Emergency Situations and responses

[whulorigan]

I have no idea how T5 works. However, here's an interesting thought. At TL15, MegaTrav allows the construction of fusion reactors as small as 90 liters (that's about half the size of your water heater). Cost is Cr18,000, output is 0.135Mw on 0.81 liters per hour. In other words, this puppy can run almost 100 weeks on a dTon of fuel. There are microreactors available from TL12 forward, they're just a bit bigger and not quite as efficient.

An ELB in MegaTrav draws 0.002 Mw. One MegaTrav TL15 micro, serving as emergency power, can serve up to 60 ELBs and a 1000-AU range radio beacon for almost 2 years (well, 23 months) on 1 dTon of fuel. So long as the machinery doesn't break down (which is an entirely new question), you can hunker down in your ELB once you're down to a couple or three dTons of fuel and wait a very long time. Doesn't get you out of the frying pan - 1000-AUs amounts to only about 5.8 light days. However, at that point there's at least hope some world with an interstellar-range passive array could detect your signal and vector help your way. It'd still be 3 or more years before you got rescued, might be hefty penalties on the survival roll, but at least it's a chance. Assuming nothing breaks.

In T5 the Fusion Reactor would be a FusionPlus Cold Fusion Module. But they are roughly comparable in size and performance to what you described, I believe (don't have T5 in front of me at the moment).

But the point you make is basically what I am getting at: if you can manage to survive in ELBs for several years, and your ship can generate a signal strong enough to be weakly picked up by a large and sensitive Passive EMS-Array in a nearby system, you have a chance.

 

[whulorigan]

Except, if you aren't radiating when you're rescuer arrives, you're a black body in a really big empty bit of space (unless you were lucky enough to achieve orbit somewhere)

A blackbody maybe, but you will still show up on Densitometer/Gravitometer.

EDIT: Also consider that if the power plant is operating (even on low-power mode) it will be generating an above-background neutrino signature. Further, though the main distress signal may not be continuously broadcasting, the ship's transponder could still be broadcasting a low power signal for locational and identification purposes locally.

 

[Carlobrand]

Except, if you aren't radiating when you're rescuer arrives, you're a black body in a really big empty bit of space (unless you were lucky enough to achieve orbit somewhere)

If you aren't radiating when your rescuer arrives, there's probably no need for rescue anymore. :devil:

Remember I said "worst case scenario" - if you had jumped 36 hexes away from *anywhere*.

If by "anywhere" you mean there's nothing within 36 parsecs of where you break out of jumpspace, the odds of randomly rolling that kind of space is about 1 in 36 billion. If you're talking about the guy making a random 36 parsec jump, then statistically, there are likely to be three systems within 1 parsec of you, and there will tend to be at least one spacefaring system among them.

And it will take years, unless the S&R folks know which system to look in and you have a beacon going off when they arrive (and they arrive at a point inside the outer edge of where the beacon has reached in the time they took to reach you - otherwise they have to wait for your signal to reach them).

All in all, if your ship goes missing in the dark, you're done for unless you can get to a habitable place. You *might* survive if you're in a populated system and not too far out from civilization, or if they know right where to come looking for you. Even then (or especially then), you better still be with the ship, or you become even harder to find and rescue.

Actually, I think we've established that there might be a slim chance at surviving a jump into the "dark" in the Megatrav and T5 settings.

 

[PFVA63]

This is by no means an attack on you or your ideas because people are free to have fun playing the way they want.

To me, some ideas fall under a fun scenario for a GM or sci fi writer, but I find them too improbable for consideration for realistic ship/lifeboat requirement and design. Someone that is a physical threat yet has not physically incapacitated the crew yet and somehow is dangerous enough to keep the crew from getting to weapons, drugs, environmental and counter boarding controls, or barricading themselves in a safe part of the ship yet is incapable of preventing the crew from getting to and launching untampered with life boats? Somehow the ship systems and some people are infected and it is extremely dangerous and uncontrollable such that you can't contain it or seal off a portion of the ship yet somehow the life boat and people that get on it are safe from the effects? I don't think what some are suggesting is the same as saying they should be eliminated from the designs because of "XYZ". They were never in the typical Traveller ship designs to begin with as far as I know. "XYZ" are just some reasoning for why, even considering certain emergencies, they were never in the designs.

