I haven't given up...totally on my near future FF&S project, though I will
say that it's becoming less and less FF&S with a few bits added in and more
and more "Atomic Rocket guidelines with FF&S filling in missing
information" (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php)
So that brings me to the question: Are FF&S computer's still 'realistic?'
I put together a jump test probe and it's basically the smallest jump drive
possible, 20 cubic meters of hydrogen to power two jump-1 hops and three
fiberoptic computers, those come to 36 cubic meters, about a third of the
total volume of the probe.
Based on everything else that I've read that seems so out of proportion as
to be laughable. So I figure that there has to be more to what the
"computers" are rather than just the processing.
Do the computer sizes need to be adjusted?
To the fellow that suggested GURPS Space, there's a heck of a lot of merit
to that system for roughing out a basic idea and unless you're going to be
going through and calculating the delta V of every little part of your
logistics chain, it's more than good enough and the results aren't "wrong"
they're just not precise. Which once you get into the better drives isn't a
problem, but interplanetary gas guzzlers like nuclear thermal rockets need
something a bit more specific.
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:
If you go to this link, you will see how I've changed the Classic Traveller Canon to take in account that as computation power historically increased, the computer size decreased.
https://xa.yimg.com/df/Entropic_Worlds_Campaign/Computers+-+Traveller+My+Take.doc?token=uUrxak03DDrzI1sCwLZXbHy8d8_ZfPh6-udprknxHnIjZ5ctOM_ctgbHXPeelHm02i1MU7bVPi-6VyNhYvH0EC1WJRB49n4L1NnBpY_y2XJx1H4zAP3GQS2HyFPNqdbD4CoeexLNZj8&type=download
YMMV
Eric
7am to 5pm Mountain Time 8pm to Midnight Mountain Time
From: "Stephen Rider [Traveller_TNE]" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 5:18 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] FF&S Computers
I hope everyone's gearing up for a great weekend!
I haven't given up...totally on my near future FF&S project, though I will say that it's becoming less and less FF&S with a few bits added in and more and more "Atomic Rocket guidelines with FF&S filling in missing information" (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php)
So that brings me to the question: Are FF&S computer's still 'realistic?'
I put together a jump test probe and it's basically the smallest jump drive possible, 20 cubic meters of hydrogen to power two jump-1 hops and three fiberoptic computers, those come to 36 cubic meters, about a third of the total volume of the probe.
Based on everything else that I've read that seems so out of proportion as to be laughable. So I figure that there has to be more to what the "computers" are rather than just the processing.
Do the computer sizes need to be adjusted?
To the fellow that suggested GURPS Space, there's a heck of a lot of merit to that system for roughing out a basic idea and unless you're going to be going through and calculating the delta V of every little part of your logistics chain, it's more than good enough and the results aren't "wrong" they're just not precise. Which once you get into the better drives isn't a problem, but interplanetary gas guzzlers like nuclear thermal rockets need something a bit more specific.
--
Stephen Rider #yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062 -- #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp #yiv7594586062hd {color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp #yiv7594586062ads {margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp .yiv7594586062ad {padding:0 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp .yiv7594586062ad p {margin:0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mkp .yiv7594586062ad a {color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ygrp-lc #yiv7594586062hd {margin:10px 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ygrp-lc .yiv7594586062ad {margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062actions {font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity {background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity span:first-child {text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity span a {color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity span span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062activity span .yiv7594586062underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062attach {clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 0;width:400px;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062attach div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062attach img {border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062attach label {display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062attach label a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 4px;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062bold {font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 dd.yiv7594586062last p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 dd.yiv7594586062last p span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 dd.yiv7594586062last p span.yiv7594586062yshortcuts {margin-right:0;}#yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062attach-table div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062attach-table {width:400px;}#yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062file-title a, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062file-title a:active, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062file-title a:hover, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062file-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062photo-title a, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062photo-title a:active, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062photo-title a:hover, #yiv7594586062 div.yiv7594586062photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 div#yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7594586062ygrp-msg p a span.yiv7594586062yshortcuts {font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv7594586062 o {font-size:0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062photos div div {border:1px solid #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062photos div label {color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv7594586062 .yiv7594586062replbq {margin:4px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv7594586062 input, #yiv7594586062 textarea {font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv7594586062 code {font:115% monospace;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7594586062logo {padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-msg p a {font-family:Verdana;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-msg p#yiv7594586062attach-count span {color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-reco #yiv7594586062reco-head {color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-reco {margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ov li a {font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ov li {font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-sponsor #yiv7594586062ov ul {margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-text {font-family:Georgia;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-text p {margin:0 0 1em 0;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-text tt {font-size:120%;}#yiv7594586062 #yiv7594586062ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {border-right:none !important;}#yiv7594586062
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?
>
>
The FF&S computers are the farthest thing from "realistic." They were an
attempt to improve the computer situation (i.e., more capable, less
volume) without repudiating Traveller's history of way-too-big computers.
