What happens to all that debris?

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:If there is a compensator failure, in all likelihood it would happen under battle conditions. Under battle conditions the reactor's output would be at maximum power generation sending huge amounts of power through the system so it would be readily available for use. If power hungry systems are shut down then the reactor's output needs to be dialed back. Bad things happen when huge amounts of excess power is being fed through the grid. If everyone is goo, there's nobody around to coddle the reactor.

Though a reactor isn't exactly a hand stoked steam boiler. The moment to moment control is going to be handled by automated systems; as well as having automated safety systems to attempt to protect against unsafe operating conditions. So unless battle damage disrupts them the reactor's automatic controls should prevent it from running away or providing excess power after demand drops (and ships have huge amounts of capacitors to shunt that excess power into while throttling back reactor output. Though depending on exactly what happens, and how they're programmed to respond, the automated control systems may end up protecting the reactor by performing a safe shutdown of it (especially when they aren't getting human response to alarms).


That said, baring a perfect golden BB that hits it, compensator failures are very, very, rare even when warships are pushed beyond the normal safe operating limit for them.

Only 2 RMN ships are known to be lost to comp failure. the Queen Adrienne (Royal Yacht) in the 1640s due to an assassination attempt, and the King Rodger III at BoMa due to battle damage.

Comp failures in 1640 were considered so rare, that when the best maintained ship in the Kingdom had the failure, it was immediately considered sabotage. (and rightfully so)

cthia wrote:No, it isn't a steam boiler. It is much more dangerous than that. I considered an auto-shutdown, and I can readily accept that some form of that happens under normal battle conditions, but managing power distribution of a reactor to all mains and subsystems is a finely tuned process simply not meant for automated systems that are not recommended for auto shutdown. Auto-shutdown is desired under very specific conditions. You wouldn't want a computer deciding to cut all power under battle conditions.

Plus, if the reactor is shut down, what powers the necessary subsystems like rad shielding for the smaller debris and whatever system handles the larger debris - at maximum military power. Power has to be finely nuanced and rerouted by a real person. It isn't something meant, or designed, for total computer control.

In the case of an SD, it has 4-6 reactors, and hundreds, if not thousands of capacitor rings storing plasma. Some are dedicated to subsystems, others are part of the main power grid. David originally said that the energy cost to bring up a wedge is too high for the reactors - capacitors are required to provide the initial kick. So just the main storage capacitors hold many times more energy than all the ship's reactors can provide in a unit time Even if all the reactors scrammed, the main capacitors would still retain alot of power in them without rerouting power from the sub-system specific capacitors.

Assuming all the reactor did fail, without the wedge and major systems running, it would probably take several days (to several weeks) to drain the main capacitors just running life support and the deflection systems.

Theemile wrote:

cthia wrote:No, it isn't a steam boiler. It is much more dangerous than that. I considered an auto-shutdown, and I can readily accept that some form of that happens under normal battle conditions, but managing power distribution of a reactor to all mains and subsystems is a finely tuned process simply not meant for automated systems that are not recommended for auto shutdown. Auto-shutdown is desired under very specific conditions. You wouldn't want a computer deciding to cut all power under battle conditions.

Plus, if the reactor is shut down, what powers the necessary subsystems like rad shielding for the smaller debris and whatever system handles the larger debris - at maximum military power. Power has to be finely nuanced and rerouted by a real person. It isn't something meant, or designed, for total computer control.

In the case of an SD, it has 4-6 reactors, and hundreds, if not thousands of capacitor rings storing plasma. Some are dedicated to subsystems, others are part of the main power grid. David originally said that the energy cost to bring up a wedge is too high for the reactors - capacitors are required to provide the initial kick. So just the main storage capacitors hold many times more energy than all the ship's reactors can provide in a unit time Even if all the reactors scrammed, the main capacitors would still retain alot of power in them without rerouting power from the sub-system specific capacitors.

