Deepcrush wrote:Mikey wrote:All true, but you're conflating what's a predictable necessity in ship design - i.e., backup systems etc. - with the idea of the specific failings of the GCS being predictable from the design process. Having a "bad" standard operating platform doesn't mean that they can't predict more general needs, agreed - but it does mean that they don't. This definitely falls in the category of "bad things," but it is a distinct issue from the specific and practical failings witnessed in the E-D (and in one instance the Yamato.)
However, a better SOP in the design stage likely would have mitigated some of the sailings we saw in the E-D.
Mikey, if you can't figure out on your own that being able to safely seal in atmosphere on a space ship is important. Then you shouldn't be involving yourself in talks about the designing space ships in the first place. I get you're a GCS wankboy and thats fine and all. But no matter how much you try to ignore the issues stated. The GCS is still a flawed class and should have spent more time under design.
At the end of it, most of the problems of the class are fully predictable and solvable.
Mikey wrote:The funniest part of this whole business is that in general, I agree with you. The GCS seemed to have far to many issues with fragility a/o instability for my taste. Whether that could or should have been stopped in design, or would have had to lead to a recall/grounding after the flaws were discovered in service, is academic.
Deepcrush wrote:Might as well, not like Mikey has any intention of letting the thread move on anyways.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest