What Are Realistic Mid-Journey Disasters in Interstellar Travel?

AI Thread Summary
Realistic challenges for interstellar travel include significant obstacles like fuel supply, radiation, and micro-meteors, which must be addressed before a mission can even begin. Once these major issues are resolved, the narrative possibilities become limited, as the environment of space is largely non-interactive and lacks medium-sized disasters. Suggestions for potential onboard crises include a viral outbreak, but this has become a common trope in sci-fi storytelling. The discussion highlights the difficulty in creating believable conflicts without resorting to catastrophic failures that would jeopardize the entire mission. Ultimately, the complexities of interstellar travel raise questions about the feasibility of such journeys and the nature of storytelling within this genre.
  • #51
PeroK said:
I don't believe a generation ship could viable. The travellers would have to sleep through the journey and consume the minimum.
At rest, bed ridden, asleep, coma your cells still require energy for repair /replace, cell division, peristalsis involuntary muscle movements, brain activity etc etc
8 hours sleep is ok, years travelling near light speed would require a huge amount of O2 water and nutrients for a crew.
Freezing them removes all of that. Not impossible as some species of fish manage can manage a near frozen state.
The on board computer thaws them out them in time for reaching the next star.

The timing would have pretty good.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Quite possibly Dias, Vasco da Gama, Magellan and other mariners from the late mediaeval period would have found themselves reflecting on the many things likely to go wrong while planning their oceanic voyages into the unknown: for them the deep space continuum of their times. Plenty of naysayers back then, of course, cultural distinctions notwithstanding.
 
  • #53
One can argue it's realistic today, but one should not use as evidence a web site that hopes to have the technology by 2050. Further, it's hard to argue that it is realistic today, but we can't come up with a list of risks and hazards today.
 
  • #54
Dr Wu said:
Quite possibly Dias, Vasco da Gama, Magellan and other mariners from the late mediaeval period would have found themselves reflecting on the many things likely to go wrong while planning their oceanic voyages into the unknown: for them the deep space continuum of their times. Plenty of naysayers back then, of course, cultural distinctions notwithstanding.
1669822763690.png
 
  • #55
Vanadium 50 said:
one should not use as evidence a web site that hopes to have the technology by 2050
No matter how far into the future you start, the first interstellar voyage is not going to be a spur of the moment thing.
 
  • #56
Dr Wu said:
Quite possibly Dias, Vasco da Gama, Magellan and other mariners from the late mediaeval period would have found themselves reflecting on the many things likely to go wrong while planning their oceanic voyages into the unknown: for them the deep space continuum of their times. Plenty of naysayers back then, of course, cultural distinctions notwithstanding.
They already had ships and were experienced sailors. What they didn't do was go to the Moon. If someone in the days of Magellan had suggested going to the Moon, that would have been impossible.

The logic of "nothing is impossible" demands that those you mention could not only have sailed the oceans but sailed their ships to the Moon and back.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes Jarvis323 and pinball1970
  • #57
Jarvis323 said:
Why do you think that is a deal breaker?
Ionising radiation is a deal breaker for your DNA.
 
  • #58
Drakkith said:
The same things that can go wrong anywhere else. Everything.
this
 
  • #59
pinball1970 said:
Ionising radiation is a deal breaker for your DNA.

Obviously you would want to shield it.
 
  • #60
Jarvis323 said:
Obviously you would want to shield it.
With? Lead? Boron and sand? (I watched Chernobyl)
Mass is an issue in terms of acceleration and a shield would add mass.
If this is going to be realistic.
 
  • #61
pinball1970 said:
With? Lead? Boron and sand? (I watched Chernobyl)
Mass is an issue in terms of acceleration and a shield would add mass.
If this is going to be realistic.
How about with beer?
 
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970
  • #62
Jarvis323 said:
How about with beer?
I googled getting 1g at 1g acceleration to near light speed is a year. Plenty of guys on here can refine dispute that. No idea.
If the crew are frozen (my idea with synthetic fish anti freeze, you're welcome OP) they can take more than 9g?
 
  • #63
pinball1970 said:
I googled getting 1g at 1g acceleration to near light speed is a year. Plenty of guys on here can refine dispute that. No idea.
If the crew are frozen (my idea with synthetic fish anti freeze, you're welcome OP) they can take more than 9g?
Constant acceleration at ##1g## may be important for health reasons, although if everyone is in some form of suspended animation it may not matter. It doesn't make too much difference in the long run as long as you get to near light speed (##1g## or ##9g##). The bigger problem eventually if you keep accelerating is radiation blueshift. Any ship would have a limit to what it can sustain.

It's impossible to know what engineering solutions will eventually be devised.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #64
PeroK said:
The bigger problem eventually if you keep accelerating is radiation blueshift. Any ship would have a limit to what it can sustain.
Radiation blue shift? What is the issue?
 
  • #65
pinball1970 said:
Radiation blue shift? What is the issue?
Higher frequency radiation is more destructive.

UV B is more damaging than UV A. X-rays are more damaging than both.
 