Assuming all the reactor did fail, without the wedge and major systems running, it would probably take several days (to several weeks) to drain the main capacitors just running life support and the deflection systems.

The extra reactors are only going to delay the inevitable. If one reactor is shut down the other reactors are going to attempt to maintain the requested load. A requested load that is no longer viable. Which means they will be taxing the system and eventually cut out as well, on and on. The entire process is simply not meant for unattended operation. There is a reason someone is always babysitting the reactors.

cthia wrote:No, it isn't a steam boiler. It is much more dangerous than that. I considered an auto-shutdown, and I can readily accept that some form of that happens under normal battle conditions, but managing power distribution of a reactor to all mains and subsystems is a finely tuned process simply not meant for automated systems that are not recommended for auto shutdown. Auto-shutdown is desired under very specific conditions. You wouldn't want a computer deciding to cut all power under battle conditions.

Plus, if the reactor is shut down, what powers the necessary subsystems like rad shielding for the smaller debris and whatever system handles the larger debris - at maximum military power. Power has to be finely nuanced and rerouted by a real person. It isn't something meant, or designed, for total computer control.

Theemile wrote:In the case of an SD, it has 4-6 reactors, and hundreds, if not thousands of capacitor rings storing plasma. Some are dedicated to subsystems, others are part of the main power grid. David originally said that the energy cost to bring up a wedge is too high for the reactors - capacitors are required to provide the initial kick.

I can believe that, but I wonder if David's explanation is somewhat misleading. I'm not certain the cost to bring up a wedge is too much for the reactors, per se. I would guess it is too much for the reactors' normal operating output. Which is tied to my insistence that warm bodies are needed to constantly regulate power production and distribution.

Supercapacitors are preferred because they accept a discharge/recharge cycle many times over without degrading performance. But they are short term power sources. Another advantage of capacitors and why they are used aboard ships is they provide burst mode power delivery. Which is what David is alluding to.

Again, I'm not sure the reactors aren't capable of powering up a wedge. Just not in their standard configuration without jumping through hoops. And probably not as safely as the plasma capacitors.

Theemile wrote:So just the main storage capacitors hold many times more energy than all the ship's reactors can provide in a unit time Even if all the reactors scrammed, the main capacitors would still retain alot of power in them without rerouting power from the sub-system specific capacitors.

That might be the true if warm bodies are there to manage the distribution. Capacitors are relatively short term peak power resources. They are also charged very quickly, but they need to be, because they can discharge quickly as well. Especially if their power usage is not managed. If all reactors shut down, the capacitors may try to maintain the last requested load. Which will discharge them very quickly.

Theemile wrote:Assuming all the reactor did fail, without the wedge and major systems running, it would probably take several days (to several weeks) to drain the main capacitors just running life support and the deflection systems.

See above. That might be true if someone is there to oversee the process and budget power usage and tell the dumb capacitors not to attempt to maintain the last requested load. The capacitors will discharge very quickly if they are sending huge amounts of power thru the grids as last requested, which is wasted in dissipated heat and fried circuits.

Theemile wrote:In the case of an SD, it has 4-6 reactors, and hundreds, if not thousands of capacitor rings storing plasma. Some are dedicated to subsystems, others are part of the main power grid. David originally said that the energy cost to bring up a wedge is too high for the reactors - capacitors are required to provide the initial kick. So just the main storage capacitors hold many times more energy than all the ship's reactors can provide in a unit time Even if all the reactors scrammed, the main capacitors would still retain alot of power in them without rerouting power from the sub-system specific capacitors.

Assuming all the reactor did fail, without the wedge and major systems running, it would probably take several days (to several weeks) to drain the main capacitors just running life support and the deflection systems.

The energy required to bring up the wedge must be achievable by the reactors. They can't sustain the required power (energy / time). So the reactors build up a charge in the capacitors, which are drained in order to bring the wedge up.

Which means I don't see any reason why those capacitors would remain charged after the wedge is brought up. A charged high-energy capacitor is a danger. Especially if it is full of plasma. Keeping them charged probably also reduces their useful life.