Hi,

As I think about this more and more and better organize my thoughts, I think that the biggest issue to me is that a starship represents an enclosed habitat that can be expected to spend anywhere from just over a week to potentially even months away from any potential ability to "refresh", "replenish" or external assistance to allow you to "repair" your life support systems. As such, the personnel can be dependent solely on what is aboard the vessel for an extended period of time.

As such, to me some form of back up to the basic life support systems would seem logical. Whether this takes the form of a safe room onboard the ship, duplication of systems onboard with the ability to segregate a ship into multiple sections, the inclusion of lifeboats/lifepods, or maybe some combination of the above to me seem to be some of the options worth considering.

As for some of the specific examples that I have suggested, a lot of that was just based on some brainstorming to show that there could in fact be many situations where a lifeboat may be a good option to have.

Specifically, due to the environment that the ship operates in, and the long life spans that seem possible for Traveller ships, the potential for component failure of electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems (or whatever the futuristic equivalent might be) seems to be a real possibility. And, as I've tried to suggest previously since there is probably a good chance that aged and/or deteriorating components may potentially be expected to fail in situations where they are highly stressed (such as when entering/leaving orbit, during take offs and landings, and or while operating in an atmosphere or engaging maneuvering thrusters etc) then I could potentially see situations where the failure of various components on a ship could put either the whole ship (or large parts of it) at risk.

To me, this to me would seem to suggest that a backup system that can be completely segregated from the main ship & its systems may have some real benefits.

Beyond this the fact that Traveller postulates tens of thousands of potentially "habitable" systems (in some form) would kind of suggest to me a high potential for encountering flora and fauna and microscopic life that could be a threat to (or at least not necessarily all that compatible with) human life.

As far as medical threats there are a number of real life accounts available on outbreaks of diseases like Ebola and such that may help demonstrate how hard it can be to try and isolate the threat of diseases like this, which would only seem to me to be potentially made even worse if you are in an enclosed and relatively isolated environment like a spaceship.

If the microscopic (bacteria, virus, or other such items) that spread or aid in spreading diseases like this can get into a ship's life support system (including not only the atmospheric but also water systems) it would seem to me that it may become very hard to locate and isolate their spread, especially considering that it may not be necessarily clear to those onboard what is happening at the time, such as what the threat actually is, how it is being spread, and what it might take to try and neutralize or combat the spread of the disease.

Overall, to me, in the event of any event that may threaten the crew and passengers of a ship the first thing that they would likely do is "assess the situation" and "try to identify and address immediate threats". If this assessment suggests that the ship is in direct danger (such as a non-streamlined ship whose thrusters, etc have failed while entering/leaving orbit resulting in the vessel initiating de-orbit, or the outbreak of a virulent illness whose source and specific method of transport from victim to victim is unclear, etc) then trying to stay onboard the ship may not always be a viable option.

Just some thoughts.

 

[PFVA63]

...
5 mph bumpers and padded dashboards don't cost a merchant several thousand credits every trip in space that could otherwise be designed to hold passengers or cargo. Think more along the lines of semi trucks being required to carry a Mini-Cooper in the trailer in case the truck breaks down somewhere.

Hi,

However lifeboats on modern merchant and passenger ships do run into the millions and do take up valuable cargo and passenger space but are still carried. Similarly, parachutes and/or ejector seats are also carried by modern military aircraft even though they cost a lot, add weight, and take up valuable space.

 

[aramis]

Hi,
If an individual onboard this vessel is suffering from "psychotic manifestations" and is a physical threat to all onboard then if you can't disable him/her the only solution may very well be to physically separate yourself from the threat.

Similarly, the presence of a highly infectious, virulent disease which may have compromised/infested the life support systems onboard the ship may also necessitate the need for separation from the threat (especially if those infected by the disease may represent a potential to infect others and spread the disease, etc).