  • #66
Jarvis323 said:
How about with beer?
So far, the primary shielding against radiation indeed consists of lots of water. In particular, the tanks that are supposed to provide the hydrogen for the nuclear-fusion reactor and engine (those shield to the front and back, which is necessary once the ship turns around for braking). From the sides, it’s the water supply for regular consumption that runs through the walls. On the ring habitats, this means the water has to run through the ground (since the “ground” of the rings is what points outward, the direction in which the centrifugal force works). The rings are at a 90-degree angle to the axis of the ship, so that they can be shielded entirely by the water tanks at the front and bottom.
PeroK said:
Constant acceleration at ##1g## may be important for health reasons, although if everyone is in some form of suspended animation it may not matter. It doesn't make too much difference in the long run as long as you get to near light speed (##1g## or ##9g##). The bigger problem eventually if you keep accelerating is radiation blueshift. Any ship would have a limit to what it can sustain.

It's impossible to know what engineering solutions will eventually be devised.
Both the maximum travel speed and the acceleration are lower in my case (0.125 c, with an acceleration phase of 25 years, and the same for braking, at 0.048 m/square-second). The calculation was kindly provided by @mfb.

But yes, if you have a ship that can maintain constant 1-g acceleration for one year, it would theoretically get close to light speed. Such a ship would have to be constructed differently, like a “skyscraper”, since over the course of that year, gravity would point towards the back of the ship. Yet, it would also need rings, or a cylinder, to create artificial gravity once the acceleration phase ends.

And of course, all of the radiation problems would become even worse at such speeds. It would make trips to quite a few nearby potentially habitable worlds feasible, though — there are quite a few candidate planets at a distance from Earth in the 10-12 light-year range.
 
  • #67
pinball1970 said:
Radiation blue shift? What is the issue?
The CMBR blushifts eventually to x-rays and then gamma rays. This probably puts a physical constraint on the idea of accelerating at ##g## for long periods.

That said, the onboard journey time may not be critical. It you send a probe to a star system 1000 light years away, the mission will take 2000 years in any case. Whether the onboard equipment experiences 500 years, 50 years or 5 years may not be critical.

Likewise for a human transport ship. It does matter in a generation ship, of course. The difference between a 500 year and 50 year journey is enormous. If everyone is in long-term suspended animation, it may not matter too much.

This is the potential engineering trade off: 1) get to a low gamma factor and have a long onboard journey time; or 2) get to high gamma factor with a much shorter onboard journey time but have to develop the acceleration capability and radiation shields
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus and pinball1970
  • #68
PeroK said:
The CMBR blushifts eventually to x-rays and then gamma rays. This probably puts a physical constraint on the idea of accelerating at ##g## for long periods.

That said, the onboard journey time may not be critical. It you send a probe to a star system 1000 light years away, the mission will take 2000 years in any case. Whether the onboard equipment experiences 500 years, 50 years or 5 years may not be critical.

Likewise for a human transport ship. It does matter in a generation ship, of course. The difference between a 500 year and 50 year journey is enormous. If everyone is in long-term suspended animation, it may not matter too much.

This is the potential engineering trade off: 1) get to a low gamma factor and have a long onboard journey time; or 2) get to high gamma factor with a much shorter onboard journey time but have to develop the acceleration capability and radiation shields
Read it twice.
 
  • #69
Strato Incendus said:
Such a ship would have to be constructed differently, like a “skyscraper”, since over the course of that year, gravity would point towards the back of the ship. Yet, it would also need rings, or a cylinder, to create artificial gravity once the acceleration phase ends.
That's not the only way to skin the artificial gravity cat.

Switching between two configurations - skyscraper and centrifugal rings comes at some cost. You can avoid that cost. Keep the skyscraper configuration - design your skyscraper to break into equal mass halves halves that string between a tether or arbitrary length.
1669845505195.png
(Caveat: This does not solve the radiation sleet problem - in fact, it makes it worse.)
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #70
Strato Incendus said:
Alright, since I’m still stuck on my sci-fi story because I can’t exactly outline the mid-point plot twist with a realistic catastrophe on board an interstellar spaceship, I thought I’d widen the scope a little — towards full-on open brainstorming:

What, if anything, can realistically go wrong on an interstellar journey? :rolleyes:
(By “realistically”, I mean “without making any extra assumptions about aliens, unknown forces of physics etc.” — just based on what we currently know.)

I may have underestimated this challenge a little because, in real life, at least based on our current knowledge, there are of course several huge obstacles to interstellar travel: fuel and food supply, achieving a travel speed that makes the trip feasible (i.e., a significant portion of the speed of light), radiation, dust particles and micro-meteors, etc.

The problem is that all of these challenges are so big that, if a ship cannot handle them, there’s no point in it even leaving the solar system. For example, a micro-meteor hitting the ship out of nowhere mid-journey should not happen, because the ship will need some kind of deflector system anyway to deal with stuff like this countless times per day. And if it has a deflector system, but it randomly fails when the story needs it to, the resulting collision, given the intensity of the impact, for all I know wouldn’t just severely damage the ship, but would probably destroy it completely.