Ok, I take that back. I can see one reason: under battle conditions, you may want to be able to restart your wedge if it gets somehow knocked out. You don't want to wait for half an hour to trickle-charge the capacitors while trying to flee an enemy... which you aren't doing since you have no wedge in the first place. And if your ship is damaged, you may not even have all reactors running at full output or have the power distribution system at 100%, so may not be able to charge capacitors until you effect repairs.

The remaining question would be if you keep the capacitors charged while not under battle conditions. If you know you're going into battle, you can charge the capacitors ahead of time and ride the whole battle charged -- and maybe the capacitors help in charging missiles' capacitors too. But this would be a problem if battle surprises you, unless David decides that once you have the wedge up, you can extract energy from the Alpha band via the wedge and recharge the capacitors very quickly.

Note that if this latter were possible, you'd have limitless free energy. Bring up a wedge, extract energy from Alpha, power everything. No need to run fusion reactors for most things. In fact, most (civilian) ships wouldn't even have reactors: you'd start your wedge while attached to a capacitor bank and then never let it go down. Of course, you can already do that on a planet by accelerating water uphill and powering a hydroelectric plant.

cthia wrote:See above. That might be true if someone is there to oversee the process and budget power usage and tell the dumb capacitors not to attempt to maintain the last requested load. The capacitors will discharge very quickly if they are sending huge amounts of power thru the grids as last requested, which is wasted in dissipated heat and fried circuits.

Why wouldn't the automation be able to adjust the power balance? Reduce the reaction rate to match the power consumption. You don't need humans for that. In fact, you don't want humans to do that, the automation can react much more quickly to avoid overloads and "underloads."

Similarly, if reactors scram, the automation should start shutting down secondary systems to conserve resources. The human is not going to control each individual system any way, they're going to usually select from a very short menu of options, based on the operational needs: is the ship trying to flee or is it trying to fight back? The human is there to override the default choices, when the captain calls engineering with "Scotty, more power to the engines!" Or to make unsafe choices, like venting plasma because the heat exchangers can't cope with the load.

So, no, I don't see why a ship would tear itself apart if there are no humans aboard. It's perfectly able to select the course of action to preserve itself, provided that's what it is programmed to and provided that it's not damaged beyond repair anyway.

cthia wrote:The extra reactors are only going to delay the inevitable. If one reactor is shut down the other reactors are going to attempt to maintain the requested load. A requested load that is no longer viable. Which means they will be taxing the system and eventually cut out as well, on and on. The entire process is simply not meant for unattended operation. There is a reason someone is always babysitting the reactors.

SD's specifically carry excess reactors so they can fight unimpaired with at least one shut down.

If it needs the output of 4 reactors to manage its max combat power loads (with the massive super-conducting plasma capacitors providing start-up surge and instantaneous draw requirements) they'll install at least 5 reactors of that same output so they can normally run all 5 at no more than 80% output; if 1 goes down the other 4 can ramp up to as much as 100% of their specified normal output and collectively are providing exactly as much power to the grid as before.

You need at least two reactors shut down before an SD has to start shedding load.

(And at that the SD in some ways could be argued to have less redundant than the DD HMS Fearless had. She's got the exact same requirement for full combat power output while down 1 reactor; but only has room to carry a pair. So her entire 2nd reactor is there just for combat survivability and power redundancy.)

cthia wrote:See above. That might be true if someone is there to oversee the process and budget power usage and tell the dumb capacitors not to attempt to maintain the last requested load. The capacitors will discharge very quickly if they are sending huge amounts of power thru the grids as last requested, which is wasted in dissipated heat and fried circuits.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Why wouldn't the automation be able to adjust the power balance? Reduce the reaction rate to match the power consumption.

It can adjust the power balance, but it does it in a generic fashion that will almost always be counterproductive to specific needs even in time of peace. The problem is not always the reaction rate. And the problem isn't always the power consumption. The problem is that, mostly, the power consumption in battle is the same (or increases), but the power itself needs to be rerouted around damaged access points and junctions. The power distribution needs to be nuanced, finessed. It is a finely tuned orchestra.

