Starship security: Imperial versus individual needs

[Hal]

Inspired by a thread in the Lone Star, I thought it might be interesting to create an interactive thread geared towards designing a security system for an Empress Marava class ship, or perhaps a Beowulf class ship (or both!) that meets the paranoid needs of a freighter captain, and also meets the needs of the Third Imperium.

Question: How would you implement security on YOUR starship assuming you are the captain/owner of said ship?

Question: You're a member of the Admiralty Board who is required to sign off on the new security systems implements by the captain in the above scenario. What would you or would you not permit? What requirements would you implement for those emergencies where for example, a ship exits jump space and begins to drift - non-responsive to any attempts to communicate via radio.

Any takers?

Note: This thread is open to ALL versions of Traveller, be it CT on up to GT to MGT.

 

[flykiller]

a framework for discussion suggests itself.

1) external. turrets and other projection weapons - ship tactical defense.
2) hull. access through the pressure hull - ingress control.
3) inboard. internal security - computer control, engineering control, etc (systems control) and shotguns etc (people control).

 

[Gadrin]

Compiled from the following sources.

#1 is from an Empress Marava...

SHIPBOARD SYSTEMS -- INTERNAL SECURITY


from Double Adventure #06 Night of Conquest p20: Entering the Scotian
Huntress: A palm lock keyed only to the palmprints of the ship's personnel
seals the ship. If the lock is damaged, a signal may be sent by communicator
to cause the computer to open the electronic locks on board.

from Adv 7 Broadsword: The ship's anti-hijack program will prove of some
help, but is not totally foolproof. The program works by monitoring the
location of all large living things aboard ship (by means of infrared sensors
to pick up slight rises in temperature, ultrasonic motion- detectors, and
sensors in the deck plates of certain vital areas which detect the weight of
a body) and sounding an alarm if certain parameters are met (if, for example,
a body suddenly appears in the drive room). The referee must determine the
effectiveness of this program in detecting the commandos, and any delays
which may occur in sounding the alarm. If, for example, the commandos jump
into the computer room, and disable the computer immediately, the alarm will
probably not sound.

from Book 2 Starships: Anti-hijack protects the ship against potential
takeovers. This program constantly monitors conditions within the starship,
and automatically locks the access doors to the bridge and controls when a
hijack situation occurs. Because this system is not foolproof, would-be
hijackers may gain access in spite of the program on a throw of 5 or less.

from Snapshot: The free trader Beowulf has just left Beck's World en route to
Enope with a full load of passengers and cargo. As preparations are made for
the deep space jump, the ship's computer is fully committed to generating a
flight plan - its anti-hijacking surveillance is temporarily suspended. The
crew works busily in the drive room and on the bridge, their attention
directed to their duties. No one realizes the impending situation.

 

[Gadrin]

Question: You're a member of the Admiralty Board who is required to sign off on the new security systems implements by the captain in the above scenario. What would you or would you not permit? What requirements would you implement for those emergencies where for example, a ship exits jump space and begins to drift - non-responsive to any attempts to communicate via radio.

Any takers?

Note: This thread is open to ALL versions of Traveller, be it CT on up to GT to MGT.

Let's see, there'd probably be step-by-step set of protocols...

If ship is non-responsive, is her Transponder working ? If so, I know the name of the ship, her serial number and maybe other information like her destination (she didn't misjump in here did she? and her current crew complement, assuming that's part of the info and up to date).

Next would be some simple scans to find out if the reactor is running or not and neutrinos are present.

I asked before if you could scan another ship and figure out if there was an atmosphere present or not and got mixed replies.

We'll assume not, and prepare a boarding party, probably battledress troopers who must burn thru the hull or hatch to enter. Battledress minimizes the risk to both vacc and hazards aboard the ship. See this cover ... GURPS Traveller Sword Worlds (no burning necessary).