So these disasters are all kind of “too big”. When you have a story set on Earth, and you want to create a challenge for your characters, or come up with some catastrophe that leads to some severe casualties, you wouldn’t immediately jump to “meteor hits Earth and wipes out all mammalian life”, would you? :wink:

Once all of these major challenges are out of the way, though — those that wouldn’t even make the journey worth starting if they hadn’t been dealt with in advance — the emptiness of the interstellar medium, as well as the inability to stop without wasting fuel or exposing the crew to unsurvivable g forces, create a pretty non-interactive environment for any story set between two stars.

Even internal failures of the ship aren’t that easy to create. A hull breach, as it seems to happen quite frequently in Star Trek (or even more vividly in one episode of The Expanse), shouldn’t happen too easily, either: Not just because even minor collisions with dust speckles have to be avoided anyway; but also because the ship hull will have to be thick enough to shield everyone inside against radiation. And one effective way to do that is to place a layer of water between the hull and the interior.
Now it’s hard for any given crew member to just be “randomly blown out into space”, if there’s a thick wall of water in between. You could of course have that water seep into the ship, but most likely it would not happen in such quantities that anyone would drown in a corridor or something.

Radiation, even if the ship’s protective measures against it may fail to some reasonable degree, would be comparatively slow to kill humans — probably slow enough for the crew to notice the holes in the protective layers in time to patch them up.

Finally, deliberate human sabotage is also hard to justify — since anyone with such intentions is stuck on board the ship together with everyone else for the time of the journey. Even people with malicious intent still have survival instincts.

So, what likely “medium-size disasters” do we have available at all? It seems to me like I only have the choice between “something that would destroy the entire ship” and “nothing at all happens, because the ship can’t interact with anything around it”.
Strato Incendus said:
Alright, since I’m still stuck on my sci-fi story because I can’t exactly outline the mid-point plot twist with a realistic catastrophe on board an interstellar spaceship, I thought I’d widen the scope a little — towards full-on open brainstorming:

What, if anything, can realistically go wrong on an interstellar journey? :rolleyes:
(By “realistically”, I mean “without making any extra assumptions about aliens, unknown forces of physics etc.” — just based on what we currently know.)

I may have underestimated this challenge a little because, in real life, at least based on our current knowledge, there are of course several huge obstacles to interstellar travel: fuel and food supply, achieving a travel speed that makes the trip feasible (i.e., a significant portion of the speed of light), radiation, dust particles and micro-meteors, etc.

The problem is that all of these challenges are so big that, if a ship cannot handle them, there’s no point in it even leaving the solar system. For example, a micro-meteor hitting the ship out of nowhere mid-journey should not happen, because the ship will need some kind of deflector system anyway to deal with stuff like this countless times per day. And if it has a deflector system, but it randomly fails when the story needs it to, the resulting collision, given the intensity of the impact, for all I know wouldn’t just severely damage the ship, but would probably destroy it completely.

So these disasters are all kind of “too big”. When you have a story set on Earth, and you want to create a challenge for your characters, or come up with some catastrophe that leads to some severe casualties, you wouldn’t immediately jump to “meteor hits Earth and wipes out all mammalian life”, would you? :wink:

Once all of these major challenges are out of the way, though — those that wouldn’t even make the journey worth starting if they hadn’t been dealt with in advance — the emptiness of the interstellar medium, as well as the inability to stop without wasting fuel or exposing the crew to unsurvivable g forces, create a pretty non-interactive environment for any story set between two stars.

Even internal failures of the ship aren’t that easy to create. A hull breach, as it seems to happen quite frequently in Star Trek (or even more vividly in one episode of The Expanse), shouldn’t happen too easily, either: Not just because even minor collisions with dust speckles have to be avoided anyway; but also because the ship hull will have to be thick enough to shield everyone inside against radiation. And one effective way to do that is to place a layer of water between the hull and the interior.
Now it’s hard for any given crew member to just be “randomly blown out into space”, if there’s a thick wall of water in between. You could of course have that water seep into the ship, but most likely it would not happen in such quantities that anyone would drown in a corridor or something.

Radiation, even if the ship’s protective measures against it may fail to some reasonable degree, would be comparatively slow to kill humans — probably slow enough for the crew to notice the holes in the protective layers in time to patch them up.

Finally, deliberate human sabotage is also hard to justify — since anyone with such intentions is stuck on board the ship together with everyone else for the time of the journey. Even people with malicious intent still have survival instincts.

So, what likely “medium-size disasters” do we have available at all? It seems to me like I only have the choice between “something that would destroy the entire ship” and “nothing at all happens, because the ship can’t interact with anything around it”.
one: If you're writing a story, it's best to have a problem that starts out small, escalates to medium-sized, threatens catastrophe when attempts to solve it fail, and is finally solved in the nick of time with a wing and a prayer.

two: The other posters are correct in stating that there is no currently realistic plan to send people to other star systems. For example, if the people are frozen on the way, the air that they would breathe would have to be frozen as well. Gas under pressure would leak over interstellar transit times.

three: You would have to assume, and might want to briefly mention, that a lot of problems with interstellar travel will have been solved. For example, sealed and self-contained artificial ecologies are not a thing yet. Though Biosphere 2 has become a fruitful ecological research facility, its original goal has yet to be achieved.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...n-terrarium-is-transforming-climate-research/

four: Depression might be a significant problem. It is apparently common for astronauts who see Earth from space to become very depressed at the dark lifelessness of space and have a correspondingly strong sense of how precious Earth and our species is.

