What real use are escape pods?

Theoretically, you could find space for a smallcraft in a two hundred tonne starship.

For the minimum hundred tonnes, it becomes a question of what has to make room.
 
Or a simple RTG (Radioisotope Thermal Generator) or the equivalent.

One for a lifer raft seems reasonable, not per 1-2 person life pod. Like the model on the Maersk Alabama (20 people rated)

Which is the core of my point. Spaceships don't sink. I grew up sailing blue water. I would never shove off into a life raft when the boat is afloat and not a raging inferno.

OK, they don't sink because technically they are already "sunk". If your boat is on the surface you have unlimted air. With a spacecraft, the analogy works better with a submarine at depth. Doesn't need to be a deep depth, just enough that no part of the vessel is open to the air.

So, you leave when you're running out of air, if there's a failure of life support, if the reactor is melting....
 
Yes, if you had a small craft it would save you. An escape pod of the type in this thread would be of zero use in that situation. The reason being the extremely limited Δv available from the tiny solid fuel motor in the pod. Maybe a few minutes of 1G acceleration. The velocity of the ship at midpoint at 1G if going from Earth to Mars would be about 1,600 kilometers per second. The pod could only change that velocity by about 3 kilometers per second. No real use saving you.

It would be useful for manoeuver. youre travelling at 1,600 km/s, so let's have the onboard computer make sure you're not going to bump into anything (or perhaps not veer too far from regularly operated routes where you might be unrecoverable*)

*Thinking of Pioneer here.
 
Your vacc suit or survival bubble is your life pod.

For potential re-entry there is a re-entry kit that can be deployed, I would imagine in MgT terms it would have an onboard electronic expert system that operates it.
 
Yes, if you had a small craft it would save you. An escape pod of the type in this thread would be of zero use in that situation. The reason being the extremely limited Δv available from the tiny solid fuel motor in the pod. Maybe a few minutes of 1G acceleration. The velocity of the ship at midpoint at 1G if going from Earth to Mars would be about 1,600 kilometers per second. The pod could only change that velocity by about 3 kilometers per second. No real use saving you.
You keep saying this as though it is established fact. Where are you getting the evidence that an escape capsule has a small solid fuel booster (or any defined performance characteristics at all).

You are also disregarding the fact that the ship could eject the pod at whatever velocity it likes without needing any drive to be on the pod itself at all. GLOC isn't really a worry if all you have to do is survive it. All that ship imparted thrust is in addition to anything the pod could generate.
 
Last edited:
Your vacc suit or survival bubble is your life pod.

For potential re-entry there is a re-entry kit that can be deployed, I would imagine in MgT terms it would have an onboard electronic expert system that operates it.
I did try to generate a re-entry kit using suit type equipment from CSC. You are maybe ok if you are already in orbit when the bailout is required (and you had better hope what you are orbiting is worth landing on), but the kit required is as expensive as an escape capsule, it requires time to don it all and a skill check to use it. The capsule per the rules just works. You also need to have an atmosphere to use the re-entry kit which reduces your choices.

Once you land all you have is what you have in your pockets. The capsule could have additional equipment (at extra cost) to help survive stowed within it. The capsule itself can be used as a shelter or at the very least cannibalised for useful materials in addition to what you have in your pockets.

The other issue is life support. 2 hours is only useful if you can repair the ship. With a suit (and presumably rescue bubble) if you had time to plan you could gather extra life support supplies but that takes time (or adds cost if it is designed into the escape solution). Suits could at least be plugged into any life support you come across (it needs to be already in a bubble).

We can extend life support with Fast Drug but extending 2 hours by a factor of 60 doesn't give you much time (5 Days) so help already needs to be on the way. Bubbles with Fast Drug are however probably better than nothing and are a cheap solution to any regulatory imposition (you have made reasonable provision to extend the window of rescue). Vacc suits are more expensive and for the untrained in their use probably more of a liability. They would be sensible for crew who might be able to recover the situation (sitting in a bubble for them doesn't help anyone). If you had to abandon ship permanently then there is extra equipment that is a reasonable expenditure for the few crew who need them.

Now I am not sure what to make of the re-entry capsule as written but it seems basically to be the same as a re-entry kit but that doesn't need you to suit up and doesn't require a skill check to make it down safely and doesn't seem to require an atmosphere to work (so presumably uses some sort of sort of grav-chute). I see the personal re-entry kit as being inferior because the cost is in addition to that of the vacc-suit and there is a skill check required to use it. It does not appear to be the escape pod that appears in the adventure that feature them.

The escape pods I am thinking of are more versatile, they are not purely re-entry capsules. My ones will have M-Drives, Power and extended life support and can deliver you to any planet in-system rather than one you already happen to be orbiting. They also have more space for supplies (and those supplies will be more suitable for wilderness survival on a range of semi-hospitable planets). They are also more expensive and take up more volume. They more closely match those in the published adventures and are more "playable".

The advantages of the escape pod vs the more flexible and cost and space efficient lifeboat (probably automated) is proximity. I envisage them as being part of your stateroom and that you will be already strapped into them at risky times. If they incorporate the beds then arguably they need not take up additional tonnage, but breakaway seems to solve the issue reasonably efficiently (as long as you need enough of them). This might make them the reserve of the single passenger staterooms and basic passengers will need to scramble for the lifeboat.