Boy I wish I had it saved. When the GURPS guys did the playtest for GURPS Starships they had a lengthy discussion all about boarding parties and "Canary Teams" which was interesting. I don't think I saved it though.

Here's from the current book...

BOARDING OPERATIONS 

Boarding operations range from a simple courtesy visit from a lonely customs
agent to a full-scale assault by Imperial Marines. While two friendly ships
will simply use a docking tube (p. 67) to link airlocks, contact between
neutral, enemy, or unknown vessels will use some type of boarding procedure.

Then get into CUSTOMS INSPECTIONS and COMBAT ASSAULTS

I'll have to look on JTAS and see if that playtest was saved or not.

>

 

[Hal]

What might be interesting is to take a given deck plan (doesn't really matter which game system) and work collectively from that. Then, each of us who posts to this thread can try to imagine what life must be like aboard such a craft, and try to identify those needs/requirements from a working spacehand's point of view, from the ship owner's point of view, and from the Imperial Officials point of view.

For example? If you're in a vacuum or corrosive environment - what kinds of "sensors" and/or security methods are viable? If you need to be suited up in a vacuum - can you really utilize a palm print security lock system? If someone scratches the plate for which the palm print reader reads the hand - will it invalidate the system? What about corrosive atmospheres? Does the reader need to be maintained on a regular basis because it is subjected to vacuum and then moisture when cycling the lock?

Now, lets vary the scenario a little. You're the captain of a ship with two 22 foot wide, 8 foot tall cargo bay doors plus two, one man air locks. Your ship is to land at a world with a class C starport, but the delivery specs on your freight require that you land adjacent to a specific town and offload the freight. How would you secure your ship's perimeter, and the entry into the ship itself against unauthorized intrusion?

And while you think about it - here's a question to consider - is it an Imperial Offense to attempt to make an unauthorized entry aboard an Imperially registered starship? Some GM's might think that the answer should be yes, while others might say "It depends on the world itself" or yet others might say "Nope, not at all". What laws hold sway aboard a ship that is registered as having its port of registry from Regina? Do Imperial standards hold sway while in jump space, while the local laws hold sway once a ship is within 100 diameters of the world?

What level of force is allowed to be utilized by a starship that is authorized to carry its own ship killing weaponry (incidentally, also capable of leveling towns and cities when you get right down to it!) in its own defense against unauthorized boarding of said ship? Could for example, one mount "coaxial mount" squad support weapons capable of high rates of fire - just to protect the hull from being mobbed or boarded by unauthorized boarders?

There are so many possibilities here, and a truly operational starship is going to have a few safeguards built in, plus a potentially anal retentive captain adding more precautions.

For example - suppose you're aboard a ship with a crew of 4. It contains a captain, a Navigator/sensor operator, an engineer, plus a steward. In addition, you have 6 passenger staterooms available with 6 passengers (we'll not mention the prospect of low berths for now). What would happen for example, if some yahoo were to plug in an electrical appliance in their stateroom, that blew the Imperial equivalent of a fuse or circuit breaker? Or worse yet, the life support system reports hazardous levels of contaminants in the air system eminating from two of the staterooms indicating a potential fire? What security protocols would or should that ship enact in order to prevent the potential for the loss of life as well as the potential for a hijacking attempt?

Security systems not only need to be placed so as to thwart the usual and likely threats, but generally requires that someone give some thought towards how to handle potential problems. If the usual run of the mill starship officers never take courses in security, and never have a security consulting firm look over their set up and provide recommendations - and there are no dedicated security officers aboard the ship - what security proceedures might be considered "Standard"?

Food for thought. What I'd like to see in this thread is people contributing to ideas, seeing where the flaws are, and refining it step by step. It might be fun to see how all the carefully crafted security ideas come to naught as a single person outlines a scenario where hijackers hijack the ship.

 

[Hal]

Gadrin raises some interesting points in his post. What information is likely to be present in a given transponder's broadcast?

