this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
817 points (99.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12959 readers
2363 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In some cases sure, but even then, like.. why is that so easy to do? And why are there countdowns? And why can it be intentionally triggered? That’s the real weird one. None of those things are even remotely realistic. There should be layers upon layers of safeguards to prevent the super expensive ship that took years to build from blowing up.

I mean we already have auto-shutdown processes for all sorts of explody and dangerous energy sources on earth; we even have auto-shutdown processes to prevent damage to the generator/facility. I’d assume those used to power ships would be among the safest, especially if we’ve made it to real manned exploration technology.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Warships absolutely have a "self destruct button" it's called scuttling. Done to deny the enemy the capture of the ships, or to lodge a wreck in an important location, so it blocks passage. Usually a "self destruct" is ships scuttling, but for space - you can't really do anything to a spaceship to "disable" it and prevent it from ever being used, unless you blow it to bits. Also, explosions are cool.

Same thing for abandonned tanks - burning those is often done - especially if you just lost a track, and the tank is fully operational but cannot move. If you have no chance of retrieving the vehicle, it's better to burn it than to deny the enemy the knowledge about its system, weakpoints, comms etc.

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

you can't really do anything to a spaceship to "disable" it and prevent it from ever being used

Except for

  • slowing down and hitting the closest sun/planet(even has a "countdown" as it takes a while)
  • hitting the nearest asteroid
  • Attaching or enabling anything that causes cascading vibrations (cause almost any source of wobble can cause the ship to break)
  • ....hitting full burn in any direction, making anyone follow it burn a lot of fuel just to slow it down (would still be recoverable though)
  • probably a few more
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, so in summation - blow it up.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Most of your suggestions require working engines. Shaking the ship apart might make the ship itself unusable but doesn't do anything about on board equipment or intel. A "scuttling" equivalent needs to work when the ship is mostly, or even completely, non-functional, and needs to either destroy everything aboard or make it not worth the effort of recovery.

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you have a second ship then you could use its thrusters.

I also doubt that any explosion short of nuclear is going to destroy most equipment and intel considering the ship is in space and has large parts vented to space (due to combat damage or design). Maybe if you line or fill all the things you want to destroy with some explosives but I wouldn't want to be on such a ship. More likely you'd manually lay down explosives from the ammunition if scuttling is required and then detonate it but not have it already there at the push of a button(assuming you're not using a nuke for every ship).

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

short of nuclear

In Star Trek at least, where this trope is probably the most firmly established, the self destruct involves antimatter annihilation, which is arguably in excess of nuclear.

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

...not really the point, the point is that either you have a nuke (or better) or an explosion isn't going to be sufficient to destroy Intel and machinery.

Unless you can justify having a built in nuke/antimatter bomb in the ship then it's not something a real world ship would have(excluding things like special military ships maybe).

Even if you have an antimatter reactor then it would still have to be a procedure on the order of "we're welding the safety's shut and overriding everything we can give us a few hours to rig the ship to blow" not "whoops pushed the self destruct button"

Point being, a colony ship or some science exploration vessel doesn't have a built in antimatter bomb at the push of a button.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not sure where I argued to the contrary. The ships in Trek with self-destruct capabilities are all military (or pseudo-military) vessels that are explained as literally having a procedure such as you describe.

In the preferred configuration, the starship undergoes rapid vaporization from thermal and mechanical shock caused by a deliberate release of warp engine reactants. Remote computer system decryption algorithms generate one final set of cascade failure commands, and all engine safety interlocks are compromised. Matter from the primary deuterium tankage and the total supply of antimatter from the storage pods on Deck 42 are expelled simultaneously, producing an energy release on the order of 10^15 megajoules.

If the command links to the engine systems are severed, the secondary destruct system is automatically selected. Ordnance packages are located at key locations around the vehicle, including the antimatter storage pods. These are detonated in concert with intentional overloads of all fusion reaction chambers. The release yield of the secondary system is calculated to be 10^9 megajoules. The secondary destruct system becomes the primary system for the Saucer Module in Separated Flight Mode.