.

This wouldn't have to be the escalating problem that drives the story but the latter doesn't have to be the only problem in the story. Ancillary problems that make things even more difficult for the characters could add suspense to the plot.

five: One aspect of interstellar travel that could create a problem that starts out small then escalates is the necessity of long term maintenance, which could be performed by small self-replicating robots. What if a transcription defect of some kind caused the little mechanical varmints to run amok?
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #71
Alright, thanks again for your many ideas!

Right now, I’m actually considering going back to the original idea of having some damage be caused by a tiny dust speckle that collides with / pierces the ship. In particular, while the shielding at the front and back of the ship protects it against speckles of this size, during the rotation of the ship (which it needs to perform in order to start braking), it would be more vulnerable to such speckles for a few seconds.

The main question is really:
How tiny does a speckle of dust, hitting the ship at 0.125 c, have to be so that it only pierces some ship walls, without destroying the entire ship due to impact?

The resulting leaks should be so small that air or water can’t even escape the ship particularly fast. This would give the crew some time to react, while still clearly being an urgent problem.

Also, whenever water pipes are pierced by such a tiny speckle, I wonder whether the water jets coming out of those tiny leaks would be able to cut through things, given the pressure on the pipes relative to the extremely narrow diameter of such a leak.

The commander tries to make the rotation movement safe (which the ship performs by rotating around its vertical axis) by firing a broadside of the deflector lasers right before initiating the rotation. This clears the path ahead of the ship for the next 1 million kilometres. 0.125 c equals 37,474 kilometres per second. So the ship has about 26 seconds until it has covered a million kilometres while traveling at this speed.

A million kilometres equals 3.3 light seconds. Assuming the ship’s sensors work at light speed, a speckle of dust a million kilometres in front of the ship would be detected by those sensors with a 6.6-seconds delay.

So if rotating the ship around its axis takes about 20 seconds, this delay could create a temporary blind spot, during which the sensors might fail to detect an incoming speckle of dust. It could then pierce a few of the rings, as well as the aft sphere and a few of the sub-tanks within it, within the short time window during which they are exposed to what’s directly in the line of the ship’s trajectory of motion.
 
  • #72
Strato Incendus said:
How tiny does a speckle of dust, hitting the ship at 0.125 c, have to be so that it only pierces some ship walls, without destroying the entire ship due to impact?
Hard to say. That's a velocity of about 40,000 km/s, which is far above what we've been able to study here on Earth for anything outside of particle colliders as far as I know.
Strato Incendus said:
The resulting leaks should be so small that air or water can’t even escape the ship particularly fast. This would give the crew some time to react, while still clearly being an urgent problem.
Impactors small enough to not do serious damage to the ship would likely vaporize completely upon impact with the first surface they come across. You might do better to explain things away as a laser malfunction that incompletely vaporizes an incoming rock, resulting in a shotgun-like effect where many smaller impactors hit the ship in different locations. Perhaps the rotation of the ship leaves only one or two lasers capable of hitting the rock, leading to asymmetric heating and incomplete vaporization that blows it apart into many smaller fragments.
Strato Incendus said:
Also, whenever water pipes are pierced by such a tiny speckle, I wonder whether the water jets coming out of those tiny leaks would be able to cut through things, given the pressure on the pipes relative to the extremely narrow diameter of such a leak.
Unless they are pressurized to huge pressures then no. Waterjet cutters have pressures of 30,000 PSI or greater for comparison. There's no reason for general-use water pipes to have such pressure.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #73
Drakkith said:
You might do better to explain things away as a laser malfunction that incompletely vaporizes an incoming rock, resulting in a shotgun-like effect where many smaller impactors hit the ship in different locations. Perhaps the rotation of the ship leaves only one or two lasers capable of hitting the rock, leading to asymmetric heating and incomplete vaporization that blows it apart into many smaller fragments.
Great alternative explanation, thanks! ;) I had indeed thought about incomplete vaporisation, however, I thought whatever debris would be left after that might still be too large (i.e., large enough to destroy the entire ship on impact)? 🤔
Drakkith said:
Unless they are pressurized to huge pressures then no. Waterjet cutters have pressures of 30,000 PSI or greater for comparison. There's no reason for general-use water pipes to have such pressure.
Alright, good to have that out of the way. 😅 The reason I'm asking is that two characters could have been killed by such a water jet; I watched a video yesterday where somebody demonstrated with a dummy head what would happen if a waterjet cutter came into contact with the human body.

