Non-standard ways to kill a Trek ship

[Admiral_K]

For comparison, what would be the probable effect of a hand gun against a modern nuclear reactor, as would be found on a nuclear powered sub or carrier?

Would effect would firing a weapon with power equivalent to a phasor at it?

[Darth Wong]

None. A modern nuclear reactor is heavily shielded and strongly built, and would not be affected by handgun bullets. Phasers would have little or no effect on its metallic structure or its massively steel-reinforced concrete containment building (and yes, I've seen one up close; I'm not making this up).

[Sea Skimmer]

The pipes on a reactor would probably deflect 7.62-rifle fire. The core its self has protection measured by the meter.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have just thought of the ULTIMATE weapon:

Pictures of Jar-Jar AND Janeway.
FUCKING SICK SHIT CENSORED
Having written that, I must now barf.

BURN IT, BURN IT, MAKE IT DIE AND BURN IT!!!!!

[Darth Wong]

The pipes on a reactor would probably deflect 7.62-rifle fire. The core its self has protection measured by the meter.

You can only see a nuclear reactor core when it's under construction. Once it's complete, all you see are the multiple layers around it. The idea of an exposed reactor core a la Star Trek is inconceivably stupid.

[Darth Wong]

And what about the glass plasma coolant containers on the sides of the reactor? What the fuck?

Go into a real nuclear power plant and look at the massive pipes, where a fucking valve weighs 5 tons (no handgun bullet penetration there), and then ask how a Federation "engineer" could design a fluid storage system for highly dangerous substances in a container so fragile that Data can break it without ripping the fabric on his uniform.

[Sea Skimmer]

The pipes on a reactor would probably deflect 7.62-rifle fire. The core its self has protection measured by the meter.

You can only see a nuclear reactor core when it's under construction. Once it's complete, all you see are the multiple layers around it. The idea of an exposed reactor core a la Star Trek is inconceivably stupid.

Even the graphite piles of crap the Soviets built had several feet of concrete and steel around them. Hell it took hours for the Russians technicians to get Chernobyl's reactor 4 into a state in which it could have its steam explosion. Federation warp cores could be induced to explode with a single motion.

Even the graphite piles of crap the Soviets built had several feet of concrete and steel around them. Hell it took hours for the Russians technicians to get Chernobyl's reactor 4 into a state in which it could have its steam explosion. Federation warp cores could be induced to explode with a single motion.

I'd say the only reactors and associated equipment on earth that even approach the danger levels of Federation warp cores are the plutonium production ones at Chelyabinsk. And even then only one of those blew ever blew up.

[Sea Skimmer]

And what about the glass plasma coolant containers on the sides of the reactor? What the fuck?

Go into a real nuclear power plant and look at the massive pipes, where a fucking valve weighs 5 tons (no handgun bullet penetration there), and then ask how a Federation "engineer" could design a fluid storage system for highly dangerous substances in a container so fragile that Data can break it without ripping the fabric on his uniform.

Stupidity breeds more of its kind. In this case I'd say we where on hundredth generation.

What's really amusing is that in Nemesis they actually had a force field activated to protect the reactor and piping. The first Romulan salvo knocked it out of action...

As I just noted, only rush jobs by the Soviets in the 40's can even come close to being as unsafe as Federation cores. And despite producing the most contaminated spot on the plaet there still less prone to catastrophic failure then the cores of the Galaxy class.

[Enlightenment]

None. A modern nuclear reactor is heavily shielded and strongly built, and would not be affected by handgun bullets. Phasers would have little or no effect on its metallic structure or its massively steel-reinforced concrete containment building (and yes, I've seen one up close; I'm not making this up).

Umm, Admiral_K was asking about Rx on ships and subs rather than fixed power installations. Reactors on warships will have protection against battle damage but it's not going to be all that similar to the reactor buildings and core containment structures in generating station.

