this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
817 points (99.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12933 readers
2578 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, I mean, anything you need a spacecraft to do but that you can accomplish without adding extra equipment, you should probably do it that way, because it means less mass to accelerate and less equipment to test and certify and so forth. It's definitely not hard to imagine getting this functionality without adding equipment. The question is whether the ability to do this in the rare scenarios that call for it offset the drawbacks of having a system in which the protections against such failures can be disabled. Which means you then have to include a bunch of interlocks and crap to ensure it's as unlikely as possible that the ship can get into that mode without someone being very sure they want that. I think OP is probably right that on, say, a cargo ship, it's pretty unlikely that "also, the engine can explode!" would be seen as a feature rather than a wholly alarming bug.

[โ€“] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'd assume there are those safeties and interlocks, you'd always want that, a thumbdrive with a program that disables it is just as easy and not a "bug" which is what I was getting at. But yeah, it's unlikely most cargo ships would want that probably. I'm simply playing devils advocate because they do seem to have them, so how or why in the most reasonable sense is all I'm arguing.