Galaxy Class "Warp Core" problems?

[Jordanis]

Most of that seems okay - but there is a rather gaping fatal flaw - the armour would have to be unfeasibly thick - there are tonnes of anti-matter in the warp core, and a blast is enough to be felt several hundred thousand kilometres away (such as when the delta flyer's warpcore explodes in 'Drive', and that's a relatively tiny warpcore). The amount of energy released when the anti-matter in the warpcore reacts with any matter is just huge - no internal system could possibly contain that, the only way is a reliable injection system - both where an accident occurs the anti-matter injectors instantly stop, and several active systems keep the warpcore in the ship, so if any problems occur (such as powerloss), the warpcore would be immediately ejected.

The point isn't to contain the explosion, it's to prevent an explosion.

That's one way to do it. An alternative would to rely on passive ejection systems triggered by a failure mode. For example, have the entire system, including both the warp core and the antimatter pods, as part of a "plug" inside the engineering hull, with an air gap at the top overpressured to the extent that it would blast the entire plug out of the ship unless it were held in place by electromagnets. Those electromagnets would be connected in series with the antimatter containtment fields, so if they began to fail, the magnets would go first and the entire contraption would be blasted clear.

Note that this isn't my idea - it's a re-writing in my own words of an example I once read by Michael Wong of SDN.

I don't think you could generate enough gap before the whole thing goes up to avoid the ship being caught in the explosion and destroyed.

[Thorin]

The point isn't to contain the explosion, it's to prevent an explosion.

Then what's the point of the 2 metre thick armour?

[Jordanis]

The point isn't to contain the explosion, it's to prevent an explosion.

Then what's the point of the 2 metre thick armour?

Preventing weapons from punching through and damaging those potentially-dangerous systems. Two meters was just a throw-out number, I don't know how thick the armor would have to be, but it would be feasible to do, since you'd be armoring a relatively small pod as opposed to an entire ship.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Funny thing about ejecting the warp core, the core only moderates the M/AM reaction; once it's ejected it's no longer connected to it's supply of antimatter fuel, so the ejected core wouldn't generate a big boom (it doesn't have the antimatter needed, that's in the ship's antimatter storage pods). If the danger is a loss of antimatter containment, you'd actually need to eject the antimatter pods, since that's what's going to go boom once the magnetic fields holding the antimatter away from the matter of the ship are lost. It's a mistake by the writers that we've never heard talk of ejecting the antimatter pods, only the warp core. This assumes you have enough time to eject the pods, of course.

[Thorin]

Preventing weapons from punching through and damaging those potentially-dangerous systems. Two meters was just a throw-out number, I don't know how thick the armor would have to be, but it would be feasible to do, since you'd be armoring a relatively small pod as opposed to an entire ship.

My bad, then.

[Thorin]

Funny thing about ejecting the warp core, the core only moderates the M/AM reaction; once it's ejected it's no longer connected to it's supply of antimatter fuel, so the ejected core wouldn't generate a big boom (it doesn't have the antimatter needed, that's in the ship's antimatter storage pods). If the danger is a loss of antimatter containment, you'd actually need to eject the antimatter pods, since that's what's going to go boom once the magnetic fields holding the antimatter away from the matter of the ship are lost. It's a mistake by the writers that we've never heard talk of ejecting the antimatter pods, only the warp core. This assumes you have enough time to eject the pods, of course.

Actually, even in the warpcore there's still enough anti-matter to cause a huge explosion - 70 KG of anti-matter passes through it every second, which is still enough to destroy a ship (when detonated on the inside).

[Jordanis]

Funny thing about ejecting the warp core, the core only moderates the M/AM reaction; once it's ejected it's no longer connected to it's supply of antimatter fuel, so the ejected core wouldn't generate a big boom (it doesn't have the antimatter needed, that's in the ship's antimatter storage pods). If the danger is a loss of antimatter containment, you'd actually need to eject the antimatter pods, since that's what's going to go boom once the magnetic fields holding the antimatter away from the matter of the ship are lost. It's a mistake by the writers that we've never heard talk of ejecting the antimatter pods, only the warp core. This assumes you have enough time to eject the pods, of course.

