Commercial starship lifeboat requirements

[rancke]

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.

That highlight a point I've been meaning to raise. Abandoning the ship with the patient aboard or putting him in a lifeboat and ejecting it means abandoning him to certain or near-certain death. A lot of people will consider that immoral. Depending on circumstances it may even be illegal. Not everybody possesses the amoral ruthlessness of the utterly pragmatic gamer. Some people will consider it a no-brainer that they must do their best to care for any sick people aboard. Indeed, they may actually care for the patient (pun intended).


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

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

Oh, come now. Don't be a

 

[rancke]

Oh, come now. Don't be a [grumpy old man].

You mean, don't interrupt other people having a good time by pointing out that YOU think they're beating a dead horse? I couldn't agree more.

:devil:


Hans

 

[Cryton]

I completely agree with Hans on this. Occasionally, it is good to beat something to death on the boards, as it often gives new and creative ways to overcome a problem, issue or oversight in the game.

Your also going to find that we here on COTI will re-visit old topics and re-beat them to death, because oftentimes we have new members who bring fresh perspectives to the table. That and it is a lot of fun. :rofl:

In any case, my .02 CrImp is that the only reason to have lifeboats on commercial ships in Traveller is that they can be very useful for plot twists and game hooks. Aside from that, who is to say that lifeboat requirements were not legislated into being by some political group or another, because they thought that an avenue of escape from a ship was a good idea regardless of the realities of the situation? Look at the mountains of regulations imposed by most modern governments that are useless, counter-productive and only serve to protect those with no common sense. :devil:

~Cryton

 

[HG_B]

That highlight a point I've been meaning to raise. Abandoning the ship with the patient aboard or putting him in a lifeboat and ejecting it means abandoning him to certain or near-certain death. A lot of people will consider that immoral. Depending on circumstances it may even be illegal. Not everybody possesses the amoral ruthlessness of the utterly pragmatic gamer. Some people will consider it a no-brainer that they must do their best to care for any sick people aboard. Indeed, they may actually care for the patient (pun intended).


Hans

On that astute note, if the threat of infectious disease is so high, wouldn't a better choice be ELB's or Auto Docs rather than lifeboats?

 

[Carlobrand]

I completely agree with Hans on this. Occasionally, it is good to beat something to death on the boards, as it often gives new and creative ways to overcome a problem, issue or oversight in the game. ...

Oh, I agree too. Me and my handy meat tenderizing mallet, we've had some really great times together.

However, I think when someone makes a point in a really funny way, they can be cut some slack.

...In any case, my .02 CrImp is that the only reason to have lifeboats on commercial ships in Traveller is that they can be very useful for plot twists and game hooks. Aside from that, who is to say that lifeboat requirements were not legislated into being by some political group or another, because they thought that an avenue of escape from a ship was a good idea regardless of the realities of the situation? Look at the mountains of regulations imposed by most modern governments that are useless, counter-productive and only serve to protect those with no common sense. :devil: ...

Now THAT is an excellent point. Perhaps it's a case of a multi-thousand-year-old regulation from the heirs of a culture known for its conservative attitudes, inherited from a time when the ships were less sturdy and less reliable. There'll be scofflaws - the kinds who sell off the emergency kits or store cargo in the boats 'cause they don't see a need for the thing - but designers and such will do what they're trained to do.

On that astute note, if the threat of infectious disease is so high, wouldn't a better choice be ELB's or Auto Docs rather than lifeboats?

Yeah, I don't see why you wouldn't pop someone out of one of your regular low berths and pop the sick fella in instead.

 

[aramis]

Yeah, I don't see why you wouldn't pop someone out of one of your regular low berths and pop the sick fella in instead.

Depends on just how sick the sick fella is. If he's sick enough, he might not survive the freezing process.

 

[Carlobrand]

Depends on just how sick the sick fella is. If he's sick enough, he might not survive the freezing process.

Iz da fah fewchah, mon!

