[delurk] I believe we make cheap products more to target the market for a particular price point than for reasons of technological or fashion obsolescence.
Take a company that makes dishwashers, for example. The marketing department determines from research that the best price to sell the dishwashers for is $400
per unit, and the accounting department says they need a margin of about 25%, so the target cost for the unit is $325 (25% of 320 = $80, $320 + 80 = $400). More margin means better profit, so the engineers and designers, being superstars, trim the materials
cost and shortcut a few component manufacturing processes to get the cost down even further. They do this by using 8 years as a target lifetime. That means the impeller in the pump can be made from cheap plastic instead of steel, the rotating sprayer is
plastic instead of stainless steel, the bearing on the sprayer can be a simple nylon bushing since it’s pretty light now, etc. The fact is, if they made the parts all from high end materials, then the thing would last 40 years, but would cost $2,000 and no
one would buy it since there’s another model for $400 on the market, and the company would go out of business (anyone ever have a Kirby Vacuum cleaner? I still have my Mom’s bought in about 1978).
Military hardware is another matter (as exemplified by the B52s), although it can happen that the lowest bidder cheaps out, I’d bet the Imperium makes it’s
warships out of stern stuff precisely so that longevity is high. The technological stagnation means that mothball fleets or simply older vessels that have been refitted (to replace worn out components, not especially for the tech upgrades) are still very
effective units at a bargain price relative to a new built from scratch vessel. Similar things apply to ground hardware.
[relurk]
From: xxxxxx@simplelists.com [mailto:xxxxxx@simplelists.com]
On Behalf Of Craig Berry
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 4:54 PM
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
Our current western industrial society tends to build cheap disposable tech, specifically because our rate of tech progress makes things obsolete by the time they would typically need repair. In a society more like the Third Imperium, where
both societies and general tech levels are stable on the scale of many centuries, you might see more emphasis being put on rugged, maintainable equipment. Brin touches on this in his Uplift series.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought quite a few times about what happens to older TL equipment in Traveller. Obsolete may have a different meaning on different worlds.
Also, its a myth that tinkering with old technology can produce a better capability. In general, a design would cost up to 200% to go through a redesign that changed its use requirement even 10%. This option is the least viable, and usually the last option
taken when nothing else is available.
Cheers
Greg
On 21/04/2016 5:55 AM, "Joseph Paul" <xxxxxx@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dale Brown wrote :"Flight of the Old Dog", a tale of obsolescence to the rescue featuring the 'Buff'.
ObTrav: Aggressor forces are surprised by a spirited defense lead by supposedly obsolete vehicles from a military grave yard that has been raided for a couple of generations by the descendants of a lost Planetary Army that have tinkered them into superior performance. Think 'muscle cars with teeth' and yes they do maneuver exercises with them and shooting competitions.
Joseph Paul
By My Hand Designs LLC
4221 N Park Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46205
317-931-0561
On 4/20/2016 1:10 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here's something from the 'Defense Industry Daily' n/l that almost sounds impossible!
"Pratt and Whitney has maintained that they can develop a TF33 upgrade package that will keep Boeing's B-52 bomber flying until the 2040s. The eight engine bomber has kept the same TF33 engine since its induction in 1952, but high fuel consumption had the USAF looking at potential re-engine options. With oil prices dropping dramatically, the program was dropped; but P&W are still looking at improvements for the TF33 that will keep it on-wing, and allow the air force to reduce their maintenance costs."
These planes have been in service so long ('H" models were built about '60-'64) that the authors seem unaware that only the 'H" models had the TF33 turbofan. Earlier models had turbojets. The 'fanjets' gave the 'H' a much greater range than the earlier versions & were more powerful.
Still, I find it amazing that those planes could still be flying past the age of 75 years old!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.comTo unsubscribe from this list please goto http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com
--
Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry)
"Eternity is in love with the productions of time." - William Blake
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=wXekShxmSVTCu4b6cEpJiEmQkxdtG2ht