Water *spoiler*

[Renee .S]

Wow! Water was a great episode. I love the way everything ties together as Headgehog mentioned. And the fine details of the storyline. I’ve often speculated that the difference between a good show and a great one is in the attention to the smallest details. Average shows tend to ‘forget’ little things while the great ones get every little detail down (like keeping Ed Harris’ hand blue for all of Abyss after he puts it in a blue toilet, but I digress …). One detail of the show I especially like are the scenes of fighters outside in space. I like the way the show kind of “goes quiet”, like you might imagine space to be, since it is a vacuum. And there is no overdone music to lose the quiet effect of space. It’s that kind of detail that keeps me interested.

I wanted to respond to an item from Headgehog’s initial review of ‘Water’. And before I go much further, let me also say that this is not ‘Renee.S’ at the moment, but her husband and fellow Sci-Fi nut, Antonios. Anyway, from his review there is the followoing very appropriate remark:

[quote]Now this bothers me a little lot. The Galactica was nuked a few metres from these water tanks in the mini, and there wasn’t that big a crater in the hull. A few sissy blocks of C4 exploded, and suddenly all the water comes blasting out of the thick hull. I don’t think so![/quote]

This is actually not as far-fetched an idea as one might think. I am a U.S. Marine and recently commanded a special platoon that uses C4 high explosive to clear paths through minefields and obstacles, especially those in the shallow water surfzone during an amphibious assault. Explosives or more specifically their explosive energy follow the path of least resistance. When an explosive is set off under water the power of the explosive is actually magnified many times over because the energy is not lost going out a ‘path of low resistance’. This whole capability of magnifying the explosive is called the “Tamping Effect”. Now take the explosive and water and place it inside an enclosed steel case and neither the water or explosive energy have anywhere to go. The steel case would very-likely rupture, probably at some structurally weak point. Think DeNiro in the cat-burglar/safecracker movie he did a few years ago, where he filled a safe with water and used explosive to rupture the safe.

The nuke in space on the other hand, if it detonated outside of the ship without first penetrating the hull, would have a somewhat lost effect. The overwhelming majority of its force would follow the path of least resistance into space. Of course if it had penetrated first and then exploded it would be Battlestar Bananasplit because of the overpressure.

I’d say the part of the water tank rupture that is more unrealistic is the rupturing into space. I think the tanks would have ruptured, but probably at a more likely weak-point, maybe on the inside of the ship, and not the outside. Or maybe not? Maybe the nuke weakened joints of the ship and the tampened explosive exploited the weakness. They also mention that the nuke destroyed the outer hull but stopped at the inner hull, and maybe that inner hull was weaker. Anyway, it could possibly happen!

Well, I’m off now. I can’t wait for the next episode. I used to watch the old Battlestar when I was a kid, and now I like this new one just as much. I’m not sure which character is my favorite yet, but I really like the job Olmos is doing with the commander. 😀

[Headgehog]

First off, welcome to the site, and thank-you for posting such a detailed and interesting post.

[quote=”Renee.S”]Explosives or more specifically their explosive energy follow the path of least resistance. When an explosive is set off under water the power of the explosive is actually magnified many times over because the energy is not lost going out a ‘path of low resistance’. This whole capability of magnifying the explosive is called the “Tamping Effect”. Now take the explosive and water and place it inside an enclosed steel case and neither the water or explosive energy have anywhere to go. The steel case would very-likely rupture, probably at some structurally weak point. [/quote]
Excellent points. I agree with what you wrote about the water increasing the damage from the explosive.
Unfortunately, the special effects/sets on the episode disagree Actually the various shots don’t even agree with each other!
The hull breaches were shown to be at the top of the aquifer. Which one might logically think then that the explosives were at the top of the pressure vessel. But the aquifer has a walkway, that under normal conditions, is just above water level. A brief scene takes place in there in Litmus Test to show this. if the explosives were placed there, then they wouldn’t have the benefit of the water to aid in the explosion. We also saw the explosives underwater during the episode, albeit briefly. It seems doubtful to me that the water expanded enough to cause the kind of pressure needed to breach the hull. But I’ll chuck this up to artistic licence, On TV shows, there isn’t always people on the sets looking out for very technical inconsistencies like this.

[quote=”Renee.S”]The nuke in space on the other hand, if it detonated outside of the ship without first penetrating the hull, would have a somewhat lost effect. The overwhelming majority of its force would follow the path of least resistance into space. Of course if it had penetrated first and then exploded it would be Battlestar Bananasplit because of the overpressure.[/quote]
Most of a nukes damage comes from the sudden heat generated by the explosion ( mostly in the forms of various forms of EM waves) A nuke in space isn’t very effective because it doesn’t have the concussive force of the 500 mph wind that it would in an atmospheric detonation. (Just another kind of Tamping Effect really)
The radiation from the nuke pretty much goes everywhere equally, and at least half of it was facing toward the Galactica. The parts nearby did get hit with a lot of heat, which caused the hull to melt, or air on the other side to expand and exploded outward. Hence all the damage it caused. Not to forget about the secondary damage from the fires the heat would cause etc. While most of the hull survived the heat, it could have lost some of its strength depending on how the material was prepared. But I’m getting into too many secondary effects now.

I’d be interested to see what the energy delivered per square area would be when comparing the nuke to the G4 explosives. I would still think the nuke would be an order(s) of magnitude greater. But there’s no real way to know for sure.

[ebonyknight]

I liked the review, but I disagree with one point about the nuke strikes the galactica took, yet some G4 could blow out the tanks.

Demolitions is an artform. There are plenty examples of finese rather than brute force being needed to accomplish a goal.

Look at the power and force a dam holds back. Tons and tons of water that has a LOT of destructive potential, yet the dam holds it back….BUT place a few charges in strategic places…the dam won’t hold.

I have been watching a LOT of sci-fi my entire life and usually am the one to nitpick. But I find so far that BSG is doing a damn good job (coincidentally?) of making the show realistic. I haven’t seen such a good job of this since Stargate SG1.

I think it is entirely plausible that the Galactica could take these nuke strikes on the outside hull and not breach, yet some strategically placed charges INSIDE the hull could do it.

Remember the Galactica is a combat vessel and is expected to be attacked by nukes, so I am sure their science has some hardening techniques to combat it. But sabotage from the inside is ALWAYS far more destructive.

Just my two cents.

Oh, BTW. Boomer was soaking wet at the beginning of the ep, so she obviously dove into the tanks to place the charges, making the explosions that much more destructive as the previous poster noted.

[Author]

Posts