How long would the gear survive?

[Golan2072]

Epicenter00 and Arthur Denger have raised a very important point - my sci-fi indoctrination has made me forget for a few minutes about the basic nature of industrial production (and of the market system which flows from it).

Pre-industrial production is a slow and difficult process, in which (typically) a single person or a very small group of persons work on a single product using comparatively inefficient techniques, resulting in a small number of expensive products available in the entire economy; furthermore, with the unsafe and under-maintained trade routs of the typical feudal system, most production is relatively local even if cheaper raw materials and better techniques are available elsewhere. In such a mode of production, replacing a broken product is very expensive and not always possible, so most items are built to last. Also, the artisans simply can't produce enough products for a high turnover rate, so that built-in redundancy is not desired.

Industrial production is based on producing massive amount of goods by large groups of people and machinery. It is always easier to produce than to sell in an industrial system, as the market if flooded with mass-produced goods, and investors quickly rush to cover any new market they find (be that a new country to invest or a new kind of product which was just invented). Therefore, industrialists are always thirsty for markerts to sell to. Not only does cheap production reduce the overhead (and thus maximise the profits), but also built-in redundancy is a very good tool for industrialists to expand markets (by selling the consumer rapidly-degrading goods that he'll have to buy a replacement for soon).

Again, a very good and oft-forgotten point!

 

[Anthony]

Broadly speaking, for any bit of equipment, you can make some sort of tradeoff between size, cost, performance, and reliability; advancing TL gives you a better tradeoff. Typically, machines are designed for whatever reliability the mission requires, and then everything else is spent on the other categories.

This means that machines at high TLs will probably have a lifespan matching what they need to do. Devices that need superior reliability will typically be heavier and more expensive than otherwise comparable devices that don't need as high reliability.

 

[tjoneslo]

Anthony has a really good point. The cheaper devices from high-TL manufacture are partly due to the ability to control the manufactuing process so they can be made consistenly cheaper. One way of doing this is to make them flimser, because it's now so cheap to buy a new one no one really cares that it lasts a very short time.

The problem comes when you want some high-TL device to last a long time, it will cost extra. And then you get into the weird realm of MilSpec equipment with a $600 hammer and $3,000 toilet seat. Sure you can go down to a local hardware store and buy a hammer for $5. But the $600 hammer will work at -40 without shattering, won't chip when hit the wrong way, won't spark, won't rust in the jungle, the handle remains cool to the touch even at 150F and has every ergonomic advantage designed in. These things cost extra.

For a Traveller hammer, I want it to withstand 4K to 500K and still be useable, withstand vacuum to 50 atmospheres and explosive decompression, have a memory metal face to change from a driving to a ball-peen hammer and back, an inflatable grip so I can use it with bulky vacc-suit gloves, have at least two utility belt attachments, and an RFID system so I can find it again after I drop it in orbit.

For high-TL equipment, how long it will last in an untended state will depend largely on how long the people who made it intended it to last.

 

[epicenter00]

To almost play Devil's Advocate against myself...

The growing complexity of devices certainly makes failure more likely - a TL14 PGMP is likely going to have thousands of points of failure than a TL7 Rifle which in turn has more points of failure than a TL4 musket ... or a TL1 sword - which is the storage/discard dilemma, but this, as others on this thread have pointed out, isn't the only factor in deciding the life of modern devices.

At some point in production, there's a view that changes which in turn has a tremendous impact on a product's quality, be it a house, a stereo, or even a sea vessel. In the tech sector, it's often referred to as "planned obsolesence." After all, you can increase your profits if your one million customers have to replace, say, their cars every 5 or 10 years as opposed to replacing them after a "finite but undefined" amount of time. It's a lot easier for marketing to make profit forecasts and so on as well.

In short, the thinking regarding, "How long do we want this to last?" changes from "As long as possible" to "How about X period of time?" Therefore industry stops building "to last" and builds instead for "long enough."

It's entirely possible that in the future, with near-limitless markets, a paradigm of "planned obsolesence" and such would go away and "built to last" might return once more. After all, colonists who don't get resupplied very often are going to remember every single little device that fails as they can't be easily replaced. If some brand of spacesuit has to continually be patched up and repaired and eventually discarded while another lasts a long time, those colonists are going request the longer-lasting spacesuit, even if they have to shipped to them from 50 parsecs away.

Another question to ask is: "When do we become the Ancients?"

In Traveller, Ancient devices that are dug up often still function after hundreds of thousands of years. Indeed, sci-fi is replete with "super high tech" devices that last after so long. While a lot of this harkens to "golden age" syndrome that is more of a hallmark of fantasy lit than sci-fi, it's still a part of sci-fi, especially sci-fi gaming. Exactly when does stuff like that start to appear with our familiar civilization? I think once that barrier is reached, you could indeed have PGMPs and such that can be left out in the countryside pretty much forever and continue working.

 

[Anthony]

One distinctive thing you notice at high tech is that improved manufacturing techniques mean we have much better understanding and control over MTBF, and will design a system so that all components should wear out in a similar time frame. This has the effect of reducing the relevance of repair and salvage; frequently, by the time an important part has given out, everything else is about ready to give out as well, and you might as well replace the whole thing.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Anthony:
...design a system so that all components should wear out in a similar time frame. This has the effect of reducing the relevance of repair and salvage; frequently, by the time an important part has given out, everything else is about ready to give out as well, and you might as well replace the whole thing.

Those manufacturers which follow the above practice have lost (and will never regain) my business, nor receive my recommendation for government procurement. It is an especially risky business strategy where such items as starships, vacc suits, life support systems, critical care medical items (shall I go on?) are concerned, and raises the many-headed hydra of liability. Granted, a toothbrush (for example) generally does not require the same level of reliability and redundancy. So it's probably okay to skip the cosmoline when storing that last item.

 

[tjoneslo]

There are three things about building "repairable" devices.

First is the manufacturer must make, store and ship the replacement parts. All of which costs money. Every part you make that is put into the repair part storage is one not being used to put into building a complete system. You can sell a complete system sooner than you can sell some repair parts.

Second, in order to repair a device you need to take it apart, remove the broken part, install the fresh one, and put it back together. Having a device able to come apart means it may be more likely to come apart when you don't want it too. And it makes more areas for contaminates to get into the device, causing more failures.

Finally, as Anthony said, better manufacturing let you know more accurately how long the parts are going to last. So if you are building a device which has parts that won't last as long as the rest, you can build it so those parts are easy to replace, even if the rest is junked when any of the other part fails.

Case in point. The two most frequent point of failures for my servers are hard drives and power supplies. Getting access to the internals of the servers is an hour long process of nuts, bolts, screws and heavy lifting. Except the hard drives and power supplies, which are mounted on a slide rails in the case for very fast access with reduntancy. Total replacement time: 10 seconds.

This is, of course, the smart way to build stuff. And not every device will be built the smartest way possible.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:
Those manufacturers which follow the above practice have lost (and will never regain) my business, nor receive my recommendation for government procurement. It is an especially risky business strategy where such items as starships, vacc suits, life support systems, critical care medical items (shall I go on?) are concerned, and raises the many-headed hydra of liability.

Why? Building all components to the same standard of reliability doesn't mean the system is unreliable. It just means that no individual parts are either over-engineered or under-engineered. Eliminating the latter class of flaws is var more important, safety-wise, than any cost from not doing the first.

 

[Golan2072]

Another point which must be considered is that some items would erode faster than others - especially when organic matter is concerned and the environment accomodates life.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
There are three things about building "repairable" devices.

First is the manufacturer must make, store and ship the replacement parts. All of which costs money. Every part you make that is put into the repair part storage is one not being used to put into building a complete system. You can sell a complete system sooner than you can sell some repair parts.

Sure, manufacturing and storing replacement parts is costly. Replacement parts also have a much higher profit margin (generally) than does the finished product. So the rent is paid for time on the shelf, as it were. Also, ever since the time of Eli Whitney, replacement parts have been manufactured to be interchangeable; oftentimes a single widget or doohickey may be installed in hundreds, if not thousands, even millions of diverse types and models of equipment, making that widget/doohickey very easy to sell, indeed. Think of the spark plug, the fuse or the light bulb. All are (very common) replacement parts.

I think a larger issue (especially in the far future) will be the ability to fabricate/extrude/mold replacement parts in-house, using relatively inexpensive computer and laser machining processes. Essentially doing to the machine shop what the desktop computer and laser printer have done to the printing industry. Has anyone integrated a version of this concept into their campaign, and if so, how did it work out?

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
Second, in order to repair a device you need to take it apart, remove the broken part, install the fresh one, and put it back together. Having a device able to come apart means it may be more likely to come apart when you don't want it too. And it makes more areas for contaminates to get into the device, causing more failures.