As for boosters or ablative shielding etc, their overall impact on the design of a lifeboat/lifepod may be a lot less than you might think. Due to orbital mechanics an increase in orbital speed should boost you to a higher orbit etc. As such relatively small emergency booster rockets may be sufficient as opposed to large scale Traveller style Power Plants and Thruster plates.

You're better off subduing them, shoving them into rescue balls, and hanging them out the airlock on umbilicals than going yourself.

And if someone is psychotic enough to be a threat, the LAST thing you want is to give them a space vehicle - because it's a weapon of mass destruction. Kill them, and be done with it.

In the specific case of infectious diseases, by the time you notice, everyone is already exposed. separation merely condemns the infirm.

 

[mike wightman]

Brings to mind how much legal power a ship captain has.

If a passenger goes gaga and is threatening the safety of the ship can he legally execute them? Since spacing hijackers is allowed I don't see why not.

An I still maintain that if you want to include search and rescue as viable then the emergency jump missile has to be resurrected - or possibly not.

A ship stranded due to a missjump stands much more chance of rescue if it can get a message of its predicament to someone inside of 3 - 6 years.

The alternative is a jump capable lifeboat.

In some Traveller versions smallcraft can be fitted with jump drives, one interesting design I remember was to have an inflatable fuel tank that makes the smallcraft up to the 100t minimum volume.

Bottom line IMTU is if you have an emergency in an inhabited spacefaring system stay with the ship until rescue.

If you missjump to an empty hex take the red pill.

If you have an emergency in a non-spacefaring system but with an inhabitable world then a lifeboat/reentry vehicle could be useful.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

As such, the personnel can be dependent solely on what is aboard the vessel for an extended period of time.

And a lifeboat is an even smaller vessel with even fewer resources for a likely shorter period of time.

As far as medical threats there are a number of real life accounts available on outbreaks of diseases like Ebola and such that may help demonstrate how hard it can be to try and isolate the threat of diseases like this, which would only seem to me to be potentially made even worse if you are in an enclosed and relatively isolated environment like a spaceship.

And will be made worse yet by putting all those potentially sick people in even more enclosed and isolated environments. Which some poor unsuspecting schmuck of a hero ship captain might come along and open in his airlock, now infecting his ship.

However lifeboats on modern merchant and passenger ships do run into the millions and do take up valuable cargo and passenger space but are still carried.

Because the ship can sink. You don't abandon a seagoing vessel unless it's going to sink. (It's also much easier to abandon a seagoing vessel - the environment into which you go when you leave the ship is perfectly livable.)

Similarly, parachutes and/or ejector seats are also carried by modern military aircraft even though they cost a lot, add weight, and take up valuable space.

But, on non-fighter craft parachutes are only carried 1) in combat and 2) where there are no passengers involved. The only time you would have something comparable would be if the aircraft ditches in a body of water - then you all get out. Why? Because it will sink.

In some Traveller versions smallcraft can be fitted with jump drives, one interesting design I remember was to have an inflatable fuel tank that makes the smallcraft up to the 100t minimum volume.

And, from where do you get the fuel to inflate that lifeboat? :smirk:

 

[whulorigan]

As I think about this more and more and better organize my thoughts, I think that the biggest issue to me is that a starship represents an enclosed habitat that can be expected to spend anywhere from just over a week to potentially even months away from any potential ability to "refresh", "replenish" or external assistance to allow you to "repair" your life support systems. As such, the personnel can be dependent solely on what is aboard the vessel for an extended period of time.

As such, to me some form of back up to the basic life support systems would seem logical. Whether this takes the form of a safe room onboard the ship, duplication of systems onboard with the ability to segregate a ship into multiple sections, the inclusion of lifeboats/lifepods, or maybe some combination of the above to me seem to be some of the options worth considering.

All good points.

