Warp Field Induced Self Destruct

[MatthiasRussell]

A warp field works by compressing space-time ahead of an object and expanding the fabric behind the object while encasing the object within in normal space-time. The resulting imbalance propels the object forward. In Deja Q, it was said that an object not entirely encompassed by the forward end of the warp field may be destroyed by subspace compression.

That being the case, if a captain (or engineer) needs to destroy the ship, instead of using explosive charges across the ship or rupturing the warp core, why not generate a warp shell smaller than the ship and use the subspace compression to shear it apart? Would this perhaps be more efficient than explosive charges and safer than explosive charges installed throughout the ship?

 

[sojourner]

It might not be as thorough as the other 2 options, possibly only "breaking off" the parts outside the bubble.

 

[brian577]

If your in a situation where destroying your vessel is the only option it stands to reason that your warp drive is probably offline.

 

[Timo]

True enough. Then again, "Conspiracy" tells us that poorly maintained warp engines or negligient operating procedures may result in "warp implosion" that will destroy the whole ship. And "The Naked Time" suggests that "implosion" is related to cold-starting a warp engine, and that it's hellishly difficult to do it in a controlled manner.

Putting these two together, we might argue that if your warp drive goes down in battle, you may scuttle your ship by deliberately starting it again too fast. A subspace implosion of some sort will then take place, and tear your ship to the sort of tiny shreds we saw in "Conspiracy".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I guess there would also be concerns that self destruction in that way could damage the fabric of space-time unlike conventional explosives. Still, I think it would be a viable way to destroy the ship side I don't think a misshapen would merely cut up a ship but the pressure differential would pulverize the remains.

 

[ngc7293]

<snip> charges and safer than explosive charges installed throughout the ship?

Safer?!? For who? You're blowing the ship up, probably taking the entire crew with it and hoping to take the enemy also. Why do we need a safe explosion?

 

[sojourner]

^Because it's safer than having explosive charges planted around the ship.

 

[Idran]

<snip> charges and safer than explosive charges installed throughout the ship?

Safer?!? For who? You're blowing the ship up, probably taking the entire crew with it and hoping to take the enemy also. Why do we need a safe explosion?

I've always seem self-destruct as less a potential last-resort weapon, and more a form of scuttling the ship to ensure it can't be recovered for enemy intelligence.

Also, like Sojourner said, he means safer when you're not using the self-destruct. You don't want one of those explosive charges going off accidentally when you don't intend it to.

 

[BlackFire3]

i'm only guessing on this but, if the ship blows up during warp speeds, the ships pieces would be thrown a few light-years from the actual point of the explosion causing a stretch of destruction. ships would be holed, planets may suffer from tectonic stress from impact (depending on the size of the pieces) or at the very least a literal rain of death on the facing population. no warning from near lightspeed objects.
course it would be one hell of a threat in enemy territory.

 

[Timo]

I've always seem self-destruct as less a potential last-resort weapon, and more a form of scuttling the ship to ensure it can't be recovered for enemy intelligence.

Curiously, though, Starfleet always uses self-destruct as a weapon, and never seems to care if the enemy can recover an abandoned ship.

You don't want one of those explosive charges going off accidentally when you don't intend it to.

OTOH, that would probably be very easily secured against. Just remove the detonators or something.

In comparison, it would be a very dangerous idea to rig your warp drive with the option of destroying the ship. The warp drive is always on, after all; you can't "remove the detonators" from that one. If I had to choose a self-destruct mechanism for my car, it would definitely be a neat and secure package of TNT in the trunk, not some Rube Goldberg device that ignites my gasoline tank.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I imagine you can't remove the detonators from the self destruct charges since when they execute, crew aren't dispatched to install detonators in the event destruction is necessary, most of the crew is probably dead, incapacitated, or evacuated. The installation process would probably not be a quick one either. Pyrotechnics will probably continue to be a job you don't want to rush.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I don't think it is any more dangerous programing the nacelles to be able to slice up the ship with a misshapen field than normally operating them since warp fields have to be continually monitored to make sure they are maintaining their size and shape. I imagine safeguards are already installed to prevent an accidental disaster.

 

[sojourner]

i'm only guessing on this but, if the ship blows up during warp speeds, the ships pieces would be thrown a few light-years from the actual point of the explosion causing a stretch of destruction. ships would be holed, planets may suffer from tectonic stress from impact (depending on the size of the pieces) or at the very least a literal rain of death on the facing population. no warning from near lightspeed objects.
course it would be one hell of a threat in enemy territory.

Warp imparts no speed in normal space. As soon as the warp bubble drops the debris would pretty much come to a standstill.

 

[Idran]

I've always seem self-destruct as less a potential last-resort weapon, and more a form of scuttling the ship to ensure it can't be recovered for enemy intelligence.

Curiously, though, Starfleet always uses self-destruct as a weapon, and never seems to care if the enemy can recover an abandoned ship.

Not always. That's exactly what Janeway was using it for against the Kazon; destroy the ship so they couldn't get hold of Federation technology.

 

[jayrath]

While it could be that Starfleet packs dynamite all over its ships (doubtful), I had always assumed that self-destruct meant an uncontrolled matter/anti-matter explosion. Can't get much more destructive than that.

 

[Idran]

While it could be that Starfleet packs dynamite all over its ships (doubtful), I had always assumed that self-destruct meant an uncontrolled matter/anti-matter explosion. Can't get much more destructive than that.

Actually you can get a lot more destructive than that. Matter/antimatter reactions only produce gamma rays, and so it's basically the equivalent of setting off a nuke in Engineering. In an atmosphere, that's pretty dangerous, but in vacuum, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee the destruction of the entire ship. The majority of damage from a bomb like that on Earth is from the pressure and heat wave generated from the explosion, but in space there'd be no wave outside the ship itself. It would propagate within the ship itself, but I don't know if it would do so well enough to destroy the whole thing to the point that nothing could be recovered. Not better than the other methods we've talked about, at least.

In Trek there might be subspace effects too that could help destruction, but a matter/antimatter reaction in space would be dangerous more for the massive quantities of radiation released than any actual explosion.

 

[blssdwlf]

In Trek there might be subspace effects too that could help destruction, but a matter/antimatter reaction in space would be dangerous more for the massive quantities of radiation released than any actual explosion.

Or in Trek, antimatter (especially in TOS/TMP) was portrayed differently than what we know of it in "real life". An ounce of antimatter ripped off half a planet's atmosphere in "Obsession" and the antimatter stores of the Enterprise was considered sufficient by Scotty to destroy V'ger in "The Motion Picture". In both cases, subspace was not mentioned as a factor.

Also, a self-destruct would also include the fusion reactors/impulse engines of the ship which could add another 90 to 180 megatons or more of damage...

 

[brian577]

While it could be that Starfleet packs dynamite all over its ships (doubtful), I had always assumed that self-destruct meant an uncontrolled matter/anti-matter explosion. Can't get much more destructive than that.

According to Mr. Scotts Guide to the Enterprise the refit Constitution class has two different self destruct systems. Uncontrolled antimatter explosion (planned for use against V-Ger) and charges set throughout the thought out the ship (used in TSFS probably to ensure the survival of the Bird of Prey, their only means of escape).