Low passengers could be simply ejected en-bloc (like in Aliens). A dedicated small powerplant for them need be no more expensive or space consuming than adding extra capacity to the main ships power plant or if you insist they could have storage batteries. They could be simply left to drift in space as it is less risky than landing them. Maybe this is why people in game don't like the idea of low berths even if the risk of death on defrost can be eliminated.
 
The personal re-entry kit has been a thing since JTAS 12 in 1981...

updating to MgT baseline tech it could have a small grav unit for maneuvering instead of the chemical rocket. You can also build in an acceleration compensator and grav plate...
You could but then you have turned it into more than the CSC re-entry kit and the cost should increase. By default it uses a Cr400 parawing. If you replace it with a grav chute you should be adding Cr1600 onto the cost of the re-entry kit taking it from Cr17500 (because the computer is a must if you need to make a 10+ or 12+ roll) to Cr19100. The cheapest vacc suit is the emergency softsuit at Cr2000, (though I don't think it would survive re-entry as it is supposed to be quite flimsy). The cost of the set-up is therefore Cr21100 which is Cr2100 more than the TL8 Re-Entry capsule.

Even if we assume the heat shield is preconstructed to save time in emergencies you still need to don the suit. If your SOPs is that crew are already suited at high risk times then you can just dive out of the airlock. Is the requirement to make a 10+ or 12+ roll to avoid dying in a fireball or impact worth the Cr900 saving*?

With DEX DM+3 and the computer in the most favourable atmosphere you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying. A regular pleb with no Dex bonus has a 21 in 36 chance of dying. For low DEX people or just the wrong type of atmosphere death might be guaranteed.

The re-entry capsule has Zero chance of crashing or burning up regardless of the atmosphere type (though if land in an Insidious atmosphere you might not welcome that success).

* It is unclear in CSC whether a grav version would need a roll. I was hoping the requirement for a flyer check was to do with the cute, but chutes don't seem to require a check so it seems to be tied to the re-entry itself. If you consider a grav version does away with the check then the C900 saving is only offset by ease of deployment.
 
Last edited:
So, you leave when you're running out of air, if there's a failure of life support, if the reactor is melting....
There's even more limited air in the /21 ton escape pod. And you can transfer any from the Pod to the ship. So no point. Fusion reactors don't melt down
 
It would be useful for manoeuver. youre travelling at 1,600 km/s, so let's have the onboard computer make sure you're not going to bump into anything (or perhaps not veer too far from regularly operated routes where you might be unrecoverable*)
In space it is harder to hit on purpose than to miss something accidentally. Space is that big. If you were heading to another planet you are already on the best route you are going to get. A few G's of thrust isn't gong to help you. Hence the non-viability of a small escape pod
 
There's even more limited air in the /21 ton escape pod. And you can transfer any from the Pod to the ship. So no point.

It may be more limited than the ship at it's best but when your atmosphere has already vented.

Fusion reactors don't melt down

I know that; I didn't say melt-down. I said melting. The ship is on fire.

In space it is harder to hit on purpose than to miss something accidentally. Space is that big. If you were heading to another planet you are already on the best route you are going to get. A few G's of thrust isn't gong to help you. Hence the non-viability of a small escape pod

A small attitude adjustment makes a big difference at 16,000 km/s.
 
Minimums for a controlled crash landing on a planetary surface would be bridge controls, working manoeuvre drive, somewhat intact hull.

Terran norm should be three rounds of six minutes from orbit, with factor/one.
 
It may be more limited than the ship at it's best but when your atmosphere has already vented.



I know that; I didn't say melt-down. I said melting. The ship is on fire.



A small attitude adjustment makes a big difference at 16,000 km/s.
Ships can't vent all their O2 unless basically completely destroyed in which case everyone is dead already as you suffocated. They don't melt either. You just stop feeding it. It's fusion not fission. And if no air, no fire. Or, if fire in a compartment you take away the O2 and no fire. The attitude adjustment isn't going to help you get rescued. These are all points that have already examined and falsified.
 
Minimums for a controlled crash landing on a planetary surface would be bridge controls, working manoeuvre drive, somewhat intact hull.
Terran norm should be three rounds of six minutes from orbit, with factor/one.

When I ran the Pioneer Playtest, for re-entry the target module was antirely auomated and, of course, that had failed. The PCs investigated broefly and found essentially an XBOX controller as a makeshift bridge control under a maintenance panel. no prizes for guessing that homage.

Would "manned, normal" command module descents count as controlled or uncontrolled?
 
Ships can't vent all their O2 unless basically completely destroyed in which case everyone is dead already as you suffocated. They don't melt either. You just stop feeding it. It's fusion not fission. And if no air, no fire. Or, if fire in a compartment you take away the O2 and no fire. The attitude adjustment isn't going to help you get rescued. These are all points that have already examined and falsified.

Ok, you made your point. No need to respond.

So, essentially you can have O2 with fire or you can have no fire and no O2,. We're getting somewhere. If you have fire, you're having stuff melting (plastics, insulators, control surfaces). If you vent to get rid of the meltiness (that's also consuming your O2), you have an O2 free environment. Winning.

At some point, a life raft starts to look better than the out of control, and eother on fire or vented mass. That's maybe not the hardest science out there but we're talking about games with jump drives and psionics

I would also guess that none of this is being done in a safe, orderly controlled environment. And may involve dice rolls (so something may go wrong).

As for attitude adjustment, I'm sure I could work out the distance for a 5 degree change over 2 days at 16,000km/s but I'll keep that for myTraveller. You don't need to respond.
 
Back
Top