I fulfilled my part of the contract by delivering him to the port he paid for and providing the level of medical care mandated by Imperial law en route. If he doesn't survive, keep his body in low berth and let his estate ship him to a TL13+ world. They have reanimation tech (MT Referee's Sourcebook); the low berth just has to keep his neural pathways from deteriorating while he gets to where they can treat him. He's just got through plunking down Cr10,000 for a high passage; either his estate has enough to cover a low berth excursion to a world that can cure his weird disease, repair the damage and reanimate him, or he's as out of luck as any of us are when the insurance won't pay for care. Worst case, he emerges with damage equivalent to a stroke victim and a long, difficult period of therapy ahead of him, or the effort fails and he's no worse than he was before. One way or the other - iz not mah problem, mon! I gave it mah best shot.

 

[PFVA63]

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.

Hi,

I disagree that “I retreated" from the thought of using lifeboats/lifepods as escape vehicles. Rather I believe that I indicated that if people had a concern about using a lifeboat/lifpos/smallcraft to abandon ship an alternative would also be to instead just use the lifeboat/lifepod/smallcraft as an onboard “safe haven” if that is desired. In general I believe that both options are valid.

As for operations within jump space specifically though, I believe that the use of a lifeboat/lifepod as a onboard “safe haven” until the ship re-enters normal space, at which time the personnel onboard can either stay with the parent ship or leave as they desire.

 

[PFVA63]

Utterly and completely incorrect.

Hi,

I disagree.

As for the number of air changes per hour, here is a link for a book on Google books entitled “Air Quality in Airplane Cabins and Similar Enclosed Spaces, Volume 4” which notes that “a total air change rate of 20-30 air changes to hour are normally adequate to maintain cabin pressure and a comfortable thermal environment at cruise altitude’, which further supports the need for a high rate of air changes per hour.

( http://books.google.com/books?id=Kz...epage&q=aircraft air changes per hour&f=false )

As for the heat transfer issues, higher technology will not change the basic principles of air, heat transfer and basic thermodynamics. The amount of time that it will take to heat a given amount of air from room temperature to a very high temperature will take a certain amount of time, determined by the physical properties of the air, including stuff like relative humidity and pressure etc).
Additionally, once at this elevated temperature cooling it back down to a usable room temperature will also take a given amount of time. In heating the air it will undergo a large amount of expansion that will also need to be addressed as well as other issues (especially with respect to the moisture in the air and such).

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...

As for the actual math though, unfortunately at high temps a lot of complex stuff begins to happen and as such it may likely be too complicated to try and attempt to work out the actual specifics, especially without a lot more stuff defined.

Specifically, at different ranges of high temperatures it appears that different things may occur.

For example here’s a source (“(“Fundamentals of hypersonic flight - Properties of high temperature gases”)”) that indicates at a pressure of 1 atmosphere and above temperatures of about 2000 K or so (about 1727 deg C or 3140 deg F) chemical reactions can occur, with molecules dissociating into atoms, new molecules are eventually being formed, and atoms and molecules potentially ionizing. With respect to this “thermodynamic and transport properties become functions not only of temperature but also of the chemical composition.”

Additionally, “As temperature rises, the internal energy modes of the gas atoms and molecules, that at room temperature are dormant, are excited. Specific heats, internal energy and enthalpy are now nonlinear functions of the temperature. The specific heats ratio…, is no longer a constant. For air, excitation of the internal energy modes (vibrational) becomes important above temperatures of 500-800K.” (227 deg C to 527 deg C or 440 deg F to 980 deg F)

(ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/EN/.../EN-AVT-116-05.pdf‎ )

So, a lot appears to depend on what temperatures we are likely talking about etc, but overall it appears that there are very real issues with trying to use high temperatures for 'sterilizing' the air, etc.

 

[PFVA63]

...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.

Hi,

Here's some references relating to disease outbreaks on submarines, if you're interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2863942/
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211258.pdf‎

With respect to the 2nd document it gives a table that lists "Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rates" for some people both from submarines and from surface ships. In that table it includes not only viral hepatitis, but also Acute Upper Respiratory Infections, and Pneumonia (among other things), showing reported incidents for all these among submarine personnel.

