RE: starship-design: What is safest?

[TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

Hi Lee,

>>But what is their goal with setting such high standards? Clearly not to
>>use their equipment longer (which is our SD goal). More likely these
>>higher standards are a byproduct of needing equipment that works in a
>>wider range of external variations. (Eg. Their computers should work in
>>freezing polar conditions but also in a hot and humid jungle.) Such
>>variations are likely not what most equipment of our starship has to
>>deal with.
>
>Yes, you are right that the missions of military systems and starships are 
>driven by different philosophies. However, they both end up producing the 
>same set of requirements for hardware.

Yes, but not exactly. They indeed make tougher equipment. But since they
have to cover a wider range of external variations, they have much less
options to make the equipment tough. In the extreme case they may have to
compromize lifespan in one condition to still make things work in another
condition.

Since we may have a much smaller range of variations, we may increase
lifespan a lot over several military equipment.

>> Hmmm, I thought he was trying to say that some systems can more easely be
>> made to last longer.
>
>He did, and some can. We have just recently made advances in lubrication 
>that will enable bearing lifetimes to more than double. So things like 
>motors and pumps and hard drives will last longer. Some things we still 
>have trouble understanding what caused them to fail in the first place, 
>much less how to prevent them from doing it again.

Hmmm, can you give me an example of a thing where we don't understand why it
failed? (Just trying to understand what you are talking about.)

Tim