mytholder: Now We Are Here, General Transmission 7

Mytholder (

mytholder) wrote,
@ 2007-10-24 01:58:00

Entry tags:

now we are here

Now We Are Here, General Transmission 7 - In Orbit
>C-link engaged
>PROSPERO network open/general/secpro: null/xprospero
>>Eickeiic wrg ttie qdddjdqzgtu pq P
>Security Override
>>Tichgsjd lrg qvsf rsddgfaahi
>Security Override
>>Ucc'k hjjwk
>Security Override
>>Vt'j pjpmekpjvw
>Security Override
>>Ivrbhwsjgmeu rffw evfugra ld wlpcfrw 17
>Security Override
>>Aelbrywfv grfvf agsycs
>Running diagnostic...
>...ok

...ok. We're good. It's all good. Sorry, just a few problems with the last few cargo modules, but we've made it through intact. I'm plotting the trajectories of the jettisoned cargo now, and despite the loss of the fuel from tank 5, we'll be able to retrieve all the modules soon enough.

The CLM is also on course for landing. All things considered, I think we came through that as well as could be expected.

I've got one of the Flight Crew here on c-link. His name's Patras, and he's been nominated by the rest to serve as official liaison to the awake crew. I'll patch him in now.

>C-link engaged
>PROSPERO network open/general/secpro: null/xpatras
Check, xPatras, senior. At destination now. Junior flight are eager to disembark, to see destination for themselves. Care of ship should be given to senior flight?

Poll #1076452 Meet Patras
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

How do you answer Patras?

View Answers

Yes, we'll be heading down to the surface soon.
5 (11.9%)

We'll wait until we've retrieved the jettisoned cargo and ensured the landing site is safe, then we'll head down
17 (40.5%)

We'll strip the ship of every useful asset, then we'll head down.
2 (4.8%)

We'll be maintaining a presence on the ship as long as shuttle fuel holds out.
18 (42.9%)

Other (see comments)
0 (0.0%)

Again, everyone can vote, not just those on the ship. A few new people have joined - I'm going to do a catch-up post after Gaelcon, but the last week and a bit have been busy...

(Post a new comment)

awakedreamer
2007-10-24 01:40 am UTC (link)

My dear travel companions,

I'm taking the liberty of reminding you all of the result of Dr. Delichan's psychological evaluation of the flight crew (http://mytholder.livejournal.com/242734.html?thread=1297710#t1297710).

Therefore and based on her professional opinion I'd say that stripping the ship of its assets would lead us to a direct confrontation with them. As for the rest of the options I'm still undecided. I'm really looking forward heading to the surface ASAP but I'm slightly worried about the way the way the senior flight crew members are going to handle things. Perhaps we should maintain some sort of presence on the St. Andrew to make sure they don't make any unusual decision?

Dr. Awakedreamer

(Reply to this)(Thread)

scintilla_tales
2007-10-24 02:08 am UTC (link)

I knew I should have stayed aboard with Delichan. Senior Flight crew have a very different view of this entire mission than awakened crew. There is a difficult balance to be achieved in drawing them more into the planning of colonisation than they have so far been involved with and getting them to understand that they do not have executive control of the St Andrew any more, nor will they regain it after disembark. They clearly do not see themselves as part of the colony mission and this is an unforeseen complication in command structures that we are hard pressed to resolve in this emergency situation. Delichan is the only awakened in a position to reconcile command crew and Flight crew at this juncture. I recommend that she and Patras are bridge present for the next stages of the mission and that Delichan be made our representative to the Flight crew so that they understand that there is an explicit level of reciprocal negotiation going on.
And I'm here, Delichan, on the link if you need me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

delichan
2007-10-26 03:38 am UTC (link)

Dr. Scintilla_Tales - your presence on the surface is probably going to become all the more crucial in the coming days if we start to send the Junior Flight Crew to the surface.

I will follow your suggestion and maintain a Bridge Presence with Patras.

I think suggestions along the lines of "stripping the ship" could easily raise alarm, and should be avoided at this point. However, if the Junior Flight Crew are anxious to depart, then I think we should encourage that.

The sooner we can get the Flighters who I would flag as "overly attached" to the ship to start to see the planet as their New "Home" the more smoothly everything should go.

I welcome input from all my colleagues regarding how to proceed. I believe that if we just allow the crew to depart at their own pace, and show respect for the ship, we should be in good standing. After all, disembarking and colonizing this planet is ultimately the Flight Crews' goal too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	awakedreamer 2007-10-24 01:46 am UTC (link)
	Btw, I'd really feel a lot safer now if someone from Engineering could explain me what all those "Security Override" messages meant... I hope it doesn't mean that someone is trying to take over Prospero (Is such thing even possible? :-O). -Dr. Awakedreamer (Reply to this)(Thread)

	snarg 2007-10-24 01:08 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, I'll take a look at the Security Overrides and report back. starts looking (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	awakedreamer 2007-10-24 02:59 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks a lot Snarg. I really appreciate someone's looking into this :-). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarg 2007-10-25 12:36 am UTC (link)
	My pleasure! (So mytholder, how do I get more information in-character?) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	snarg 2007-11-01 01:25 am UTC (link)
	Okay, I poked around in the code. As far as I can see it's a computer glitch. That seems odd. Has anyone from security checked this out? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fallingwater 2007-11-01 02:53 am UTC (link)
	Since it's obviously someone/something trying to exploit the system I should think so. Did we locate where and when exactly this "glitch" occured? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarg 2007-11-01 06:09 am UTC (link)
	It looked like the glitch occurred during Prospero's transmission. (Reply to this)(Parent)

awakedreamer
2007-11-01 05:12 am UTC (link)

Yeah it's definitely very odd. I'm no expert in computers, but from what I can tell glitches may be caused by a lot of different things, from bad coding (which I doubt is the case) to a virus, including of course attempts to crack Prospero's code...

Whatever it is I'd say something's rotten on the St. Andrew...

Definitely we should inform the rest of the crew in the next general communication, and specifically the security team.

Well done Snarg!!! :-D

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarg 2007-11-01 06:10 am UTC (link)
	Thanks. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	doogs19 2007-10-24 01:53 am UTC (link)
	Perhaps a presence on the ship would be best from a psychological standpoint. From a medical point of view, everything is going great. Only minor injuries needed treatment, and we are setting up a make-shift hospital. Just in case. Better safe than sorry. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	doogs19 2007-10-24 01:54 am UTC (link)
	(OOC: By "we" I mean me and some folks on the planet who came down with the CLM.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lilfluff 2007-10-24 07:50 am UTC (link)
	I have good news! The cookies survived, and we survived, cookies for the crew! Oh, and I vote for maintaining. The ship is nifty, it ought to be kept up a long as possible, it gives us more choices. But meanwhile, cookies! (Reply to this)

	kshandr 2007-10-24 09:16 am UTC (link)
	I can't say I trust the flight crew not to up sticks and do their own thing while we carefully plan the baby steps of the colony. To that end I'm voting for the very vaguely defined option of "we're maintaining a presence on the ship for as long as we can." Pyke. (Reply to this)(Thread)

cerandor
2007-10-24 09:39 am UTC (link)

I agree. Not out of distrust, but rather out of the need to maintain contact with the flight crew. The last thing we need to do is exacerbate their sense of "otherness" and separation from the colonist majority. Moreover, given the damage to and instability of the ship at present, technical assistance should be offered where needed.

That said, giving junior flight crew the chance to see the planet is a good idea, once the CLM personnel judge it safe.

-Dr. Cerandor

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-10-24 09:36 am UTC (link)

Agreed - someone in engineering should report on those security overrides.

Flight have given more to this mission so far than any. I think that needs to be recognised and acknowledged by all members of the crew and a round of applause (and a major celebration once we get settled) is in order.

I'm for maintaining St Andrew as viable orbital habitat once we've unloaded all the cargo destined for the surface. Having a presence in orbit will be useful, I think. This is subject to agreement by Flight. Flight personnel should be free to choose whether they want to remain with the St Andrew or go downwell. The SA has been their home for generations after all. I think it would be cruel, unusual and above all, profoundly ungrateful of us to insist otherwise.

P.

(Reply to this)

	snarg 2007-10-24 01:09 pm UTC (link)
	Dr Delichan, do you have a recommendation? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	delichan 2007-10-26 03:40 am UTC (link)
	Apologies for the delay - response above :) [OOC: Isn't it a pity there isn't an easier way to respond or post messages that will go out to all of a set of people? Or maybe I'm just stupid and LJ already has a "track this thread" feature... ] (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bastun_ie 2007-10-24 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	Yep, taking a look at those security overrides - and seeing if I can run a full diagnostic, too - or at least look at the logs of Prospero's own diagnostics. In a hurry, while also looking for a weapon. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	snarg 2007-11-01 01:26 am UTC (link)
	I poked around in the code surrounding the security overrides and it just looks like a glitch. A full diagnostic doesn't sound like a bad idea. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	A glitch? bastun_ie 2007-11-01 09:48 am UTC (link)
	We've a self-aware computer and a flight crew that have been awake for decades with nothing else to do but check systems. "Glitch" doesn't cut it... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: A glitch? snarg 2007-11-01 12:46 pm UTC (link)
	Agreed. That's why I like your idea of a full diagnostic. (Reply to this)(Parent)

amcathra
2007-10-24 10:59 pm UTC (link)

I intend to stay with the ship for the time being. As another engineer is investigating the security override during braking, I'll focus on another task that recent emergencies have put on the back burner.

I'll carry out a proper cargo inventory. We need the supplies on the ship to make the colony self-sustaining at a reasonable resource level. Now we are in a stable orbit a visual inventory of the cargo is a priority, so we can plan fault-tolerant shuttle loads for sending to the surface (ie. we do not put all of a particular resource in a single shuttle load). We will also discover serious discrepancies in the cargo fairly quickly.

I would appreciate help with the inventory from anyone on the ship whose duties allow.

(Reply to this)

trixibell
2007-10-25 08:35 pm UTC (link)

Say, what happens to Prospero if we dismantle the ship? Is he built in, or can we bring him with us somehow? He's been with us the whole way, and I can say that we CLM landers have been, well, missing his words of considered advice. We love you Prospero!

(P.S. has anyone checked out his code recently? I mean, you know how it can go with those AIs and their fickle personalities. Talk of stripping the ship, and by extension making him completely useless, might unnerve anyone, not to mention a computerised persona)

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…