Commercial starship lifeboat requirements

[Carlobrand]

...Here is a link to a figure showing the amount of time that it takes to decrease the population of a certain type of bacterial spores by 90% at different temperatures for both wet and dry conditions. ... As such, its really hard for me to see how using heat to try and eliminate or control a dangerous bacterial outbreak onboard a ship could be used to solve the problem.

I talk about one or two thousand two degrees, you post a link about 170 degrees? You do understand that the temperatures NIH is talking about are lower than some cooking temperatures, yes? Chicken, for example, gets cooked at 176 C for about an hour or so. No, the temps we're thinking about would reduce chicken to carbon soot in short order. That's the point: use temperatures that organic chemical bonds cannot survive, and the organisms on which they are based will - well, be reduced to carbon soot. It's about bond energy: pump in enough heat, chemical bonds break. Nothing made of molecules can survive that.

As for cooling - if you can deal with the heat of a fusion plant (which is most likely giving you the heat you need for the sterilization in the first place), then chilling a sterilized gas is child's play. In fact, there's a very good chance that heat is the method you're using to break down CO2 to get the oxygen free, since you've got all that free heat available in the first place, so you're very likely killing two birds with one stone. After that, it's just a question of capturing the carbon.

...The alternative though would appear to be to leave everyone in the same confined space of the main ship with people already know to be sick and in a contagious state. ...

Here's an interesting fact. If you're in a nursing home, and you come down with a highly infectious airborne disease, you know what they do? They make you stay in your room. You don't go to a hospital unless you actually need hospital services to survive. The only protection for the other residents is the door on your room. The staff wear masks, gowns and gloves when they enter, they remove that garb as they exit and deposit it in a red plastic garbage bag clearly labeled with a big biohazard label, in a big red trash can similarly labeled; the bag gets picked up by a company specializing in biohazardous wastes, and the bag gets incinerated. Housekeeping staff, wearing the same gear, clean the room daily with chemicals identified as deadly to the organism. CDC calls it "airborne isolation precautions".

Chlorine bleach in sufficient concentration is wickedly deadly to organic life, but there are other chemicals in use as well 'cause a lot of folk find the chlorine concentration hard on the nose. However, if all else fails, chlorine bleach in sufficient concentration will kill anything that depends on organic chemical processes.

Also pretty deadly, interestingly enough, is oxygen; ozone (O3) can be more effective than chlorine, and a pure O2 environment is deadly to bacteria (and hard on humans for a variety of reasons). However, a pure O2 atmosphere represents a significant fire hazard - things that are ordinarily only mildly combustible will burn like gasoline in a pure O2 atmosphere.

Also very effective is ultraviolet light; burns the buggies worse than it burns you, 'cause they don't have pigmented skin to protect them.

And, as we mentioned, high temperatures.

The ultrahigh protective measures used against certain extreme diseases reflects their lethality more than anything else. Interestingly enough, the typical Traveller vac suit offers more protection than the best modern biohazard gear, 'cause Traveller vac suits are reasonably resistant to puncture. So, the best defense in an absolute worst this-little-airborne-virus-has-wings-and-homes-in-on-warm-bodies-at-a-range-of-20-meters case is still to get your passengers into rescue balls and your crew into vac suits to stop transmission dead in its tracks - after which you wait for further direction from the infection control office of the port authority, 'cause if you try to land or leave a ship with that kind of infection aboard, the best way to sterilize it is to put the ship and anything leaving it at the heart of a nuclear explosion.

......if you are on a ship and someone has come down with an infectious disease that may have (or even may be threatening to) spread into the main ship's life support systems ...

I think we've established that the life support system is not at risk of harboring infectious disease - at least not for long. Between intakes and the output vents is a space that is deadly for microorganisms, so the cycle of spread is blocked. As for any organism that manages to hide short of that deadly space - say a bacterial strain lodges in an outlet vent while the system is idle for some reason - a pure oxygen flush will kill them. Or build the ductwork with internal UV emitters.

The thing to remember is that these are life forms. Even the most wicked bacteria are vulnerable to the basic things that rip up molecules, because they're living things that depend on molecular interactions to survive. Viruses are less vulnerable since they're essentially inert until they find their target, but they are still vulnerable: bust up their molecular construction with enough heat or the proper disinfectant, and they ain't viruses no more. It doesn't matter how alien the little thingie is, it still has to obey basic laws of chemistry.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

The issue with extremely high temperatures has several negative side effects. Even if we assume a 'magic heat sink' with which to dump the heat into, there is still the issue of the amount of time that it will take to cool this 'super heated air' back down to a usable level, which will be dependent not only on the heat transfer ability of the air but also the temperature of where you are dumping your heat into.