Finally, as Anthony said, better manufacturing let you know more accurately how long the parts are going to last. So if you are building a device which has parts that won't last as long as the rest, you can build it so those parts are easy to replace, even if the rest is junked when any of the other part fails.

Case in point. The two most frequent point of failures for my servers are hard drives and power supplies. Getting access to the internals of the servers is an hour long process of nuts, bolts, screws and heavy lifting. Except the hard drives and power supplies, which are mounted on a slide rails in the case for very fast access with reduntancy. Total replacement time: 10 seconds.

This is, of course, the smart way to build stuff. And not every device will be built the smartest way possible.

Pity the oil filter on my ground car isn't slide-rail rack mounted! The problem with your example, of course, is that (with the exceptions of clean rooms and medical labs) very little equipment is stored and operated in such a meticulously climate-controlled environment as are computers. Turn off the A/C and the fans and more than the hard drives and power supplies will need replacing... and soon, too. There is also the issue of safety, which inevitably adds cost. Unlike a vehicle, if your server crashes, the entire staff of the IT department doesn't (typically) perish in a fireball.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:
The problem with your example, of course, is that (with the exceptions of clean rooms and medical labs) very little equipment is stored and operated in such a meticulously climate-controlled environment as are computers.

Any fully sealed component is operating in a clean-room environment. It is also inherently difficult to repair; most sealed components literally cannot be repaired in the field because they are permanently sealed, and the seal cannot be repaired after being broken.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Anthony:

Any fully sealed component is operating in a clean-room environment.

That statement may not be entirely true. Clean rooms must be maintained and contaminants removed on a regular basis; permanently sealed units (unless they are somehow self-cleaning) will eventually build up contaminants and debris internally over time. This would be due to chemical breakdown, possible galvanic action, vibration, friction from moving parts and so on.

Originally posted by Anthony:

It is also inherently difficult to repair; most sealed components literally cannot be repaired in the field because they are permanently sealed, and the seal cannot be repaired after being broken.

Again, I disagree. While perhaps not simple to repair, most sealed units can be unsealed and serviced by a tech who knows what they're doing, and possesses the proper tools and re-sealing kit. Naturally, the difficulty rating will be much higher than for an unsealed unit. As for field service, that depends upon where the 'field' is: if the repair takes place in zero-G vaccuum, IMHO it would be (relatively) simple to avoid or at least seriously reduce the introduction of most contaminants.

 

[Anthony]

Many factory-sealed components cannot be resealed short of welding. They may not even have any internal spaces. A microchip is basically a sealed component consisting of a few billion transistors, and it's completely unrepairable.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Many factory-sealed components cannot be resealed short of welding. They may not even have any internal spaces. A microchip is basically a sealed component consisting of a few billion transistors, and it's completely unrepairable.

At Tech 8, that is certainly true. But at higher tech levels? with nano-technology? with a laser welder? The tin can existed for decades prior to the invention of the can opener; it is not unlikely that LSICs could be reparable in the far future, should the need arise. But why not just keep some spares on hand? Again, a good case for replacement parts.

 

[epicenter00]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:

I think a larger issue (especially in the far future) will be the ability to fabricate/extrude/mold replacement parts in-house, using relatively inexpensive computer and laser machining processes. Essentially doing to the machine shop what the desktop computer and laser printer have done to the printing industry. Has anyone integrated a version of this concept into their campaign, and if so, how did it work out?

I've always found it to be problematic and it's one of those inevitable 'handwavium' situations you just sort of close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala" to.

In short, it's like the sidebar in GURPS Traveller where they discuss widespread nanotechnology and its impact on Traveller. As they say, you could make a sci-fi game based around that, but it wouldn't be Traveller.

With rapid in-house production of almost all devices, the whole concept of interplanetary trade falls apart. There's no need for small (or large) traders anymore. Why? Why buy it from someone else? At most the trade would be in useful designs, ideas, and prototypes. No more "14 tons of replacement parts."

If you see something you like, borrow it from your friend who got one and use your handy home analyzer device or hop on the 'internet' and find the plans. Then run over to your garage and fabricate anything nifty you see rapidly. You only need to make one or two because everyone else is doing the same thing.

