On 3 Nov 2017 at 12:23, Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> On 02Nov2017 0255, Grimmund wrote:
>
> > For ships being intentionally stored, no point in venting it to
> > vacuum. Hard on the internals, and then requires air or vac suits to
> > get the ship  back into operation.  Although, if you are doing it
> > intentionally, part of the storage procedure may be storing some
> > large compressed atmosphere tanks in the hold, enough to get the
> > ship back up to shirtsleeve operating pressure.  Or maybe not, and
> > that's one of the things the yard tender carries around...
>
> I'd vent it to vacuum to so as to not have to worry about moisture
> damage and mould. Unless there are systems that simply won't survive
> being exposed to vacuum and great cold, I'd mothball ships way out in
> the system as well - things happen more slowly at low temperatures,
> and far from the sun there'll be less heating and cooling.

Vacuum is hard on things. So is cold.

Moisture is more easily dealt with by placing silica gel pakages in
various places. It's not like more moisture will be leaking in from
the outside.

Mold? Shouldn't be a problem....

Me, I'd fill the ship with an inert gas. The heavier the better. And
at a bit of overpressure.

Why? the heavier atoms are less likely to leak thru seals. And if
they leak, they'll do it more slowly.

The overpressure is so that even if things leak, there'll still be
enough pressure to keep things preserved.

About those inert gases. Helium is right out. It'll seep into
*everything*, and leak quickly thru even airtight seals.

Neon is better. Argon is even better. Krypton should be better yet.
Xenon is good and has an interesting property that might be of us in
dealing with unauthorized boarders. It's an anaesthetic. Yes, really.

Radon is radioactive, so it's out.

So the choice between neon, argon, krypton and xenon will be a
balance between higher molecular weight and cheaper to get in the
volumes required.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com