Blow the Powerplant! Really?

[SpaceBadger]

It is a bit of cliche in some SF that when the ship is about to be captured, the ship's engineer can "blow the powerplant" creating an explosion to vaporize the ship and some or all of its attackers.

How likely is this with fission, fusion, or MHD powerplants in Traveller ships? I know this will require some speculation as we don't currently have working fusion powerplants, but based on what can be expected theoretically, is every spaceship really a devastating bomb waiting to go off at the flick of some engineer's switch?

If so, I'd think this would have some impact on spaceports and docking procedures. Downports would be located far from high-population areas, and individual ship berths might be bunkered to localize blast effects. Terrorists wouldn't need compicated plots to steal nukes, just land a ship and blow the powerplant. As this hasn't been previously mentioned as an ongoing problem, I wonder if there is some way to design a fusion powerplant to failsafe, so that if it fails or is shut down it just goes inert rather than exploding.

What thinkest thou?


[edit: Yes, I know a ship might be used as a high velocity kinetic deadfall - that isn't my question. I want to know about "blowing the powerplant".]

 

[mike wightman]

Blowing up a fusion plant to vaporise the ship is not an option.

As soon as the fusion material can expand out of the containment chamber it cools and stops fusing. You still have a really hot plasma in your engineering compartment, but probably not enough to blow the ship to pieces.

Scuttling a ship IMTU is achieved by charging the jump capacitors to maximum and then activating the jump drive...

 

[aramis]

With fission, it depends upon how the fission is moderated.

Control-rod designs work by being over critical density*, but inserting enough neutron absorbing rods to reduce the reaction to below extractable energy levels, or even below chain reaction levels. Pull the rods (for meltdown), dump a buch of sodium** in to hit supercritical density***, and BOOM! The controlled reaction just went from barely critical density to supercritical, and blows the engines up.

Sodium enabled reactors are always below critical density, but sodium enhances the neutron transfer for some reason, thus raising the effective density above critical density. Pull the sodium, the reaction stops. You have to literally physically mangle the reactor to generate a meltdown, let alone a supercritical event. From what I've read, they're lower energy density than absorption moderated reactors, but a hell of a lot safer.

Everything I've read about fusion in the real world implies strongly that you might be able to intentionally overload a fusion reactor, but failure will be a containment breach - immediate vicinity flooded with radiation and plasma, but no "boom". (Tho' superheating the compartment might cause a blowout of doors/hatches, and might cause walls to fail.)

Antimatter fails catastrophically. Drop containment, "BOOM". The question is just how much of a boom...

*which is related to, but not the same as, critical mass. Critical mass is the mass at which a chain reaction starts in a uniform pile or ball; critical density is sufficient mass within range to trigger a chain reaction, and by careful manipulation, a reactor can have well more than critical mass, but no particular pile is above the critical density.

** Sodium apparently enhances neutron transmission... and thus critical density is reduced, so the actual density can cross the critical threshold.

*** the density where it goes from thermal to explosive release of energy. Bombs try for supercritical density on trigger...

 

[Antony]

I've allowed PCs to blow the power plant, but this does not destroy the ship. It will however essentially destroy anything in that set of bulkheads. Lesser partitions will give way with the pressure wave from the explosion. Whether the hull gives way in that compartment is a judgement call based on strength of hull and size of powerplant.

I would assume that a military vessel, possibly civilian as well, that needed to be destroyed, it would be better to blow the jump drive which I read somewhere contains a fast burn fusion plant plus that hull grid (depending on rules versions of course). Have that pump the hull grid full of energy beyond the grids tolerance, this would structually weaken the hull, then let the jump drive reactor detonate along with its now fully charged capacitor, include the fuel tanks if you can then boom!

 

[BytePro]

'Blowing up' the plant itself (reactor) is not very believable. However, using the PP fuel source to cause an explosion is another story. From that perspective, Traveller style L-Hyd fed power plants present a good opportunity. (Fission - not so much - unless its a fast breeder accumulating enough CM of the right stuff...)

O2 requirement is as low as 4% by volume, IIRC, and the mixture would require only a relatively small spark to ignite. Defeat the (numerous) safeties to vent the fuel feeds into the PP compartment, and light 'er up. Big bada boom.