I myself make the presumption that the Transponder itself merely identifies the ship hull number, its name, as well as perhaps its empty mass, rated propulsion system etc. All information that does not change over time. I can't imagine that the ship's destination port, or any other "constantly changing" or configurable data would be broadcast - only because it would require that someone can change the data and has to do so each and every time the ship changes port, etc.

Now for some other interesting questions (at least to me!).

Lets say for the sake of argument, that Gadrin is the commander of an inspection cutter. His job is to investigate ships before they land, board, inspect the ship(s) that pass by this Class C starport based world, and determine if there is a medical emergency aboard that requires quarantine or whether or not the passengers are within normal tolerances for healthy. As such, Commander Gadrin's team consists of the following:

Himself trained as a combat pilot able to utilize the cutter's sole laser weapon (fixed mount) plus its canister dispenser (sand caster), and anti-ship missiles (those haven't been used since the day they were installed!).

Medico Port Authority member: Basically the guy who asks "Anyone here sick?" who is also trained in spotting sickness etc.

General all around port official type whose job it is to inspect the cargo (usually cursory), the ship's papers, etc. In generally, usually useless when things hit the cesspool.

A single fireteam of marines led by a corporal. His training includes some general engineering type skills permitting him to use the ship's "cutters" for burning through sealed bulkheads and the like. All of the marines are trained in first-aid, as well as boarding proceedures.

Equipment available:
One cutter system designed to cut through the hull. Good for TWO uses.
One demolition's pack
Four combat armor suits that double as vac suits
Four Laser rifles
3 vac suits
4 rescue balls (one man occupation)
4 low berths aboard the cutter for emergency use
Man portable sensor systems with limited range - generally audio/atmosphere sensor types.

Upon taking up station at any distance desired, the Empress Maggie is still quiet, still drifting, and still showing signs of being powered up and life support functional. Your job? Is to investigate the ship. As to why the Empress Maggie is quiet and drifting, I'm not going to say. The thing here, is that by doing this exercise, you're going to indentify those aspects that the "authorized" individuals will have to face upon reaching the scene. It could be a medical emergency. It could be a failed hijacking attempt. It could be something unforseen. It could even be an infestation that has somehow rendered the ship disfunctional. All you know is that there is no radio contact, no motion, no apparent battle damage, no hull integrity failures (that you can see).

So, what do YOU want to have on your side under those circumstances?

 

[flykiller]

What might be interesting is to take a given deck plan (doesn't really matter which game system) and work collectively from that.

well here's four, if any seem suitable.

Agzlu
Erin
G-class
Jefferson Davis

 

[Gadrin]

Gadrin raises some interesting points in his post. What information is likely to be present in a given transponder's broadcast?

GURPS Traveller: Far Trader offers an entire sidebar on Transponders and the information they contain, so it wasn't something I came up on mee-self.

If you have the Cargonaut: Letter of Marque/Rogues in Space I, it has a section on Transponders on p37.

From The Traveller Adventure...

The most important of these is a highly illegal but extremely useful device,
a transponder that can shift to several different settings. Transponders are
an essential piece of equipment on interstellar vessels. Sealed, tamper-proof
devices, they send out an identification of the ship-its name, registry, and
important statistics-when a signal is sent to the ship from an outside
source. This provides a permanent and theoretically unbeatable way of
registering starships. Actually, of course, transponders are neither
tamper-proof nor unbeatable. But it takes excellent resources or very good
connections to alter a transponder. The Oberlindes device is even better-at
the touch of a button, the transponder can be set to any one of three
different ID codes.

This isn't exhaustive by any means.


>

 

[RandyT0001]

So what happens to all the transponders on crashed ships or ships so heavily damaged by combat they are not worth repairing?
Are the transponders on Imperial/subsector/planetary Navy ships left on the ship while it is 'mothballed' in ordinary?
What imperial service/division is responsible for the installation and recovery of transponders?
Do transponders work only one certain frequency which is by Imperial edict reserved for their use only? Are there more than one frequency used? How powerful is the signal? Can it be jammed?