PS. On a related topic here also are two papers relating to "microbial conditions" and "industrial hygiene" on one of Australia's previous submarine classes and another on the prevalence of a certain type of bacteria on US Navy submarine crews.

www.dva.gov.au/health_and_wellbeing/.../oberon_submarine_report.pdf‎
www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/2680/DSTO-RR-0004.pdf
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2576507/reload=0;jsessionid=D45Yk1P4l0IjG6mJkQV8.24

 

[PFVA63]

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

Hi,

I've never suggested that lifeboats/lifepods would be onboard solely for the purpose as a means of dealing with the outbreak of an illness onboard, but rather I simply have been trying to point out that, in addition to there other uses, they can also play a role in this type of scenario as well.

 

[PFVA63]

...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....

Hi,

that is specifically why I have tried to be very careful in noting that this adventure 'suggests' the possibility that the passengers and crew abandoned ship in the "missing' small craft rather than stating that it was a specific example of that happening.

As for the original passengers and crew from the ship, although we may never know their fate (if I am recalling correctly) I believe that there was a docking station for an additional small craft that was not present and no other trace of the passengers or crew appear to have been present (though its been a really long time since I read that adventure).

As such though I believe that we do know that the original passengers and crew are no longer on the ship and one docking station was empty.

PS. As for lifeboats and such in general many people who have abandoned ship in the real world appear to have never made it safety either.

 

[PFVA63]

...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.
...

Hi,

As I've tried to note, while it may seem undesirable to confine people into a smaller space than they previously were, the other options appear for those cases where a highly contagious disease has been encountered and there is a fear that it has not been confined before it may have entered into the ships air and water systems (as I've tried to be specific about before) to be leaving everyone in a slightly larger (though still small and enclosed) space may well likely not be the right solution. As I understand it trying to segregate those that are sick and in a contagious state from those that are not would seem to make a lot of sense.

...
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.
...

As I've also tried to note here, just because something like Ebola, or some new super-flu may be a possibility, other diseases are also of concern. Specifically I have tried to make clear before, if an outbreak is that of a new strain of flu or other such illness that may either be resistant to the treatments onboard it could be of a serious/life threatening concern for the people onboard but may be treatable once a more well stocked medical facility is reached. (For example - as I have noted previously - this may be similar to how some existing real world diseases have "penicillin (or similar medicine) resistant" strains and how some strains of flu may be resistant to common treatments - like Tamiflu).

Beyond this, as I believe I have also indicated previously, if someone is trying to escape a situation where a serious disease has likely 'escaped' containment on the ship that they were on, the lifeboat/lifepod would likely be a means for them to try and avoid or at least delay the chance of them coming down with the disease until they can reach treatment. Although I guess some people may try and mislead any authorities that they encounter, I would really expect most people would likely want to try and get treatment and/or at least a medical checkout once rescued to ensure that they are 'in the clear'.

As such if anyone wants to 'play it' that the people onboard may try and 'hide' the evidence of an outbreak, but to me I'd probably expect that in such a situation, there may likely be a beacon or something onboard to let the authorities know that you are in need of medical assistance (at least in many of the milieu and such in question).

...
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.
...

Here I believe that a lot may well likely depend on the milieu in which you are adventuring, the type of ship and operations that they are engaged in and other such stuff.

It may well be that for some ships operating in some areas a 'safe haven' onboard may be sufficient. However, in other settings it may not. In addition, if a ship is already carrying a small craft that small craft can either serve as a 'safe haven' or it could serve as a 'lifeboat/lifepod' (basically serving as a 'safe haven' that can be detachable similar to what I have tried to describe in previous posts.

As for relying on a '6G rescue boat' to come to your rescue in any setting and star system though, I have some real reservations that I have tried to point out previously as well. As a summary this would include; who is running this rescue craft service, would it be present in all systems from those that have type A or B starports down to those with only C or D etc, would it be available both inside and outside the Imperium, and/or would 6G ships be available in all star systems or could tech level and other issues limit the abilities of some rescue craft in some systems to something less than 6G etc.

