Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!hplabs!jin From: jin@hplabs.UUCP (Tai Jin) Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: Destruction of the Enterprise Message-ID: <1271@hplabs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 16:25:04 EST Article-I.D.: hplabs.1271 Posted: Sun Dec 16 16:25:04 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 04:15:06 EST References: <1@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA Lines: 20 > How about this theory about why the antimatter in the engines didn't > make a big bang the way it should have - there are (at least) 2 modes > of self-destruct - I will call them "Big bang" and "little bang" > The "big bang" is for when you have to self-destruct and you want to take > as much with you as possible (such as in deep space surrounded by an > army of Romulans) you let the antimatter loose and let it do its thing. > The "little bang" is for when you merely want to destroy the ship, not > anything nereby (such as a planet) you somehow jettison the antimatter, > then allow conventional explosives (or whatever) destroy the ship. > This is what you saw in TSFS. The antimatter could be aimed at some > asteroid or something so no one will bump into it by accident. > Any comments? > > "There's a madness to my method." Mike Moroney > ..decwrl!rhea!jon!moroney the "big bang" you mention...isn't that the corobomite bluff? so i thought it wasn't for real. anyway, isn't their power derived from the dilithium crystals? i don't know the mechanism, but i think the antimatter is derived from the crystals. does anybody know?