 

[coliver988]

transponders

Navy transponders would be deactivated and possibly removed to prevent unauthorized persons access to them when scrapping or mothballing the ships. Part of the process of un-mothballing would be the re-installation/updating of the transponders. Ships being dismantled remove the transponders as well, and, depending on age/condition, they are destroyed or reprogrammed.

Civilian ships' must turn in transponders when scrapping the ship. Salvage laws include provisions for the return of the transponders - no transponder and you had better not have the section of ship it was in. Selling the ship requires recertification of the transponder.

Imperial law dictates 2 frequencies for transponders. Imperial Navy craft use both, with differing data on each. Naval frequencies are part of the friend or foe infrastructure. They have the option to disable the civilian portion in times of combat.

Civilian frequencies are used for basic ship information, such as the 1st part of the USP: ship type, tonnage, configuration, jump, maneuver, power plant. The last 3 - hmm, maybe, maybe not. Definately not armaments in my opinion.

Recovering transponders for legal and extra-legal purposes would make some interesting adventures.

Just my guess...

 

[atpollard]

Question: How would you implement security on YOUR starship assuming you are the captain/owner of said ship?

Most ships fail any serious security test right from the deckplan design. How can you reasonably control access when passengers and crew share the same common area and this shared space divides Engineering from the Bridge? It is like discussing anti-hijacking measures in a Cesna.

 

[Icosahedron]

Ok, everybody seems a bit hesitant to take the plunge here, so I'll do it.

Pick some holes in this:

As Captain:

Some form of perimeter defence - maybe like the fence in Forbidden Planet, combined sensor and stunner.

Sentries provided by SPA and covered by berthing fees.

Electrified hull (probably only works when landed).

Multi-recognition reader inside a cover by the hatch. (iris, palm, DNA, whatever). Transparisteel inside cover is proof against all except Insidious atmospheres. Outer cover of hull material is Insidious proof and inner cover is exposed for minimal time and spray cleaned after each use - transparent cover will need replacing at next stop.

Emergency access override by coded signal to computer. Codes held by senior crew.

Multi-signal sensor, including mm-wave scanner, inside airlock to detect weapons, explosives, drugs, etc. multi-wavelength camera.

Cameras cover any hatch that stands open. Provide one or more sentries whenever feasible.

Kill zone inside airlock, including gas dispenser, tazer, rifle-grade laser, etc. and variable-G.

multi wavelength cameras in all communal areas, especially covering access points, corridors, etc.

KO gas dispensers and variable-G in communal areas.

Multi-recognition readers on Engineering, Bridge, Hold, and any other sensitive areas.

Ship design to separate crew from passengers by at least one secured bulkhead.

Passengers unarmed, crew armed with non-lethal weapons. Lethal weapons secured in Locker(s), access for senior crew only.

Self destruct device fitted to computer/power plant, partial codes held by senior crew. :devil:


As Assault Commander:

Battledress, or at least Combat Armour, with rapid-reaction Grav belt.

Faraday Cage.

Hatch-opening tools.

Tortoishell - armoured sleeve to fit inside standard airlocks, proof against kill-zone weapons and containing rapid-reaction G-plate.

Portable shield - thick plate of armour pushed along corridors by Battledress troops to provide cover. Will take several hits by FGMP.

Battlefield Meson Accelerator in hold of Assault ship. :devil:


Some weapons for both sides:

Stun batons - tazer.
Stun pistols - tranq or tazer.
Steam guns - like a steam cleaner, sweeps corridors clear of unarmoured personnel without the collateral damage of a flamer.

 

[Hal]

Ok, everybody seems a bit hesitant to take the plunge here, so I'll do it.

Pick some holes in this:

As Captain:

Some form of perimeter defence - maybe like the fence in Forbidden Planet, combined sensor and stunner.

I'm not going to poke holes in this so much as to make a series of running comments. How much distance do you want from the ship to the perimeter? For a given displacement ship where you know the length, width, and height of ship, it shouldn't be too difficult to determine the length of the perimeter itself based on distance from the ship. More importantly however, is the man-power cost required to errect this perimeter, as well as any energy requirements for it. Then again? Any competent shipboard enegineer should be able to rig the power for the fence to feed off the ship's engines.

Sentries provided by SPA and covered by berthing fees.

The presumption for security needs will generally be based on a "do it yourself" approach more than a ship in a landing bay kind of thing, but, you're right to a degree. Each landing bay you pay for will either have a fee for services provided, or will skimp on the cost for landing there based upon the fact that no sentry services are provided! Might make for an interesting idea for a GM to introduce as part of the landing fee schedule, an itemized list of what you get and what you don't get and let the "menu driven approach" be something that the players can utilize. Imagine seeing an itemized cost of "security services: 5,000 credits per week" and have the captain howl at how costly security is. For a 24/7 coverage, that's almost 30 credits per hour. However, if those 30 credits per hour buy you 3 active sentries for 24/7 coverage - is it too expensive? (note: I just used the figure as an example, the cost per hour is heavily dependent upon which version of Traveller you use for your campaign).

Electrified hull (probably only works when landed).

I wonder what engineering challenges are involved in having an electrified hull that doesn't at the same time present challenges for internal electonics or accidental grounding?

Multi-recognition reader inside a cover by the hatch. (iris, palm, DNA, whatever). Transparisteel inside cover is proof against all except Insidious atmospheres. Outer cover of hull material is Insidious proof and inner cover is exposed for minimal time and spray cleaned after each use - transparent cover will need replacing at next stop.

An eye recognition system (either digital or otherwise) would require time spent applying the eye to the scanner and permitting the computer get a valid "sample" to check against in its files. A DNA scanner requires that there be some method of having the sampler take a sample - ie, it opens it to the elements - thus, is not encasable in the transparisteel cover. None the less - a biometric style scanner might be useful despite it all. Question? How fine would the biometric system have to be to do the job? Is it possible for example, for the computer to do a DNA test on the inside cheeks of the human being, and sort out the non-human DNA from the food matter that the person recently ingested etc? Just curious as to how reliable DNA tests are when taken QUICKLY. If for example, the scanner pricks your finger and takes a blood sample, imagine the fun you can have with THAT in a campaign

Emergency access override by coded signal to computer. Codes held by senior crew.

Basically a password system.

Multi-signal sensor, including mm-wave scanner, inside airlock to detect weapons, explosives, drugs, etc. multi-wavelength camera.

Homeland airport security survives into the Third Imperium. How Depressing (just teasing - a very suitable precaution!)

Cameras cover any hatch that stands open. Provide one or more sentries whenever feasible.

Your engineer is going to LOVE you for that. Can't you just hear him say "Sheesh, now that's more spare parts I have to keep in inventory, plus more gadgets I have to put on the maintenance list. Mind if I tell the captain that I'll do it in my copious spare time thanks to the no good for nothing salesman selling the owner of the ship a 50 year old relic instead of a 30 year old? Hmmmph."

Kill zone inside airlock, including gas dispenser, tazer, rifle-grade laser, etc. and variable-G.

Ok - that means that your weapons have to be installed in the air lock, and they have to be remotely controlled - as you can't have a "Murder hole" type thing just built into the wall allowing you to remove the cover and poke your gun in. If you use gas on a victim and they die of overdose complications, what are the liability issues (aka the Russian storming of the movie theaters only to discover that they had gassed their movie patron/victims to death by accident)? Question? If you control exit/egress from the air-lock, do you need to kill the people in the air lock itself? Just thinking aloud.

multi wavelength cameras in all communal areas, especially covering access points, corridors, etc.