If you wish to discuss other specific issues and points/counterpoints etc, we could also look at them as well.

...
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.
...

As noted in a post that I just made, there are many specific details that would have to be defined before any math can be done specifically relating to what 'high temperature' range that we are talking about as at different high temperature ranges there would be many factors that may need to be addressed since as temperature goes up you will begin to encounter various chemical processes and such.

As such, the first question that would have to be addressed is 'are we talking about raising the temperature of the air and water to 100 deg C, several hundred deg C, 1000 deg C, 2000 deg C or more?

After that we might be able to move a bit further and try and address some of the rest of the math (hopefully).

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

With respect to life support systems on submarines, and how they might relate to those for starships, here are three additional sources that might be of interest.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/669000.pdf
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/740796.pdf‎
www.mainsgate.com/spacebio/modules/mb.../space_microbio.doc‎

In the 1st document it notes;

"On reviewing the health and habitability data of the FBM [Fleet Ballistic Missile] patrols, one of the most significant features is the relatively high incidence of upper-respiratory infections (URI) and the occasional occurrence of the so called "mid-patrol syndrome". "Mid-patrol syndrome" is an out break of URI after several weeks at sea. These outbreaks are most intriguing in that the atmosphere of the ship has been completely isolated from the surrounding environment since the hatch was closed. These pathogens, believed to be viral, must have either a prolonged latent period of infection or, as has been suggested by Andrewes (1), be due to activation of latent infection. ...."

In the 2nd document it notes;

"Since the submerged submarine must maintain watertight integrity at extremely high pressures (45 PSI, relative pressure for every 100 feet of sea water), the flora and fauna, pathogenic or not, taken in when the gaskets are sealed are trapped therein. The first question then pertains to the incidence, severity and epidemiological significance of infectious diseases reported during long submerged cruises. Respiratory diseases, as expected, are reported the most frequently of all general medical conditions. With incubation periods of 7-11 days, colds appear in 70-90% of the crew early in the mission, then tend to disappear thereafter. In total, diseases of the ear, nose and throat accounted for 107 cases resulting in 297 sick days during the 360 patrols.

Other respiratory conditions (upper respiratory infection, nonspecific, pneumonia, bronchitis, pleurisy and pneumothorax) occurred during the 360 patrols in 111 cases in 433 total sick days (Wilken, 1969, page 12)*. Influenza occurred in 74 cases (160 sick days), infectious hepatitis in 7 cases (187 sick days) and infectious mononucleosis in 18 cases (162 sick days). Gastric conditions (gastroenteritis and gastritis) were the diagnoses in 97 cases for a total of 197 sick days. Finally, medical conditions, loosely grouped as urological, accounted for 56 cases and 275 sick days."

As such, at least based on the data readily available on the internet, appears to suggest that infectious diseases can also be an issue on nuclear submarines.

As for the 3rd paper, it notes that;

"Microorganisms can be introduced into the spacecraft through several avenues. Crewmembers will be a primary source of microorganisms in confined space habitats (2), as the healthy human body can host at least 50 microbial species (2). Biological payloads, resupply vehicles, hardware and supplies will provide additional sources of microorganisms. In the confined spacecraft environment, increases in interpersonal exchange of potential pathogens may facilitate infectious conditions (3). Microbial metabolism of metals, electronic components, fuels, or other spacecraft components may result in production of volatile organic compounds (3). "

And;

"Because crewmembers will be the primary source of microorganisms, the risk of infectious diseases may be affected by exchange of microbiota among crewmembers within the close quarters of the spacecraft. This exchange was first demonstrated during the Apollo program , when bacteriophage typing revealed that Staphylococcus aureus was transferred from one crewmember to another during a mission (24). Such transfer was subsequently demonstrated on additional Apollo flights (25, 26), Skylab missions (27, 28), and in the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (29). These findings were further documented in the Space Shuttle program using molecular techniques which provided a much more sensitive means for strain typing. Transfer of Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans among crewmembers was demonstrated using very precise DNA fingerprinting techniques (30, 31). Further studies of the effects of spaceflight on infectious disease risk are part of the current effort to prepare for the future of manned space exploration."

