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