> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> Hasn't Forrest Fire^h^h^h^h^h Forestal been ablize twice?
The only thing that I find amazing is the relative scarcity of disasters
aboard CVs.
Consider this: you're packing several thousand tonnes of high explosives, and
more thousand tonnes of highly inflammable jetfuel in a big steel box. Add in
either more thousand tonnes of fuel oil, or a number of really small nuclear
reactors in the same box. Then, instead of having "no flames within 100m",
have really hot aircraft components and large jets of afterburner flame on
top. Oh yes, and controlled
crashes of multi-tonne aircraft coming it at 200 kph or more. For spice,
add the near-certainty of at least one aircraft crashing into it every
year, sometimes many more. THEN instead of having it on a nice, stable patch
of ground, put it at sea where the bombs etc can roll around and fuel slosh
everywhere. Add a small chance of a major collision (eg the one with USS
Belknap). Finally, make it crewed not by a handful of
picked experts and extensive "fail-safe" automation, but 6000 or so
crew, some sick, some tired, some just plain incompetent, some not giving a
flying whatever, and some who "haven't got the word.".
It was the latter that caused the many problems with CV catastrophes in the
late 60s. Morale was in the toilet, and drug use rife.
In any event, I'd say that USN CVs are some of the toughest ships to take out
by any means. Simply because if they weren't, there'd be far fewer of them
still afloat after all these years of "peacetime" hazards. It says a lot for
the USN's standards of professionalism too.
Which leads us to things vaguely On Topic (!!). When we have several
kilotonnes of spacecraft capable of travelling at megametre/sec speeds
relative to planets, what are the peacetime safety implications? What's the
"safe distance" for orbit, so if the reactor blows, the nearby inhabited
planet remains so. (still inhabited, that is)?
On 6-Dec-99 at 22:26, Alan E and Carmel J Brain
(aebrain@dynamite.com.au)
> wrote: > Ryan M Gill wrote:
No near certainty, in the 4 years I was on the America the only thing that
crashed on deck was a helo on a milk run (yes, hauling milk) while we were at
anchor in Naples. The pilot hooked a skid on the railing because he was
hotdogging a bit. helo flipped forward, blades smacked the deck and exploded,
everyone bailed out and it fell back into the bay. Nobody hurt.
I have to agree with everything else you said though. The image of the
panicced sailor hosing gallons of water into a gaping hole in the flight deck
of the Forest Fire is scary, where I worked on CV66 was where he was dumping
the water. I understand when they recovered the boddies the data system techs
that survived the blast were killed by the water.
> In any event, I'd say that USN CVs are some of the toughest ships to
hazards.
> It says a lot for the USN's standards of professionalism too.
The reason you hear about these things much less often now is because of the
USN's damage control training. We stay afloat and steaming when most of the
rest of the world would be treading water.
You know, some of the incoming craft on my FSE carriers probably have battle
damage and everyone complains fighters are too powerful. Maybe
have any squadron that drew fire roll two dice, on 1-1 one is injured
and makes a crew quality check to avoid crashing and doing 1d6 damage?
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
Some of those 6000+ crew have the job to make sure the guys don't do
something stupid. One of my cousins was on carrier that collied with the
Belknap. It didn't distrub his sleep but the general quaters alarm after it
happened did... To help visualize what happened, take a mass 80 cruiser and
ram a mass 750 super-uper-duper-dreadnought. Belknapps displace about
8000 tons, Forestals displace 75,000 tons...
> It was the latter that caused the many problems with CV catastrophes
hazards.
> It says a lot for the USN's standards of professionalism too.
Yes, size does matter. As does professionalism, both by the crews and the
desingers and builders. 3+0 years of carrier opperations help a lot
too.
> Which leads us to things vaguely On Topic (!!). When we have several
What's
> the "safe distance" for orbit, so if the reactor blows, the nearby
Depends on how big of an explosion and how low was the orbit. Too many
variables to really pin. Unless it was a huge explosion (80+) megatons,
there would probably be only low fallout due to the lack material (compared to
a ground burst), and a hemispheric EMP burst. Not enough to really phase a
planet. Planets are huge compared to space craft. I charted out most of our
solar system and scaled it for the accepted Full Thrust scale. It is posted on
Laserlights web page. The only real effect would be from EMP.
A
minor increase in background radiation won't have much of an effect.
This gives me a great idea. How about EMP bombing enemy planets to neutralize
their technology. Iron age isn't very effective against starships. It would
require only about 8 to 12 nukes to neutralize an Earth type planet. This
would allow a very effective "planet hopping" campaign. You could even use
designer nukes optimized for EMP (And yes, such things do exist. Neutron bombs
are one type of designer nuke optimized for neutron radiation.) to minimize
the use of fissionables and the unwanted effects of general purpose nukes...
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> > Add a small chance of a major collision (eg the
> It didn't distrub his sleep but the general quaters alarm after it
Had the Belknap rammed the Forestal, rather than the other way round, it might
have been different. And had the rammee been an AO or ammunition ship, then
things could have been hectic. Also, and parenthetically, have you seen
pictures of the Belknap after the collision (and subsequent fire)? Everything
above the main deck was basically gone. I suspect that, like the Princeton
after she was mined in the Gulf, she required a "Great Repair" *
> Yes, size does matter. As does professionalism, both by the crews and
Concur. In FT terms, the FSE and NAC should be relatively immune from
SML /Fighter and Fighter accidents (respectively).
> > When we have several
What's
> > the "safe distance" for orbit, so if the reactor blows, the nearby
> The only real effect would be from EMP. A
As you say, depends on the variables. Fallout would be negligible in every
case (if significant, then the thermal and blast effects would outweigh them).
EM radiation would be another matter. Gamma all the way through to visible
light. A big enough bang close enough could well cause severe effects on the
biosphere. How big IS a reactor explosion in FT? Possibly a reasonable Rule Of
Thumb would be Mass x Megatonnes assuming a high-energy FTL drive.
Assuming more of an extraoplation from current technology, failure of
antimatter containment might be more in the order of (10s of?)kilotonnes,
virtually negligible (except to those within 10 km or
so).
But even in this case, a multi-kilotonne ship that's disabled an
re-enters at 1000 km/sec would be an unpleasant thing to do to any
planet smaller than a gas giant.
> This gives me a great idea. How about EMP bombing enemy planets to
Then again, there's a lot of EMP resistant hardware out there. Given the
general cosmic background, any space-qualified equipment is liable to be
thermally fried before it's EMP'd out. Perhaps civvy stuff "on the frontier"
might already be hardened for the voyage out (and as a civil defence measure).
> You could even use designer nukes optimized for EMP (And yes, such
Conventional EMP warheads also exist. Not difficult, makes use of MHD effects.
Russkis have been doing it for years, some of their weapons are designed to
initiate kms away. Even EMP hardened gear will reset if hit by a big enough
lightning bolt.
* Great Repair. Replace every piece of equipment, hull, engines etc on board
except for the nameplate. This is a bit of an exaggeration, but
not much in some cases - eg USN Monitors circa 1880 IIRC.