Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!dartvax!raiche
From: raiche@dartvax.UUCP (George A. Raiche)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Death of the Enterprise
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