Further, even in a fixed plant, shooting instrument air lines and SCADA gear in the containment building isn't going to be healthy for either the Rx or the underwear of the unit's operators. Not quite GCS/China syndrome, but shooting out the control lines for the primary coolant loop pumps (etc) could make somewhat of a mess.


If I may ask, did you work on CANDU? One of my family members worked (draughtsman--in the days before CAD displaced paper drawings) on several of the plants around Toronto.

[The Yosemite Bear]

You know all of the evil things that starfleet does design into their ships.

I am suprised there is no "James Bond" button on it.

[Durandal]

What's really amusing is that in Nemesis they actually had a force field activated to protect the reactor and piping. The first Romulan salvo knocked it out of action...

It's almost funny, because you might think, for a few nanoseconds, before logic takes over, that the writers have heard the criticism of failsafes in Star Trek and written one in.

Except that large steel and concrete walls can't be "taken offline." Force fields can be, thus defeating the purpose of a failsafe.

[Darth Wong]

Umm, Admiral_K was asking about Rx on ships and subs rather than fixed power installations. Reactors on warships will have protection against battle damage but it's not going to be all that similar to the reactor buildings and core containment structures in generating station.

Fair enough; warship reactors would be much less heavily built than land-locked installations. Nevertheless, the structures and pipes are all much too thick to be affected by handgun fire.

Further, even in a fixed plant, shooting instrument air lines and SCADA gear in the containment building isn't going to be healthy for either the Rx or the underwear of the unit's operators. Not quite GCS/China syndrome, but shooting out the control lines for the primary coolant loop pumps (etc) could make somewhat of a mess.

Worst-case scenario is that the system SCRAMs automatically. It is virtually impossible to damage the system in such a way that it won't SCRAM, because not only will it attempt to shut down at the first sign of serious trouble, but the final fail-safe system goes active when power is CUT.

If I may ask, did you work on CANDU? One of my family members worked (draughtsman--in the days before CAD displaced paper drawings) on several of the plants around Toronto.

Yes. Darlington NGS, to be more specific. I also floated around Pickering NGS for a few months but only in a health and safety capacity.

[Greylock]

I haven’t yet worked on a nuclear plant like up in the bruce , but I was one of the contractors that worked on the Transulta Kojen plant between Sarna and Coranna last summer , and well I would really like to see someone put a bullet through the coolant lines that were put in that Kojen. Sense most of the lines I was working with doing coolant wise were 12 inch heavy wall , I cant quite remember what they were made out of but I be leave it was stainless.

Or even one of those valves we installed on the top of the turbine buildings, each were weighting in around 3 tons each.

I think its utterly idiotic how Trek completely takes the function out of the reactors or even the technology they use. Making things look all fancy and neat , because lets be honest its pretty sad looking at a chrome pipe (when its finished being baked it looks like it was corroded and has a rust red to it , though thats the way its supposed to look when it goes up to be used) compared to a transparent pipe with glowey shit running through it..

But Bah the way I would picture a reactor room in science fiction would probably be a lot less pleasing then trek.

But personally I wouldn’t like to work on any of those systems they have in the trek rooms , or even take the danger in tossing spades In one of those rooms when doing repairs which would probably get yourself killed and everyone on the ship .

[Enlightenment]

Yes. Darlington NGS, to be more specific. I also floated around Pickering NGS for a few months but only in a health and safety capacity.

Ah. You might have encountered some of my father's pipe runs, then. He worked for Ontario Hydro/OPG on Darlington, Pickering, and I think Bruce as well.

<imagines what OPG's workplace health & safety people would make of a Trek reactor... >





Returning to the original question, I posted a query in one of the naval forums about the vulnerability of naval reactors to small arms fire from within the reactor compartment. The response from the nuke techs who operate/have operated these plants was basically that the most damage anyone is going to be able to do with a firearm is cause the reactor to scram and not much else. Mission-killing the ship could be done with a well-placed satchel charge but actually damaging the core would take an unreasonably large quantity of explosives.

Original thread