But consider also (from an in-game perspective):
Humaniti as a species has been in space and using Jump Drives for approximately 10,000 years at the time of Traveller. By this time they certainly have vast experience and "real-universe" examples of spacefaring emergencies and tragedies with which to draft policy and procedure (both shipboard & dirtside). Such procedures will have been developed over long periods of time based on actual practical examples. Couple this with Vilani conservatism/traditionalism as an element of Imperial Culture, and it is likely that most of the contingencies we are discussing will already have clear protocol already established and systems in place to address these occurrences as far as is possible in light of cost effectiveness and available technology.

 

[Carlobrand]

Let's look at it this way: how many lifeboats does a submarine have? Most don't. Any allowance for escape from a submarine must allow for the submarine's circumstances - space is precious, crises tend to develop too quickly for lifeboats to be useful. Some subs had escape capsules, many don't, because ...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/685.htm

...your odds were often better bailing out on your own than getting in the capsule.

One option is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIE

Actually, this is kinda funny, especially the bit about the MOOSE:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19545_6-terrifying-emergency-escape-pods-that-arent-worth-it_p2.html

Whether or not a lifeboat on a Traveller ship is useful depends on the specific circumstances. We can't arrive at useful conclusions by comparing mobile habitats in vacuum with floating habitats on the ocean of a world. As several have pointed out, seagoing ships keep lifeboats for a simple reason - they can sink, depriving the passengers of their only shelter. In contrast, circumstances requiring departure from a hull intended to protect you from solar radiation and, at the speed these things are doing, micrometeor impacts generally involve that hull either being at imminent risk of destruction or being so badly compromised that survival aboard is impossible.

"At imminent risk of destruction" is a rare and unusual event in space, most likely in combat - and then only when facing military foes of significant power, the way some of these combat rules are written. Even the most rookie pilot is going to be trained to avoid putting a ship on courses that might lead to disaster in the event of a power or drive failure. The most likely point of danger for a commercial ship is re-entry (which might be why some are intentionally not designed for it), and loading 20-30 people on a lifeboat during a re-entry crisis is not a recipe for survival; the little EARCs are best for that, tiny three seaters, some small hope of getting at least a few off when time is very short.

"Badly compromised" is very difficult to do to a Traveller ship without utterly destroying it. Even if you cut the thing in half, the shell is a fair protection against radiation and micrometeor strikes. It's a good target for rescuers, it's likely to be built with all manner of secondaries and safeties against life support failure in mid-jump, all you need is a means to maintain life inside and to keep the beacon active for signalling rescuers, and we've discussed a number of strategies for providing emergency power and life support in a hulled ship. Basically, unless you actually have some reason to get away from the wreck (for example: a crippled military ship under fire, in danger of capture, or with a crippled maneuver drive and facing abandonment by its fleet, or a ship on missions to locations where rescue is unavailable), any space you could use for a lifeboat would be better used for equipment to survive on site. In most cases, the "lifeboat" will be a boat intended for other roles that is also equipped to double as a lifeboat in a pinch.

The subsidized liner makes an interesting case. One of the few merchants that might deliberately visit worlds with little or no spacefaring capability, it has its own launch, which can serve in a pinch as a lifeboat. Might be an idea for the free trader, but that ship's small enough that taking space for a lifeboat could render it unprofitable.

Disease? Running away from your sickbay and medical personnel is not the best plan for infection control, least of all when you're running into a crowded boat with others who might unknowingly harbor the infection. Confine everyone to quarters, have your crew run around masked and gloved until you can bring it under control or get somewhere with proper medical care. Or stick your passengers in rescue balls and your crew in vacc suits if you feel the air filters aren't catching the buggie.

Add: here's a few escape pods from terrestrial experience
http://gizmodo.com/5921705/11-incredible-escape-pods/

 

[mike wightman]

In a developed system stay with your ship. I think it was an "Far Trader" Burns who had every stateroom and bridge able to act as a safe refuge in an emergency.

Unless the emergency is an uncontrolled atmospheric entry then a lifeboat/lifepod/re-entry capsule/re-entry/ re-entry vacc suit kit that can get you to the ground safely or into a stable orbit safely is the only hope then go for it.