Even if we assume that we have the ability to dump the heat to the coldest possible location, which based on current science that appears to be absolute zero, and is a constant that having future tech would not seem likely to change. Additionally, the thermal properties of air and the rate at which it can shed its heat also appear not likely to change due to some 'future tech'.

In addition, if you are super heating the air and water to very high values then you will also need to address the issues of thermal expansion of these items. Doing a quick internet search at a standard pressure it appears that the density of normal air will drop by over 1/2 in going from typical room temperature air to something close to 800 deg F (let alone something higher). Or in other words the volume of the air would more than double. Similarly, unless under extreme pressures at such high temperatures the water would be expected to flash to steam and greatly increase its volume requirements.

As such proposals for heating the air to some extreme value appear to have significant problems, whether you assume a magic heat sink or not.

It may also be worth noting that the image in question about the bacterial spores resistance to elevated temperatures came directly from a paper entitled "Resistance of Bacillus Endospores to Extreme Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Environments" - http://mmbr.asm.org/content/64/3/548.full )

Additionally, as a side note, if you do not believe that bacteria or viruses are an issue with life support systems, a quick internet search could easily point you to the reports of several issues that were experienced by the Russians on a couple of their space stations due to these issues (I believe that it was the Mir and one (or more) of the Salyut stations).

As for number of air changes per hour, in the design of a lot of different things air flow is typically used not only to ensure a safe breathable atmosphere is maintain throughout a space but also to control internal temperatures, humidity and to clean the air of contaminants. In some ways the air ventilation and conditioning requirements for a space ship or space station and those of a submarine may have many similarities and there is actually a paper on the internet which makes some comparisons between design practices for French nuclear submarines and current space station designs with regards to these systems.

Along these lines, there is some info on the HNSA website that provides a volumetric breakdown for a US Submarine from the post World War II period which also shows information on air flow and number of time to change out the air in the space for the different spaces on that vessel. These times can vary from less than 1 minute for sanitary spaces, to less than two minutes for some machinery spaces (as well as the Galley and Mess Deck), to between 2 and 3.5 for the living spaces, and higher for some other spaces such as the storerooms, motor room, and torpedo rooms).

Taking a rough weighted average of all the spaces it appears that the average number of air changes per hour for the entire boat is about 24 or so (if I did the math correctly).

Similarly there are several sources on the internet for recommended air changes per hour for various spaces on surface vessels (such as from Germanischer Lloyds - a German Ship Classification Society). Here for spaces not normally entered the recommended number of air changes per hour can be as low as 8, while electric motor rooms and compressor or pump rooms may be as high as 30 (or more). Cargo spaces can be as low as 6, but will increase if running vehicles are present.

Air change requirements for other structures and such can also be looked up for comparison.

For a starship, with heat generating loads such as electronics, large computers, and onboard powerplants, jump drives and maneuver drives, I would kind of suspect that values for them may likely be similar, if not perhaps even a little bit more, since on a surface ship (and even a submarine) the delta in temperature between the inside of the ship and the outside would not likely be as high as on a 'starship' where you may at times either be in deep space and/or potentially in the shadow of a planet etc at some times, while at other times at least one side of your ship may be exposed to direct 'sunlight' from the local star in the system that you are in.

For reference, from stuff I've read in books or on the internet, it appears that the old Skylab space station operated at about 10 air changes per hour, as did the crew section of the Space Shuttle. The main Common Cabin Air Assembly units currently on the International Space Station appear to be capable of providing similar performance, but they appear to also be augmented in their duties by additional cabin air and thermal cooling units within the Crew Quarter racks.

 

[lspitz]

I don't see the waste heat problem as insurmountable, or even particularly challenging. A starship running a fusion reactor must necessarily already have a way of coping with an amount of waste heat that is many orders of magnitude above and beyond what direct pyrolytic sterilization of the ship's air supply would generate, should the situation come to that extreme. If a heat sink to handle the output of the fusion reactor is not available, then the starship will not be flying in the first place. Furthermore, if you designate an isolation room, you only have to deal with a small percentage of the total air supply at any one time- the stuff that's being sucked back into the vents from that room and is going to the air purification plant. Knock another order of magnitude off the waste heat problem.