Ok - by the time you finish deciding how many cameras you want, we're going to need an inventory of how many cameras you want, how you want to disguise them, and so forth. One possibility is to create "dummy" camera housings so that the patrons/hijackers will never be sure which ones are fake and which ones are real. As an added bonus? Some of those dummy housings might hold knock out gas such that shooting them to disable the cameras will instead release knock out gas...

KO gas dispensers and variable-G in communal areas.

Multi-recognition readers on Engineering, Bridge, Hold, and any other sensitive areas.

Standard security choke point issues. Question? How long and how invasive are these choke points to be when checking for valid identity? Are we talking about a "Key & Password" system, or are we talking about "fool proof identity checking systems"? If a fool proof system is emplaced, how long will it take to determine identity to the system's satisfaction? What happens when you get a false negative result?

Ship design to separate crew from passengers by at least one secured bulkhead.

NUMBER ONE issue that should require some deck plans to be redesigned!!!!

Passengers unarmed, crew armed with non-lethal weapons. Lethal weapons secured in Locker(s), access for senior crew only.

Self destruct device fitted to computer/power plant, partial codes held by senior crew. :devil:

Ok - I got the smiley (or was it the devilish imp in you suggesting that one?!!!). I can also imagine the look on some poor schlep's face at the gaming table when the computer announces "Self destruct device has begun countdown. Safety circuit systems detect chemical additives in a liquid have been spilled into the containment system. Chemical signature matches that of a Terran beverage known as Pepsi."

Right now, I'm more concerned with security systems employed by the ship before I start worrying about someone trying to take the ship away from its rightful owners. First build the better mousetrap, then build the better mouse I always say

 

[Hal]

Most ships fail any serious security test right from the deckplan design. How can you reasonably control access when passengers and crew share the same common area and this shared space divides Engineering from the Bridge? It is like discussing anti-hijacking measures in a Cesna.

You do have a way of causing me to snicker from time to time. Score one for you

 

[flykiller]

Most ships fail any serious security test right from the deckplan design.

yep. the g-class, listed earlier, is laid out with internal security in mind, as are the erin and the davis, with varying degrees of success. security must be combined with survivability, i.e. two ways out of every major compartment, no dead-ends.

of course the best internal security is to carry all passengers in low-berths. the g-class makes provision for this.

Multi-recognition reader inside a cover by the hatch. (iris, palm, DNA, whatever).

Emergency access override by coded signal to computer. Codes held by senior crew.

relies on ship power. if power is lost, or a fuse blows, then access is lost. why not a simple key? for extra security, combine it with a push-button code lock. more robust, easier to maintain, no sudden unexpected failures, etc. elaborate electronic systems are ok in civilized starports where help with failure is available, but in the wilderness or fifty light seconds out simplicity and reliability and self-repair-and-recovery become primary.

Kill zone inside airlock ....KO gas dispensers and variable-G in communal areas.

disasters waiting to happen.

Passengers unarmed, crew armed with non-lethal weapons.

at police academy they taught us that in every call we went to there was a gun involved - ours. if you put crew carrying weapons in the passenger compartment then the passengers will have access to weapons.

Self destruct device fitted to computer/power plant ....

(wince) why not a simple shutdown?

Battlefield Meson Accelerator in hold of Assault ship.

unless hostages are involved this really should be all that is needed.

 

[flykiller]

I wonder what engineering challenges are involved in having an electrified hull that doesn't at the same time present challenges for internal electonics or accidental grounding?

none. but it only works against barefoot intruders. anyone in a vacc suit or wearing rubber-soled boots won't be affected, and might not ever even know the hull is electrified.

Sentries provided by SPA and covered by berthing fees.

sounds like a ready-made inside man to me. "hey, they're all out getting drunk. all four, definitely."

Basically a password system.

yeah, like at the bank. "WHAT IS YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?" "MY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS ...." probably have to change it every time you use it. six months later ... "What was my password again?" "SORRY INCORRECT PASSWORD YOU HAVE TWO MORE TRIES BEFORE SHIP SECURITY SYSTEM LOCKS DOWN AND OPENS FIRE."