If you are in an unpopulated or empty hex zip yourselves up in cold berths and hope.

Unless you have a jump capable lifeboat or message torpedo (canonical in '77 CT and A:4, recanonised in TNE:1248).

In a large ship universe with 10kt passenger liners then perhaps space could be made for a more canonical 100t emergency sub-craft.

 

[SanDragon]

Of the 69 crew members, 42 were killed in the accident, most dying in the water of hypothermia [at 36° F the water was cold enough to kill them in 15 minutes].

Yes, escaping sea-going vessels is into a perrrrfectly livable environment.

 

[CosmicGamer]

it's likely to be built with all manner of secondaries and safeties against life support failure in mid-jump

Jump operation is an important emergency consideration.

Disease, life support failure and so on can all be issues within hours of entering jump space. Backups and emergency systems and methods of dealing with such need to be designed around being able to survive both within jump space and normal space. A life boat would not address both.

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes, escaping sea-going vessels is into a perrrrfectly livable environment.

Shall we tell the whole story? 1 of the five who took the escape capsule survived. 8 of 50 men who went into the water survived. The men in the water died from hypothermia. Temperatures at the time should have allowed them to survive for up to 15 minutes, but rescue arrived too late. The Norwegians say they could have gotten there before the sub sank, but politics and military exigencies and all that.

Escape capsules were never successfully employed by the Soviet Navy, in one case because the things were welded in place to prevent their loss in high seas.

 

[SanDragon]

Okay, I get your point.

The escape hatch did its job, it's just that the surrounding water temperature was too low for the crew to live for very long.

My point was that you may be escaping one hostile environment to one that is merely... less hostile.

 

[Limburger59]

Clearly the point has been made that lifeboats and jump space don't mix.

How about intra-system ships, or those that ply routes in asteroid belts? Obviously a collision like that which sunk the Andrea Doria would be catastrophic; but if a ship clipped an asteroid, or say the remnants of Alderaan, would the damage be such that it would require abandoning ship?

Can you have an out of control electrical fire, or reactor emergency, or computer virus that still allows time to evacuate?

This discussion makes me think that, like the two recent Royal Caribbean cruise ship fires, the best thing is to all huddle together on the equivalent of the fantail, serve free drinks, and wait for the tug.

 

[aramis]

Fire aboard ship is easily solved: kill the atmosphere. Then, cool it off. Finally, repressurize.

Fires you can't put out by simply evacuating the compartment to space nor flooding with CO2 or Halon:

• Fires in the same compartment with things you can't subject to vacuum nor CO2 (eg: cargo hold with livestock)
• Self-oxidizing fuels (eg: that payload of solid rockets for the fleet resupply)
• fires which have destroyed all the controls for the fire suppression system

There is only one case I can think of where many small lifepods are better than staying aboard: being shot at. Many pods means one or two might escape...

 

[PFVA63]

Clearly the point has been made that lifeboats and jump space don't mix.

How about intra-system ships, or those that ply routes in asteroid belts? Obviously a collision like that which sunk the Andrea Doria would be catastrophic; but if a ship clipped an asteroid, or say the remnants of Alderaan, would the damage be such that it would require abandoning ship?

Can you have an out of control electrical fire, or reactor emergency, or computer virus that still allows time to evacuate?

This discussion makes me think that, like the two recent Royal Caribbean cruise ship fires, the best thing is to all huddle together on the equivalent of the fantail, serve free drinks, and wait for the tug.

Hi,

I agree. If there is a ship incident where the initial event has been brought under control and there is not an immediate danger to the passengers and crew, and adequate "life support", in terms of food, water, heat/cooling and sanitation facilities are available then staying onboard is likely a very good decision.

However, in situations where either, the initial event has not been stabilized and there is a danger of further flooding, burning, and/or potential loss of services such as fire fighting water/chemicals, power and lighting, or the ship has lost its power and the ability to maintain station, leaving it and the passengers and crew at the mercy of developing weather and/or grounding or collision, and the rescue facilities/equimpent necessary to try and bring the vessel and fire or flooding under control may not be readily available for an extended perion,etc it may be a much better decision to evacuate the ship.