...

"Understanding the behavior of microorganisms in closed environments is essential to development of systems for long duration manned spaceflight. Terrestrial systems having comparable properties have been extensively studied and used as a model for spaceflight systems. Several studies of microbial load aboard submarines have been conducted by the US Navy. In one study of bacterial sedimentation rates and microbial load in the air were examined. The sedimentation rate decreased during the study period, and there was no change in the microbial load between the control and test periods (32). The predominant microorganisms in the air during both periods were Micrococci and Streptococci. Clinical data on the submarine crew indicated that these organisms were carried by a significant number of subjects in the throat (32). This finding supports the longstanding assertion that crewmembers will be the major source of microbial loading in the spacecraft environment.

In another study, Neisseria meningitidis was isolated from 26% of crewmembers and a 21% increase in resistance to the antibiotic sulfadiazine was observed during the patrol period (33). No resistant strains were isolated initially, and this drug was not administered during the patrol period. It was suggested that the closed environment and interactions among the crew promoted selection of resistant strains (34). A number of studies have also examined fungal growth aboard submarines (35). Although Penicillium, Aspergillus, and yeast species were recovered, their relative quantities changed significantly during the patrol period. Penicillium was initially the predominant organism, but was superseded by yeasts after two weeks at sea (35). Yeasts were most abundant on surfaces, while Penicillium predominated in the air samples. Despite the presence of these organisms, there was little evidence of infections or allergies among crewmembers (35). "

...

"Although humans are the chief contributors to the microbial populations aboard spacecraft, there are other sources of microbial loading. During the assembly and testing associated with development of planetary testing requirements, it was reported that about 25 percent of the microorganisms found on the Viking lander capsules, orbiters, and shrouds were soil bacteria (44) The remaining 75 percent were classified as indigenous human microbiota. Some of these organisms survived even the terminal heat treatment of the spacecraft. The Explorer 33 spacecraft was found to have a microbial burden of 2.6 x 105 CFU at launch (45). Similarly, the Apollo 10 and 11 command modules were contaminated by 2.7 x 104 CFU per square foot (46). Approximately 95% of the organisms recovered in each case were indigenous human microbiota (47). Other sources of microorganisms in spacecraft include experimental animals and plants, supplies, foods, and water." [I added the bolding for emphasis]

 

[rancke]

As noted in a post that I just made, there are many specific details that would have to be defined before any math can be done specifically relating to what 'high temperature' range that we are talking about as at different high temperature ranges there would be many factors that may need to be addressed since as temperature goes up you will begin to encounter various chemical processes and such.

No, not really. All that is needed is to consider the difference between still experimental high tech with a century or two of development behind it and fully mature ultra-tech with 10,000 years of development behind it. Ultra-tech that allows people to deal with the heat created by fusion plants.


Hans

 

[Fritz_Brown]

PFVA63, your original argument related to this was that a good solution to an infectious disease being found on the ship was to toss all the crew and passengers into lifeboats/lifepods and get the heck off the ship. The real problem with that is that you're 1) leaving a very secure shelter for a less secure shelter, and 2) abandoning a frickin' multi-hundred million credit starship.

I'm not sure anyone has addressed that last bit in this thread, but it would certainly be a factor as to why no sane company would have their starships built to include something that might encourage everyone to leave the ship drifting in space somewhere.

(If you no longer advocate this - lifeboats leaving the ship to leave a "plague ship" - then fine. The following is still relevant to your other arguments.)

