• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          …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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days 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.