It's also worth noting that a civilization that has been working with compressed gases in closed environmental systems for thousands of years will have a way of dealing with thermal expansion and contraction. They might even borrow the techniques that we use today, as the laws of physics are not likely to change.

Realistically, HEPA filters (a pre-starflight technology in widespread and routine use today) will obviate the need to employ extreme temperatures for air sterilization unless they are offline for some reason, and will certainly be part of any closed-cycle air purification system. Air molecules are many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest possible infectious agent; high-volume gas and liquid sterilization by filtration has been simple, cheap and routine since the mid-20th century. But should these filtration systems break down or be sabotaged, there are many other ways of coping with the problem, and the posters on this thread have done a pretty good job of enumerating them.

The only way I can see an infection getting out of hand on a starship, barring deliberate sabotage, is if the people are careless, and do not follow rational protocols for maintaining equipment in good working order and isolating infected patients and those exposed to them. The negative-pressure stateroom as an emergency isolation ward is insanely simple to rig; you just turn down the inflow fans to that stateroom and crank the exhaust ones, and uncontaminated air will flow into the stateroom following the pressure gradient and prevent contaminated air from leaking out. The contaminated air gets sucked directly into the purification plant without endangering the rest of the ship. Even when you open the stateroom door to bring in food and medical supplies, the airflow will be in through the door.

 

[Carlobrand]

...The issue with extremely high temperatures has several negative side effects. Even if we assume a 'magic heat sink' with which to dump the heat into, there is still the issue of the amount of time that it will take to cool this 'super heated air' back down to a usable level, which will be dependent not only on the heat transfer ability of the air but also the temperature of where you are dumping your heat into.

Even if we assume that we have the ability to dump the heat to the coldest possible location, which based on current science that appears to be absolute zero, and is a constant that having future tech would not seem likely to change. Additionally, the thermal properties of air and the rate at which it can shed its heat also appear not likely to change due to some 'future tech'.

In addition, if you are super heating the air and water to very high values then you will also need to address the issues of thermal expansion of these items. Doing a quick internet search at a standard pressure it appears that the density of normal air will drop by over 1/2 in going from typical room temperature air to something close to 800 deg F (let alone something higher). Or in other words the volume of the air would more than double. Similarly, unless under extreme pressures at such high temperatures the water would be expected to flash to steam and greatly increase its volume requirements.

As such proposals for heating the air to some extreme value appear to have significant problems, whether you assume a magic heat sink or not.

It may also be worth noting that the image in question about the bacterial spores resistance to elevated temperatures came directly from a paper entitled "Resistance of Bacillus Endospores to Extreme Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Environments" - http://mmbr.asm.org/content/64/3/548.full )

Additionally, as a side note, if you do not believe that bacteria or viruses are an issue with life support systems, a quick internet search could easily point you to the reports of several issues that were experienced by the Russians on a couple of their space stations due to these issues (I believe that it was the Mir and one (or more) of the Salyut stations).

As for number of air changes per hour, in the design of a lot of different things air flow is typically used not only to ensure a safe breathable atmosphere is maintain throughout a space but also to control internal temperatures, humidity and to clean the air of contaminants. In some ways the air ventilation and conditioning requirements for a space ship or space station and those of a submarine may have many similarities and there is actually a paper on the internet which makes some comparisons between design practices for French nuclear submarines and current space station designs with regards to these systems.

Along these lines, there is some info on the HNSA website that provides a volumetric breakdown for a US Submarine from the post World War II period which also shows information on air flow and number of time to change out the air in the space for the different spaces on that vessel. These times can vary from less than 1 minute for sanitary spaces, to less than two minutes for some machinery spaces (as well as the Galley and Mess Deck), to between 2 and 3.5 for the living spaces, and higher for some other spaces such as the storerooms, motor room, and torpedo rooms).

Taking a rough weighted average of all the spaces it appears that the average number of air changes per hour for the entire boat is about 24 or so (if I did the math correctly).

Similarly there are several sources on the internet for recommended air changes per hour for various spaces on surface vessels (such as from Germanischer Lloyds - a German Ship Classification Society). Here for spaces not normally entered the recommended number of air changes per hour can be as low as 8, while electric motor rooms and compressor or pump rooms may be as high as 30 (or more). Cargo spaces can be as low as 6, but will increase if running vehicles are present.

Air change requirements for other structures and such can also be looked up for comparison.