As to isolation (everyone else has said, so I will too): staterooms and other spaces aboard a starship should be very easy to isolate. Shutting down the connection from the central HVAC (or water) to any particular space (or all) should be easy, and locking the door/hatch is even easier. Here's an example protocol for "Virulent Infectious Disease Control on a Starship" as published in the Imperial Lancet, Issue 4, Volume 896:

Upon detection of any disease upon a ship, the affected patient should be immediately quarantined within their own space, in the following order of precedence: Automated Medical Evaluation and Treatment Chamber [autodoc], ship's medical facility [sickbay] inside of an isolation chamber, own stateroom, Cryogenic Suspension and Life Support Chamber for Travel [low berth], any available space which can be isolated (with due consideration given to operation of the ship).
If the disease is infectious, and the vector is present on the ship, isolation of all personnel who have come into contact with the infected person(s) is prescribed, as well as isolation of the vector. Essential personnel should be isolated within their Vacuum Capable Personal Operations Suit [vacc suit] so they may continue operation of the ship. Isolation of the vector may entail simply laundering linens using heat and caustic cleaning agents as prescribed in normal medical procedures, to destruction of foodstuffs or other infected goods in the ship's waste system (only if system is operating; do not dispose of vectors into non-operational disposal units, as growth of the infective may allow escape from the system), to sterilization of air and water supplies.
If the vector is aerial transmission, once the patient(s) has been isolated, all personnel should be placed into vacuum capable containers, and the ship's air pumped down. While in this state, ship's personnel should disinfect all surfaces, using a suitable substance, disposing of all materials in accordance with normal medical protocol. Also, in this state, the ship's air supply system should be disinfected, followed by routing of the ship's air through the ship's powerplant system to allow for destruction of all vectors.
NOTE: Do not allow untreated air to return to the air supply once this process has begun. Isolated personnel should be placed on independent air supplies during this time. Those air supplies should be destroyed or treated separately after the infection has been eliminated.
If the vector is liquid transmission and the ship's water supply has possibly been infected, treat the supply using the same protocol as for aerial transmission.
Once the infection has been controlled, the ship may be returned to normal operating status, with continued medical isolation of the affected patient(s). If the above protocol is insufficient to eliminate the threat of continued infection, more extensive protocols may need to be affected. The ship should indicate its distress and await the arrival of Imperial medical personnel, keeping the ship in isolation from all other environments until that time.
At no time should possibly infected personnel leave the ship, except at the explicit direction of Imperial medical authorities. This may require isolation of the ship until the incubation period of the disease has passed, despite thorough decontamination procedures previously enacted.

 

[Carlobrand]

The smallest starship in the game carries a power plant powerful enough to meet the power needs of a modern city of about a hundred thousand or so. Said power plant generates temperatures of 10 to 14 million kelvin in the course of fusing a small quantity of hydrogen to produce 250 million joules of available power each second. {edit: Oopsie. Make that a city of 200 thousand and 500 million joules} Said power plant's ability to dump heat to space is therefore conservatively in the hundred-million+ joules per second range.

As Aramis has show, that ship may have as many as 13 discrete independent sections, most with their own life support systems.

That ship is the product of a far future civilisation that has been traveling between the stars for thousands of years.

Therefore:

The assertion that the life support system of a far future spacecraft may be vulnerable to harboring infection is utterly unsupportable. There is ample power and resources to sterilize the air; it will in fact be sterilized as an indirect consequence of liberating oxygen during the recycling process. It is therefore impossible for a disease agent to successfully navigate the air system from intake to outflow without being destroyed. There is ample cooling ability to cool air in the volumes needed; to date, arguments to the contrary have been little more than speculation and cannot be maintained in the face of the ship's obvious ability to handle the cooling needs of a 250 megawatt power plant. Given the available power and the effectiveness of the existing cooling system, the effort to argue for an inability to sterilize air in the volumes needed can therefore be discounted as bias induced by the desire to achieve a specific outcome, until hard evidence is presented otherwise.

In addition, there exist a number of strategies to cleanse the air system in the event an infectious organism colonizes a more localized portion of the air system. These include use of ultraviolet light, pure oxygen, ozone, chlorine, and so forth. Thus, an infection found to be the result of, say, colonization of an outflow vent filter, will be met by replacement of the filter and decontamination of the affected area, terminating the threat from that quarter.

Furthermore, the multiple bulkhead-defined compartments clearly evident in canon deckplans means that even complete and utter failure of the air recycling system in one compartment will only mean one of several other existing compartments will be used to support the occupants of the affected compartment.

