Why is that useful?
-
WhiteManFromTown1986 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 09:02 PM)
In case an alien type species were to kill the crew and try to dominate the Earth.
Chump change to the company "42 million in adjusted dollars".
Lol more like 42 billion.
I do see what you mean though, it all seems silly to actually put in a self destruction system.
My complaint was why was it so complicated to do? Those 4 tube towers? Should of been 1 button with a code and easy cancelation steps. -
Kruleworld — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 02:14 AM)
it all seems silly to actually put in a self destruction system.
although it's called a self-destruct system, they're actually just letting the main reactor overheat by turning off the cooling system. Kind of like blowing up a car engine by letting all the oil out (which they did for cash-for-clunkers)
Ripley tries turning off the self-destruct after the alien blocks her from getting to the shuttle. when the computer says time has run out, Ripley yells:
"Dammit Mother, turn the cooling system back on!"
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok" -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 09:28 PM)
Excellent post. Couldn't agree more.
One small correcting if memory recalls.
The self destruct was not a Thermonuclear device, even if the end result amount to one.
What was being done was the cooling systems for Nostromo's engines were being manually shut down which results in their overload and detonation after 10 minutes without cooling.
Also good catch on the override being performed wrong, Though again, there is a misconception there
She was not overriding the self destruct.
The self destruct is in itself an override of the automated safeties in the cooling system.
She was removing the override, not overriding the self destruct.
And even though she may have done it wrong, I think that is a goof on the part of the actress, not the scripted reason why stopping the destruct failed.
The reason turning the cooling systems back on failed, was time.
It takes 10 minutes before the engines detonate due to overload.
But after 5 minutes the overload is irreversable even if cooling is restored.
She just barely missed the 5 minute mark and THAT is why the overload continued.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 06:54 PM)
Bkame it on the military in me.
There is a distiction between a Nuclear "Reactor" and a Nuclear "Device".
A Reactor is a power source, a Device is a weapon, something designed deliberately to explode.
The self destruct system was not comprised of setting a 10 minute timer on a nuclear warhead, but rather turning off the cooling system of a Nuclear Reactor.
Therein lies the difference and my statement of;
The self destruct was not a Thermonuclear device, even if the end result amounted to one.
To me, it read as though it was being claimed the self destruct was a nuclear explosive rather than an overload of the engines (which happen to be nuclear powered).
Additionally, its a figment of Hollywood (Though within the acceptable suspension of disbelief of a sci-fi film) that nuclear reactor explode.
Both the Nuclear Reactors of the engines on Nostromo, as well as the nuclear reactor of the Atmosphere Processor in the sequel. could not explode in a nuclear detonation.
They can melt down, have a conventional explosion of pressurized steam, or trapped Hydrogen gas, scattering core material a la "Dirty bomb". But not a nuclear detonation. Impossible.
And its not impossible thanks to safety features. Its actually impossible PERIOD! unless it was designed to deliberately explode (A device, not a reactor)
To get a nuclear explosion, it has to be deliberately disigned and made to do so, otjerwise it cannot, no matter how hard you try. It will melt down and/or destroy itself without going supercritical.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 07:48 PM)
In universe.
Well with the Nostromo,. a nuclear reactor in itself is not going to provide you with FTL capabilities. So while a nuclear reactor may be providing power for the ship, the drives themselves were something much more exotic and it was THOSE that detonated when the reactor went critical and had its meltdown.
As far as the Atmosphere Processor Just have to go with the susspension of disbelief and pretend reactors can even though they can't.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
jljohnson1911 — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 12:34 AM)
A nuclear reactor potentially exploding depends upon the quality of the nuclear material itself.
That's why there is a "weapons grade" plutonium, meaning it's been refined that much more. It's made specifically for explosive devices. -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 01:10 AM)
A nuclear reactor potentially exploding depends upon the quality of the nuclear material itself.
That's why there is a "weapons grade" plutonium, meaning it's been refined that much more. It's made specifically for explosive devices.
Umm No.
Just. no.
Ever hear the term, "knowing just enough to be dangerous"?
That'd be you.
THERE IS NO potential for a reactor to detonate in a nuclear explosion. Weapons grade fisile materials or no. The geometry isnt there.
Honestly you really have little understanding of the process but you've read just enough to THINK you do and you are making inappropriate assumptions based on those misunderstandings.
You can't just upgrade the fisile material in a reactor core to "weapons grade" material and voil,you have a nuclear bomb.
Sure You'll make the Reactor far more sensitive and prone to getting out of control, a runaway reaction and meltdown or explosion (conventional). But You. Will. Not. have a nuclear detonation.
You cannot have one. It is impossible.
And as I said earlier. Its not impossible because of some safety features (which you'll then claim ,"but what if the safeties fail?").
Its because in order to get a nuclear detonation, you have to have it designed very very pricisely and specifically to do so otherwise it will not do so. A reactor is not designed to do so and thus it cannot do so.
Radioactive material does not want to explode. It's almost impossible to make it do so. You're thinking it's very sensitive and easy to explode and you have all these safeguards to prevent it from doing so. Those safeguards are to prevent the accidental triggering of the designed process. Without that designed process it cannot and will not explode.