So now, instead, the question is: What would happen if such a dust particle (or incompletely-vaporised piece of space debris) penetrating the ship hull would come into contact with the human body? Would it be like a bullet from a gun? Or an absolute splatter fest?
 
  • #74
Strato Incendus said:
during the rotation of the ship
I dunno. It seems to me that smacks in incompetence. It was an avoidable disaster and they didnt avoid it.
 
  • #75
Thanks for your impression; that's indeed something I'm always worrying about. 😅 I want the commander to come off as competent - not just so that she's earned the position, but also, because she's the antagonist. Antagonists need to be competent to be intimidating. 😎

So how would you go about avoiding this while rotating the ship? 😉 Clearing the path ahead of the ship through a preemptive deflector broadside before initiating the rotating sequence to me already sounded like doing everything they could.

I will of course have a less tech-savvy officer ask (on behalf of the reader) why they didn't shield the entire ship to the same degree as the front of the fore and aft sphere. But a technician could then dismiss that by reminding them how much extra mass that would have added to the ship. Mass which would not only have reduced the maximum coasting speed it could accelerate to; but also, mass which would have been useless for 99.9% of the journey.

I mean, in another thread, we already talked about how the rings wouldn't need as much radiation shielding, because for the most part, they're protected by the two spheres in front of and behind them. Even though of course, during the rotation sequence, the rings will indeed be exposed to such radiation for a few seconds, during which neither the fore sphere nor the aft sphere is in front of the rings.
 
  • #76
There is a book, Structural Failure by Wierzbicki and Jones, with Chapter 2: Debris-Impact Protection of Space Structures. It discusses the impact of meteoroids at velocities on the order of 20 km/sec. That's far slower than your speeds, but the basic principles should be of interest. It was published in 1989, and is still available: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471637335/?tag=pfamazon01-20. This book is well written, and recommended if you like to read about smashing, crushing, denting, bending, or breaking things.

This chart from that book shows the probability of impact on space vehicles in Earth orbit. The probability is of course much lower in interstellar space, but the concept of larger size equals lower probability should hold.
Meteor size.jpg

Most of the chapter is about what happens when a particle impacts at high velocity. This figure summarizes the chapter. The particle hits and vaporizes itself and part of the wall. The cloud of vapor retains most of the particle's momentum. That momentum can punch a hole through the next layer. I do not know if this would extrapolate to your velocities, which are about three orders of magnitude faster. Keep in mind that kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared.
Impact.jpg


For comparison, a lead bullet at about 0.3 km/sec hitting a steel plate will splatter similar to a drop of water hitting a windshield. The splatter will be parallel to the surface of the steel plate, which is not dented. The base of the bullet, with about 15% of the bullet's mass, will fall to the ground. A lead bullet at 0.6 km/sec hitting a thick steel plate will make a crater the size of the tip of your little finger. Some of the lead splatter from that will come straight back.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Strato Incendus
  • #77
Strato Incendus said:
So how would you go about avoiding this while rotating the ship?
If a risky maneuver were a calculated risk but that was combined with a statistically improbable event, they could be forgiven.

I.e. The maneuver is designed to be safe up to 99% of worst case scenario, but then they get hit with an anomalous, rogue rock that is way outside their worst expectations.

But not just a fabulous bad coincidence. That might seem too coincidental.

What if, I dunno they did a plot of enountered debris and determined that they were entering a relatively free volume of space,meaning this is a good low risk time to perform the maneuver, but then get hit with something outside their predictions. Afterward, they realize that the initial drop in encounters wasn't because it was empty space, as they'd thought, but because a central body had cleared the volume, and they ran into the undetected central body.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #78
DaveC426913 said:
What if, I dunno they did a plot of enountered debris and determined that they were entering a relatively free volume of space,meaning this is a good low risk time to perform the maneuver, but then get bit with something g outside their predictions. Afterward, they realize that the initial drop in e counters wasn't because it was empty space but because a central body had cleared the volume, and they ran into the undetected central body.
That central body sounds like a much larger object, though. Like a mini-asteroid. Not only would that be more likely to destroy the entire ship again; the larger it is, it would also be less likely to go undetected. 🤔

DaveC426913 said:
If a risky maneuver were a calculated risk but that was combined with a statistically improbable event, they could be forgiven.

I.e. The maneuver is designed to be safe up to 99% of worst case scenario, but then they get hit with an anomalous, rogue rock that is way outside their worst expectations.

But not just a fabulous bad coincidence. That might seem too coincidental.

That is indeed how I try to frame it in the chapter: We've cleared the path ahead of us for 1 million km, the rotation only takes a couple of seconds, all should go well. And then, there's just one tiny little thing that sneaks through - so tiny in fact that they don't even notice the damage right away, but only realise some sub-tanks have been pierced after the aft sphere (the big one surrounding the smaller sub-spheres) starts filling up with hydrogen and water.

