Talk:NOVA bomb

Damn that's powerful. Hooah. (152.65.64.27 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Shouldn't someone do the math? y my off the top of my head calculations, its peak output should be somthing like27 gigatons, 9x30 megaton warheadsx100 = 2187000000 ton or 2187megaton or 22gigaton aproximatly Chief frank 001 Bla Bla BlaWhat I've done 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold it, wasn't that the prototype? Isn't a Nova somewhat less powerful than that? I thought that was simply a project test sort of thing. It seems to me that that was a prototype containing three normal Nova bombs. - Vadamee  20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Articles

 * Merge Just merge it, and good god i want one of those 68.224.54.43 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are there 2 articles on the NOVA bomb? 204.6.91.236 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because someone made a mistake. --Dragonclaws(talk) 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge put this information on the page about the NOVA bomb as that is the NOVA's full name - Ares.117 11:23, 3 Feburary 2007
 * Merge-User: Spartan 1138 23:23, 5 Feburary 2007
 * Agreeing with the Merge TheObviousOne 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * MERGE--SPARTAN-137 17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MERGE There is no need for 2. There can only be.. ONE!! --Pvt. Vamis Vinam 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * MERGE-James-001 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * MERgE "There isn't a [wiki] big enough for two [Nova]s!" Mad MacAdder, who is madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's "Mr. Madman" competition. With some words replaced to make it appropriate for the present situation.  guesty - persony - thingy  I too am an AI... my owner's name is Supreme Honcho. 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge-There's no need to have two articles on the same topic.-Raptor117 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged.R1e2u3b4e5n6 08:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another planet killer
Well...let's see..you need about 10E32 joules to blow planet apart. We have nine warheads. If we assume them to be 100 megaton each (thats powerful for a thermonucear charge), and that due to the construction of the bomb the yield increases hundrefold, and than do some maths. 9x100 megaton x 100= 90 000 megaton = 90 gigaton in TNT quivalent Hiroshima explosion (15 kilotonn) was about 63 terajoules (6,3x10E13 joules) powerful. NOVA is 6 000 000 times more powerful, so we have 138 000 000 terajoules power, or 1,38x10E20 joules. Burn a continent - possible, Exterminatus ? NO...

PS - Contact of a "dino-killer" asteroid with Earth caused 1 000 gigatonn explosion. But well - Earth is still intact...
 * as was the planet the NOVA bomb hit. it just scorched part of it and wind and tremors killed/demolished every organic/structural thing.

Well the NOVA bomb does what it names implies it supposedly does what a star does in a nova or a supernova totally incinerating the entire planet to the extent of wiping it away.

SPARTAN-089 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It does not incinerate an entire planet, that would require between either an exaton or yottaton, hardly possible even in 2552. It would, in atmosphere, likely create a crater, fire etc. etc. etc. basically the planet would be sterilized. oh and by the way the "Dino-killer" aka The Chicxulub Event was 100 teratons, 100 times more powerful than 1000 gigatons. From http://qntm.org/destroy "The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners"

Omgsauce 03:07, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Spartan 089. If the Nova bomb is really just a pile of thermonuclear warheads, then it would indeed be illogical to describe its effects as anywhere near "planet killer", at least in the same way that we consider, say, the Death Star a planet killer.

What sort of puzzles me is that an orbital MAC (like Cairo) has a yield of about 5,306 gigatons, many times stronger than the Nova bomb (based on your calculations), yet the Nova is treated like an amazing super weapon.

Perhaps it's very small, so they see it as a sabotage sort of thing? Like, so small that a retreating fleet wouldn't notice it, until it gets detonated and destroys the face of a planet. That seems like a good possibility to me.

@Spartan089, It can't create a supernova since that doesn't make sense. A supernova occurs when a very expanded star collapses on itself and the immense gravitational energy is converted to light and kinetic energy. If the bomb was massive enough to cause a supernova on a serious scale, then it would have its own huge gravitational field.

This doesn't make sense. Fission warheads never reach anything approaching megaton power because of limitation on fission physics. Basically, the bomb blows itself up before all that much fissionable material can release its energy. 24.167.203.225 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One powerful bomb here.
This is a really powerful bomb. I wouldn't want anything like that anywhere near earth.

Trust me, you wouldn't wanted to be on any planet in the crosshairs of the Pillar of Autumn.