To blow the whole ship - including shattering the hull - well, maybe if all the compartments were flooded with H O mixture and one managed to keep it from prematurely igniting. Maybe. More believable if the hull has already been weakened by attacks. Otherwise, just seeing this blow out portals, hatches or other weak points while gutting the interior pretty good.

Mostly, I would expect the ship to be rigged for self-destruction using very high yield devices/materials and/or shaped charges. Actually all I recall - what sources have blowing up of non-AM based PPs?

 

[CosmicGamer]

is every spaceship really a devastating bomb waiting to go off at the flick of some engineer's switch?

While these comments don't specifically address the feasibility of blowing the power plant, they might give some insight to the overall issue.

What's this red button do?
Blowing the power plant is certainly not the only danger from a ship. While you debate the power plants destructive ability, how about just firing off the weapons. What dangers do ships weapons represent and what precautions should be taken? What if you are fully loaded with weaponry for that tipple missile launcher and blow them?


Perhaps think about car bombings.

Making an explosion larger and deadlier.
Car bombs don't just blow the gas tank. Would someone bent on destruction just blow a ships power plant? I'd think a much more dangerous explosion could be possible with the right cargo.

Danger here. Danger there. Danger Everywhere.
Cars are everywhere. Do you walk to the other side of the street if there is a car parked on the side you are walking? Don't park in any public parking lots because there are too many potential bombs? Put up barricades at the end of your driveway to keep potential car bombs away from your house?

In general there are much easier, less expensive, and more accurate ways of taking out a person.

There still is the possibility that the port is the target. A terrorist or psycho causing panic and confusion. A plot to disrupt trade. Whatever the reason.

Re car bombs, certain high probability targets have changed the way they do things.

Downports would be located far from high-population areas, and individual ship berths might be bunkered to localize blast effects.

Why would you put a freakin down port way out here?
I would think that a downport would already be located a safe distance from habitation due to general mishaps. Piloting errors. Accidental power plant or other explosions. Whatever else.

I'd think this would have some impact on spaceports and docking procedures.

Who are you and why are you here? Customs checks.
I'd think ships would be screened before given a flight path to the port. Any ship questionable might have a customs inspection while at a safe distance.

 

[warwizard]

Most of today's nuclear reactors are steam kettles, they heat a fluid which transfers the heat to water.
Stop the circulation pumps turn off the gravity and stop the gas seperator. Heat builds up in the primary coolant loop, once that's hot enough, turn everything back on and you get a pressure spike in the secondary coolant loop (the one that turns the steam turbines), rupturing the secondary coolant system in a steam explosion, this kills everybody in the engineering spaces. With the secondary loop deprived of it's working fluid once again heat huilds up in the primary loop. Fail safe systems at this point automatically operate to shut down heat generation, and apply emergency coolant to the reactor room. If these systems are actively sabotaged prior to starting the process, you then get a breech in the primary coolant loop and flood engineering with radioactive fluid from the primary heat exchanger. Depending on the moderation system as posted above the reactor will either fail safe, or melt down.

Engineering spaces full of radiation and a atmosphere of uranium scattered throughout the compartment, that ship is never going to move under it's own power, you may as well cut the engineering section off and leave it to drift.

 

[BytePro]

Downports will have 'speed limits', minimizing impact (pun) of starships as kinetic bombs. Better quality ports will have some physical security from mishaps and intentional threats (blast walls, leakage and drainage ditches, fire suppression, active aerogel containment systems, etc.). They'll have advanced sensor systems, weapons, ships and forces to enforce interdiction zones and protocols along with laws that allow for standoff inspections. Etc., etc.

All in the name of the public's general safety. Of course, they will be located near and within major metropolitan areas!

Look at some of the world's largest cities and their proximity not only to large airports, but water ports (research LNG tankers for starters), petro, natural gas, methane (digestors) and chemical storage facilities but, sans all man's tech, major fault zones, volcanoes, mud slide prone mountains, flood zones of large rivers, and historical hurricane/typhoon paths.

Anyone with half a brain would avoid such stupidities!

Get enough humans together, however, and the resulting mass brain is less developed than a monkeys, and a fraction the size...