That would also be a nice demonstration of the purpose of the big spheres surrounding the smaller ones. Because for me as an author, that purpose was primarily an aesthetic one. :wink:
But I can justify it by saying that the big spheres do not only provide additional shielding on the front and back, where it is most needed (thereby justifying the extra mass): They also prevent the contents of the sub-spheres (hydrogen, water, deuterium, and whatever else) from escaping directly into space and being lost, in case any of the sub-spheres break. It's just an additional level of redundancy, which does double duty by also acting as the primary shield on both ends of the ship.

In your first post, you said this scene would make the commander come off as incompetent. Now it sounds to me more like you'd be criticising such a course of events as plot convenience - meaning, the commander would be particularly unlucky, but not incompetent.

So who's to blame now: The commander, or the universe and quantum randomness? 😅
 
  • #79
Strato Incendus said:
So now, instead, the question is: What would happen if such a dust particle (or incompletely-vaporised piece of space debris) penetrating the ship hull would come into contact with the human body? Would it be like a bullet from a gun? Or an absolute splatter fest?
It's... very bad. See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5014777/
A 5.6 mm steel ball was shot at pig hind limbs at varying velocities from 1,000 m/s to 4,000 m/s in 1k m/s steps. There was a clear increase in damage with increasing velocity. Exit wound size, contusion range, and palor area all increased as impact velocity increased. However, at 4,000 m/s the steel ball completely vaporized itself upon impact with the limb, leaving no exit wound.

Past 2,000 m/s the animals showed damage to areas of the body other than the hind limb. At 3,000 m/s the abdominal and thoracic organs showed damage, and at 4,000 m/s they were severely injured. The brain, which is about as far away from the hind limb as it is possible to be, began to show damage at 4,000 m/s.

So, at least for velocities around 4 km/s, being hit by a hypervelocity object is similar to having an explosive detonate inside you. Whether this damage proportionally increases with speed all the way up to 0.1c I can't say. I wonder if at at a certain point the velocity is so high that the vaporizing projectile simply has no time to expand before it crosses through the body, reducing the potential damage.

Strato Incendus said:
Thanks for your impression; that's indeed something I'm always worrying about. 😅 I want the commander to come off as competent - not just so that she's earned the position, but also, because she's the antagonist. Antagonists need to be competent to be intimidating. 😎
To be fair, she's probably just following pre-written procedures on how to operate the ship, including the turn around. Whatever goes wrong can't really be blamed on her unless she's doing something she herself thought of or not following the instructions. Navigating and maneuvering a large ship is not something usually done without planning things out ahead of time.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #80
Strato Incendus said:
In your first post, you said this scene would make the commander come off as incompetent. Now it sounds to me more like you'd be criticising such a course of events as plot convenience - meaning, the commander would be particularly unlucky, but not incompetent.

So who's to blame now: The commander, or the universe and quantum randomness? 😅
Well, SOMETHING has to happen in order to get the plot going. That something is either due to randomness or human intervention (or a combination of) and it is up to you to choose which one and lay it out in such a way as to make it believable (or at least palatable) to the audience. And, really, the initial reason often isn't that important since it usually only makes up a small portion of the story. What really matters is how the characters react. They're the ones the story is about after all.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #81
Thanks a lot for that study! 😃

This of course takes us back to the question about the size of the particle, which is hard to estimate given current means, I understand. I would suspect that 5.6 mm hitting at 0.125 c would already do plenty of damage to the ship as a whole, not just to individuals standing in the way.

But if we have this hypothetical dust speckle of less than a millimetre, which can pierce the ship without destroying it as a whole, and it passes through two people on its way, I am basically free to make the result of that as gory as I want? 😎

Not that I'm actually all that keen on that; in fact, part of me wants to tell this story without any "bloodshed" in a classical sense, but more creative forms of human cruelty. Then again, in this particular scene, it's the universe we're talking about, and since most people seem to underestimate the universe's capability to cause destruction, compared to that of humans, a little more "drastic" show-don't-tell may be in order here.

If I have this tiny high-speed dust particle rip two people to shreds, though, this question becomes important:
Drakkith said:
I wonder if at at a certain point the velocity is so high that the vaporizing projectile simply has no time to expand before it crosses through the body, reducing the potential damage.
So far, I assumed that a particle of this tiny size would simply pass through the ship, tearing holes of about equal size into each layer it penetrates. This also relates to @jrmichler 's post, who also raised the question "how well does the behaviour of bullets or other standard projectiles translate to relativistic speeds?"

That's why I thought the particle would only kill these two characters if it passed right through a vital organ. Or why I would have liked to use the waterjet-cutter explanation instead, where the particle causes pipe leakages so thin that the water comes shooting out at sufficient pressure to cut through tissue. With the waterjet ruled out, the particle itself could still act as such a "miniature bullet".

However, if the particle is indeed too fast and does not expand while crossing through the body, given that it's also really small, how much damage could it even do to the human body, then? It might not be lethal at all.


At worst, it might cause minor brain lesions that go undetected for a while, or cause blindness in one eye, etc. Best case scenario, it would pass through an arm, perhaps doing less damage to the muscle tissue than a syringe, since the latter is much thicker in comparison.
 
