Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum robocon@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 01:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 02:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2017 03:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Kelly St. Clair (09 Nov 2017 04:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Amber Witherspoon (09 Nov 2017 09:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 05:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum shadow@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 11:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:43 UTC)

Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn 09 Nov 2017 02:17 UTC

On 09Nov2017 1402, xxxxxx@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> I don't think breathing gear reliability is a problem - it is a very
> mature technology with millenia of experience in the Traveller setting.

IMO much of the stuff about problems with vacuum are also going to be
mostly solved issues by the 3I's time as well, especially when it comes
to navy ships intended for long lives and long mothball periods.

There are probably also going to be several levels of mothballing,
starting with "we might want to use this 'as is' within the next decade
or two", which would mean some kind of atmosphere, and mostly just the
ship being powered down and cleaned, etc. Later steps would assume that
the electronics will be decades out of date and would get replaced
anyway, so they'd either be removed as part of the process, or no-one
would care if they died from prolonged vacuum exposure because they'd be
getting replaced upon recommissioning anyway.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief