"Most complex machine ever built"?

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Modern Marvels episode on the Space Shuttle opened with a claim that
the space shuttle is the "most complex machine ever built".

I don't deny that the shuttle is complex, but why does it rate this
accolade?

Aren't aircraft carriers larger and more complex than the shuttle?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html

Richard wrote:
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Modern Marvels episode on the Space Shuttle opened with a claim that
the space shuttle is the "most complex machine ever built".

I don't deny that the shuttle is complex, but why does it rate this
accolade?

Aren't aircraft carriers larger and more complex than the shuttle?


What they should have said is "Most complex machine with the lowest
margin for error ever built." An aircraft carrier is probably on the
same order of magnitude of complexity but it probably isn't going to
sink if hit by a chunk of foam even if said foam is traveling at high
Mach number.

What I've never understood is the people that boast of the complexity of
the shuttle. I guess it is a mark of achievement to say we built
something this complex and it basically works (most of the time at
least) but what we really need is less complex ways to get into space.
I think the shuttle is pretty much on the edge of complexity in terms of
what groups of humans can currently design and maintain. I know if I
was riding in the thing I'd feel more comfortable if it was half as
complex as it currently is.

JC

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

John Crichton spake the secret code
bwWZg.201797$FQ1.4189@attbi_s71 thusly:

What they should have said is "Most complex machine with the lowest
margin for error ever built." [...]

But how do we *know* that even this statement is true?

Anyone can say "my machine is the most complex", but how can that
actually be measured? Number of parts alone doesn't seem to be a good
metric. I'd bet that something like a large Airbus/Boeing fly-by-wire
plane has a comparable number of parts, if not more.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html

Richard wrote:
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

John Crichton spake the secret code
bwWZg.201797$FQ1.4189@attbi_s71 thusly:

What they should have said is "Most complex machine with the lowest
margin for error ever built." [...]

But how do we *know* that even this statement is true?

Anyone can say "my machine is the most complex", but how can that
actually be measured? Number of parts alone doesn't seem to be a good
metric. I'd bet that something like a large Airbus/Boeing fly-by-wire
plane has a comparable number of parts, if not more.

True, I think without defining the terms of what you mean by complexity
there is no way to say that a particular machine is "the most complex".
And since you are never going to get general agreement on the terms of
the definition there is really no way to say any man made machine can be
said to be "the most complex" and have any empirical way to back it up.
Fortunately, whether or not a particular machine is "The Most Complex"
is really of no real consequence in the vast scheme of things, expect
perhaps if what you are designing is in the running for that title you
might want to start looking for ways to make it simpler.

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

John Crichton spake the secret code
XJXZg.111083$aJ.96094@attbi_s21 thusly:

True, I think without defining the terms of what you mean by complexity
there is no way to say that a particular machine is "the most complex".

Number of parts is probably a starting point. Then the nature of
their interconnection is an additional metric you can pile on top. If
you have a pier containing 1,000,000 pilings this is clearly not as
"complex" as an integrated circuit containing 1,000,000 transistors
arranged as a CPU. I think you might even be able to compute some
sort of information metric (in the Shannon sense) for the arrangement
of parts.

How many parts are in the shuttle?

How many parts are in an aircraft carrier?

How many parts were in the SAGE defense system?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html

I would say the shuttle is one of the most complex. I seriously cannot
think of any one machine that is more complex than the shuttle. I don't
think any atmospheric aircraft would even come close.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Modern Marvels episode on the Space Shuttle opened with a claim that
the space shuttle is the "most complex machine ever built".

I don't deny that the shuttle is complex, but why does it rate this
accolade?

Aren't aircraft carriers larger and more complex than the shuttle?

This sort of claim is obviously an opinion, just like "Star Wars was the
best movie ever made".

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

(Richard) writes:

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

John Crichton spake the secret code
bwWZg.201797$FQ1.4189@attbi_s71 thusly:

But how do we *know* that even this statement is true?

Anyone can say "my machine is the most complex", but how can that
actually be measured?

At least in theory, the appropriate measure would be "Kolmogorov complexity".
In the case of mechanical structures, this could be interpreted as the
shortest computer program that can crank out the fully detailed specs
needed to build the machine. Since a program can use loops, hierarchy,
data compression, clever encoding, and so on, just having a large number of
parts does not necessarily lead to a high complexity. Lots of unique parts
with tight tolerances does.

I too would guess that an aircraft carrier is more complex, especially
if you consider it as a system with all of its onboard planes.

Lou Scheffer

Richard wrote:
I don't deny that the shuttle is complex, but why does it rate this
accolade?

Not by any objective standard. Others have pointed out the
difficulty in defining complexity. I'll point out that it's also
difficult to define "machine". What is the machine we're
talking about with the shuttle? Is it the orbiter? The
whole stack? Does the launch pad and VAB count
as part of the system? TDRS? The standing army of
support personnel? All components whose failure to
operate could cause, directly or indirectly, loss of
vehicle and crew?

Now, comparing the shuttle to an aircraft carrier, do the airplanes
on the carrier count? The rest of the battle group? The logistics
support?

One could argue that the world's telephone system is the most
complex machine human civilization has developed. It's quite
large, with an awful lot of dissimilar interconnected,
interdependent parts. But is the entire phone system a
machine? Or is the cell phone I carry defined as a
completely separate machine from the rest of the system?
And with modems and VOIP, where exactly is the
line between the phone system and the Internet?
I dunno.

There's also the matter that, a failure of a vehicle with the
mass and velocity of the shuttle tends to be rather spectacular,
especially when compared to something like a failure of the
phone system that just causes a fast busy signal for
a few customers. If these are both "machines", it
still doesn't seem very useful to compare their
complexities.

If you wanted to call the shuttle "the most complex
seven-passenger vehicle ever built", you'd probably
have fewer arguments (but still some, I'm sure).

Richard wrote:

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Modern Marvels episode on the Space Shuttle opened with a claim that
the space shuttle is the "most complex machine ever built".

I don't deny that the shuttle is complex, but why does it rate this
accolade?

Aren't aircraft carriers larger and more complex than the shuttle?

Aside from what has already been said, one thing you have to remember when you
are watching Modern Marvels and other similar programs is that when making
statements of that nature they are normally implying the word "American" in
them, but not including it explicitly. (They are essentially required to do
that. Otherwise, they'll be labeled as "unpatriotic"). As a consequence, you
might hear them say things like "Videos from Mars rovers is the first videos
from another planet", "Sally Ride is the first woman in space", "Space Shuttle
is the most complex machine ever built", "Crater Lake is the deepest lake in the
World" and so on.