Shipbucket

acelanceloet wrote: - if you still use 2 reactors, place them as far as possible from each other. you don't want anything that happends to one also happening to the other, as in any powerplant. I think you have them next to each other now.....

I was still planing on two reactors, they need to be side by side to facilitate easy refuelling/changing. I have also found refererances for a Westinghouse reactor design that is 225Mwe, it's external dimensions are 9.4meters diameter and 27meters tall, but I think if modified (the steam generator is integral to the main vessel) with separate vessels for the reactor and the steam generator and an updrated design CDG has 2 150Mwe so I need at least 300-350Mwe, remember this is AU so it not unrealistic to think Rolls Royce wouldn't design a more powerful reactor specifically for this ship. 1 reactor would allow easy refuelling every 10-15 years or so....

power for other systems could be provided for by 1 or 2 diesels during reactor down time....

You could operate 1 reactor with the machinery spaces evacuated because of the other one and complete most normal operations unless your control room was evacuated, your control cables would have to be be protected from fire and water but that's a given. If a missile ruptures the reactor vessel then I doubt much of the ship would be habitable.
I don't know much about ship design so I can't fault what you said about weight distribution.

but what if an missile does not damage the reactor but floods the reactor space and disconnects the cables with the shock? this is actually quite likely. also, in an flooded space, you'd better shut down your machinery as soon as possible, as the electrical equipment does not handle that very well, let alone in a fire.
it works this way for any powered military vessel, you will hardly ever find any ship destroyer class or larger that has all machinery in one engine room.

acelanceloet wrote:but what if an missile does not damage the reactor but floods the reactor space and disconnects the cables with the shock? this is actually quite likely. also, in an flooded space, you'd better shut down your machinery as soon as possible, as the electrical equipment does not handle that very well, let alone in a fire.
it works this way for any powered military vessel, you will hardly ever find any ship destroyer class or larger that has all machinery in one engine room.

If you're cables are gone you'll need another method of scraming the reactor and keeping the coolant pumps going or you're in serious trouble, theirfore a design that doesn't allow for power to be sent to the pumps in an emergency (and pumps that would still work) and has a risk of a scram not being possible isn't one that would be safe for combat. Your cables cannot break, it's not something you can allow for, your design can't let that happen.

This is why these systems are near the reactor itself, so they only get destroyed when the reactor itself gets too (unbreakable cables and pipes do not exist)

but go ahead, point me at any 2 reactor ships which have them both in the same compartment, or otherwise the reasons why these do not exist while it clearly works better your way. I am always ready to be disproven, but nothing you brought up so far does that.

My point is that even 1 reactor in those conditions is very bad,

Your proposed situations are crazy, I have my doubts that a flooded reactor compartment is survivable, as you said the electronics wouldn't handle it well, there's too many sensitive electronics in there that are essential and I'm not exactly sure what would happen if cold water came into contact with the hot reactor and pipes.
Shutting down reactors or coolant pumps fast just can't be done it takes several days minimum, if the pumps went down and the compartment was flooded you could depressurize the reactor and if you're lucky the sea water would keep it cool enough while the reaction died down, but you'd have a high chance of having a hydrogen explosion rip your ship in half.

You're probably right that structurally better weight distribution would be important,

Bullfrog wrote:My point is that even 1 reactor in those conditions is very bad,

Your proposed situations are crazy, I have my doubts that a flooded reactor compartment is survivable, as you said the electronics wouldn't handle it well, there's too many sensitive electronics in there that are essential and I'm not exactly sure what would happen if cold water came into contact with the hot reactor and pipes. ,

Huge thermal explosion, Chernobyl...................... So mute piont really...

A power station could survive this, a ship well enough said, snap.............!

It was a hydrogen explosion that caused the Chernobyl disaster but it was a frantic race to prevent a thermal explosion from the molten fuel hitting ground water, a situation exasperated on a ship......

Makes me think of the fate of the E.S. Politovsky in Hunt for Red October. The provision of separated reactors is common sense, you don't want any accident or leakage to deny you access to the other reactor or affect its working. Separation of machinery units (of whatever type) has been standard practice since the 1930s in major warships. I assume the carrier also has powerful stand-by diesel generators too.

I assume the hull would be well armoured and protected too given the work done on CVA-01. I'm sure I read somewhere the CVA-01 was one of the best protected RN carriers in terms of underwater subdivision and armouring.

A large bank of batteries would also be needed,

x