p3x.deAstronaut Sacrifice [Pitch Black]
img.comicfury.com/comics/102/31bfd8361535f7ff25…
submitted 2 weeks ago by
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
![Astronaut Sacrifice [Pitch Black]](https://img.comicfury.com/comics/102/31bfd8361535f7ff25546ebde5b0c6cc1541423368.jpg)
img.comicfury.com/comics/102/31bfd8361535f7ff25…
submitted 2 weeks ago by
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
Well shit.
My head canon is that he knew there was an update available to fix it, he just wanted to get away from the other astronauts. I might be biased having spent the day hiding from my family.
I recall the story of the guy that told his wife he was working new years so she went to his office just to prove he was cheating. Dude was in the office. he just hates his wife that much.
Also knew another guy that came in at 6 and left at 8 daily. I swear dude did not want to be home.
I used to sit at work until 3AM just watching tv on my iPad. That was my reason.
You okay? Do you need a hug or just some chips and to be left alone?
Second one, thanks
*sets down a pack of chips in front of your door, knocks and leaves silently*
*Sends a screaming horde of children in with multiple bags of chips and soda*
*Laughs maniacally*
I'd take the hug.
Sure thing. 🤗
Must be a sysadmin who wants time alone with his server.
Don't disturb me while I'm cleaning my server room!
EMERGENCY MEETING!
Sus
I love the totally illogical idea of self-destruction in space travel.
Like we don’t have self-destruct bombs on ships or planes or research stations on earth (I’m sure there’s an exception or two, but they prove the point), why the fuck would we have them in space, which is a much more fragile environment to exist within..?
Computer shutdown procedures sure, but what possible use is a bomb that’s made to blow up your own vessel? Just so silly.
I always though the point was "This is secret/must not be given to the enemy" so destruction is a better option than having it seized
That would make sense for a cutting edge spy plane, but it's a little weird for something like the Nostromo, which is just a standard cargo ship. I guess if you sometimes carried secret cargo, though, you would want that equipment standard, since otherwise installing it custom for one trip would be a dead giveaway that there was something secret on board.
My other thought behind it was also not necessarily that it is it's own device/explosive but more so along the lines of "we will intentionally run this poorly to cause itself to self destruct." Akin to running a car engine untuned and without a radiator then full throttling it.
Someone may have just developed a program that tells the engines to do that so you wouldn't exactly need anything physically installed to have it work.
Sure, I mean, anything you need a spacecraft to do but that you can accomplish without adding extra equipment, you should probably do it that way, because it means less mass to accelerate and less equipment to test and certify and so forth. It's definitely not hard to imagine getting this functionality without adding equipment. The question is whether the ability to do this in the rare scenarios that call for it offset the drawbacks of having a system in which the protections against such failures can be disabled. Which means you then have to include a bunch of interlocks and crap to ensure it's as unlikely as possible that the ship can get into that mode without someone being very sure they want that. I think OP is probably right that on, say, a cargo ship, it's pretty unlikely that "also, the engine can explode!" would be seen as a feature rather than a wholly alarming bug.
I'd assume there are those safeties and interlocks, you'd always want that, a thumbdrive with a program that disables it is just as easy and not a "bug" which is what I was getting at. But yeah, it's unlikely most cargo ships would want that probably. I'm simply playing devils advocate because they *do* seem to have them, so how or why in the most reasonable sense is all I'm arguing.
Most of the time it seems like it’s not a bomb, but triggering some kind of uncontrolled meltdown of a reactor that’s powering the vessel, or maybe blowing up the fuel.
In some cases sure, but even then, like.. why is that so easy to do? And why are there countdowns? And why can it be intentionally triggered? That’s the real weird one. None of those things are even remotely realistic. There should be layers upon layers of safeguards to prevent the super expensive ship that took years to build from blowing up.
I mean we already have auto-shutdown processes for all sorts of explody and dangerous energy sources on earth; we even have auto-shutdown processes to prevent damage to the generator/facility. I’d assume those used to power ships would be among the safest, especially if we’ve made it to real manned exploration technology.
Warships absolutely have a "self destruct button" it's called scuttling. Done to deny the enemy the capture of the ships, or to lodge a wreck in an important location, so it blocks passage. Usually a "self destruct" is ships scuttling, but for space - you can't really do anything to a spaceship to "disable" it and prevent it from ever being used, unless you blow it to bits. Also, explosions are cool.
Same thing for abandonned tanks - burning those is often done - especially if you just lost a track, and the tank is fully operational but cannot move. If you have no chance of retrieving the vehicle, it's better to burn it than to deny the enemy the knowledge about its system, weakpoints, comms etc.
Except for
- slowing down and hitting the closest sun/planet(even has a "countdown" as it takes a while)
- hitting the nearest asteroid
- Attaching or enabling anything that causes cascading vibrations (cause almost any source of wobble can cause the ship to break)
- ....hitting full burn in any direction, making anyone follow it burn a lot of fuel just to slow it down (would still be recoverable though)
- probably a few more
Yeah, so in summation - blow it up.
Most of your suggestions require working engines. Shaking the ship apart might make the ship itself unusable but doesn't do anything about on board equipment or intel. A "scuttling" equivalent needs to work when the ship is mostly, or even completely, non-functional, and needs to either destroy everything aboard or make it not worth the effort of recovery.
Didn’t German u-boats get sunk by their crew rather than allow that tech to get into the hands of the Allied powers?
I would think self destruct is the same concept.
Many naval vessels have been sunk by their own crew rather than be captured by the enemy. It's called scuttling.
"Uh, captain, we were joking. You don't need to stay on the ship... and neither does Daniel."
**hushed whispering, quick discussion**
"Well okay, we think Daniel should stay."
We have them in missiles. Oh, and on civilian rockets too.
We put them on things that are dangerous and must be stopped is something goes wrong.
I don't think you can even make missiles without self destruct. If you can, what's the point?
To be fair, I think there's a distinction to be made between "something is wrong, blow up the missile before it hits the wrong target" and "target reached, blow up the missile"
For the first one, you can use a smaller boom.
The self-destruct does not activate the main weapon.
Artillery?
A naval ship can't destroy an entire planet with orbital bombardment.
Who says it's a bomb? In most cases self destruct is overloading the reactor, or something similar.
Protomolecule
There are flight termination systems (explosives) on rockets, but not spacecraft
Scuttling purposes or of its far enough in the future/sci-fi enough you might not want the data/object surviving if you can't have it
"Better late than never"...? Oof.