Re: colonial tech

Thomas Barclay schrieb:
> Richard has a point about colonies making use 
> of simplistic tech. This could include advanced 
> steam engines (advanced in design, so as to 
> retain simplicity but acheive max efficiencies). 

Why steam engines ? At whatever tech level you look at, a steam engine 
isn't really simpler than an equivalent internal-combustion engine. The 
reason motors supplanted steam engines was that, at the same tech lvel, 
they were more efficient, easier to operate and more powerful than 
steam engines. Occasionally, you see notes in tech magazines about 
reviving steam engines for some purpose or other, but little usually 
comes of it. Simple motors can be operated under appaling conditions, 
too. 

Anyway, a high-tech product needn't always be more complex to operate, 
prone to failure or hard to maintain than a primitive one. Compare, 
say, a quartz watch with a mechanical one. 
Even manufacture need not be that advanced, at least not always. Many 
high-tech products are assembled or even manufactured in semi-Third 
World countries. 
The massive investment is in research and development.

> Let's talk about the "Factory". This is a nanobot 
> builder/controller system. The part you need 
> from Earth is the main controller. And maybe 
> an initial dose of bots. Add appropriate trace 
> minerals, and set it down on a big metal 
> deposit. Wait some time, get a small factory or 
> machine shop capable of turning out the parts 
> for your tractor/car. The factory has the 
> advantage of being self repairing. It needs no 
> input from the colonists, ...

Indeed ? No re-programming to suit local 
conditions/fuel/maintenance/repair ? 

... except relocated every 
> so often or a new program (not too expensive 
> to ship due to brutal info density and therefore 
> low shipping costs) downloaded from Earth. 
> 
> And I agree with Richard in terms of the 
> simplicity of construction of "a car" (basic) and 
> maintenance of same. Henry Ford was building 
> internal combustion vehicles long before 
> assembly lines. Garages were about the order 
> of the day. And he didn't have 200 years on us.

Well, Gottlieb Daimler was building cars well before Henry Ford. :-)
Anyway, the purpose of the assembly line was not to be able to build 
cars at all, but to build them in large numbers, cheaply, and 
efficiently.  
If you have a small colony of a few 100.000 people, it is nonsense to 
build a factory that can turn out 10.000 cars a day. 
 
> Henry's cars also gave good value because if 
> his engineers told him a crank shaft had to be 
> 1", he ordered a 2" shaft. They were 
> overdesigned, but they lasted a long long long 
> time even when poorly treated in many cases. 

Were they indeed good value ? If they were that overdesigned, the 
material to build them was double that what was neccessary, hence the 
car had to be more expensive than neccessary. It is not always clear 
that customers will prefer a product that lasts double as long if they