For a starship, with heat generating loads such as electronics, large computers, and onboard powerplants, jump drives and maneuver drives, I would kind of suspect that values for them may likely be similar, if not perhaps even a little bit more, since on a surface ship (and even a submarine) the delta in temperature between the inside of the ship and the outside would not likely be as high as on a 'starship' where you may at times either be in deep space and/or potentially in the shadow of a planet etc at some times, while at other times at least one side of your ship may be exposed to direct 'sunlight' from the local star in the system that you are in.

For reference, from stuff I've read in books or on the internet, it appears that the old Skylab space station operated at about 10 air changes per hour, as did the crew section of the Space Shuttle. The main Common Cabin Air Assembly units currently on the International Space Station appear to be capable of providing similar performance, but they appear to also be augmented in their duties by additional cabin air and thermal cooling units within the Crew Quarter racks.

So, in a nutshell, we've established that Traveller fusion plants are impossible because there's no way to deal with the heat. If we cannot carry away the heat needed to sterilize air in a reasonable time, carrying away the heat needed to generate fusion sufficient to deliver 250 megawatts power output or more is probably way, way outside our far-future abilities.

And, since our modern TL7-8 solar-powered/fuel-cell-powered/et al counterparts are still dealing with bacterial problems, clearly our TL9+ fusion-powered systems are going to have the same problems.

I see no great need to comment further on that. I believe the average reader is quite competent to read your opinions and the various counteropinions and draw his or her own conclusions. Yes indeed, I do believe there is plenty there for them to draw conclusions from.

 

[PFVA63]

So, in a nutshell, we've established that Traveller fusion plants are impossible because there's no way to deal with the heat. If we cannot carry away the heat needed to sterilize air in a reasonable time, carrying away the heat needed to generate fusion sufficient to deliver 250 megawatts power output or more is probably way, way outside our far-future abilities.

And, since our modern TL7-8 solar-powered/fuel-cell-powered/et al counterparts are still dealing with bacterial problems, clearly our TL9+ fusion-powered systems are going to have the same problems.

I see no great need to comment further on that. I believe the average reader is quite competent to read your opinions and the various counteropinions and draw his or her own conclusions. Yes indeed, I do believe there is plenty there for them to draw conclusions from.

Hi,

I specifically said I was not objecting to the 'magic heat sink'.

I specifically instead noted that based on known scientific principles of the heat transfer and thermal expansion coefficients of air (as well as water) and the fact that the heat sink would likely have to be no cooler than 'absolute zero' that 'even with magic heat sinks' you still have problems with using extremely high temperatures to control bacterial and viral issues in your air and water supply, especially considering the number of air transfers per hour that a vessel like a starship will likely require.

I too agree that anyone who has read any of the previous comments will easily be able to draw their own conclusions.

From everything posted and discussed I believe that it is very clear that probably pretty much since recorded time trade and travel between cultures have contributed to the spread of diseases. (see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic ).

In addition it has also been established that the interstellar Pandemics and such are a part of Canon and played a role in the fall of the 1st Imperium and rise of the 2nd Imperium during the Interstellar Wars period. And in addition to this it has also been noted that there have been many periods described in various rulesets and adventures set during periods such the rise of the 3rd Imperium as it emerges from the Long Nite, the 5th Frontier War, the Solomani Rim War, the Rebellion Era, the Sentient Computer Virus Era, and the Post Virus Era, etc where there would likely be 'hard times' and/or areas devastated by war and/or severe economic hardships where diseases could also spread (not to also mention any periods of severe natural disasters etc).

It has also been noted that there are examples in Canon of not only small craft being used as lifeboats, but also there is a specific example in one of the earliest adventures that suggest that the passengers and crew of a derelict starship may likely have abandoned ship in one of the ship's small craft due to the outbreak of a disease onboard the parent ship.

Beyond this it has also been noted that, contrary to any claims that bacterial and viral infestation of life support systems (and to be honest other systems as well) being controllable using TL 7 Technology, the life support systems of many recent real world space stations have encountered specific problems with just such issues, ( see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838899 , http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11may_locad3/ , http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mir-00zza.html , http://rense.com/general8/spacefungus.htm , http://rt.com/news/iss-bacteria-mir-mutation-765/ , http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11may_locad3/ )

As such, I see no reason to question or disregard references from Canon that the spread of diseases can be a real issue in a star faring setting nor that some disease outbreaks onboard ships may be hard to control and could potentially lead to the passengers and crew abandoning ship.

