Comment by TeMPOraL
14 hours ago
Isn't that a kind of thing you just have to bite the bullet and deal with directly, because waiting only makes dealing with it more expensive with time?
Just evacuate the people and blow it up, accepting that it'll inconvenience a lot of folks and the national budget even more, but will also briefly revitalize the local economy, as every contractor there is will maximize the opportunity to suck out the funds set aside for repairing buildings damaged in the explosion - and make sure to record the disposal itself from every possible angle, with most expensive cameras government can buy, as selling clips of it to the media industry would be a licensing goldmine and recoup some of the costs.
Hell, turn it into a spectator event, and tourists coming to see it may just pay for the whole thing.
I think the 1960s salvage effort of the similar SS Kielce which detonated while they were trying to remove the explosives put off similar efforts for SS Richard Montgomery. Mind you, I'm not sure what they thought would happen since they attempted to clear debris from the wreck with explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Kielce
According to Wikipedia the leading plans were more like evacuate everyone, build some protection around it, then dissemble it one piece at a time and blow the pieces up individually.
This makes sense if you can tolerate some chance of the whole thing blowing up, but you'd still prefer not to replace all those windows.
If you keep it from exploding long enough the explosives will degrade and stop being explosives. Seawater ain't great for stuff.
Some explosives degrade by becoming more and more sensitive and dangerous, not less.
The question though is at what rate will things happen. Not everything degrades that way as well. The ideal state would be everything degrades such that when those that do become more sensitive explode there isn't enough else still explosive (because it degraded to nonexplosive) and so we don't get the secondary explosions that makes the whole dangerous.
We are also hoping that future technology will figure out a better way to handle this.
2 replies →
Source?
3 replies →
Yes, but why be the politician or civil servant responsible for dealing with it when it will most assuredly be someone else's problem in a few years? The political upside of getting it done is low, and the risk and cost are high.
OTOH make a spectacle out of it, and forever secure your place in history books.
If they can spend 5 millions just for mast removal, I am pretty sure they could build some rough reinforced concrete dome / something similar all around it (15m depth ain't something impossible to build on) that could absorb most of the blast.
Say 50 million budget. Of course red tape, bureaucracy and just laziness/incompetence of state bureaucrats would make such budget balloon and drag for a decade or two, but it should be doable.
Water is a great blast-absorbent material.
If 15m of water can't contain the blast, adding concrete or similar is more likely to add solid projectiles to the explosion than diminish the force of the blast.
It's the opposite.
You probably wouldn't build a dome. Better to build a open top cylinder so that the explosion is directed up. Then gravity takes the heavy stuff right back down, while water comes out as rain. Though that would be very expensive and hide the explosion so you can't sell tickets.
Note that I'm not claiming the above is a good plan. Just that it is better than a dome.
Build a dome and put a spaceship on top. An improvised Project Orion.