FA status

Nomination (08 June - 18 June 2004, Success)

A comprehensive description of the Xindi planet-killer and its two prototypes, plus the events leading up to its destruction. (I've done some work on this article.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. I did a lot of work on this before I registered under my guise of --Steve 17:35, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. Ottens 10:02, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. -- Redge 20:04, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Support. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Reconfirmation (01 May - 18 May 2012, Success)

A featured article from back in July 2004. Haven't completely read it, so I'm not yet sure if we should keep it. - Archduk3 19:16, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. This article still seems to be up to FA standards, and I have created a blurb. - Archduk3 19:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; still worthy of FA status. 31dot 01:11, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, though I think it could do with a name change, as a bg source for the name "weapon" alludes me! In DVD subtitles, it's called "super weapon" by Dan Curry. "Primary Weapon" is much more common in scripts, which I suspect would be the go-to source for this. --Defiant 13:09, May 13, 2012 (UTC)


We should get an image of Earth getting destroyed by the weapon.-B-101

  • Is that necessary? It didn't actually happen... -- Dmsdbo 01:25, 4 Jul 2004 (CEST)
While that is technically true, we should show just what happened when the weapon destroys a planet, or we could say "it breaks the crust apart".-B-101

We should get an image of the weapon's interior.-B-101

Removed content

Who came up with the techno-babble on how the weapon works?- B-101 14:42, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Good question. Section "Mechanics" was added by an anonymous contributor some days ago, and I too think that this is non-canon. I removed that section, especially because this is a featured article:
The weapon produces two intersected beams whose focus point creates an energy field in which molecules can no longer stay stable and quickly dissociate from one another. Simply put, electrons cannot be shared, and molecules begin to break up into their original elements. The disruption creates a field in which nearby molecules are also destroyed. Each molecule provides the fodder to destroy adjacent ones. In the absence of more nearby mass, as in the vacuum of space, the field dissipates rapidly.
-- Cid Highwind 14:57, 8 Oct 2004 (CEST)

sounds like the workings of the "Dr. Device" from Ender's Game. Morlock 20:18, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Resemblance to Borg sphere

Doesn't the Xindi Superweapon look like a wierd version of a borg sphere with rings.

Well... they are both spherical. Whether this was intentionally done by the designers, I have no clue, nor does anyone know whether or not this was intentionally done by the Sphere-Builders (who are from the future, after all). The reason for the shape, though, is most likely because the Builders like round objects, as evidenced by their creation of the Delphic Expanse spheres, which, of course, earned them their name. They just like spherical objects... well, except Earth, of course. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:02, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

A sphere maximizes volume while minimizing surface area - probably a tactical advantage of some kind. Jaz talk | novels 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Death Star Wannabe...

Is it just me, or is the Xindi Superweapon an attempt to create a Star Trek Death Star?

Talk pages are not to be used for personal commentary on a given subject; they are to discuss the content and quality of the article. For more information, see talk pages. --From Andoria with Love 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's no fun though.

Deal with it. :P --From Andoria with Love 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But it we can't just ignore fact that Xindi weapon and Death Star INDEED have similarities both in design and in operation (both fired massive beam cannons capable of pulverising a planet in one strike)

How large was the final product?

How large in diameter was the Xindi Superweapon? I mean, the finished, final result of the prototype.

I don't think that was ever revealed, although as you can tell, it was much bigger than the Enterprise and all of the Xindi ships. --From Andoria with Love 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like the size of a small moon...
That's no moon... that's a space station.

Question about the weapon

If the Xindi sent Rajiin in to collect bio-information on humanity why did the end product just blow up the planet? What time needed to be spent and research needed to be undertaken just to be able to blow up a planet? From Rajiin I was expecting some sort of genetic plague or virus like The Borg Queen wanted Seven to help disseminate in "Dark Frontier". --Degra dation 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The information gathered by Rajiin was used in a separate project with the same goal of destroying humanity, the Xindi bio-weapon. Rajiin's information gathering had nothing to do with the weapon planned to destroy the planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone help me upload these two pictures

1. picture of the 3-ring rotating exercise thing cmdr. Tucker was using in "Vanishing Point", while he was talking to Hoshi. 2. picture of the rotating rings around the rotating sphere inside the core of the Xindi weapon.

reason being, that people might realize that these rotating rings are actually the same (or at least they look the same); even the color is the same when they later reused the rotating rings for the Xindi weapon.

i don't know how to update images onto Memory Alpha properlly, some help would be possible.