Even if you ratchet it down so that everyone doesn't a universal CAD/CAM device in their homes, it's usually not difficult to find someone locally who does. It would be somewhat similar to the middle ages - by the time you had a community of a few hundred people, you'd have the range of CAD/CAMs for all of your needs making each community self-sufficient. Add to that everyone's favorite assumption of Traveller: Cheap, reliable fusion power and interstellar, let alone intraplanetary, trade is dead except for perhaps bulk movement of materials.

If you ratchet it back even further, then you can integrate it with very little difference to your current Traveller game. Essentially if CAD/CAM is a replacement for the machine shop, then it's not so bad. But then it's really not exploring the whole idea of the CAD/CAM thing.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by epicenter00:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Arthur hault-Denger:

... the ability to fabricate/extrude/mold replacement parts in-house, using relatively inexpensive computer and laser machining processes. Essentially doing to the machine shop what the desktop computer and laser printer have done to the printing industry. Has anyone integrated a version of this concept into their campaign, and if so, how did it work out?

I've always found it to be problematic and it's one of those inevitable 'handwavium' situations you just sort of close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala" to.

...

With rapid in-house production of almost all devices, the whole concept of interplanetary trade falls apart. There's no need for small (or large) traders anymore. Why? Why buy it from someone else? At most the trade would be in useful designs, ideas, and prototypes. No more "14 tons of replacement parts."

If you see something you like, borrow it from your friend who got one and use your handy home analyzer device or hop on the 'internet' and find the plans. Then run over to your garage and fabricate anything nifty you see rapidly. You only need to make one or two because everyone else is doing the same thing.</font>[/QUOTE]

I'm not referring to a 'universal replicator' which could self-manufacture any object or device, merely a CAM system which could be used to mold/mill individual components, and not necessarily rapidly, either. There would also still be a requirement for raw material stock (if even at the molecular level). Of course, there is still the problem of assembly after that part has been manufactured... and there could also be an increased probability of component failure, too. I certainly would not trust a critical component to be fabricated from plans downloaded off the 'net.

I suppose I would refer to the analog of the wet navy, which (at least at one time) has had the capability to repair or replace most components onboard larger vessels in their own shops, from materials found in ship's stores. Any sailors out there who can check me on this one? Is this practice still commonplace in contemporary wet navies?

Originally posted by epicenter00:

Even if you ratchet it down so that everyone doesn't a universal CAD/CAM device in their homes, it's usually not difficult to find someone locally who does. It would be somewhat similar to the middle ages - by the time you had a community of a few hundred people, you'd have the range of CAD/CAMs for all of your needs making each community self-sufficient. Add to that everyone's favorite assumption of Traveller: Cheap, reliable fusion power and interstellar, let alone intraplanetary, trade is dead except for perhaps bulk movement of materials.

If you ratchet it back even further, then you can integrate it with very little difference to your current Traveller game. Essentially if CAD/CAM is a replacement for the machine shop, then it's not so bad. But then it's really not exploring the whole idea of the CAD/CAM thing.

Interstellar trade would not be dead, far from it! but the products traded would be different than we might imagine today. Data media containing blueprints/programs for such components might be traded rather than the individual components themselves. There would still be the circular pattern of trade between the finished goods and technologies of advanced industrialized worlds and the raw materials and cheap labor of developing ones.

All nano-technology aside, there exist at 2006 Terran technology levels, devices which extrude 3D objects directly from CAD software via a data feed: they work just like an inkjet printer, only in three dimensions rather than two. Mechanical and robotic milling devices which achieve the same result by the stock removal method were in existance up to 30 years earlier. It does not take that much to extrapolate that the technology out at 2-3 tech levels higher.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Arthur hault-Denger:
The tin can existed for decades prior to the invention of the can opener.

Really? What do you use a can for if it cannot be opened?

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Arthur hault-Denger:
The tin can existed for decades prior to the invention of the can opener.

Originally posted by atpollard:
Really? What do you use a can for if it cannot be opened?

Presumably, for long-term food storage.

"The first tin cans, invented in 1810, were heavy-weight containers that required ingenuity to open, using knives, chisels or even rocks. Not until cans started using thinner metal about 50 years later were any dedicated openers developed. Ezra Warner of Waterbury, Connecticut, U.S. was first, in 1858, to patent a can opener. The cutting wheel can opener was invented by William Lyman in 1870. The Star Can Company of San Francisco, California introduced a modified design with a serrated rotating wheel in 1925. The first electric can opener debuted in 1931, modeled after the cutting-wheel design."

Source: Wikipedia

As a footnote, for many years tin cans were sealed with lead: not the healthiest of practices, either.