Fungus Growing on ISS

 

[HG_B]

I specifically instead noted that based on known scientific principles of the heat transfer and thermal expansion coefficients of air (as well as water) and the fact that the heat sink would likely have to be no cooler than 'absolute zero' that 'even with magic heat sinks' you still have problems with using extremely high temperatures to control bacterial and viral issues in your air and water supply, especially considering the number of air transfers per hour that a vessel like a starship will likely require.

Utterly and completely incorrect.

 

[Carlobrand]

...I specifically said I was not objecting to the 'magic heat sink'.

I specifically instead noted that based on known scientific principles of the heat transfer and thermal expansion coefficients of air (as well as water) and the fact that the heat sink would likely have to be no cooler than 'absolute zero' that 'even with magic heat sinks' you still have problems with using extremely high temperatures to control bacterial and viral issues in your air and water supply, especially considering the number of air transfers per hour that a vessel like a starship will likely require.

Excellent. Since you understand the heat transfer and thermal expansion coefficient issues, do the math and satisfy yourself that there is no problem. Or provide the math that shows us there's a problem. Stating there's science is not the same as showing the science.

...From everything posted and discussed I believe that it is very clear that ... [various bits about disease in the game and in the world] ...

Let's briefly discuss the construction of an effective argument. You advance a hypothesis. You provide evidence that supports your hypothesis. Others may challenge your evidence or provide evidence that refutes your hypothesis. You address their points, challenge their evidence if possible, present additional relevant evidence, or you revise your hypothesis to take into account the points and evidence they submitted.

In this context, the hypothesis in question is, "lifeboats can be useful in a disease crisis aboard ship." Several challenges have been raised to the hypothesis, including:

1. When you have no means of assuring that one or more of those in the space are not already infected, concentrating individuals in a small enclosed space increases the risk of infection for all of those within the space.

2. Attempting to flee a plague ship in a boat places other worlds at risk that you will transmit the plague to them - and local customs craft may take extreme measures to keep that from happening.

3. More effective methods of control exist, including existing compartmentalization, in-room quarantine and retreating to rescue balls and vac suits. These method do not present the same dangers that a retreat to a small boat presents.

That disease exists is unquestioned. That it plays a role in the milieu is unquestioned. That the milieu presents at least one case of a civilian merchant ship with lifeboats is unquestioned. The question to be answered is: can you present a case for the use of a boat in a shipboard disease outbreak that specifically addresses these three problems with your hypothesis?

To date, your responses have consisted of speculation that the air recycling system of a far future ship from a culture with several thousand years experience traveling between the stars could possibly become contaminated by disease, using examples from a TL7 culture with 56 years experience gained primarily in orbit around its own planet, and presumably that said contamination could cross compartments. That, and observations about the milieu and disease in general that don't actually refute the counterarguments, and a few general observations about scientific principals without actually "doing the math" to prove the point.

...It has also been noted that there are examples in Canon of not only small craft being used as lifeboats, but also there is a specific example in one of the earliest adventures that suggest that the passengers and crew of a derelict starship may likely have abandoned ship in one of the ship's small craft due to the outbreak of a disease onboard the parent ship. ...

Technically, it is not a specific example since the adventure never specifically states that there was a third boat or other crew. Rather, it is very strongly implied in evidence presented in that adventure, strongly enough that most accept it as a given. As to the boat in question, there is no evidence that those who (we believe) abandoned the ship survived to reach a port. Ergo, your hypothesis remains troubled by counterargument #1 above.

I should perhaps admit to a bias. Part of my job involves evaluating the infection control regimens of Medicaid- and Medicare-certified facilities. I'm neither a physician nor an epidemiologist, but from what I've learned in the course of being trained to evaluate those systems, the idea of cramming people into a lifeboat to escape epidemic scares the willies out of me, both for the people who go in there and for anyone they might encounter. Are frightened people likely to grab a handy lifeboat and try to flee, regardless of the risks? Certainly - and then they will most likely die.

 

[rancke]

Another argument that PF has completely ignored is that just proving that there is a risk isn't enough. The real question is if the risk is considered high enough to spend money on countermeasures in the first place. If it is, then, and only then, does it become germane which countermeasures are better/cheaper than which.


Hans

 

[rancke]

As such, I see no reason to question or disregard references from Canon that the spread of diseases can be a real issue in a star faring setting nor that some disease outbreaks onboard ships may be hard to control and could potentially lead to the passengers and crew abandoning ship.

