Help! M-drive protection from micrometeors: source?

[Black Vulmea]

Somewhere in CT is a reference to maneuver drives protecting starships from micrometeors; I thought it was in BeltStrike but I'm striking out - pun intended - locating it.

Does this sound familiar to anyone, and if so, do you recall the source?

 

[Rupert]

It does sound familiar, but I'm damned if I can recall or find the source.

 

[mike wightman]

It is in Beltstrike.

Folder 1 page 2:

"Ships under power are not affected - part of the M-drive generates a low-power screen against radiation and meteorite impact - but a power failure during approach within about a million kilometers of the gas giant would be fatal."

 

[Black Vulmea]

It is in Beltstrike.

Thank you!

I searched my .pdf with "micrometeor" and "meteoroid." "Meteorite" or even just "meteor" never crossed my mind.

I thought I was losing [more of] my mind [than I already have].

 

[whartung]

"Ships under power are not affected - part of the M-drive generates a low-power screen against radiation and meteorite impact - but a power failure during approach within about a million kilometers of the gas giant would be fatal."

Well that makes combat at the High Guard position particularly interesting. Break the power plant/M-Drive on a ship and it, essentially, disintegrates due to local particulates at speed.

 

[mike wightman]

I would imagine the protective screen breaks down at the same time as the acceleration compensation and the artificial gravity...

and so long as you are not in a gas giant's radiation belt or ring system you likely wouldn't need to worry too much about background radiation or particulates.

 

[kilemall]

Hmm interesting. I had postulated deflection tech as a micro version of CT HG repulsors. But I also figure the m drive is powerful enough to diffuse typical heat/EMF and other EM ephemera which explains the relatively short ranges CT sensors have. So why not.

MDrives are awfully easy to destroy in smaller ships and craft. That Beltstrike line makes it worse.

Another side gopher hole is how fast you can safely go and not be affected by micrometeorites. At some point there has to be an upper velocity limit beyond which here be kinetic dragons.

 

[whartung]

Another side gopher hole is how fast you can safely go and not be affected by micrometeorites.

Well that's the key point, sorta.

The issue that I mention is simply that if the power/drive goes down, and the ship is going fast enough "within 1Mkm of a Gas Giant" (i.e. High Guard) then the ship loses its shielding and gets shredded by micro meteorites. It's a rare case to be sure, but can sure make SDBs coming out of the clouds perhaps a little bit more scary.

Just visualizing some large cruiser being transformed into a streaming fireball moments after you see the drive flare hit to the stern and the soft glow that normally surrounds the ship suddenly winks out!

 

[mike wightman]

How many of our spacecraft have ever been lost to micrometeor impact? The various probes sent to Jupiter, Saturn?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well that makes combat at the High Guard position particularly interesting. Break the power plant/M-Drive on a ship and it, essentially, disintegrates due to local particulates at speed.

Well ... not instantly ...
It's not like the M-Drive powers down and the craft just SHREDS in seconds from micrometeorite impacts.

Furthermore ... think about what the baseline armor thickness is for starship hulls @ Armor: 0.
According to Striker ... it's Armor Rating: 40 (33.6cm/13.228 inches of Hardened Steel).

Micrometeorites will make "pockmarks" in hull materials rated at that thickness ... but I wouldn't expect penetration or outright structural failure to result.

Now ... leave a craft in such an orbit for a decade (or more) ... and it might look like there's been some outer hull "sandblasting" going on.
But I wouldn't expect a catastrophic collision to happen within ... the first few hours ... after the M-Drive loses power.

Short term, unlikely.
Long term ... the dice rolls for "Bad Stuff™" opportunities just keep stacking up ... until ...



If it happens (and you survive), might want to divert for an annual overhaul maintenance cycle "quickly" rather than delay it ...

 

[whulorigan]

But you also need to consider the relative-system velocity an M-Drive achieves by the time it reaches mid-point roll-over. That is MUCH larger than a modern NASA "coasting" probe, or even one with an Ion engine. An M-Drive takes anywhere between 1-10 days to go anywhere within a star system, depending on typical distances and Drive Rating. By comparison, a NASA probe takes years.

 

[whulorigan]

... I had postulated deflection tech as a micro version of CT HG repulsors. But I also figure the m drive is powerful enough to diffuse typical heat/EMF and other EM ephemera which explains the relatively short ranges CT sensors have.

Another side gopher hole is how fast you can safely go and not be affected by micrometeorites. At some point there has to be an upper velocity limit beyond which here be kinetic dragons.

I had assumed this as well. An "astrogational deflector", not suitable for tactical use, but sufficient to deflect micrometeoroid trajectories as part of the standard Astrionics system (or perhaps standard for M-Drives rated above a certain value, such as M3+).


Note that this also might be part of the resolution of the dilemma of high-fraction-of-c velocity world impactors.

 

[bookwyrm]

Thanks for the thread everyone. I had read of this somewhere long ago and forgotten it. Recently, it has been on my mind, and it's been very bothersome, especially considering the thickness of hulls versus the speed of ships against foreign objects in its path. Good to know about an aspect of M Drives I'd forgotten about and can now breath a sigh of relief when travelling between planets and stars. And also another thing that can go wrong!

 

[Black Vulmea]

And also another thing that can go wrong!

This came up in my BeltStrike campaign, which is why I was searching for the reference - I wanted to see the exact wording.

 

[Enoki]

I would think that given the armor rating of the hull, along with a need for some sort of insulation to help regulate the ship's internal temperature, that those alone would be sufficient for quite a bit of radiation and to deal with micrometeorites on a short-term basis. I could see this combo reducing say 500 rem (deadly) to .5 rem on its own--equivalent of 12" of lead plate. That would be sufficient in most cases to give the crew time to fix the problem before they all were glowing in the dark...

 

[ShapeShifter]

I wonder if that idea came from the "meteor rejector" device from Planet of the Vampires...

 

[kilemall]

I would think that given the armor rating of the hull, along with a need for some sort of insulation to help regulate the ship's internal temperature, that those alone would be sufficient for quite a bit of radiation and to deal with micrometeorites on a short-term basis. I could see this combo reducing say 500 rem (deadly) to .5 rem on its own--equivalent of 12" of lead plate. That would be sufficient in most cases to give the crew time to fix the problem before they all were glowing in the dark...

You could also consider fuel as a radiation barrier. Wrap the hull with a layer of fuel tank and it should provide protection. This measure has been considered for long term missions.

 

[Enoki]

You could also consider fuel as a radiation barrier. Wrap the hull with a layer of fuel tank and it should provide protection. This measure has been considered for long term missions.

There you need about 24 to 36 inches of fuel, depending on what that fuel is, to get a 90% reduction in radiation. At 500 rem (deadly) you're down to 5 rem (manageable for at least a few weeks but dangerous long-term).

Note: Old school on the units of measure here rather than the now more popular greys and becquerels. Rem has the advantage of being a direct measure of the danger of radiation to people in simple, understandable, units of measure.