Re: Damage Control and CVs

Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> > Add a small chance of a major collision (eg the
> > one with USS 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...

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
the
> desingers and builders.  3+0 years of carrier opperations help a lot
too.

Concur. In FT terms, the FSE and NAC should be relatively immune from
SML /Fighter and Fighter accidents (respectively).

> >  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)?
> 
> Depends on how big of an explosion and how low was the orbit.  Too
many
> variables to really pin.

> The only real effect would be from EMP.  A
> minor increase in background radiation won't have much of an effect.

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
> neutralize their technology.

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
things do
> exist.

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.

-- 
	      http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|	    xxxxx	Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |	xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
 abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo     oo oo	 oo  
		       By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale