such a weapon (remember, whatever you use needs relatively long-range warp engines and guidance electronics) when more commonplace and flexible weapons will serve, would seem to me to be the primary reasons for the lack of such a weapon in 'Trek.

[LaughingCheese]

Moved to "General" because, well... it's general.

Apologies, well, now I know.

As to an answer... well, I don't know, not being a warp physicist and all that. It seems at face value to be a decent idea, but there might just be a few valid reasons we haven't seen the like:

a) Directed energy weapons. You seem to get a lot more bang for your energy and resource buck with them. Certainly it's seemed that devastating a local ground target with shipboard directed-energy weapons is fairly easy to do; if you can do that, why would you bother trying to do planetwide catastrophic geological damage? Even if that were your goal, it would only be so on relatively rare occasions, and is possible to do with those same shipboard directed-energy weapons.

This is true, they do have ridiculously powerful energy weapons. I guess a kinetic solution for them would be "too stupid"...just like it was for the Asgard.

b) They have photon/quantum torpedoes. They already travel at warp and have warheads, and are suitable both for ground attack AND ship-to-ship combat. A warp-speed impact missile, like you describe, cannot be used in a ship-to-ship role - it can't even be used from a ship, and thusly is only applicable in the very broadest (also read: "rarest") strategic scenarios and in no way in any sort of tactical scenario. That utter lack of flexibility, combined with the time- and energy-intensiveness of simply fielding such a weapon (remember, whatever you use needs relatively long-range warp engines and guidance electronics) when more commonplace and flexible weapons will serve, would seem to me to be the primary reasons for the lack of such a weapon in 'Trek.

Well.....the point isn't to use it in ship-to-ship combat. Its a planet-killer.

This is my reference:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... lling_Star

[LaughingCheese]

Woops..sorry about the double post.

I thought I could delete posts?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Well.....the point isn't to use it in ship-to-ship combat. Its a planet-killer.

This is my reference:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... lling_Star

Again, not in the Federation's mode of operation. The destruction of a planet in such a manner would be incompatible with the ethos of the Federation we've seen (and the Federation has been strong enough never to have been pushed to such a desperate resignation of their principles)

[Griffin]

There's not just the Fed's to think about though. Would the Klingons do such a thing? The romulans, The dominion?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Might there be such a thing as a Trek analogue of MAD? It could be the fear of reprisal in kind which keeps the worst impulses of the more warlike races in check.

[Mikey]

It's not a question of whether this hypothetical weapon could blow up a planet better than what they have; it's a question of why anyone (not just the Federation) want to do so. If they already have weapons capable of decimating a ground target - ones which are tactically far more flexible - what advantage is to be gained by anyone by doing actual geological damage to the planet in question over and above "just" glassing the true target?

[stitch626]

My guess. When ships drop out of warp, they usually come close to a stop (relative to whatever grav field they are near). So your brick would get to its target quick, and then make a small dent.

Alternatively, it crashes at faster than light speeds, and due to physics, simply passes through the target.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

My guess. When ships drop out of warp, they usually come close to a stop (relative to whatever grav field they are near). So your brick would get to its target quick, and then make a small dent.

Alternatively, it crashes at faster than light speeds, and due to physics, simply passes through the target.

It's anyone's guess how Warp physics works in Trek since it's fictitious. The real-world solution to General Relativity which corresponds to a warp-like effect would apparently obliterate any matter in its path due to extreme stress. Theoretically, such a warp-driven object passing through a planet could destroy the planet. (though I'm going from memory; it's been a while since I came across the source)

The version of this we could in principle apply with technology in development is the relativistic, sublight rock.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

It's not a question of whether this hypothetical weapon could blow up a planet better than what they have; it's a question of why anyone (not just the Federation) want to do so. If they already have weapons capable of decimating a ground target - ones which are tactically far more flexible - what advantage is to be gained by anyone by doing actual geological damage to the planet in question over and above "just" glassing the true target?

Oddly, one of the few times we've seen a power invoke the ability to devastate the surface of a planet, the Romulan/Cardassian fleet was destroyed in the ensuing battle. Of course, though a rock hurled at what they thought to be the home of the Founders would have reduced their vulnerability, the whole point was that the commanders didn't expect such resistance.

[Coalition]

Does Star Trek have a method to reduce apparent mass of an object? I.e. similar to Deja Q where they had to move the moon, and wound up making it mass less, or in the first episode of DS9 when they wrap a bubble around DS9 to turn a month+ trip into one done in about a day.

If so, that would explain the lack of kinetic weapons. The object may be moving at a high velocity, but only because its apparent mass is very low. When it reacts with something else, that reaction deals with current mass times velocity. Since the mass is so low, the effective damage is also lowered.

Kinetic weapons rely on the basic idea of energy in >= energy out. You can get more energy out if you drop the object down a gravity well (i.e. asteroid carpet-bombing), but in order to get a massive kinetic strike, you need to pump a corresponding amount of energy into it.

Still, it should be feasible, you accelerate far away from the target, using your mass lightener field to get even more range out. As you get closer to the target, you steadily reduce the mass lightener field, until you reach the planet with zero mass lightening. This will take time though.

As to why the Klingons wouldn't do that, the easy answer is a cloaked BoP with a photon torpedo can do the same thing with more precision (no need for cheap sensors on expendable platforms), less resources (no need to build a new ship each time, just more photons), and higher reliability (good crew).

[Mikey]

I have heard mention of mass-reducing technology applied to sublight - i.e., impulse - drive, but not to warp.

[Graham Kennedy]

There's really no reason why they couldn't make long range high speed warp weapons. When this :



...can do Warp 9 over prolonged distances whilst still having enough space inside that 90% of it is taken up by a person? Don't tell me you couldn't put a warhead in there and have a nice weapon.

Why don't they? Because close range starship on starship combat is eye candy for the viewers, and we wouldn't have it if everyone was firing warp speed missiles at one another from light years away.

[Mikey]

There's really no reason why they couldn't make long range high speed warp weapons. When this :



...can do Warp 9 over prolonged distances whilst still having enough space inside that 90% of it is taken up by a person? Don't tell me you couldn't put a warhead in there and have a nice weapon.

Why don't they? Because close range starship on starship combat is eye candy for the viewers, and we wouldn't have it if everyone was firing warp speed missiles at one another from light years away.

They already use those things, albeit with lesser commonly-used speeds - they're called photon/quantum torpedoes. I don't ever recall hearing the maximum speed of a PT or QT. However, I believe the OP was questioning why we haven't seen a massive object such as an asteroid fitted with long-range warp drives and used as a planet-smashing relativistic impact weapon, not why we haven't seen longer-range or higher-speed torpedoes.