Ejecting the Power Plant
- Thread starter kilmore
- Start date
I don't recall that ever coming up, nor do I recall any rules for a PP going critical and needing to be ejected. but I never played alot with ship combat. If such rules exist can someone point me to them?
R
Sure - a ship can eject a warp core... er... 
o:
Most deckplans don't look like they would accommodate this, nor does the description in CT, IIRC, as the PP is part of the 'engineering spaces' and generally co-located inside the hull with the drives and without doors.
With fusion plants, there is no chance of a run-away reaction - just some rad exposure and contaminant risks. PPs (and hulls) are pretty expensive, so can't really see this in the 'feel' of the rules/setting. YMMV.
o:Most deckplans don't look like they would accommodate this, nor does the description in CT, IIRC, as the PP is part of the 'engineering spaces' and generally co-located inside the hull with the drives and without doors.
With fusion plants, there is no chance of a run-away reaction - just some rad exposure and contaminant risks. PPs (and hulls) are pretty expensive, so can't really see this in the 'feel' of the rules/setting. YMMV.
Not if the Fusion PP is cracked and
(1) won't sustain a reaction
(2) can't contain the reaction (melting the rest of the PP and ending the reaction)
(3) releases more energy than one would be exposed to aboard the lifeboat.
Tho in most such cases, the best bet is simply to live in the life boat without launching it...
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
While I couldn't begin to tell you what might go wrong with a starship power plant I severely....SEVERELY.... doubt that the design would be so dangerous or unstable that the mass ejection of tens to thousands of tons of plant would ever be a concern. Instead, I would expect that the norm would be some sort of fail safe setting that shuts it down reasonably safely.
I would never use Hollywood as a mile stone for what was going to happen in virtually any situation.
I would never use Hollywood as a mile stone for what was going to happen in virtually any situation.
Always seen lifeboats as useful only for certain situations. Like:
From another recent thread - one could also add: abandoning ship to avoid face eating aliens! (a variant on avoid capture)
- life support when the ship's environment is dangerous
- going somewhere when the ship can't (i.e. dirtside)
- getting away from a ship that can't maneuver out of harms way
- avoiding capture
- getting off the ship one plans to self-destruct (ordinance preferred)
From another recent thread - one could also add: abandoning ship to avoid face eating aliens! (a variant on avoid capture)
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
The problem with ejecting your powerplant is that without power, you can't get very far from it. It will just float along with you on almost the same vector you are on unless you have some sort of rocket system to move you or it away.
You want to get away from a leaky reactor core or a runaway reaction, you need something that can really put some distance between you and it very quickly.
You want to get away from a leaky reactor core or a runaway reaction, you need something that can really put some distance between you and it very quickly.
Would presume that 'eject' implies some form of limited propulsion - would still likely be on same general vector, but with an added component to provide some quick separation.
Again, don't see a massive explosion (enough to make ejecting PP reasonable) for a fusion PP - and, except for meson attacks, combat damage involves an associated hull breach and exposure anyway - so distance would not need to be all that great as hull would protect from most expanding debris.
If PP is designed to be ejected, a backup or emergency PP would be prudent.
Game mechanic-wise - is there some version of Traveller that supports a fusion (or other) PP 'blowing up' and requiring lifeboats primarily for that purpose?
Again, don't see a massive explosion (enough to make ejecting PP reasonable) for a fusion PP - and, except for meson attacks, combat damage involves an associated hull breach and exposure anyway - so distance would not need to be all that great as hull would protect from most expanding debris.
If PP is designed to be ejected, a backup or emergency PP would be prudent.
Game mechanic-wise - is there some version of Traveller that supports a fusion (or other) PP 'blowing up' and requiring lifeboats primarily for that purpose?
No, not really.
Now, there are design sequences which provide for fission PP's... (MT, TNE/T4 FF&S, MGT)
And Antimatter PP's (MT, TNE/T4, T20, MGT)...
both of which have very real potential to go "BOOM!", even if the rules don't include that possibility.
Odds are any damage sufficient to trigger the "KABOOM" will trigger it pretty much immediately. The Eject is unlikely to matter.
saundby
SOC-14 1K
IOW, it's sort of an "auto-eject".
Needs a lawyer tag: "In case of power plant malfunction, kiss your--oh, too late."
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I agree that a normal fusion plant is unlikely to need an eject feature.
The principal raison d'etre for a lifeboat is to reach safety from an immobile ship, or one whose vector is carrying it out-system, or toward the sun, or any other situation that requires the survivors to actually move in order to reach safety.
Jump-capable lifeboats are more useful, though...
The principal raison d'etre for a lifeboat is to reach safety from an immobile ship, or one whose vector is carrying it out-system, or toward the sun, or any other situation that requires the survivors to actually move in order to reach safety.
Jump-capable lifeboats are more useful, though...
Not if someone is shooting at what's left of the hull.
Not if the slavers are boarding.
Not if the hull is a seething inferno of fire and cooking off munitions.
Not if the HEPlaR's out and you're spiralling in towards the atmosphere.
Not if all the comms on the hull have been shot away.
Not if the engineer is outside the hatchway with an x-ray welder, a wild look in his eye and chanting 'Here's Johnny!'
Not if the medic's last words were 'It eats through seals and I think it's gone airbo-argh!'
Not if the captain just ordered 'Ramming Speed!'
In case of an antimatter plant, I guess a hit on the fuel pods would be just as funny (or more) than in the PP. After all, the PP is assumed to be fed with small amounts of antimatter, while the fuel storage has all the rest of it.
