Designation:
Type:
Overview:
1. Activation:
The Shale are signaled by a “harbinger beacon”, emitting a [Redacted: AL-15
2. Mobilization:
The Shale ignite stored biofuel to propel themselves directly toward the beacon.
3. Initial Assault:
4. Resource Extraction:
5. Beacon Construction:
6. Passive Surveillance:
Theories:
Precautionary Measures:
1. Harbinger Beacon Detection:[Redacted: AL-15]
2. Planetary Defense:
3. Evacuation:
Should a harbinger beacon be activated, immediate evacuation of the system is recommended. Note that while typical swarm speed is at a relatively sluggish [Redacted: AL-8
4. Containment:
Containment is rarely necessary, as those exposed are typically consumed, and the sheer size of most swarms exerts a gravitational effect that prevents escape for most ships should they come close enough to contact. Due to the burrowing and replicating nature of the Shale, any ship suspected of contact with a swarm should be immediately annihilated to prevent further spread.
**Case Study: Research Vessel [Designation Obscured] Incident**
**Overview:**
An independent research collective received authorization to study Shale behavior at safe distance from an active consumption event located at [LOCATION REDACTED]. The vessel maintained recommended distance of [SAFETY GUIDELINES: 2c]
**Initial Phase (TUs 1-32):**
- Swarm approach velocity variance based on planetary mass
- Atmospheric stripping patterns
- Individual unit replication rates
- Beacon construction methodology
No anomalies reported. Vessel maintained strict quarantine protocols. Remote equipment showed no contamination. **Deviation Event (TU 33):**
One remote observation probe reported malfunction and was retrieved for repair. Standard decontamination procedures were followed. Probe was cycled through vacuum exposure, electromagnetic pulse, and chemical bath before being brought aboard.
Post-mission analysis suggests this was the contamination vector.
**Progression (TUs 34-41):**
Enjoying the story? Show your support by reading it on the official site.
TU 34: Minor systems malfunctions in probe bay. Attributed to EMP damage.
TU 36: Hull sensors detect microscopic pitting near probe bay airlock. Maintenance scheduled.
TU 38: Three crew members report equipment malfunctions. Unrelated sectors.
TU 39: Life support efficiency decreasing. Cause unclear.
TU 40: Hull integrity alerts in multiple sections. Emergency protocols initiated. Root cause confirmed.
TU 42, 03:17: Last transmission received.
**Final Transmission (Partial):**[static][interference][NAME WITHHELD][screaming][DESIGNATION: 1c][signal lost]
**Escape Pod Event:**[DESIGNATION: 1c][DESIGNATION: 1c][NAME WITHHELD]
**Way Station Response:**
**Neutralization Attempt:**
TU 0: Escape pod detected on approach vector
TU 2.7: Contamination warning received
TU 2.8: Station defense systems activated
TU 2.9: Automated defense batteries engaged escape pod at 847 kilometers
TU 3.0: Pod breached, explosion detected
TU 3.1: Defense systems confirm pod destruction
TU 3.2: Debris trajectory analysis: 94% of pod mass diverted from station
TU 3.3: Station resumes normal operations
**Critical Error:** Defense batteries fragmented pod at insufficient range. Approximately 6% of pod debris (estimated 140kg) intersected station outer hull at high velocity. Three fragments, ranging from 2-8kg, impacted station docking ring. Standard protocol required debris sterilization.
**Station Timeline:**
TU 0.0: Pod debris impacts docking ring (three fragments)
TU 1.8: Docking bay maintenance reports unusual pitting on impact sites - cleanup postponed
TU 3.2: Hull sensors detect microscopic structural degradation around impacts
TU 4.5: Engineering reports power fluctuations in docking ring
TU 6.0: Structural alerts in multiple adjacent sections
TU 6.8: Station administrator recognizes contamination pattern
TU 7.0: Emergency station-wide alert - Active Shale replication confirmed
TU 7.2: Station council convened
TU 7.5: Engineering assessment: Contamination spreading exponentially through docking ring
TU 7.6: Recommendation presented: Jettison contaminated sections before spread reaches core station
TU 7.7: Council vote: 6 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstaining
TU 7.8: Jettison order issued - Docking Ring Sections 3, 4, and 5 to be separated
TU 8.3: Engineering reports contamination detected in Section 6 - spreading faster than predicted
TU 8.4: Revised jettison order - Sections 3-7 must be separated immediately
TU 8.5: Station administrator orders immediate jettison despite incomplete evacuation
TU 8.7: Explosive bolts fired - Sections 3-7 separate from core station
TU 8.8: Separated sections confirmed to contain 620 trapped personnel
TU 9.0: Core station confirms containment - no contamination detected in remaining structure
TU 9.2: Separated sections structurally failing - hull breaches visible
TU 9.5: Full external sweep performed
TU 11: Alert rescinded
**Casualties:**
Research Vessel: 43
Escape pod: 1
Way Station: 645
**Total: 689**
**Lessons Learned:**
1. Protocol compliance is necessary but not sufficient
2. “Negligible threat” does not exist with Shale exposure
3. Cleanup cannot be postponed for ANY reason
4. Distance of neutralization is critical
5. Implosives should be leveraged to verify clear space