Cameras cover any hatch that stands open. Provide one or more sentries whenever feasible.

if manpower is not an issue.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm not going to poke holes in this so much as to make a series of running comments. How much distance do you want from the ship to the perimeter? For a given displacement ship where you know the length, width, and height of ship, it shouldn't be too difficult to determine the length of the perimeter itself based on distance from the ship. More importantly however, is the man-power cost required to errect this perimeter, as well as any energy requirements for it. Then again? Any competent shipboard enegineer should be able to rig the power for the fence to feed off the ship's engines.

I figured this was mainly a deterrent against fuzzy-wuzzies or animals. At high tech, the fence will be 'virtual' and the posts could be laid out as easily as traffic cones.

I wonder what engineering challenges are involved in having an electrified hull that doesn't at the same time present challenges for internal electonics or accidental grounding?

Very few if your hull is designed for it.

An eye recognition system (either digital or otherwise) would require time spent applying the eye to the scanner and permitting the computer get a valid "sample" to check against in its files. A DNA scanner requires that there be some method of having the sampler take a sample - ie, it opens it to the elements - thus, is not encasable in the transparisteel cover. None the less - a biometric style scanner might be useful despite it all. Question? How fine would the biometric system have to be to do the job? Is it possible for example, for the computer to do a DNA test on the inside cheeks of the human being, and sort out the non-human DNA from the food matter that the person recently ingested etc? Just curious as to how reliable DNA tests are when taken QUICKLY. If for example, the scanner pricks your finger and takes a blood sample, imagine the fun you can have with THAT in a campaign

I agree, the direct contact necessary for DNA sampling would make it an unlikely method for external access. By TL10+, I imagine sampling rates will be pretty fast.

Your engineer is going to LOVE you for that. Can't you just hear him say "Sheesh, now that's more spare parts I have to keep in inventory, plus more gadgets I have to put on the maintenance list. Mind if I tell the captain that I'll do it in my copious spare time thanks to the no good for nothing salesman selling the owner of the ship a 50 year old relic instead of a 30 year old? Hmmmph."

Compare inventory time with its alternative - sentry duty.

Ok - that means that your weapons have to be installed in the air lock, and they have to be remotely controlled - as you can't have a "Murder hole" type thing just built into the wall allowing you to remove the cover and poke your gun in. If you use gas on a victim and they die of overdose complications, what are the liability issues (aka the Russian storming of the movie theaters only to discover that they had gassed their movie patron/victims to death by accident)? Question? If you control exit/egress from the air-lock, do you need to kill the people in the air lock itself? Just thinking aloud.

Depends how likely your access control is to be thwarted. This stuff will probably not be needed for regular passenger access, but could be brought online if a pirate boarding action was suspected.

Ok - by the time you finish deciding how many cameras you want, we're going to need an inventory of how many cameras you want, how you want to disguise them, and so forth. One possibility is to create "dummy" camera housings so that the patrons/hijackers will never be sure which ones are fake and which ones are real. As an added bonus? Some of those dummy housings might hold knock out gas such that shooting them to disable the cameras will instead release knock out gas...

Hmm, where I come from there are more cameras than people - its a (depressing) way of life. Good idea about the KO dummies.

Standard security choke point issues. Question? How long and how invasive are these choke points to be when checking for valid identity? Are we talking about a "Key & Password" system, or are we talking about "fool proof identity checking systems"? If a fool proof system is emplaced, how long will it take to determine identity to the system's satisfaction? What happens when you get a false negative result?

I would hope that by the TLs in question, sample times and false readings will be much lower than we can currently imagine and will probably not be a significant inconvenience. If you're locked out once in 125 years, get another crew member to verify you.

 

[Icosahedron]

none. but it only works against barefoot intruders. anyone in a vacc suit or wearing rubber-soled boots won't be affected, and might not ever even know the hull is electrified.