That arises me another quiestion, if you all allow me to ask: In case of a non-fusion PP (AM, Fision, etc) on a jump capable ship, it has 2 kinds of fuel, the one for the PP and the hidrogen for JD. In case of fuel hits, which one is afected, or how are they distributed?
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Not if there's little chance of rescue.
I would imagine that the fuel store of fission fuel or antimatter would be tiny compared with the Jump fuel (if you subscribe to the idea that they are different). The chances of hitting a reactor fuel pellet would be negligible.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
For what it's worth, in mtu the jump capacitors are the only drive eject-able feature:
On command (aka scuttling the ship - no jump possible - prevents pirates from absconding with the ship - therefore pirates demand cargo knowing they won't get the ship*)
Automatically in case of an overload and imminent explosion (e.g. in mtu holding the jump charge too long without committing to the jump can overload the jump capacitors, and the explosion would be catastrophic in the hull, survivable if ejected)
* except through hi-jack
On command (aka scuttling the ship - no jump possible - prevents pirates from absconding with the ship - therefore pirates demand cargo knowing they won't get the ship*)
Automatically in case of an overload and imminent explosion (e.g. in mtu holding the jump charge too long without committing to the jump can overload the jump capacitors, and the explosion would be catastrophic in the hull, survivable if ejected)
* except through hi-jack
I agree with you in the case of AM plant (though the consequences of an AM fuel hit are so catastrofic that it should be contempled, even if only as a critical).
In the case of fision fuel, to achieve an endurance of 30 days you need 1.44 kl per kl of power plant (2 Mw, if your PP is 50 kl or higher, as surely is in any ship), so, to have a 500 Mw PP (not too large) fed for 30 days, you'd need 360 kl (26.66 dton) of fision fuel, not so negligible, IMO.
As those plants would only be used at marginal early stellar ships, only capable to jump 1 (and barely so), the volume ratio would not be so favorable to hydrogen.
As an example, a 400 dton J1 M1 (our proven fat trader) fed with fision plant needs 540 kl (40 dton) of hydrogen, and 374.4 (27.7 dton) of fisible fuel, and that's just to feed the MD for 30 days. Surely you would need some more energy to feed other systems, and each Mw the ship needs would add 0.72 kl of fisible fuel. And, as such grade radioactives are quite more difficult to obtain than hydrogen, I guess those ships would have more than 30 days endurance, unless they serve only regular routes.
IMPORTANT NOTE: all those calculations are made in MT rules. In MGT rules, the same 400 dton ship would only need 4 dton of fisibles per year (MUCH more efficient fision plants), against the 40 dton of hydrogen per jump. In CT, AFAIK there are no rules for fision PP, and I cannot talk about other rules sets.
Last edited:
The effects of an AM plant hit are, quite simply, a decent tac-nuke going off in Engineering. If you survive the cook-off, you're relatively safe. But you're not gonna get off between drive hit causing failure and drive detonation most of the time.
In MGT, It's not huge amounts of AM, so there's no "fuel pod" to hit. The AM is stored in part of the AM-PP.
Fission plants are pretty similar; the fuel is stored IN the drive. On the other hand, most Fission PP failures are either slow cool-off or a rapid cook to melt-down. There are 2 basic reactor designs, and they react VERY differently.
Graphite Moderated Reactors are the old-School. The moderator rods absorb the neutron flow essential to reaction. If something happens to the coolant, they tend to cook off. If the rods break, they tend to cook off. Crush them, they can go boom, but it requires getting all the fuel crushed together without the rods.
Catalyzed Fission Reactors are relatively new. They work by a liquid metal catalyst circulating and enhancing neutron flow between fuel components (IIUC, by neutron cascade). When they leak, the catalyst escapes, and the neutron flow drops, and so does the working temperature. (Likewise, in an overheat, it boils off into a container, again slowing, and reducing to a safe level.) Again, crush all the fuel together, and you might get a boom.
Dual-mode designs could be made with both graphite Neutron absorbtion rods AND a metal catalyst, so you can cool the reaction voluntarily and damp residual radiation in standby.
The big issue with all reactors is, crack them and everyone gets a bit of glow...
In MGT, It's not huge amounts of AM, so there's no "fuel pod" to hit. The AM is stored in part of the AM-PP.
Fission plants are pretty similar; the fuel is stored IN the drive. On the other hand, most Fission PP failures are either slow cool-off or a rapid cook to melt-down. There are 2 basic reactor designs, and they react VERY differently.
Graphite Moderated Reactors are the old-School. The moderator rods absorb the neutron flow essential to reaction. If something happens to the coolant, they tend to cook off. If the rods break, they tend to cook off. Crush them, they can go boom, but it requires getting all the fuel crushed together without the rods.
Catalyzed Fission Reactors are relatively new. They work by a liquid metal catalyst circulating and enhancing neutron flow between fuel components (IIUC, by neutron cascade). When they leak, the catalyst escapes, and the neutron flow drops, and so does the working temperature. (Likewise, in an overheat, it boils off into a container, again slowing, and reducing to a safe level.) Again, crush all the fuel together, and you might get a boom.
Dual-mode designs could be made with both graphite Neutron absorbtion rods AND a metal catalyst, so you can cool the reaction voluntarily and damp residual radiation in standby.
The big issue with all reactors is, crack them and everyone gets a bit of glow...
Similar threads
