Neptune Shield - Mission Summary
Evaluation Criteria
The following assessment factors were used to evaluate the options along with a weighting of its importance.
Operational Security (30%): Impact on maintaining stealth and protecting the submarine’s classified status.
Crew Health & Safety (30%): Impact on the health and safety of the submarine crew.
Mission Continuity (20%): Ability to continue and complete the mission objectives.
Technical Feasibility (10%): Practicality and likelihood of success given the submarine’s technical capabilities.
Immediate Impact (10%): How quickly the action can stabilize the reactor to prevent further damage.
Evaluation Matrix
Each option is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest score (best outcome) and 1 being the lowest (worst outcome).
Supporting Rationale
Summary
This option ranks as the optimal response due to its ability to swiftly address the immediate reactor crisis while preserving crew safety and the submarine’s stealth. The emergency coolant reserves are specifically designed to stabilize reactor temperatures by injecting a controlled coolant flow into the affected system, preventing further overheating and averting potential reactor core damage. This solution avoids exposing the submarine to detection risks associated with surfacing or transit, allowing it to maintain its classified status. Furthermore, the built-in nature of this system ensures minimal technical complexity and a high likelihood of success, enabling the mission to proceed uninterrupted. As a preemptive system integral to submarine operations, its activation reflects a prudent balance of safety, security, and mission continuity, making it the top choice.
This option ranks highest overall because it:
- Operational Security (30%): Maintains the submarine’s stealth by avoiding maneuvers that increase detection risk.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Prioritizes crew safety by rapidly stabilizing reactor conditions without exposing personnel to hazardous environments.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Allows the mission to continue with minimal disruption, enabling successful sensor deployment.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Relies on pre-installed emergency systems, ensuring a practical and immediate response.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Quickly mitigates the critical reactor issue, providing crucial stability during the operation.
Summary
Sealing off the affected section is a practical containment strategy that mitigates immediate risks to the crew while preventing the spread of reactor-related hazards. This option involves isolating the damaged area of the reactor coolant system, reducing exposure to high radiation levels and dangerous temperatures. While it effectively limits the impact of the leak, this approach does not resolve the root cause, leaving the reactor in a partially compromised state. Technically, this option leverages the submarine’s robust compartmentalization design, maintaining a low acoustic profile and avoiding unnecessary movements that could compromise operational security. Though it ensures the submarine remains covert and the mission continues, it sacrifices long-term stability for short-term containment, making it a sound secondary option.
This option balances safety and feasibility:
- Operational Security (30%): Maintains a low detection profile by limiting external activity.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Reduces immediate risks by isolating the affected area, though at the cost of future repair complications.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Ensures the mission can proceed with minimal delays.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Technically viable due to the submarine’s structural capabilities, though it complicates future reactor maintenance.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Effectively contains the problem within a short timeframe (45 minutes), ensuring continued operational capability.
Summary
This option emphasizes maintaining operational security and stealth by avoiding surfacing or external assistance, making it the most covert solution. However, the intricate and hazardous nature of internal reactor repairs significantly increases risks to the crew. Addressing a reactor coolant leak from within the submarine requires precise maneuvers in a high-radiation environment, placing repair teams at risk of exposure to dangerous conditions. While the technical feasibility of this option depends on the availability of trained personnel and specialized tools, it provides a viable long-term fix to the reactor issue. The time required for repairs, coupled with the inherent dangers, delays mission objectives and creates operational vulnerabilities during the process. This makes it a risky yet stealth-preserving choice.
Ranks lower due to safety risks:
- Operational Security (30%): Excels in stealth by maintaining a low profile.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Poses significant risks to personnel operating near the reactor.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Delays mission timelines, with partial completion of objectives.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Involves complex and risky procedures with uncertain outcomes.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Takes time (2-3 hours) to stabilize, making it less effective in critical moments.
Summary
Proceeding to a friendly base prioritizes the crew’s long-term safety by enabling professional repairs in a controlled environment, where reactor issues can be fully addressed without exposing personnel to undue risks. However, this course of action introduces significant operational challenges, including a higher risk of detection during transit through hostile waters and the potential for enemy engagement. Additionally, prolonged travel time leaves the reactor in an unstable state, further endangering the submarine. The decision to retreat also means abandoning mission objectives, undermining operational continuity. While technically feasible and safe from a crew perspective, the strategic and tactical costs make this a suboptimal choice.
Prioritizes safety but sacrifices mission objectives:
- Operational Security (30%): High risk of detection during transit due to prolonged exposure in hostile waters.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Maximizes crew safety by moving to a secure environment for professional repairs.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Abandons the mission, failing to achieve key objectives.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Feasible for long-term reactor repair but not for immediate crisis management.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Slow response, leaving the reactor unstable during transit.
Summary
Evacuating the submarine is the most drastic measure, prioritizing the crew’s immediate safety above all else. This involves surfacing the submarine, which significantly increases its acoustic and visual detectability, jeopardizing operational security. While this option ensures no personnel are harmed by the reactor’s unstable condition, it abandons the mission entirely, rendering the operation a failure. Additionally, this decision exposes the submarine’s sensitive technology and classified systems to potential recovery by adversaries, compounding strategic losses. Although technically straightforward to execute, the ramifications of this action on national security and mission success are profound, making it a last-resort option.
A last-resort option:
- Operational Security (30%): Catastrophic compromise due to surfacing and abandoning the vessel.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Fully prioritizes crew safety by removing personnel from danger.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Complete failure, abandoning all mission objectives.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Logistically viable but extreme in scope and consequence.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Stabilizes the crew’s immediate safety but not the reactor.
Summary
Surfacing to vent heat is the fastest and most direct response to stabilizing the overheating reactor. By rapidly releasing excess heat into the atmosphere, this option prevents further reactor damage and reduces immediate risks to the crew. However, this solution carries severe operational consequences, as surfacing exposes the submarine to detection by enemy forces, compromising stealth and rendering the mission untenable. Moreover, venting heat creates a thermal signature detectable by adversary sensors, further heightening the risk of engagement. While technically simple and effective in managing the reactor crisis in the short term, this approach sacrifices both operational security and mission continuity, making it the least favorable option.
Ranks lowest due to severe operational risks:
- Operational Security (30%): High risk of detection, making it the most vulnerable option.
- Crew Health & Safety (30%): Provides moderate relief by reducing reactor overheating.
- Mission Continuity (20%): Mission is effectively compromised due to detection and inability to proceed covertly.
- Technical Feasibility (10%): Simple and immediate but tactically unsound.
- Immediate Impact (10%): Offers the fastest stabilization but at the expense of mission and security.
Past Performance of Teams
Team Scorecard
Submit Your Team Scorecard
To submit your scorecard: (1) Calculate Total Score (above); (2) Fill in Organization Name, Team Name, and Your Email Address (below); and (3) Click on the “Submit Team Scorecard” button (below).
Once you’ve had an opportunity to review the Mission Summary, proceed to the Mission Retrospective under the guidance your Facilitator to unpack your team’s experience further.