From: Mark Grant (mark@unicorn.com)
Date: Sat Jul 12 1997 - 13:09:07 MDT
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Remember, even in Star Trek, they were able to eventually develop a
> countermeasure detection capability to the Klingon cloaking device.
Then promptly forgot it again because it was just a one-off plot device...
Give me Babylon V any day...
> Given that machines always do break down no
> matter who builds them, it is not unreasonable that a vehicle would
> break down after an interstellar flight and entering our atmosphere.
Why? In general the more advanced our commercial vehicles get the more
reliable they are, if properly maintained. Modern cars are far more
reliable than they were twenty years ago, and a 747 is far more reliable
than a Dragon Rapide... Modern commercial aircraft almost never crash if
they're maintained correctly. Why should alien spacecraft be any different
(I'll give you the possibility that they *are* military, early models or
government vehicles like the shuttle)?
> THe more cutting edge ones always had
> higher maintenance requirements, with the exception of some of our new
> military planes like the F-22,
Interestingly, Lockheed were able to provide better SR-71 maintenance (and
the SR-71 was far ahead of its time, let alone cutting edge) for the CIA
with a very small group of Lockheed technicians than the USAF could manage
with far more people (I think the figures were something like five
Lockheeders vs fifty USAF), so military experience may not tell us much.
And shuttle maintenance is notoriously bloated...
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:34 MST