First you have to have enough mass of sufficiently radioactive material to get a chain reaction. but you have to keep the mass either separated in two parts, each less than the ammount needed for a reaction. Or the mass has to have a specific shape which keeps any one part of the whole, below the critical threshhold.
Then you have to bring the two parts together or conpress the whole to be of far greater density in order the reach supercriticality and a runaway chainn reaction liberating all that energy in an instant (BOOM). A nuclear detonation.
The problem is in compressing the mass or bringing the two halves together and keeping them together fast enough and precise enough for that supercritical detonation. The oroblem is when you are bringing them together, the mass goes from subcritical, to critical before going supercritical. The whole mass heats up, gives off a massive radiation surge, melts and blows itself apart and goes subcritical again before it can detonate a a nuclear explosion.
A nuclear bomb is very VERY specifically designed to prevent the mass from blowing itself apart and keeping together long enough and compressed fast enough that it instantly goes supercritical.
Without that very specific design to do so, it won't happen. CAN'T happen.
A reactor is not designed to explode so it can't. If you stocked all the reactor core fuel rods with weapons grade material, pulled out all the control rods attenuating and dampening the reaction, and shut down all the cooling systems and safeties It still CANNOT EXPLODE! It'll melt down into a radioactive slag, but the very process itself prevents it from ever reaching supercritical densites and mass to detonate as a nuke.
Now please stop pretending you know more than you do.
You know just enough to leap to wrong conclusions and think you know what you're talking about.
You're probably one of those that thinks Depleted Uranium comes from used up and spent reactor core rods.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
jljohnson1911 — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 08:32 AM)
Dude. Seriously???
Do you have this personal need to insult people when they're wrong??? I'm asking because that's pretty much half of that book you call a comment.
The reason why I said "weapons grade" was in relation to the quality of the nuclear material itself. If I was wrong about a nuclear detonation, fine. Just say so, explain why, and be done with it.
That's all you had to do. But instead, you had to get all high and mighty and belittle those you deem unworthy. -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 01:46 PM)
Was my pointing out that you read without understanding just enough to leap to wrong conclusions in any way wrong?
No?
I rest my case.
And if that's in any way "belittling" to you, I'd say that's out of your own embarrassment, not my actions.
I dont go "attacking" people for simply being wrong.
But when someone goes and "corrects" someone who knows better than them, and tries to prove them wrong with bullsh!t. Yeah.. I react.
Deal with it and next time, Maybe just try to know wtf you're talking about when you try to gainsay someone.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
jljohnson1911 — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 11:43 PM)
"Ever hear the term, "knowing just enough to be dangerous"?
That'd be you. "
"You're probably one of those that thinks Depleted Uranium comes from used up and spent reactor core rods."
That's not you going out of your way to attack someone or belittle them???
Uh huh. What you said was uncalled for. Regardless of what someone else said. The kind of response you had to someone being incorrect, was totally unwarranted. All such reactions do, is show you took the situation personally. Which means you can't separate objective from subjective. Which means you lose credibility. Which leads to no one caring about you or your opinion.
Whatever, dude. I don't care about your excuses you tell yourself so you can sleep at night. Just know that being a dick to someone who didn't deserve it, tells me (along with anyone else reading your posts) what kind of person you are.
When I made my "correction", I didn't insult the person and try to make assumptions about them from a random post from across the internet. Unlike you. You may not care what others think of you, but you should. And if you have to ask why, no answer will be sufficient.
Don't bother replying because, like I just described, I don't care. -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 01:06 AM)
Whatever, Kid.
Grow up. Learn from your mistake
Maybe check your facts before posting something to contradict what's been told as fact before you look the fool.
I stated that nuclear reactors cannot detonate in a nuclear explosion.
You then had to try and gainsay me with a bit of ignorant and bullsh!t information which you picked up but did not fully understand, leading you into a false belief.
Therefore my first statement stands as correct.
As to my second statement, I said "probably".
Of course NOW you can say you know it's not true because you know the expected answer now.
Only you can know if you really thought that or not. But your reaction embarrassment and acting out against me for pointing it out, speaks volumes.
The snideness in my comment does not come from your simply being incorrect.
It comes from your attempt at gainsaying my facts with your bullsh!t ignorance.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
Paedogeddon — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 02:42 PM)
You were being an ass (for no apparent reason).
Yep, the rat-faced beep certainly is an ass. No doubt meek and mild but on the internet an aggressive twat. Probably not getting laid and letting it all out on imdb. -
bluersun — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 05:50 PM)
Too many whiney cnts on here lately CG, I'm currently dealing with one who was offended about me joking about my cats being stuck in the washing machine - called me a sick bastard he did!! Ffs!
I've only come back on here to deal with him and noticed the butt-hurt you're up against
If people are this sensitive or this stupid, beep 'em. -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 11:37 PM)
LOL It's liberalism run rampant.
We got a whole 2 generations now raised on the idea that everything is supposed to be perfectly equal and that no one is allowed to give offense. Everyone thinks every team deserves a trophy, not just the winners.
Cant offend the losers, can we?
Political correctness, Social Justice Warriors, Feminism, Its all crap turning society into one big giant fraking pussy.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!