So, any effort to pull the "infected life support system" card on well-informed players - unless your intent is to have them go replace the outflow filter or some such thing - is likely be met with looks of incredulity, inasmuch as it would rely either on an organism capable of violating basic laws of physics and chemistry, or on designers with thousands of years of experience behind them being fundamentally incompetent at their jobs. Any effort to justify it by pointing to primitive Terran spacecraft that could barely muster enough power to power a house or two will be laughed off by them as either a poor joke or evidence of a very poorly informed game master. Any effort to explain it by arguing that designers drawing on thousands of years experience in space would still have no solutions for the problems encountered by designers who've been constructing subs for less than a century would likewise draw laughs. I can not recommend that strategy, though of course any game master is free to do as he will.

Furthermore:

The assertion that lifeboats should be used to escape disease, because in one adventure they (appear to) have been used to try to escape disease, is an irrational argument. That something might have been done on one occasion, with no evidence that it was done successfully, can not serve as evidence that it should be done. This is not to say that panicked occupants might try something desperate, but as Aramis pointed out the logical result of that would be the destruction of the lifeboat and death of its occupants at the hands of a government charged with preventing the spread of disease.

 

[HG_B]

Iz da fah fewchah, mon!

I fulfilled my part of the contract by delivering him to the port he paid for and providing the level of medical care mandated by Imperial law en route. If he doesn't survive, keep his body in low berth and let his estate ship him to a TL13+ world. They have reanimation tech (MT Referee's Sourcebook); the low berth just has to keep his neural pathways from deteriorating while he gets to where they can treat him. He's just got through plunking down Cr10,000 for a high passage; either his estate has enough to cover a low berth excursion to a world that can cure his weird disease, repair the damage and reanimate him, or he's as out of luck as any of us are when the insurance won't pay for care. Worst case, he emerges with damage equivalent to a stroke victim and a long, difficult period of therapy ahead of him, or the effort fails and he's no worse than he was before. One way or the other - iz not mah problem, mon! I gave it mah best shot.

FTW :toast:

 

[Carlobrand]

An issue not fully discussed amidst the horsemeat-tenderizing about infection is the relatively short time a ship is without support. Put simply, a ship is typically in jump space for about 7 days. Any disease has a latency period - a gap between the time the victim is exposed and the time symptoms start showing up. Any disease also has a progression time - how long it runs through a given patient before his natural defenses either beat it back or he succumbs. Spanish flu, for example, ran a 1 1/2 to 2 day latency period and ran its course in about 3 days after that. Anthrax (Boo!) runs a 1 to 7 day latency period but can take as long as 60 days and runs its course within 2 to 7 days. Smallpox took a couple of weeks between exposure and appearance of symptoms, Ebola from 2 days to 3 weeks, and so forth.

There are biological realities involved - a buggie can only take in resources and multiply itself so fast without invoking some form of magic. Ergo, for the typical jump from a civilized port to a civilized port, the magnitude of the problem only becomes apparent to the ship crew at about the time the ship is due to exit jump space - worst case, the ship arrives in time to deliver the third generation and possibly even second generation of victims into port authority medical care, with those not yet showing symptoms placed in isolation for monitoring and given whatever treatments are available to prevent or mitigate onset of symptoms. Most times, the shp will exit jump space just after discovering that it has a second generation of passengers showing symptoms from a Patient Zero. That makes disease the port authority's problem: they'll quarantine the ship, send out boats to take off the sick and the as-yet-asymptomatic in a carefully prescribed manner, then proceed with decontamination of the ship itself.

Thus, any "plague ship" scenario will hit its peak after a ship emerges from jump; any such scenario that doesn't include port support must by definition confine itself to ships traveling to destinations with little or no support. That rules out A/B/C ports and might rule out D ports depending on the gamemaster's opinion of things - which takes the vast majority of merchantmen out of the equation since the ships going to D/E ports tend to be subsidized merchants, free traders (who have no boat), scouts, warships, and suchlike.