But could they lead to ship designers providing lifeboats for no other reason than to abandon ships in case of disease outbreaks? That's what we keep telling you is very far from being a foregone conclusion.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

There are so many other factors besides just a risk.

In the US there are numerous states that don't require motorcycle helmets for adults. Numerous states that don't require rear seat belts for adults, and some not even in the front.

Why some and not others. People mostly acknowledge the risk. The US government does not force the states. Why would the Imperium, who mostly lets systems do their own thing, dictate certain requirements?

 

[Carlobrand]

But could they lead to ship designers providing lifeboats for no other reason than to abandon ships in case of disease outbreaks? That's what we keep telling you is very far from being a foregone conclusion.


Hans

As I recall, he later retreated from that one and had instead revised his position to the idea that the lifeboat, if present, would be useful in a disease-outbreak scenario as an alternate habitat - although he does keep coming back to the idea of folk abandoning ship in the lifeboat to escape the epidemic being a useful strategy.

 

[Carlobrand]

There are so many other factors besides just a risk.

In the US there are numerous states that don't require motorcycle helmets for adults. Numerous states that don't require rear seat belts for adults, and some not even in the front.

Why some and not others. People mostly acknowledge the risk. The US government does not force the states. Why would the Imperium, who mostly lets systems do their own thing, dictate certain requirements?

Occurs to me after recent discussions about misjumpsthat if I'm jumping between stars, I'm more worried about misjump than disease. If disease is a concern, I can carry those little pressure tents and emergency rations and whip those out to have a means to isolate individuals - whether the infected or the not-yet-infected - during flight.

 

[lspitz]

The ISS is, frankly, pretty low-tech even for the time period when it was built. And it was designed by not one committee, but several, in different countries. It's a jury-rigged collection of tin cans manufactured in varying times and places to varying specifications.

Does it have microbiological problems related to its design? Clearly.

Is it a good analog for conditions aboard Traveller-style starship? Clearly not.

A much better analog is the long-endurance submarine. Submarines have life support systems not unlike those you would find on a starship, but more importantly, unlike the ISS, they also share the feature of being subject to a local acceleration due to gravity. I.e., they are not in free-fall, and this makes a tremendous difference in the way that the air aboard it behaves, and how and where moisture will condense (which is where mold and bacterial growth can occur). We're quite used to dealing with air that circulates in a gravitational field. We're still working out the kinks for managing environmental conditions in free-fall.

I haven't found any literature on historical outbreaks of communicable disease aboard a submarine, but I have found a couple of papers that note that the primary health risks aboard a sub are physical injury and upper respiratory infection (for enlisted men; reverse the order of these risks if you're a commissioned officer). I imagine that the military wouldn't be too quick to publicize data on serious disease outbreaks aboard its ships, so I'm not really surprised at the lack of publicly-available information about the topic.

Anyway, as a biologist with extensive experience in microbiology and molecular biochemistry and a lot of hands-on practice working with and containing human pathogens, I don't see any technical barriers to making a starship at least as safe and hospitable as a submarine, and I can see lots of ways to deal with an onboard outbreak in an emergency. If I had no other option than to use a lifeboat, I'd put the infected patient in it. Alone.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

If I had no other option than to use a lifeboat, I'd put the infected patient in it. Alone.

Then punch that lifeboat out into the nearest star.... (If that's not hot enough to sterilize the lifeboat and the patient, then everyone is in a lot of trouble.)

 

[HG_B]

Then punch that lifeboat out into the nearest star.... (If that's not hot enough to sterilize the lifeboat and the patient, then everyone is in a lot of trouble.)

:rofl:

 

[lspitz]

Then punch that lifeboat out into the nearest star.... (If that's not hot enough to sterilize the lifeboat and the patient, then everyone is in a lot of trouble.)

Works for me. Although in the interest of having a good alibi, I might watch the monitors and wait until the patient stops moving before telling the computer to starting the launch sequence.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Why waste a good lifeboat? What's the SOP for hijackers, or any danger to ship or crew? From the moment the topic of dangerous diseases and crazed people (or was that another thread?) started I figured it was Captains prerogative to send anyone infected out the airlock and sanitize the ship.

 

[SanDragon]

 

[Carlobrand]

It ain't dead until you can suck the pulped remains up with a straw. :devil:

 

[rancke]

What's your point? If people enjoy beating dead horses, who is to say they shouldn't be allowed to? Anyone who feels bored is free to skip the thread.


Hans