Re: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/14/00 2:45:59 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>> From: Johnny Thunderbird [mailto:jthunderbird@nternet.com]
>
>> The point is, tech should remain humanly comprehensible. You should be
>
>> able to grasp the fundamentals of the design so you could
>
>> duplicate the
>
>> functionality by another route, if need be, after a primary device has
>
>> failed. But I don't think the same set of rules applies to
>
>> computers as to
>
>> mechanical systems.
>
>
>
>That was my question, the authors seemed to imply that this was a failing
>of
>
>ALL organized systems. That would include software.

It is a factor in ANY kind of system.  Optimize it to much for one kind of 
thing and it won't be as adaptable for something else.



>> Logic circuitry can be made fault-tolerant in the
>
>> extreme; it is quite feasible today to build a CPU-memory
>
>> module which,
>
>> if kept cold enough and shielded from ionizing radiation, could be
>
>> expected to grind continuously for a thousand years before
>
>> its first error,
>
>> let alone any kind of hard failure. If data were coupled in and out
>
>> optically,
>
>> you could also power the thing photovoltaically, it would use
>
>> so little
>
>> power.
>
>> Put that together with a holographic mass storage, and you
>
>> have a chunk
>
>> of glass that just doesn't stop thinking, doesn't forget
>
>> anything, and just
>
>> doesn't fail.
>
>
>
>Sounds like you just described a magic crystal ball, at least from the
>
>outside that is what it would appear to be...

IC chips do have internal chemical reactins that will destroy them after a 
few decades, but thats not a real problem.



>> It's an error to want dumb tools just because they're
>
>> simpler. That is, if
>
>> digitally-controlled systems make sense because of their
>
>> precision, and
>
>> if they can be designed so failure of the control unit will
>
>> not sabotage the
>
>> primary function of the system, but just degrade its
>
>> performance, then by
>
>> all means go for fancy. From now on, humanity won't be able to forget
>
>> anything, including starship crews. Knowledge is strictly
>
>> cumulative from
>
>> this point, including the knowledge of how to build digital
>
>> circuitry. We
>
>> have machines which keep us from forgetting. We always will.
>
>
>
>I didn't mean simpler per se, just that robustness should be given more
>
>weight in the design process than intelligence. A case to illustrate, using
>
>your own comment above:
>
>
>
>Rather than build an expensive, screaming, state of the art supercomputer,
>
>build a somewhat less expensive, less state of the art array of redundant
>
>microcomputers. You get almost the same amount of sheer processing power,
>
>the technology is more mature and therefore supposedly more reliable, and
>if
>
>one microcomputer (out of hundreds, or even thousands) fails we have lost
>
>only a small fraction of total capacity; now repeat that same exercise
>over
>
>and over again on a local scale so that individual subsystems are not
>
>dependant upon the central processing unit to function, each one of them
>is
>
>also redundant. Then look at the software that runs everything and design
>it
>
>to be fault tolerant, auto recovering, and if need bee self repairing.
>This
>
>system is by no means "simpler" its just not fragile, that's all.

1 - lots of stuff is being forgpten - especially if the old file formats aer 
no longer supported.

2 - you right that simpler and older tech does NOT mean that its more 
relyable or robust.  The later are characteristics of the design, not of 
older tech.




>> I am totally in agreement that the crew of a starship should know how
>
>> to build any part of that ship, but I believe that efficiency
>
>> should be a
>
>> stronger criterion of design than sheer  simplicity.
>
>
>
>With modern tech, all that is really necessary is real time access to that
>
>database of knowledge that you mentioned. A reasonably smart person can
>
>follow instructions in the database to correct most problems. The ability
>to
>
>build a whole new ship from scratch could even be included along with the
>
>tech to build the tech to build the...

Totally wrong.  Folks like to think that its all been written down, but it 
ain't true.  A lot of it is "cultural knowledge" of the manufacturers as well 
as years of training.      You can't just pull out a book on how to build a 
IC  and start churning them out.  Past that it takes whole cites full of 
people and factories to build all the things a ship would need.  You can't 
carry all that gear with you.




>Lee

Kelly