Message-ID: <2129@garfield.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 11:47:08 EST
Article-I.D.: garfield.2129
Posted: Wed Dec  5 11:47:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 14:30:41 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Memorial U. of Nfld. C.S. Dept., St. John's
Lines: 12

This blank is intentionally left spaced....

	Is it possible to be mailed an intelligent reply to the 
	following question?

	In ST III the Enterprise exploded and fell toward the planet
	where it burned as it entered the atmosphere. The question
	is that should this have occured? And if not what should
	have happened? 
					Thanx
					Lt. Suvak
					utcsrgv!garfield!lesley

Message-ID: <1256@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 03:01:45 EST
Article-I.D.: uscvax.1256
Posted: Sat Dec  8 03:01:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Dec-84 06:16:01 EST
References: <2129@garfield.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 23

 >  	In ST III the Enterprise exploded and fell toward the planet
 >  	where it burned as it entered the atmosphere. The question
 >  	is that should this have occured? And if not what should
 >  	have happened? 
 >  					Thanx
 >  					Lt. Suvak
 >  					utcsrgv!garfield!lesley

It seems possible.  Assuming the Enterprise is in a stable orbit, a large
explosion could shift the center of mass greatly.  Air drag from that point
would quickly take over.  One of the things that bothered me about the scene
was the lack of destruction.  If you're going to implement a self-destruct
mechanism, you'd make sure that it would *DESTROY* the ship.  If you set of
an uncontrolled anti-matter/matter reaction, it should be equivalent to a
fair sized nuclear warhead, which should be enough to easily pulverize the
ship.  But in the movie, we see about 50% of the ship spiral in.

Curioser and Curioser....
-- 
Tony Li ;-)		Usc Computer Science
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,randvax}!uscvax!tli
Csnet: tli@usc-cse.csnet
Arpa: tli@usc-ecl

Message-ID: <2627@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 21:25:57 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.2627
Posted: Sun Dec  9 21:25:57 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:06:41 EST
References: <2129@garfield.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 32

 >  
 >  	In ST III the Enterprise exploded and fell toward the planet
 >  	where it burned as it entered the atmosphere. The question
 >  	is that should this have occured? And if not what should
 >  	have happened? 
 >  					Thanx
 >  					Lt. Suvak
 >  					utcsrgv!garfield!lesley


	If you are asking whether or not Enterprise should have burned
	upon entering the (presumably) oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, the
	only clue we have is from "Bread and Circuses".  Capt. Merrick,
	of the survey ship Beagle, initially "went ashore" to find iridium
	ore for hull repairs. Iridium metal is one of the hardest (and
	most difficult to machine) metals known; it seems likely that
	the Enterprise hull would also contain iridium (although for
	weight reduction they might try to alloy it with something lighter--
	maybe magnesium or aluminum.  Metallurgists??)  Now iridium will
	oxidize at the temperatures generated as a spacecraft encounters
	a dense atmosphere; extremely hot pieces will break away during
	the descent.  The same thing would happen to Columbia if ONE
	of its underside tiles fell off during re-entry.

	If you are asking whether Enterprise should have been destroyed
	in the first place, well, now we've got an unemployed Scotsman...

				George Raiche
				Dept. of Chemistry
				Dartmouth

Message-ID: <259@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 21:52:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.259
Posted: Mon Dec 10 21:52:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 05:24:12 EST
References: <2129@garfield.UUCP> <1256@uscvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 36


Tony Li brings up a good point:
 >  One of the things that bothered me about the scene
 >  was the lack of destruction.  If you're going to implement a self-destruct
 >  mechanism, you'd make sure that it would *DESTROY* the ship.  If you set of
 >  an uncontrolled anti-matter/matter reaction, it should be equivalent to a
 >  fair sized nuclear warhead, which should be enough to easily pulverize the
 >  ship.  But in the movie, we see about 50% of the ship spiral in.

But what if the purpose of the self-destruct mechanism was simply
to protect classified information (including design details) ?

I can think of a few reasons for not setting off the engines (which,
we learn from The Doomsday Machine, would make a bigger bang than 
any nuke ever tested(*)).  For one thing, if the ship were evacuated first,
the crew might not survive a matter-antimatter blast nearby.

If the goal of self-destruct was simply to keep Federation secrets
out of enemy hands, that would explain why the bridge was the first
part of the ship to be taken out in the destruct sequence (I'll never
be able to forget that scene...)

Does anyone know of analogies from Earth's navies?  Does any country
have contingency plans for scuttling its major combat vessels?  If
so, I doubt that such plans involve using onboard nuclear weapons.

(*) And that was just the *impulse* engines!

Fred Wamsley
-- 
UUCP:{ihnp4,decvax}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist ARPA:ssc-vax!alcmist@uw-beaver
I am not speaking as a representative of the Boeing Company or any of 
its divisions.  Opinions expressed are solely my own (if that) and
have nothing to do with company policy or with the opinions of my
coworkers, or those of the staff of the Software Support Center VAX.
	(did I leave anyone out? :-))

Message-ID: <468@wlcrjs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 23:01:44 EST
Article-I.D.: wlcrjs.468
Posted: Mon Dec 10 23:01:44 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 05:26:16 EST
References: <2129@garfield.UUCP> <1256@uscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck)
Distribution: net
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 13
Summary: 

If the Enterprise were totally destroyed by any self-destruct device
aside from some pyrotechnics circa 2001 : A Space Odessy or Star Wars
there would not be much left to see in the movie right. It seems to me
that the going thing is screen plays these days is to leave as many stray
ends available for the production of a followup flick as possible is
not so much an accident as a requirement.
===============================================================================
From the mostly vacant environment of  Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie)

All opinions expressed may not even be my own.
===============================================================================

Message-ID: <395@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 04:50:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.395
Posted: Sun Dec 16 04:50:07 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 03:30:43 EST
References: <1256@uscvax.UUCP>, <266@wjvax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 13

[]

No WAY there could've been any significant matter-antimatter  ex-
plosion  on  that ship when it self-destructed. If there had been
only a few pounds of matter annhilated, it would've made  one  of
our  H-bombs  look  laughable. Not only would've the klingon ship
been destroyed, but the crew watching from the  planet's  surface
would've  been  permanently  blinded,  and they might've gotten a
nice sunburn to boot.


Sean Casey
UK dept of Mathematical Sciences