It is much like water distribution to a city. It will never be designed for total computer control. The demand for water pressure (vs power in this scenario) may outweigh the need to shut down pumping stations (reactors) to decrease water pressure because of busted 16 inch mains that is shooting water up into the middle of a street. You don't want your software making that call at that point in time because firefighters just might happen to be battling a five alarm blaze in that same section of the city. So, the decision becomes, shut down the necessary pumping stations to reduce water pressure to prevent the geyser and loss of water in the middle of Fifth Street, or temporarily put up with the geyser and loss of water in favor of water pressure until the raging battle against fire (or firepower in our case) is complete. The point is that an AI is not a substitute for a lifeform in decisions that are a matter of life or death. So you never design them to be such because you intend to always have warm bodies on tap (pardon the pun.)

ThinksMarkedly wrote:You don't need humans for that. In fact, you don't want humans to do that, the automation can react much more quickly to avoid overloads and "underloads."

The quickness of the decision may bite you in the ass. Even during black&white moments when the reactor needs ejecting.


So, uh uh, the reverse is true. You don't want the software making that call in matters of life or death! In a raging battle with firepower in the middle of a space opera is life or death! Humans need to make the big calls, and you can bet that is how it will be designed onboard ships. Software simply cannot decide that certain "risks" are more acceptable to the alternative. Humans may decide that in any particular scenario the ship is less important than the battle, that the crew is less important than the honor of the Queen, and that safety is the last thing to be concerned with. Death before dishonor! You can not program those decision banks into molycircs, and you'd be a fool to try. And, since compensator failure is "supposedly" a rare thing anyway. Why would you even try? But the true question becomes, since you need people aboard ships, why not use them and design with their decision making abilities and needs in mind?

You can only design black or white decision making capabilities into a reactor used aboard a warship, minus the gray areas that need to be decided by gray matter.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Similarly, if reactors scram, the automation should start shutting down secondary systems to conserve resources.

Negative good buddy! That is another black or white decision that is really gray. You don't want the reactor to start shutting down any systems in the middle of a battle. Even secondary systems that may be in use by the crew who are trying to get the mains back on line to fire grasers!

The reactor will be programmed for black & white operation only! These are warships, not homes worried about maintaining power to the HD TV in the middle of your favorite show. In fact, even in black and white situations that the programming can handle, it still defaults to a human. Instead of ejecting the core immediately, the computer will be programmed to give a countdown. Recall when Santos?, the more experienced gray matter aboard Fearless, had to make the decision to bypass certain stages and eject the core.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The human is not going to control each individual system any way, they're going to usually select from a very short menu of options, based on the operational needs: is the ship trying to flee or is it trying to fight back? The human is there to override the default choices, when the captain calls engineering with "Scotty, more power to the engines!" Or to make unsafe choices, like venting plasma because the heat exchangers can't cope with the load.

All true when the ship is at general quarters. The equation changes at the sound of the klaxon signaling red alert when every warm body hustles to his duty station ready to become a well-oiled cog in the bigger decision making process, like venting plasma. Or choosing to NOT vent plasma because for whatever reason it is not recommended by the current situation.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:So, no, I don't see why a ship would tear itself apart if there are no humans aboard. It's perfectly able to select the course of action to preserve itself, provided that's what it is programmed to and provided that it's not damaged beyond repair anyway.

I'm certain the system can handle canned responses to canned scenarios, but you can't design for situations which are not canned, and since you rely on gray matter to make the decisions, you design for gray matter to make the decisions. If there is no gray matter around, the point is moot.

But!

Even the canned-response-mode has to be selected. Compensator failures are instantaneous, prohibiting prior selection.

