Self-Destruct

[Bryan Moore]

The self destruct in TSFS didn't seem that effective - half of the Enterprise seemed to survive, and was only destroyed because it entered Genesis's atmosphere.

Still, deaded all the Klingons in a hurry.

Rumour has it that there are two destruct modes. Kirk specified "Destruct zero", which is a low level destruct; it detonates various explosive charges in key areas around the ship. Had he specified "destruct one" it would have detonated the antimatter fuel pods, resulting in a vastly larger explosion.

Non canon, but it's intended to explain why ST III showed a fairly minor bang when TMP indicated that a M/Am reaction would easily destroy the ~100 km long V'Ger.

Even before reading Graham's post, I was about to suggest something similar. In some cases you'd want a low level destruct, with the computer core, weapons systems, etc. (The sensitive areas). This keeps these from falling into enemy hands, but would be beneficial when you have escape pods nearby, are near an inhabited planet, or are in some other sort of situation where a matter/antimatter explosion would be detremental. Destruct level two would make sense when you want a complete explosion, didn't care about risk to surrounding vessels/people, or simply wanted to create havoc with surrounding enemy ships. Mainly, though, I'd think that if you're self-destructing, you've likely evacuated the ship and you don't wanna take them out, thus the "Destruct Zero" makes sense.

[Lazar]

On a related note, I've finally tested a nagging suspicion that I've had since early childhood: they did indeed use "dramatic timing" for the 60-second destruct sequence. There's about 100 seconds of film between the beginning and the end of the sequence, and even at that, the trips to and from the transporter room have obviously been compressed. Considering the cautious way in which the Klingons were walking through the ship, I think a 5-minute sequence would have made more sense.

[Bryan Moore]

On a related note, I've finally tested a nagging suspicion that I've had since early childhood: they did indeed use "dramatic timing" for the 60-second destruct sequence. There's about 100 seconds of film between the beginning and the end of the sequence, and even at that, the trips to and from the transporter room have obviously been compressed. Considering the cautious way in which the Klingons were walking through the ship, I think a 5-minute sequence would have made more sense.

I agree, the 60 seconds is somewhat silly. Though it could have been done, assuming we had a transporter a deck below, right off the bridge. Still, thats a rush, and if your elevator jams, you're done =P

[Mark]

I never understood why the Klingons beamed into the damned transporter room, and not directly onto the bridge.


And theoretically that "Destruct 1" is for use in deep space only as it would have taken the planet with it.

"Destruct 0" was only for in system use.

[Sionnach Glic]

Actualy, I'd say it'd be the other way around. Destruct Zero leaves a big chunk of unguided metal floating around, which could very easily fall on top of a planet. Destruct One leaves nothing left but tiny pieces that would burn up in an atmosphere.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

That is indeed a very cozy explanation. In addition to ensuring the complete destruction of information, might you want to keep the hardware itself from enemy hands? If there are computer cores built into the bridge, you'd imagine they could contain some specialized equipment you'd prefer to keep secret.

-- And did Kruge really think Kirk (of all people) would allow a Federation ship to fall into Klingon hands?

[Bryan Moore]

Actualy, I'd say it'd be the other way around. Destruct Zero leaves a big chunk of unguided metal floating around, which could very easily fall on top of a planet. Destruct One leaves nothing left but tiny pieces that would burn up in an atmosphere.

I'm guessing more the thought of the anti-matter explosion being large enough if detonated near the planet that we'd have a problem with destruct 1, but who knows.

[Sionnach Glic]

Fair point.

[Tyyr]

Not really. A Connie doesn't have enough AM aboard to cause problems on the planet.

[Graham Kennedy]

Not really. A Connie doesn't have enough AM aboard to cause problems on the planet.

Wrong.

TOS makes it abundantly clear in "Obsession" that a Connie carries enough antimatter to devastate a large portion of a planet. TMP implies the same.

[Tyyr]

Well unless there's some kind of very very odd physics going on, or the entire secondary hull is full of it... no, there's really not. Even if you managed to react every milligram of anti-matter on the ship simultaneously about the worst you'd do to the surface of the planet from orbit would be a massive EMP, maybe some flash burns to the eyes of anyone looking skyward, but not a lot else.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well unless there's some kind of very very odd physics going on, or the entire secondary hull is full of it... no, there's really not.

Yeah, I'm afraid there really, really is. Invoke whatever you are comfortable with to explain it, but the facts are there.

Even if you managed to react every milligram of anti-matter on the ship simultaneously about the worst you'd do to the surface of the planet from orbit would be a massive EMP, maybe some flash burns to the eyes of anyone looking skyward, but not a lot else.

Tell me, exactly how do you make claims like this when you don't know how much antimatter the ship carries?

[Tyyr]

I don't. However, it largely doesn't matter until you get to some obscene amounts involved. Going by TNG Tech Manual the Ent-D carries about 244 tons of anti-deuterium. I doubt a Connie carries more than that. Even if it does you're still not getting to the levels required to cause some true devastation without almost making an anti-Connie. Exo-atmospheric detonations are damn near useless for anything but EMP.

Because it doesn't particularly matter. A detonation outside the atmosphere isn't going to hammer the planet with the really deadly portion, the potential blast wave. The remainder of the energy, high energy radiation, gets handled by our atmosphere. Crazy, but the atmosphere by its simple mass provides equivalent protection from radiation to sitting behind 51 inches of steel. The only thing left at this point are thermal emissions which has all kinds of issues. First being distance. Being in orbit places a starship anywhere from hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the surface of the planet. As always, distance is your friend. So is the atmosphere, cloud cover, and the fact that the detonation takes place outside the atmosphere denying the pulse the chance to generate a superheated fireball and expose the target to an extended thermal pulse.

Now, set that off on the ground or close to it and yeah, you could sterilize a continent.

Of course this all assumes perfect instantaneous annihilation of all the anti-matter aboard. Instead you're more likely to get a slow progressive detonation. Sort of like setting off a small pile of gun powder on the ground versus packing it tight in a casing, sticking in a fuse and setting that off. One burns your hand the other removes it.

[Sionnach Glic]

TOS makes it abundantly clear in "Obsession" that a Connie carries enough antimatter to devastate a large portion of a planet. TMP implies the same

Just a thought, but could that perhaps refer to setting it off on the ground, rather than in space?

[kostmayer]

I would have thought that having a large chunk of the Enterprise falling though the atmoshpere would have been more dangerous to a planet then having it incinerated in space. There must be a more refined method.

If all they want to do is destroy any data on board, would destroying the computercore and then using an EMP to wipe out all the consoles work? Or are Trek era computers hardened against such things? What exactly was it that Sisko did to DS9 before the Domions took the station?