 

[Greylond]

An excellent example of an airport within a major city's limits is San Diego International Airport. One of the main runways approach paths is right over I-5. It's a pretty common sight to be driving on I-5 and see a plane pass overhead with the landing gear down on final approach.

Another interesting airstrip, not a major airport by any stretch, is the airport on Adak Island, in Alaska. It has two strips, on one, the landing lights extending away from the strip are actually on posts out in the water of the bay. The other strip has an approach that requires the pilot to approach at an angle and then right before landing you have to perform a sharp turn to line up with the strip. This is because across the bay from this strip is a mountain ridgeline that is in the way of a normal approach path. The other end of that strip, the blue lights at the end of the runway actually go up a steep hill that is no usable as a runway. This is because the air strip was built on a lagoon that US Navy Seabees and Army Engineers drained for it. The runway is actually Below Sea Level by a few feet.

So, yea, sometimes "stupidity" but also sometimes due to various other factors. In the case of San Diego, it was a case of the airport being built and the city growing up around it. I can see a Downport being built away from a metro area only to have the urbanized area to grow up around the 'port.

 

[BytePro]

Yep, authorities didn't prevent growth in areas of obvious concern and greed jumped on the opportunities, just as Federal monies subsidized airports in locations suboptimal for landing, much less commerce.

Sure, there are 'reasons' for stupid. But, stupid is as stupid does.

Several times in my life I've lived in rural/suburban areas overflown by large military aircraft - being in line with base approaches. I constantly go out to look up and admire the metal birds. Especially when it sounds like they are going to land on the roof top! I have to freely admit, on the occasion when its been my own choice, despite my appreciation of aircraft, its rather a stupid one. I'm also pretty certain that originally the profiles for these bases was not over heavily (even lightly) populated areas. In all cases there was plenty of land elsewhere and no rational reasons (resources, etc.) for building homes under flight paths. However, probably due to the noise of the aircraft and height restrictions, the real estate was cheaper...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Get enough humans together, however, and the resulting mass brain is less developed than a monkeys, and a fraction the size...

Or, put another way:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

One thing to remember about "blowing the powerplant" is that it always requires some method of bypassing the normal systems or procedures. You have to turn off the failsafes or throw a special switch (which usually requires more than one person to operate, or some sequence of actions).

 

[rancke]

One thing to remember about "blowing the powerplant" is that it always requires some method of bypassing the normal systems or procedures. You have to turn off the failsafes or throw a special switch (which usually requires more than one person to operate, or some sequence of actions).

The warships in David Weber's Honorverse have "fusion bottles" that "loose containment" when suffering direct hits from various starship weapons. The result is a LOT of collateral damage (as in 'large parts of ship vaporized'). Though I suppose one could classify a direct hit by a weapon as bypassing normal systems...


Hans

 

[Enoki]

Downports will have 'speed limits', minimizing impact (pun) of starships as kinetic bombs. Better quality ports will have some physical security from mishaps and intentional threats (blast walls, leakage and drainage ditches, fire suppression, active aerogel containment systems, etc.). They'll have advanced sensor systems, weapons, ships and forces to enforce interdiction zones and protocols along with laws that allow for standoff inspections. Etc., etc.

All in the name of the public's general safety. Of course, they will be located near and within major metropolitan areas!

Look at some of the world's largest cities and their proximity not only to large airports, but water ports (research LNG tankers for starters), petro, natural gas, methane (digestors) and chemical storage facilities but, sans all man's tech, major fault zones, volcanoes, mud slide prone mountains, flood zones of large rivers, and historical hurricane/typhoon paths.

I won't generally let ships in the lower atmosphere of a urbanized planet (say pop 6+) go sonic at all below about 10,000 meters. You might have noticed how much damage that meteor in Russia did with just a sonic shock wave.
I would also usually have things like an air traffic control system in most systems as well. This could even extend into space covering the whole system. That is, you jump in and then have to get into a flight pattern for approach to the high port as well as low port, transmit a flight plan, etc.
Failure to conform to the controllers gets you the attention of the authorities and a whopping big fine not to mention their now wanting to inspect your ship and nit pick you for not obeying the rules.

 

[Limburger59]

Scariest airport in the midst of a city was Hong Kong; looking level out the window into apartment high rises bracketing the flight path.

