Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I think the design that I'm touching up
to put on the list (even if some of the behind the scenes stuff isn't FF&S,
it still looks good at the end) will have one FF&S "computer" but it's
really more than one 'core.'
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:43 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Things that I always had as assumptions about Traveller computers:
>
> 1. The price, weight, volume, etc. isn't just for a computer. It also
> includes all the interfaces (whether that is a simple terminal or a complex
> workstation that has its own computing capabilities built in), all the
> network wiring, wireless antennas (if applicable), switches and routers, as
> well as computer itself which wouldn't be a glorified PC in an air
> conditioned closet, it would include an environmentally controlled server
> room with a fire suppression system, multiple servers, storage arrays,
> etc. When you think about it that way, Traveller isn't so far off as you
> might think, especially if you are talking about a computer network within
> starship that has been harden against radiation.
>
> 2. Some computers would be "computers", in that there is no big, central
> computer, but lots of nodes that are connected together through quantum
> computing links (FTL, btw) throughout the starship. Each node would be
> capable of doing all the things that you'd expect a ship's computer to do,
> that way if a node or two goes down for some reason (damage, power loss,
> etc.) the computer would continue to fully function until such time that
> enough nodes were destroyed that the system would slowly grind to a halt.
> The number of nodes could range from several to several dozen or more. All
> that price, weight, volume, etc. is therefor going for the entirety of the
> distributed computing model plus all the interfaces.
>
> 3. Redundant computer systems is not anything new--indeed the Space
> Shuttle had 5 as I recall and later 3. Each of the computers was wired
> into the others and took over if the primary failed. Takes up a lot more
> space, but then how much would you be willing to spend to get your ship out
> of deep space because of a computer failure?
>
>
--
Stephen Rider
to put on the list (even if some of the behind the scenes stuff isn't FF&S,
it still looks good at the end) will have one FF&S "computer" but it's
really more than one 'core.'
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:43 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Things that I always had as assumptions about Traveller computers:
>
> 1. The price, weight, volume, etc. isn't just for a computer. It also
> includes all the interfaces (whether that is a simple terminal or a complex
> workstation that has its own computing capabilities built in), all the
> network wiring, wireless antennas (if applicable), switches and routers, as
> well as computer itself which wouldn't be a glorified PC in an air
> conditioned closet, it would include an environmentally controlled server
> room with a fire suppression system, multiple servers, storage arrays,
> etc. When you think about it that way, Traveller isn't so far off as you
> might think, especially if you are talking about a computer network within
> starship that has been harden against radiation.
>
> 2. Some computers would be "computers", in that there is no big, central
> computer, but lots of nodes that are connected together through quantum
> computing links (FTL, btw) throughout the starship. Each node would be
> capable of doing all the things that you'd expect a ship's computer to do,
> that way if a node or two goes down for some reason (damage, power loss,
> etc.) the computer would continue to fully function until such time that
> enough nodes were destroyed that the system would slowly grind to a halt.
> The number of nodes could range from several to several dozen or more. All
> that price, weight, volume, etc. is therefor going for the entirety of the
> distributed computing model plus all the interfaces.
>
> 3. Redundant computer systems is not anything new--indeed the Space
> Shuttle had 5 as I recall and later 3. Each of the computers was wired
> into the others and took over if the primary failed. Takes up a lot more
> space, but then how much would you be willing to spend to get your ship out
> of deep space because of a computer failure?
>
>
--
Stephen Rider