  • #82
Strato Incendus said:
That central body sounds like a much larger object, though. Like a mini-asteroid. Not only would that be more likely to destroy the entire ship again; the larger it is, it would also be less likely to go undetected. 🤔
That's the unlucky part: the body was small enough - just a few yards across - to have evaded the detectors - at least until it was too late in our turnover process to engage in our standard evasive maneuver.

Lucky it was a glancing impact and not a direct hit. It wasn't the body that hit, it was the plume of superheated steam blown off from the shield that got us...
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #83
Strato Incendus said:
I would suspect that 5.6 mm hitting at 0.125 c would already do plenty of damage to the ship as a whole, not just to individuals standing in the way.
It has about 285,000 MJ. Which is a substantial amount of KE. How much energy it takes to severely damage a large spaceship I don't know, nor do I know how the KE will be partitioned. We might be talking about it punching a hole through the whole ship, or we might be talking about a breach of several compartments before the remaining material is too spread out to punch through further walls.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #84
Drakkith said:
It has about 285,000 MJ. Which is a substantial amount of KE. How much energy it takes to severely damage a large spaceship I don't know, nor do I know how the KE will be partitioned. We might be talking about it punching a hole through the whole ship, or we might be talking about a breach of several compartments before the remaining material is too spread out to punch through further walls.
This discussion is reminiscent of the Columbia disaster. The leading edge of the left wing was hit by a 'suitcase sized' portion of insulating foam.
This was calculated to be moving at 500mph so much slower than the speeds you guys are discussing.
The piece was much larger but still just foam that exploded into fine dust particles once it struck that area of the wing, which was reinforced carbon fibre. That part of the wing was crucial as it would have to be able to withstand heat extreme temperatures on re-entry.
This presentation shows footage of the foam strike as it happened and a reconstruction of the event using an air powered gun.The damage to the wing was not visible on the shuttle at the time so they assumed this would not be significant. From about 28.30

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #85
Drakkith said:
It has about 285,000 MJ.
Which is the energy released from 67 tons of high explosive. For comparison, the Oklahoma city bomb, which killed 168 people, was the equivalent of 2.5 tons of TNT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing.

An explosion releases energy in all directions. A kinetic strike has momentum into the space vehicle, which would increase the damage.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus and pinball1970
  • #86
jrmichler said:
An explosion releases energy in all directions. A kinetic strike has momentum into the space vehicle, which would increase the damage.
If all of the energy is dissipated into the ship, sure. It's also possible that the projectile and its spalling passes through the ship completely before it expends all of its KE.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #87
Strato Incendus said:
So if rotating the ship around its axis takes about 20 seconds
From where does the 20 sec come from?
Is that an add hock timeframe - it must come from somewhere.
How much is the mass of the end spheres?
Have you calculated the velocity and acceleration needed for a 20 sec rotation maneuver?
And the burn cycle?
Can the ship infrastructure handle the stress?

As an aside, is the living quarters still rotating, or brought to a standstill while doing this maneuver?
 
  • Like
Likes DaveC426913 and Strato Incendus
  • #88
Strato Incendus said:
if rotating the ship around its axis takes about 20 seconds
Yeah wait what?

No way. The rotation HAS to be on the order of many, many minutes, like, some fraction of an hour. The ship will not stand transverse forces any stronger.

That means they MUST arrange an Intermediate shield configuration. Doesn't matter how long it takes to set up and break down - it could be in the works for a year - it's got to be done.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #89
DaveC426913 said:
That means they MUST arrange an Intermediate shield configuration. Doesn't matter how long it takes to set up and break down - it could be in the works for a year - it's got to be done.
I don't agree. The ship already has a defense system for larger pieces of debris, so the only thing they're dealing with is gas, near-microscopic dust particles, cosmic rays, and EM radiation, all of which is easily withstood by the ship for the time it takes to rotate the ship. The crew is probably safe too, but it would be easy to make everyone go stand inside a shielded area for an 20 minutes to an hour while the ship turns.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #90
Drakkith said:
I don't agree. The ship already has a defense system for larger pieces of debris, so the only thing they're dealing with is gas, near-microscopic dust particles, cosmic rays, and EM radiation, all of which is easily withstood by the ship for the time it takes to rotate the ship. The crew is probably safe too, but it would be easy to make everyone go stand inside a shielded area for an 20 minutes to an hour while the ship turns.
OK, sure. That works.

Still, the end-over rotation MUST take much, much longer than 20 seconds.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus and Drakkith
  • #91
Alright, thanks for the unanimous feedback regarding the time it would take the ship to rotate. 😅 I really just shot for a number. Let’s go with 20 minutes, rather than 20 seconds!

Now, the question is indeed whether they need an intermediate shield configuration, as @DaveC426913 suggested, or whether the deflector lasers can continue to do the job, like @Drakkith said. 🤔
 
  • #92
@Strato Incendus:

I haven't read the entire thread but I wanted to put in a couple of cents.
Interstellar travel has not been done (caveat: by humans at least 🙂), so you would have to look elsewhere for ideas.