This is a common misconception responsible for numerous injuries and deaths.

sounds like a ready-made inside man to me. "hey, they're all out getting drunk. all four, definitely."

The potential is there, but only for an organised assault with pre-arranged bribery. The guards are a perimeter defence only and you still need to enter the ship.

yeah, like at the bank. "WHAT IS YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?" "MY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS ...." probably have to change it every time you use it. six months later ... "What was my password again?" "SORRY INCORRECT PASSWORD YOU HAVE TWO MORE TRIES BEFORE SHIP SECURITY SYSTEM LOCKS DOWN AND OPENS FIRE."

The code is an override that will be used infrequently, if ever, so probably will not need changing. The crew will remember something that important.

if manpower is not an issue.

As I said - if feasible.

 

[Icosahedron]

relies on ship power. if power is lost, or a fuse blows, then access is lost. why not a simple key? for extra security, combine it with a push-button code lock. more robust, easier to maintain, no sudden unexpected failures, etc. elaborate electronic systems are ok in civilized starports where help with failure is available, but in the wilderness or fifty light seconds out simplicity and reliability and self-repair-and-recovery become primary.

Simple key exposes internal components to hostile atmospheres. If you can think of an unpowered, unexposed, secure system, that would be great.

(KO and G-plates in common areas)
disasters waiting to happen.

Alternatives?

at police academy they taught us that in every call we went to there was a gun involved - ours. if you put crew carrying weapons in the passenger compartment then the passengers will have access to weapons.

That's why I chose non-lethal crew weapons - gives them an edge for the rare-but-not-unheard-of passenger fracas, but witholds lethal weapons in the extremely rare event of a hijack attempt.

(wince) why not a simple shutdown?

Shutdown is normal - and circumventable. This is intended to render the ship useless in case of hijack/piracy, both as a deterrent to the attempt and ultimate denial of the prize.

(meson assault) unless hostages are involved this really should be all that is needed.

Yeah, that's what I thought. :smirk:

 

[flykiller]

anyone in a vacc suit or wearing rubber-soled boots won't be affected, and might not ever even know the hull is electrified.

This is a common misconception responsible for numerous injuries and deaths.

perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by electrifying the hull. please describe it.

Simple key exposes internal components to hostile atmospheres. If you can think of an unpowered, unexposed, secure system, that would be great.

screw cap over the keyhole, open when needed, opening actuates a small nitrogen gas feed to purge the lock mechanism? or maybe just leaving one crewman aboard to open the hatch when told - no need for any particular security equipment there, and it makes better sense to me to never leave any ship outright unattended. in any case a ship that 1) operates in an insidious atmosphere, and 2) has to worry about security while in that atmosphere, is up to something really bizarre.

(KO and G-plates in common areas)disasters waiting to happen.

Alternatives?

direct hands-on approach by the crew. leadership and streetwise skills to get ahead of problems, tranq darts or equivilant, display of weapons, actual use of weapons. starships have such tiny environments, having a pressurized system on standby to inject an incapacitating gas into the entire ship (if the discussion is about inboard security then the system probably won't be effective unless it involves the entire ship) is just begging for a gasket leak.

'course I'm worring about real-life technical issues. it's only a game, one can up and say that it works - thus! - and the game will be just fine. of course extending the same courtesy to the hijackers is only fair ....

That's why I chose non-lethal crew weapons ....

if the issue in contention is control of the ship then I'm not sure lethal and non-lethal distinctions matter. taser or bullet, either one incapacitates the opposition.

(wince) why not a simple shutdown?

Shutdown is normal - and circumventable. This is intended to render the ship useless in case of hijack/piracy, both as a deterrent to the attempt and ultimate denial of the prize.

would work, for a certain kind of person in certain kinds of circumstances. but not many will call self-destruct while aboard the vessel in question, and being able to call it while _offboard_ introduces a whole 'nuther can of security worms.