So the attempt to be consistent with previous editions if nothing else is
going to mostly ruin them. If you add onto that the fact that computer
advancement continues to outstrip anyone's anticipation, not just game
designers, that kills them the rest of the way.
Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size was
immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
computers.
> I hope everyone's gearing up for a great weekend!
>
> I haven't given up...totally on my near future FF&S project, though I will
> say that it's becoming less and less FF&S with a few bits added in and
> more
> and more "Atomic Rocket guidelines with FF&S filling in missing
> information" (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php)
>
> So that brings me to the question: Are FF&S computer's still 'realistic?'
>
> I put together a jump test probe and it's basically the smallest jump
> drive
> possible, 20 cubic meters of hydrogen to power two jump-1 hops and three
> fiberoptic computers, those come to 36 cubic meters, about a third of the
> total volume of the probe.
>
> Based on everything else that I've read that seems so out of proportion as
> to be laughable. So I figure that there has to be more to what the
> "computers" are rather than just the processing.
>
> Do the computer sizes need to be adjusted?
>
> To the fellow that suggested GURPS Space, there's a heck of a lot of merit
> to that system for roughing out a basic idea and unless you're going to be
> going through and calculating the delta V of every little part of your
> logistics chain, it's more than good enough and the results aren't "wrong"
> they're just not precise. Which once you get into the better drives isn't
> a
> problem, but interplanetary gas guzzlers like nuclear thermal rockets need
> something a bit more specific.
>
> --
> Stephen Rider
>
As handwaves go, saying everything is included in the package with the "computer" isn't that horrible. It would however be interesting to see some numbers for the size of computer systems used in the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and some of the proposed spacecraft for the future, especially in terms of their volume in relation to the rest of the vessel/station.
We don't have any spacecraft using independent computers anything like
Traveller. As a single micro computer, is absurd, but so is extending
that concept as scalable fire what Traveller ships actually need. For
space craft not run from the ground, mainframe analogy isn't that far
fetched
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 18:27 Harold Hale
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> As handwaves go, saying everything is included in the package with the
> "computer" isn't that horrible. It would however be interesting to see
> some numbers for the size of computer systems used in the Space Shuttle,
> the ISS, and some of the proposed spacecraft for the future, especially in
> terms of their volume in relation to the rest of the vessel/station.
>
>
>
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>
> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size was
> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
> computers.
>
In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a 10 or
15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace percentage
over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in space
rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers in
TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic components the
smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go up.
Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't
awful."
I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>>
>> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size
>> was
>> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
>> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>> computers.
>>
> In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a 10
> or
> 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace percentage
> over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in space
> rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
> multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers in
> TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic components
> the
> smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go up.
>
> --
> Evyn
>
Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe. I
was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the time
the LBB came out.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't
> awful."
>
> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
> >>
> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size
> >> was
> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
> >> computers.
> >>
> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a 10
> > or
> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace percentage
> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in space
> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers in
> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic components
> > the
> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go up.
> >
> > --
> > Evyn
> >
>
>
>
Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage, redundancy,
even more so.
>
>
> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe. I
> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the time
> the LBB came out.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't
>> awful."
>>
>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>
>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>> >>
>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size
>> >> was
>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
>> UPS,
>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>> >> computers.
>> >>
>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a 10
>> > or
>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>> percentage
>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>> space
>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers in
>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic components
>> > the
>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
>> up.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Evyn
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
That was certainly the point of departure for the original LBB computer
rules. In the first editions there were actually rules for running all of
the individual programs, moving them in and out of the CPU from storage.
That was widely derided as "unrealistic" by the "computer experts" that
constituted much of Trav's user base and was removed. But I missed it,
because it provided something else for the players to do in allocating
finite resources, which is always going to be an issue with whatever
assets you have. Whether or not Bill Gates actually said, "no one will
ever need more than 640K of RAM," that's exactly the sort of thing that
experts say all the time because they're so deep in the trees they're not
talking about the forest.
> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe.
> I
> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the time
> the LBB came out.
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't
>> awful."
>>
>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>
>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>> >>
>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
>> size
>> >> was
>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
>> UPS,
>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>> >> computers.
>> >>
>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a
>> 10
>> > or
>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>> percentage
>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>> space
>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers
>> in
>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
>> components
>> > the
>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
>> up.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Evyn
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Trying this again because it looks like the original send didn't make it.
> The other thing about iPhones that allows them to appear small when
actually they aren't is that they're useless without the infrastructure,
all of the cell towers, WiFi hotspots, routers, server farms on which
all
> that data is stored that is moved into and out of the apps. iPhones are a
> lot "bigger" if you factor in their proportional share of all of the
infrastructure that allows them to do anything at all. And since
Traveller
> starships can't count on a mature wireless network infrastructure in every
> system they jump into, they have to carry it all with them.
>
>> Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
>> Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
>> is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage,
>> redundancy,
>> even more so.