Please look at the "Upload image/file" link on the left of the page. Instructions are there.--31dot 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Power Source

Is there any way of questioning the writers of the Xindi arc as to what the explanation of the Xindi Weapon power source and method of destruction might be? As pointed out on Mike Wong's http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Calculator.html page the specific amount of energy needed to blow up a planet can be computed and it dwarfs anything ever shown as a power source in the Star Trek universe other than the Xindi Weapon. And since the weapon is part of Canon, one would think that something capable of a reaction that large would show up again. Technologies such as that are usually not abandoned, so someone later in the Trek universe should have it available; even if the research notes were destroyed, someone somewhere would likely have reverse-engineered the technology, or so it seems to me. -- Davidkevin 02:21, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

If such a thing was possible, it would only be suitable as Background information in the article. 31dot 09:27, April 6, 2012 (UTC)


Expanding on the point made in the reconfirmation, the name of this article might need to be looked at again. It might help if we check all the sources we have for what name(s) were used for this like was done at Talk:Spacedock (Earth). - Archduk3 20:47, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's referred to as simply "Xindi weapon" in "Similitude", "Storm Front" and "These Are the Voyages...". As I stated earlier, scripts from the third season seem to commonly refer to it as the "Prime Weapon", which would help distinguish it from just another generic "weapon." --Defiant 10:33, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, the 2 prototype weapons and the primary one should have their own pages, anyway, so it'd make sense for this one – the Primary Weapon – to be called that. --Defiant 11:29, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think Xindi weapon is fine for all three (it's already a redirect here), and we can add a disambiguation link to any page(s) we have about other weapons used by the Xindi if there's an issue. Before "officially" suggesting a split with the template though, what terms do we know were used for the prototypes? Even if there isn't a split, the sections names could be updated to what was used. - Archduk3 18:22, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I support a move to "Xindi weapon". 31dot 20:27, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
As do I, though I do also plan to research this issue more thoroughly in the near future. Season 3 of ENT could definitely do with a rewatch anyways, as there's also the issue of there apparently being a ready room aboard Degra's ship, though no info about it is at the Captain's ready room article! --Defiant 01:43, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Update: While it seems that the name "Xindi weapon" is a much more suitable one than the previous weapon, I don't think the situation warrants a split for the different types, as the terms such as "weapon" and "probe" seem to have been used interchangeably for each one. --Defiant 20:53, June 10, 2012 (UTC)


I took the liberty of removing the following, which seems an awful lot like a nitpick:

"The path cut by the probe first sent to Earth was described as being "4,000 kilometers" long. Unless that was an exaggeration, such a path through Venezuela would extend into present-day Brazil. The images in the episode suggest the beam's path began just west of Lake Okeechobee, cutting south from there. With the direction of the beam initially shown, it would have to had changed direction to reach what is currently Venezuela."

--Defiant (talk) 18:07, March 15, 2013 (UTC)


I suggest this page be split into 3 separate articles: Xindi probe, Xindi test weapon, and Xindi primary weapon. This is based on how the craft are referred to in the script sources. Also, the first one definitely seems to have been referred to most often on-screen as a "probe" too. --Defiant (talk) 09:39, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comment: while the question if this should be split seems a fair one, I don't think the script terminology is in itself an argument for a split. We should start using those terms wherever applicable, but that's all. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:22, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see the benefit of spreading this info out over three pages. We have the redirects, which maybe should be used more, but it's pretty hard to talk about one of these without the others, unlike most other spacecraft. - Archduk3 14:47, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see a benefit to splitting it.--Marhawkman (talk) 01:11, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Archduk3 on this one. Keeping it together and emphasizing the use of the redirects along the way/etc. They are being used a fair bit already, but we should make sure of it. -- sulfur (talk) 01:19, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.