Back to the OP, I can't see blowing the whole ship; but military ships would have some way of destroying weapon systems, new technology, and especially the computer data. If they really wanted to be drastic, how about just cooking off a missile inside the rack, as opposed to messing with the engine. Missiles are designed to go boom! In "Hunt for Red October" the cook was messing with the missile propellant, not the engine. Could you override a Meson Gun's safeties to go off inside the bay?

?? How many military ships in YTU are taken by boarding actions anyways?

As for civilian ships, I believe the military and law enforcement would frown on any scuttling devices or tinkering with failsafe systems.

 

[BytePro]

Huh? Oh that... yeah, well, er, you see, we were just on our way to get that fixed officer. Yep, my engineer says the whole kabootal is erratic and he had to bypass the thing-a-what's-it .. secondary safety shunt, you called it? .. and a few other things... Since he lost his cousin last month in a hold breach from a failed safety valve, he's been a bit skittish. Anyway, safeties my first concern, you know, so I've planned to fix that pronto...

...

What? Explosives rigged to destroy my ship?!? That's impossible. Why that low-life, murderous leach of a mechanic on Loiteran V - just wait till I get a hold of that comet tailed son of a ... Hey look, this isn't gonna hold us up is it? I mean I'm on a tight schedule and gotta get these goods off-ship so I can collect for my sister's husband's aunt's spinal transplant before its too late. Not that I want any special favors, but I've got some excess in the holds and maybe we can work something out just this once...

 

[McPerth]

Scuttling a ship IMTU is achieved by charging the jump capacitors to maximum and then activating the jump drive...

And what about non-jump spaceships?

 

[Limburger59]

Huh? Oh that... yeah, well, er, you see, we were just on our way to get that fixed officer. Yep, my engineer says the whole kabootal is erratic and he had to bypass the thing-a-what's-it .. secondary safety shunt, you called it? .. and a few other things... Since he lost his cousin last month in a hold breach from a failed safety valve, he's been a bit skittish. Anyway, safeties my first concern, you know, so I've planned to fix that pronto...

...

What? Explosives rigged to destroy my ship?!? That's impossible. Why that low-life, murderous leach of a mechanic on Loiteran V - just wait till I get a hold of that comet tailed son of a ... Hey look, this isn't gonna hold us up is it? I mean I'm on a tight schedule and gotta get these goods off-ship so I can collect for my sister's husband's aunt's spinal transplant before its too late. Not that I want any special favors, but I've got some excess in the holds and maybe we can work something out just this once...

Thanks for the laughs!:rofl:

 

[leo knight]

I remember an exchange from a miniseries title "Something Is Out There". The hero, played by Joe Cortese, and the cute alien girl, played by Maryam D'Abo, are on her spaceship with a ravening, shape shifting monster.

Cortese: We have to activate the self destruct.
D'Abo: The what now?
Cortese: The self destruct, you know, to blow up the ship.
D'Abo: Why would anyone want to do that?
Cortese: All spaceships have a self destruct!
D'Abo: Do any of your submarines or aircraft carriers have something like that?
Cortese: No, but...
D'Abo: So why should ours?
Cortese: Because you carry things like that monster!
D'Abo: Good point...

 

[leo knight]

Blowing up a fusion plant to vaporise the ship is not an option.

As soon as the fusion material can expand out of the containment chamber it cools and stops fusing. You still have a really hot plasma in your engineering compartment, but probably not enough to blow the ship to pieces.

I just googled "fusion temperatures", and saw temperatures from 50 to 100 million degrees! What if a suicidal engineer does something to release the hot plasma from the reactor into the ship, and opens all the emergency hatches so it fills the ship? I assume the plasma would cool as it disperses, but still...millions of degrees to start with? And high pressure as well. It might not vaporize the ship, but would probably liquefy parts of it. Or just make them really crispy.

 

[navywarlord]

Or, put another way:



One thing to remember about "blowing the powerplant" is that it always requires some method of bypassing the normal systems or procedures. You have to turn off the failsafes or throw a special switch (which usually requires more than one person to operate, or some sequence of actions).

Remembering the movie "Alien", didn't Ripley have a long procedure to follow in order to blow the ship's reactor? When she tried to turn it off, she had past the point of no return.
(Should probably pull the movie and watch it again)