Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/14/00 11:20:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>> As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology
>> is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire
>> question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for
>> robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose
>systems
>> are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness
>> and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important
>> than sheer cutting edge state of the art design.
>>
>
>The way to do it is to keep the stress down on the components, by having
>them
>to work at a steady state. Being able to repair - reuse - recycle
>components.
>Finding a scale factor such that you are using the right size design, as
>a larger
>ship ( to a point ) can mean less compact items. The best way to design
>a inter-stellar star ship is to design a inter-planetary ship as that
>will be the
>stepping stone to the larger ship.
>
>This will be a great job for computer simulation and spread sheets.
>Take AC power   -- 120 volts 60Hz  big - heavy - power generation long
>life span?
>Air-craft power? -- 96 volts 600Hz small high speed short life span?
>star ship-power system -- ?? volts ???Hz medium speed, long life span.
>


Ah, a interplanetary craft has little to nothinhg in common with a star ship? 
 How can you make one evolutionary from the other?

Kelly