Starship security: Imperial versus individual needs

[Icosahedron]

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

You could either charge the entire hull with respect to the ground, or charge different parts of the hull to different potentials - like a flykiller.
Either way, you're probably looking at a tazer style effect with very high voltages and small currents. Even a few thousand volts can bridge or puncture small insulators such as a few millimetres of plastic or rubber - I've been 'bitten' numerous times, despite wearing rubber soles and standing on wooden floors.
However, an electrified hull is only going to act as a deterrent to angry crowds, it won't stop a dedicated boarding action. It'll keep curious fingers away from that keyhole cap, though.
Having said all that, I like the 'Electrostatic Armour' described in FFS p57. That ought to keep a few fist-shakers away.

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.

Good points, let's see what others say.

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 ....

Again, good points, more areas for a wider discussion.

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.

The issue isn't restricted to control of the ship. I'm looking at a situation far more likely than a hijack, in which perhaps a steward is faced by one or more irate passengers and may use a stun baton or similar as self-defence. If this is taken by the passenger(s) it can't be used to kill him (deliberately or accidentally) and he can be rescued later.
If the situation proves to be a hijacking, the attackers would be attempting to assault key areas of the ship with 'toy' weapons whilst the remaining crew could break out the real hardware for a last ditch defence of the ship.

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.

Granted, in the case of a 'briefcase nuke' scenario.
Of course, 'destruction' doesn't have to be explosive, nor total, it just needs to prevent a field repair from being a viable option within the attacker's window of opportunity.

 

[atpollard]

A radio control password that bypasses all of the other careful security measures sounds like a recipe for disaster. If everything goes wrong and you are locked out of your ship, then it SHOULD be hard to get in [Que Marine Assault Team].

At what TL might the security be safely moved from the door scanner to the Vacc suit? So the vacc suit samples the user’s DNA and adds that data to the IFF code. Now the ship knows that vacc suit 289-FCX-45 (registered to the captain) is approaching, but the captain isn’t wearing it. No more need for a hand print in a vacuum environment. It could be hacked, but then you are dealing with a fake transponder type of scam – difficult and requiring lots of specialized equipment and technical expertise.

 

[flykiller]

... like a flykiller.

touché.

Of course, 'destruction' doesn't have to be explosive, nor total, it just needs to prevent a field repair from being a viable option within the attacker's window of opportunity.

if the ship is in a gravity well, or is outbound in a zero-to-little-traffic system, and you mean to disable the power plant or maneuver drive, that could be fatal. and if for whatever reason someone doesn't come to rescue you then it will be ineffective.

At what TL might the security be safely moved from the door scanner to the Vacc suit? So the vacc suit samples the user’s DNA and adds that data to the IFF code. Now the ship knows that vacc suit 289-FCX-45 (registered to the captain) is approaching, but the captain isn’t wearing it.

it would be easier and more reliable just to leave a crewman aboard the ship.

"hey, it's me, open up."

"say you love me."

" ... "

well ... maybe not absolutely reliable ....

... then you are dealing with a fake transponder type of scam – difficult and requiring lots of specialized equipment and technical expertise.

and worth it, to get a ship.

 

[atpollard]

It could be hacked, but then you are dealing with a fake transponder type of scam – difficult and requiring lots of specialized equipment and technical expertise.

and worth it, to get a ship.

I don't know about that. How many drug smugglers are using SOTA stealth aircraft to move drugs? There are better uses for the investment and simpler ways to achieve the same end result.