I would personally look at the history of long ship voyages (let's say between ca 1400 - 1900), since there are a number of accounts of things going wrong, e.g. :
  • infighting among crew
  • disobedience
  • mutiny
  • food/water shortage (turn it into cannibalism if you want to go wild 🙂)
  • diseases
  • accidents (e.g. I think there was a famous ship that hit an iceberg 🙂)
  • fire breaking out onboard
  • piracy (though it may not be applicable to your story?)

One example of a disastrous journey in history is Franklin's lost expedition (1845-). It was an utter catastrophe and extremely tragic.
I remember seeing an absolutely fascinating documentary about it.

DaveE said:
Edit: Better yet faulty maintenance on the journey. The the culprit is still onboard. Sabotage, incompetence, bad management, false accusations, distrust amongst the crew...?
I think those were excellent suggestions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus, 256bits and Drakkith
  • #93
How long is the voyage? If it is more than a few decades, a very plausible scenario is: the people operating the ship make some kind of fix, or change, that they think will be an improvement - not knowing that the original design feature had some basis. In other words, they have forgotten why something is the way it is; and their change leads to failure/disaster...
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus, pinball1970, DennisN and 2 others
  • #94
I like that. A very real risk when changes are made without a detailed understanding of the original design.

The 1981 Hyatt Recency collapse is a textbook study in how redesigns can result in disaster.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

The engineers who reviewed the initial designs of this short 120 foot pedestrian walkway made what they thought was a simple minor change to a throughbolt fitting. That small change resulted in a catastrophic failure that killed 114 people and injured another 100.

Nevermind the neglect that led up to it, look at the point of failure - the nut and thread design - and how they failed to analyze the original specs in full.

"...the company objected that the whole rod below the fourth floor would have to be threaded in order to screw on the nuts to hold the fourth-floor walkway in place. These threads would be subject to damage as the fourth-floor structure was hoisted into place. Havens Steel proposed that two separate and offset sets of rods be used: the first set suspending the fourth-floor walkway from the ceiling, and the second set suspending the second-floor walkway from the fourth-floor walkway.

This design change would be fatal."

1672287658507.png
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Drakkith said:
I don't agree. The ship already has a defense system for larger pieces of debris, so the only thing they're dealing with is gas, near-microscopic dust particles, cosmic rays, and EM radiation, all of which is easily withstood by the ship for the time it takes to rotate the ship. The crew is probably safe too, but it would be easy to make everyone go stand inside a shielded area for an 20 minutes to an hour while the ship turns.
So how does the ship save itself from debris after the ship has turned with the defense mechanism on the now rearward of the ship. Some ship re-configuration would need to be performed in any case for the deceleration phase.
 
  • #96
256bits said:
So how does the ship save itself from debris after the ship has turned with the defense mechanism on the now rearward of the ship. Some ship re-configuration would need to be performed in any case for the deceleration phase.
That is a good point. That should have been obvious. :sorry:

Originally, as I thought, only the shield was needed as a defense, and therefore it was the only thing that needed to be reconfigured. But if this ship also has a laser defense system, that too needs to be reconfigured to work as effectively in the targetward direction.

And now we have to reexamine the whole ship design from the top - we have to see if it's really worth reconfiguring so much of it. After all, it might now be more efficient to leave the ship in the original orientation and just move the propulsion component (which I think might have been SI's original plan).

Note: this is an excellent exemplar of the lesson learned in my post 94. After any design changes - even apparently small ones - it is critical to re-analyze the project from the top.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus
  • #97
Strato Incendus said:
Alright, thanks for the unanimous feedback regarding the time it would take the ship to rotate. 😅 I really just shot for a number. Let’s go with 20 minutes, rather than 20 seconds!

Now, the question is indeed whether they need an intermediate shield configuration, as @DaveC426913 suggested, or whether the deflector lasers can continue to do the job, like @Drakkith said. 🤔

A failure occurring during the turning around movement from a strike would be for me be a 'saw that one coming. A strike, with the crew safe in their pod shield, but the ship not coming out OK doesn't lend itself to a successful mission being certain. I would think the designers of the ship would have had to have done some analysis on possible outcomes of such an event. If any simulation gave a what to do in this situation of 'put you head between your legs and kiss your a.. goodbye', they would have gone back to the drawing board.
What is the chance of a debris hit?
Or the earth being hit by a killer asteroid?
By comparison, what is the chance of your ticket being the winning lottery ticket? and yet someone does win.

Addendum
Of say ten ships launched, yours might be the unlucky one.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
256b: I think you inadvertently double-posted some of your response....
 
  • #99
256bits said:
So how does the ship save itself from debris after the ship has turned with the defense mechanism on the now rearward of the ship. Some ship re-configuration would need to be performed in any case for the deceleration phase.
I was under the assumption that the protection (lasers + shielding) was on both the fore and aft portions of the ship.
 
  • Like
Likes Strato Incendus and 256bits
  • #100
DaveC426913 said:
256b: I think you inadvertently double-posted some of your response....
Erased the duplicate sentence(s) in post 97. Tks
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
510
  • Poll Poll
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top