As such, for situations like those involving the Carnival cruise liners mentioned staying onboard may be a good idea.

However for incidents like "Oceano", the "Costa Concordia", "MS Prinsendam", the Ferry "Lisco Gloria" and "MV Explorer" trying to stay onboard is likely not the correct decision.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTS_Oceanos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_concordia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Prinsendam_(1973)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Explorer_(1969)

 

[MCEvans]

Traveller Now

-snip-

Actually, this is kinda funny, especially the bit about the MOOSE:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19545_6-terrifying-emergency-escape-pods-that-arent-worth-it_p2.html

-BIG snip-

MOOSE is Traveller now JTAS 11 pp 16-21 "The Atmospheric Re-entry Kit"

 

[PFVA63]

In a developed system stay with your ship. I think it was an "Far Trader" Burns who had every stateroom and bridge able to act as a safe refuge in an emergency.

Unless the emergency is an uncontrolled atmospheric entry then a lifeboat/lifepod/re-entry capsule/re-entry/ re-entry vacc suit kit that can get you to the ground safely or into a stable orbit safely is the only hope then go for it.

Hi,

My main concern is that while there is talk of places onboard being “refuges” few if any deck plans that I’m aware of really show such arrangements. If a ship were so equipped and it was a ship that operated only in developed systems (and potentially on a regular schedule) a refuge onboard may well be the best solution for that type of ship.

And for non-streamlined ships that operate in such systems, re-entry pods that can also be used as temporary lifepods may be the most practical solution.
To me though it would seem that for other types of ships, especially those which may operate on no particular schedule, tramping about in a variety of systems, some well developed and some others, or ships engaged in exploratory work, ship’s of leisure (like a Yacht) and other such vessels other options may need to be investigated.

Jump operation is an important emergency consideration.

Disease, life support failure and so on can all be issues within hours of entering jump space. Backups and emergency systems and methods of dealing with such need to be designed around being able to survive both within jump space and normal space. A life boat would not address both.

Hi,

I agree wholeheartedly. Ships in different operations may well have different needs and one solution may not cover all needs. In particular to the above, while a lifeboat/lifepod may not be optimal for Jumpspace operations, not having a detachable pod/vessel may not be the best solution for non-jump operations, especially if your vessel is unstreamlined but finds itself (one way or the other) in a situation where de-orbit is imminent.

Another thought is that while you wouldn’t launch a lifeboat or lifepod in Jumpspace, evacuating to the lifeboat/lifepod and waiting for an exit from jumpspace before you launch could be a possible way to isolate yourself from what ever threat may exist on the parent vessel while supporting yourself with a completely independent life support system.

…Whether or not a lifeboat on a Traveller ship is useful depends on the specific circumstances. We can't arrive at useful conclusions by comparing mobile habitats in vacuum with floating habitats on the ocean of a world. As several have pointed out, seagoing ships keep lifeboats for a simple reason - they can sink, depriving the passengers of their only shelter. In contrast, circumstances requiring departure from a hull intended to protect you from solar radiation and, at the speed these things are doing, micrometeor impacts generally involve that hull either being at imminent risk of destruction or being so badly compromised that survival aboard is impossible.

…

At imminent risk of destruction" is a rare and unusual event in space, most likely in combat - and then only when facing military foes of significant power, the way some of these combat rules are written. Even the most rookie pilot is going to be trained to avoid putting a ship on courses that might lead to disaster in the event of a power or drive failure. The most likely point of danger for a commercial ship is re-entry (which might be why some are intentionally not designed for it), and loading 20-30 people on a lifeboat during a re-entry crisis is not a recipe for survival; the little EARCs are best for that, tiny three seaters, some small hope of getting at least a few off when time is very short.