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 05:42 'ret7army .'
>> [Traveller_TNE]
>> <> wrote:
>>> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
>>> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era
>>> mainframe.
>>> I
>>> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the time
>>> the LBB came out.
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't
>>>> awful."
>>>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
>>>> size
>>>> >> was
>>>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors
and
>>>> UPS,
>>>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the
>>>> LBB
>>>> >> computers.
>>>> >>
>>>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like
>>>> a
>>>> 10
>>>> > or
>>>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>>>> percentage
>>>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>>>> space
>>>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the
numbers
>>>> in
>>>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
>>>> components
>>>> > the
>>>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios
>>>> go
>>>> up.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Evyn
>>>> >
>
>
The other thing about iPhones that allows them to appear small when
actually they aren't is that they're useless without the infrastructure,
all of the cell towers, WiFi hotspots, routers, server farms on which all
that data is stored that is moved into and out of the apps. iPhones are a
lot "bigger" if you factor in their proportional share of all of the
infrastructure that allows them to do anything at all. And since Traveller
starships can't count on a mature wireless network infrastructure in every
system they jump into, they have to carry it all with them.
> Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
> should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
> radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
> obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
>
> Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
> is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage, redundancy,
> even more so.
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 05:42 'ret7army .'
> [Traveller_TNE]
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
>> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
>> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
>> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe.
>> I
>> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the
>> time
>> the LBB came out.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this
>>> isn't
>>> awful."
>>>
>>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
>>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>>> >>
>>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
>>> size
>>> >> was
>>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
>>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
>>> UPS,
>>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
>>> >> computers.
>>> >>
>>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a
>>> 10
>>> > or
>>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
>>> percentage
>>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
>>> space
>>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
>>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers
>>> in
>>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
>>> components
>>> > the
>>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
>>> up.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Evyn
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
I hadn't really pondered the amount of infrastructure require to not make an iLittlePony little more an overpriced digital camera / pda / paperweight. I suppose I understood it better than I realized because when I wrote my short story about the robot I wrote in a lot of digital access to the net to enhance its problem solving abilities. WiFi big brain I guess.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:20 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> The other thing about iPhones that allows them to appear small when
> actually they aren't is that they're useless without the infrastructure,
> all of the cell towers, WiFi hotspots, routers, server farms on which all
> that data is stored that is moved into and out of the apps. iPhones are a
> lot "bigger" if you factor in their proportional share of all of the
> infrastructure that allows them to do anything at all. And since Traveller
> starships can't count on a mature wireless network infrastructure in every
> system they jump into, they have to carry it all with them.
>
> > Seems everyone gets that, but thinks it's an anachronism and that they
> > should be smaller. The average iPhone is not hardened against EMP or
> > radiation, relies on ambient temperature, etc as well as planned
> > obsolescence of a couple years (similar to desktops).
> >
> > Anything built to last, especially be user serviceable and field reparable
> > is going to need to be bigger. Hardening them to take damage, redundancy,
> > even more so.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2015, 05:42 'ret7army .'
> > [Traveller_TNE]
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Most folks don't realize that back in the day a computer used to take up
> >> enough room to fill a small house, and had a tiny fraction of the
> >> capability of the iWatch, or whatever Apple wanted to call it. Your
> >> everyday smartphone far exceeds the abilities of an 1980s era mainframe.
> >> I
> >> was taking classes in Fortran, and early computer language about the
> >> time
> >> the LBB came out.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this
> >>> isn't
> >>> awful."
> >>>
> >>> I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is
> >>> cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
> >>>
> >>> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 1:16 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large
> >>> size
> >>> >> was
> >>> >> immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
> >>> >> cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and
> >>> UPS,
> >>> >> etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
> >>> >> computers.
> >>> >>
> >>> > In 1992 as I recall the beefiest space rated cpu was something like a
> >>> 10
> >>> > or
> >>> > 15 Mhz 486 produced by thick film printed with a minimum trace
> >>> percentage
> >>> > over 50%. My now ex-wife worked in a plant that that specialized in
> >>> space
> >>> > rated electronic components then. Couple that to the discussions of
> >>> > multiple core CPUs at the time it was pretty easy to see the numbers
> >>> in
> >>> > TNE. Size is one of the big issues in Space rated electronic
> >>> components
> >>> > the
> >>> > smaller you build the higher the error and outright failure ratios go
> >>> up.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Evyn
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>Thanks for this and the other remarks that, "as handwaves go, this isn't>awful."
>
>I think one of the things people don't think about with computers is>cooling. Adding in the air conditioning adds weight and space.
Indeed.
Flashback to 16 days ago...
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.
:-)
Also, smart phones without a wi-fi or tower connection still have a fair amount of computing power on their own, but the interface is such that they can't really be used for hardcore productivity work (it's tedious enough texting short messages over several minutes, let alone trying to write several printed pages worth of content). Still, not exactly something that you'd want calculating your next jump to another star system. That's a job for a super computer.