Just one short from the main cannon is equivalent to about 2,400 of today's nuclear warheads. That's why the Nova Bomb didn't make sense to me. Compared to Halo's plasma cannons and coilguns, thermonuclear warheads are not really superweapons, even with a 100x yield multiplier.

So why is the Nova bomb so special? I, as I have already suggested, think it's more of an espionage weapon...

It's special because the calculations on the MAC are flawed. The 5 TT of energy came from the assumption the Super MAC fired at 40% the speed of light when "point four tenths" isn't 40% the speed of light, it's 4% the speed of light. This is supported by the fact that a Super MAC missed the Covenant sniper ship that was around ~100,000 kilometers away from it, when we know it takes some time for the ship to be able to move after firing the weapon and that Covenant ships have been still when MAC rounds are fired at them.


 * Thats a good point. With 4% instead where would that put the Muzzle energy?

And the NOVA probably uses specialized nukes just for its task, not HAVOKs.

IMPORTANT
A point to remember people, I can safely assume that the rating your givving MACs is the muzzle-energy? but we must all remember that the thermo-nuclear yeild is NOT rated in an anctual unit of energy, it is rated in the amount of a more conventional high explosive (TNT officialy) that would be need to produce an equivelent explosion. ergo: (with 30 megatone sub-warheads and exactly 100x) 27 Billion metric tons of TNT would be needed to produce the same results. Likely much more.


 * Gunnery-seargeant/Major Domo Maiar 09:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how valid the calculator is (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html) but in order to get a blast big enough to hit both a small moon and at least a quarter of a planet, the figures point out a tonnage of at least 1,000,000,000 megatons. that's assumeing that Malhiem (qouted as "Tiny") is similar to the Martian moon Deimos and is in orbit at approximatly 20,000 kilometers. This would truely be a planet killer, and rightly deserves the name.


 * I personally wouldn't consider anything from SD.net to be valid. M. Wong and his entourage are to facts what prostitution is to abstinence. The calculations tend to be onesided, biased, and ignorant of present evidence and facts. Not to mention that any calculations Wong and group makes in regards to nukes as it applies to his personal view of his fandoms superiority doesn't apply to Halo anyway. Its all original research.--Kahn Iceay 20:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a source on the name of NOVA? According to my book, Whitcomb calls it the Nova, as in a traditional proper noun. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the name is inscribed on the bomb itself as capitalised NOVA. -- Councillor   Specops 306  -  Qur'a  'Morhek  20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Thank you. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Power
Assuming that it uses 9 HAVOK Warheads and each of them have a range of 30-90 Megatons. Now I'll assume that each warhead has a rating of 90 Megatons. Times that by 9 and it's 810 Megatons. Times that by 100 and it's 81 000 Megatons or 81 Gigatons. Does that sound right to you.--L55 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

About the picture..
I made a scetch of the NOVA-explosion in Ghots of Onyx, and thought I'd put it up here - as an artist's impression or something. I hope it's okay, I'm quite a n00b with all this wikia stuff, and I don't really know if there's a rule against it, or something. Cheers, Nordic Spartan

Fission or Fusion?
Are the warheads fission or fusion? It would make more sense to be fusion, due to its power.

Hyper Zergling 18:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that they would bother much with fission 500 years in the future. --Darthkillyou 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ghosts of Onyx, pg 244 confirms that it uses fusion warheads. --  Administrator  Specops306  -  Qur'a 'Morhek   Honour Light Your Way!  03:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Time the nova bomb was made
Does anyone know what time the nova bomb was created or the research began for it. It seems to be so late in the war its a pity that the UNSC did not have this weapon at the beginning of the war we could have saved alot more colonies and destroyed the covenant much quicker. Nukes were extremely useful and very destructive towards the covenant but the average shiva can only drain the shields of a covenant vessel not complete destroy it shield and all. But the nova bomb can destroy even there biggest super carriers and hundreds of ships around them shields and all. Pity supermacs cannot be put on ships because the unsc would have been able to kill a much higher rate of covenant ships. Thankfully many of the bigger ships are now using the mac technology that the pillar of autumn had.Spartan Matt 00:51, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Cortana's Request
Where is it mentioned that Cortana requested a NOVA Bomb at Installation 05? There's no source on that whole segment.The Ragin Pagan (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2017 (EST)

Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, page 183. As the source on the segment says. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 19:45, 12 February 2017 (EST)