…

"Badly compromised" is very difficult to do to a Traveller ship without utterly destroying it. Even if you cut the thing in half, the shell is a fair protection against radiation and micrometeor strikes. It's a good target for rescuers, it's likely to be built with all manner of secondaries and safeties against life support failure in mid-jump, all you need is a means to maintain life inside and to keep the beacon active for signalling rescuers, and we've discussed a number of strategies for providing emergency power and life support in a hulled ship. Basically, unless you actually have some reason to get away from the wreck (for example: a crippled military ship under fire, in danger of capture, or with a crippled maneuver drive and facing abandonment by its fleet, or a ship on missions to locations where rescue is unavailable), any space you could use for a lifeboat would be better used for equipment to survive on site. In most cases, the "lifeboat" will be a boat intended for other roles that is also equipped to double as a lifeboat in a pinch.

Hi,

I actually think that there might be more to survival in space than being within a ship’s hull and/or the risk of imminent destruction. In general, if a ship were to lose its power I would suspect that there could be issues with heat loss and the impact that will have on the passengers, crew, and life support, including air handling, water recycling and food (not to mention the threats of hypothermia and water or food freezing etc).

As such to me it would seem that, independent backup emergency systems would be warranted and if those back up emergency systems were all bundled into a form such as lifeboat(s)/lifepod(s) which could be detached in the event that it is necessary may well be a very good idea, particularly if you are potentially in range of a habitable planet, satellite or disused facility that you otherwise could not make it to safely otherwise (including de-orbit if necessary).

…Disease? Running away from your sickbay and medical personnel is not the best plan for infection control, least of all when you're running into a crowded boat with others who might unknowingly harbor the infection. Confine everyone to quarters, have your crew run around masked and gloved until you can bring it under control or get somewhere with proper medical care. Or stick your passengers in rescue balls and your crew in vacc suits if you feel the air filters aren't catching the buggie….

Hi,

A big issue here to me is “what sick bay and medical personnel” are we talking about. Looking at many of the rulesets and deckplans available a sick bay does not appear to be a requirement for many vessels and the level of experience of any medical personnel may vary greatly from ship to ship. For some particularly virulent currently known diseases masks and gloves may not be enough and as such I wouldn’t be surprised if similar situations may not be possible with any illnesses that may be contracted on other worlds as well. Add to this that since many ships do not appear to have a separate sick bay, that kind of makes me wonder whether confining a sick person to their stateroom would make a whole lot of difference to controlling an illness since there does not appear to be any indication that the staterooms don’t actually share life support systems.

…And will be made worse yet by putting all those potentially sick people in even more enclosed and isolated environments. Which some poor unsuspecting schmuck of a hero ship captain might come along and open in his airlock, now infecting his ship. …

Hi,

To me that kind of seems like its a threat in any/every situation where a vessel comes across another in Traveller. Basically, you may never really fully know the intentions of who may be on the other side of an airlock. I seem to vaguely recall one of the 1st Snapshot scenarios I think was based around a “customs cutter” or something like that docking with you and there was the possibility that they may either be real customs agents or pirates/criminals, so that you weren’t really sure how to react.

…Because the ship can sink. You don't abandon a seagoing vessel unless it's going to sink. (It's also much easier to abandon a seagoing vessel - the environment into which you go when you leave the ship is perfectly livable.)…

I actually think that there are other reasons to abandon an ocean going vessel, including fire and grounding, etc.

…But, on non-fighter craft parachutes are only carried 1) in combat and 2) where there are no passengers involved. The only time you would have something comparable would be if the aircraft ditches in a body of water - then you all get out. Why? Because it will sink.

And for ships on well traveled routes, perhaps a lifeboat/lifepod may not be the best solution for that particular ship. However, since Traveller has pretty muchly postulated since the early days that some systems may be a bit off the beaten path, that there are threats to a small independent ship ranging from terrorists, pirates, and thieves etc, and that many private and commercial ships are armed then in keeping with the modern non-fighter craft analogy operations in such situations may be that a “parachute” or other lifesaving device would be warranted.

As for staying onboard a ditched aircraft every commercial flight I’ve ever been on seems to suggest that in the event of an emergency landing you’d likely be directed to emergency exits to get off the plane, whether you have ditched on land or water.