The reactor's job is not to ponder why. The reactor's job is but to do, or die.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:The extra reactors are only going to delay the inevitable. If one reactor is shut down the other reactors are going to attempt to maintain the requested load. A requested load that is no longer viable. Which means they will be taxing the system and eventually cut out as well, on and on. The entire process is simply not meant for unattended operation. There is a reason someone is always babysitting the reactors.

SD's specifically carry excess reactors so they can fight unimpaired with at least one shut down.

If it needs the output of 4 reactors to manage its max combat power loads (with the massive super-conducting plasma capacitors providing start-up surge and instantaneous draw requirements) they'll install at least 5 reactors of that same output so they can normally run all 5 at no more than 80% output; if 1 goes down the other 4 can ramp up to as much as 100% of their specified normal output and collectively are providing exactly as much power to the grid as before.

You need at least two reactors shut down before an SD has to start shedding load.

(And at that the SD in some ways could be argued to have less redundant than the DD HMS Fearless had. She's got the exact same requirement for full combat power output while down 1 reactor; but only has room to carry a pair. So her entire 2nd reactor is there just for combat survivability and power redundancy.)

That is the opposite of what we are discussing - that of having too many reactors continuing to send huge amounts of power into a system whose power demands have abruptly changed from what was manually requested. We're talking about having too many reactors online, as opposed to not enough. Although the opposite may be the inevitable outcome, if the ship survives. It won't, unless the handwavium capacitors are fully charged as well.

Theemile wrote:In the case of an SD, it has 4-6 reactors, and hundreds, if not thousands of capacitor rings storing plasma. Some are dedicated to subsystems, others are part of the main power grid. David originally said that the energy cost to bring up a wedge is too high for the reactors - capacitors are required to provide the initial kick. So just the main storage capacitors hold many times more energy than all the ship's reactors can provide in a unit time Even if all the reactors scrammed, the main capacitors would still retain alot of power in them without rerouting power from the sub-system specific capacitors.

Assuming all the reactor did fail, without the wedge and major systems running, it would probably take several days (to several weeks) to drain the main capacitors just running life support and the deflection systems.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The energy required to bring up the wedge must be achievable by the reactors. They can't sustain the required power (energy / time). So the reactors build up a charge in the capacitors, which are drained in order to bring the wedge up.

Agreed. You don't want to be stranded somewhere because there's no other ship around that has jumping cables and can give you a jump. LOL

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Which means I don't see any reason why those capacitors would remain charged after the wedge is brought up. A charged high-energy capacitor is a danger. Especially if it is full of plasma. Keeping them charged probably also reduces their useful life.

Ok, I take that back. I can see one reason: under battle conditions, you may want to be able to restart your wedge if it gets somehow knocked out. You don't want to wait for half an hour to trickle-charge the capacitors while trying to flee an enemy... which you aren't doing since you have no wedge in the first place. And if your ship is damaged, you may not even have all reactors running at full output or have the power distribution system at 100%, so may not be able to charge capacitors until you effect repairs.

Another reason - perhaps the main reason they are used in the first place - is for quickly available high bursts of power. Like deployong all grasers at their fastest rate of fire.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The remaining question would be if you keep the capacitors charged while not under battle conditions. If you know you're going into battle, you can charge the capacitors ahead of time and ride the whole battle charged -- and maybe the capacitors help in charging missiles' capacitors too. But this would be a problem if battle surprises you, unless David decides that once you have the wedge up, you can extract energy from the Alpha band via the wedge and recharge the capacitors very quickly.

I've never known capacitors to be used in any system and not kept fully charged. That would be defeating the purpose of having these very expensive devices.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Note that if this latter were possible, you'd have limitless free energy. Bring up a wedge, extract energy from Alpha, power everything. No need to run fusion reactors for most things. In fact, most (civilian) ships wouldn't even have reactors: you'd start your wedge while attached to a capacitor bank and then never let it go down. Of course, you can already do that on a planet by accelerating water uphill and powering a hydroelectric plant.

Perpetual energy, the holy grail of man's inventions. Achieved only by handwavium, the god-particle.