The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan?
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Just because something can be used as a weapon doesn't mean that was its original intent.
Just because something can be used as a weapon doesn't mean that was its original intent.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Red Matter was not originally designed to be used as a weapon, but a way to save a dying star's planets. If given at the dosage and time, it would have caused a blackhole, but not necessarily sucked Romulus & Remus in as well. Yes, the Romulans still would have lost their homeworld due to their sun turning into a blackhole. But they would have had the chance to escape. At least that is how it should have worked theoretically.
Red Matter was not originally designed to be used as a weapon, but a way to save a dying star's planets. If given at the dosage and time, it would have caused a blackhole, but not necessarily sucked Romulus & Remus in as well. Yes, the Romulans still would have lost their homeworld due to their sun turning into a blackhole. But they would have had the chance to escape. At least that is how it should have worked theoretically.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
I'm pretty sure Hobus wasn't the home star of Romulus and Remus.
I'm pretty sure Hobus wasn't the home star of Romulus and Remus.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
I never said Hobus. But no matter, he arrived to late to save the day, thus Nero's planet was lost.
I never said Hobus. But no matter, he arrived to late to save the day, thus Nero's planet was lost.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
In the novel DTI: Watching the Clock, Red Matter was being investigated by the Vulcans 2382 as a new and more efficient means of producing artificial gravity.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Also if Spock and those Romulans were sent back in time, doesn't that mean there's an alternate reality were there is a blackhole shooting out an exploding star? I don't think Kirk's parents made it out of that one.
Also if Spock and those Romulans were sent back in time, doesn't that mean there's an alternate reality were there is a blackhole shooting out an exploding star? I don't think Kirk's parents made it out of that one.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
No, the supernova can be seen in the background as the Narada attacks the Kelvin and as the escape shuttles flee the battle.
No, the supernova can be seen in the background as the Narada attacks the Kelvin and as the escape shuttles flee the battle.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
It has always seemed strange to me that Spock had so much red matter on his ship. When Nero destroys Vulcan, he uses just a tiny drop that looks like about .01% of the total amount.
Originally, I thought that was because Spock needed enough to collapse a star, while Nero was just using it to collapse planets. But when we see the flashback from Spock's mind meld, it shows that he only used a tiny drop too.
It doesn't seem wise to carry around that much of such an incredibly dangerous material.
It has always seemed strange to me that Spock had so much red matter on his ship. When Nero destroys Vulcan, he uses just a tiny drop that looks like about .01% of the total amount.
Originally, I thought that was because Spock needed enough to collapse a star, while Nero was just using it to collapse planets. But when we see the flashback from Spock's mind meld, it shows that he only used a tiny drop too.
It doesn't seem wise to carry around that much of such an incredibly dangerous material.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
It could be that Red Matter is more stable in large amounts, and small drops are inherently unstable. If that were the case, then carrying huge amounts of it would be safer than carrying only small amounts for each mission.
It could be that Red Matter is more stable in large amounts, and small drops are inherently unstable. If that were the case, then carrying huge amounts of it would be safer than carrying only small amounts for each mission.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Like a strangelet? Fascinating.
Like a strangelet? Fascinating.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Red Matter is so incredibly dangerous that Vulcans don't want it anywhere near their homeworld. Therefore, Spock has do carry the entire quantity with him.
Red Matter is so incredibly dangerous that Vulcans don't want it anywhere near their homeworld. Therefore, Spock has do carry the entire quantity with him.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Or perhaps the means of manufacturing it didn't allow for producing less than he had, and was volatile enough that they wanted to create it within the ship rather than on a planet where it might do more damage if containment failed or such.
Or perhaps the means of manufacturing it didn't allow for producing less than he had, and was volatile enough that they wanted to create it within the ship rather than on a planet where it might do more damage if containment failed or such.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
Logical science stuff.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
I kinda disagree with you there, the Krenim ship doesn't really destroy as apposed to erase. The planets hit by the Krenim time ship beam were fine, good as new really. I guess it's "putting an end to existence" vs "erasing from existence". Red matter is definitely more devistating, no one really knows someone ceased to exist (unless you were in Janeway's situation).
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
I'd argue the erasing of a civilization to the point that nobody is even aware it once existed is far more destructive than simply destroying the civilization. I'd go so far as to apply the term "violation" to it, as you're not only directly affecting the target but causing potentially massive amounts of collateral damage.
Hell, in this day and age you erase one human being who's reached the age of 40 or so and you're probably impacting the memories of at least a few hundred other people.
If I was faced with being murdered in an alley or never having existed to begin with, I'd choose the former every time.
I'd argue the erasing of a civilization to the point that nobody is even aware it once existed is far more destructive than simply destroying the civilization. I'd go so far as to apply the term "violation" to it, as you're not only directly affecting the target but causing potentially massive amounts of collateral damage.
Hell, in this day and age you erase one human being who's reached the age of 40 or so and you're probably impacting the memories of at least a few hundred other people.
If I was faced with being murdered in an alley or never having existed to begin with, I'd choose the former every time.
Re: The most destructive ships in Star Trek history, and it was Vulcan
If you have a building and destroy it, you'd have rubble. If that same building was never built, then that fast food place down the street would never have been made, but the material used to make both buildings are still around unused. I'm arguing semantics here but when I think of the word destructive, I think of the word irreparable.
The Krenim time ship is much more effective then the red matter ship, but not destructive. There is no collateral damage when the Krenim weapon is done.
If you have a building and destroy it, you'd have rubble. If that same building was never built, then that fast food place down the street would never have been made, but the material used to make both buildings are still around unused. I'm arguing semantics here but when I think of the word destructive, I think of the word irreparable.
Similar threads