Well, I suppose it depends on exactly how the fuel is added to the reactor. You see in schematics that the reactors are really tall, and you have two halves that meet in the little ball in Engineering. The way I've always assumed that works is that those tall assemblies are ready fuel and containment and flow control and things, and the ball in the middle is the reactor itself. So I suppose it depends on how much AM is sitting in that tall pillar structure. The Schematics do seem to place the AM pods some distance away...

Actually, even in the warpcore there's still enough anti-matter to cause a huge explosion - 70 KG of anti-matter passes through it every second, which is still enough to destroy a ship (when detonated on the inside).

Where, out of curiosity, do you get the 70 KG number? I mean, that figures out to 252 metric tonnes per hour. It doesn't seem like you'd get nearly enough endurance for an exploration ship with that kind of gas guzzling.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

It's still an error of omission by the writers that there was never any talk of ejecting the pods (even when they were facing a containment loss), and the only part we've actually ever seen ejected is the warp core.

[Jordanis]

It's still an error of omission by the writers that there was never any talk of ejecting the pods (even when they were facing a containment loss), and the only part we've actually ever seen ejected is the warp core.

Oh sure, but if you want to start talking errors of omission we're going to be here til they launch the E-D and we can find out for ourselves.

[Thorin]

It's still an error of omission by the writers that there was never any talk of ejecting the pods (even when they were facing a containment loss), and the only part we've actually ever seen ejected is the warp core.

Why? At any singular point the anti-matter points are always stable - they are kept by magnets that don't rely on active systems [or so we are lead to believe]. The point of instability is the reactor - the warp core. Eject the instability and everything else is stable. It's only because of the warp core that the anti-matter pods would become dangerous. Loss of containment I have always taken to the loss of containment of only the anti-matter in the warp core, either that presently undergoing annhiliation or that immediatey about to enter the reaction chamber (so what is already in the 'piping' of the warp core).

[Thorin]

Actually, even in the warpcore there's still enough anti-matter to cause a huge explosion - 70 KG of anti-matter passes through it every second, which is still enough to destroy a ship (when detonated on the inside).

Where, out of curiosity, do you get the 70 KG number? I mean, that figures out to 252 metric tonnes per hour. It doesn't seem like you'd get nearly enough endurance for an exploration ship with that kind of gas guzzling.

Based on the energy released when 150 KG (approx) converts to energy to give the "12.75 billion gigawatts" Data says the warpcore gives off.
I'm not sure it's really gas guzzling - my estimates say the following;
A car uses 1kg of fuel for every 10km it travels
A starship (which weighs a million times more) uses 1kg of fuel for every 4,000,000km it travels

I'd say the starship is a whole lot less gas guzzling than the car!

[Captain Picard's Hair]

In that case, wouldn't it be simpler just to shut off the flow of antimatter out of the pods?

[Thorin]

In that case, wouldn't it be simpler just to shut off the flow of antimatter out of the pods?

Yes, but the instability of the warpcore itself would still be there, meaning it would still have to be ejected.

[Jordanis]

Why? At any singular point the anti-matter points are always stable - they are kept by magnets that don't rely on active systems [or so we are lead to believe]. The point of instability is the reactor - the warp core. Eject the instability and everything else is stable. It's only because of the warp core that the anti-matter pods would become dangerous. Loss of containment I have always taken to the loss of containment of only the anti-matter in the warp core, either that presently undergoing annhiliation or that immediatey about to enter the reaction chamber (so what is already in the 'piping' of the warp core).

Because the AM pods are on decks 40 and 41, which are a prime spot to be blasted (I have the blueprint set).

And I was thinking 70KG/second is gas guzzling because it works out to 181440 metric tonnes every 30 days, which is 3.66% of the ship's mass. I suppose in retrospect that's a pretty good fuel:ship ratio, but it still feels like a pretty high consumption rate for an exploration ship, particularly because I don't remember the E-D stopping in for more AM anytime.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I'd say the starship is a whole lot less gas guzzling than the car!

You might still expect that a ship would need to replenish it's anitmatter stores now and then (ESPECIALLY in Voyager - they were facing a journey of 70 years and worried about Deuterium, which is far more abundant, before antimatter). Another error!