Skip to main content

Why its better to create things with minimum complexity.


From plain windows desktop or android phone code to rocket avionics code, most of the software code behind these applications are complex. Some are way more complex than usual, and barely any of them are simple. This has both good sides and downsides. The more complex the code is, the more likely there is to go wrong. The less complex the code is, the less there is to go wrong.
This especially applies to rockets, like the Space Shuttle, SpaceX's Falcon 9 Rocket, and more. Not just the code, but the actual structure and engineering. If you have a rocket with so many complex parts, there are so many more things that could easily go wrong, which could cause the rocket to explode. It could be something as simple as a new welding technique, the weld could break mid-flight and explode the rocket.

If you are a rocket nerd and wondering how this would explode the rocket, let's just say both the tanks welds for the fuel and the oxidizer tank broke and the fuels mixed mid-air and found an ignition source like a spark ;)
Meanwhile, if you have less complex parts on your rocket, and/or use more reliable methods for things, then the less likely there is for something to go wrong and cause the rocket, well, to go boom.

The same thing goes for online software on the internet, if you have a very complex software, like an OS, there are more things to exploit/hack, putting you at risk to get more viruses that find a loophole via your antivirus. 
The downside to this is, the less complex you make it to prevent issues, the fewer features you have. This is an issue for computer software, but not so much of an issue for the structure of rockets, as you might want to worry more about your humans than the design, but that doesn't mean the design should be awful ;)

**cough cough**, the snake rocket that swallowed a watermelon

Popular posts from this blog

Starship SN10 Aborts at T - 0 Seconds for its 10km test flight.

  Moments ago, Starship SN10 attempted a flight to 10km, to then orient itself into a unique horizontal bellyflop position, flip itself upright after it has descended to about 1km, deploy the landing legs, and touch down on the landing pad softly. This vehicle, Starship Number 10, uses Liquid CH4 (methane) and Liquid Oxygen aka LOX/LO2, used by its 3 powerful Raptor engines.  Today, SpaceX started their official stream for the Starship SN10 Flight. SpaceX have privated the stream replay, so we cannot replay it. In case you want the link: The vehicle began fueling up with Methane and LOX, and then shortly after, it started the engine chill process, which is the process of chilling the engines down in preparation for engine ignition, so the engine material does not crack or get damaged from sudden shock. The vehicle attempted to start up its 3 Raptor engines, by opening the fuel & oxidizer valves, starting up the turbopumps, sho

What is “the best” programming language?

Programming languages, there are so many of them. Some programming languages are way easier to learn than other ones. But which programming language, is “the best” programming language? This question, it is not really answerable. There is no “best programming languages”, they are all meant for different things, well, MOST of them. If I were to compare 2 different programming languages, meant for very similar things, like Batch and Bash, I would say Batch is easier, as its Syntax is not as confusing as Bash’s to the average person. Here is another example, C# is primarily used for computer applications, mostly on Windows, and HTML is a markup language, being used to make websites. I cannot compare C# (it is pronounced “See Sharp” if you didn’t know) because they are used for completely different things. It wouldn’t make sense to say, “C# is way better”, because what is it better at? Developing desktop applications? Sure! Then I can say HTML is better at making websites, it is not a logi

How do you know the universe was not created a few minutes ago?

       The universe is the giant area of space that we live in, which is observable. Anything past our universal border is not in our universe. People do say the universe is constantly expanding, but there is no proof of that, as the "imaginary" or, maybe not imaginary border at the "end" of our universe. But, how do you know that the universe even exists? Were you even in it last week? Did last week even exist? Last week, the universe could have been created, and you do not have proof against it. All of your knowledge and memory could have easily popped into existence a few seconds ago, tricking you into thinking you have existed for longer than you think. This is likely, but also unlikely, it is a 50/50 chance. A reason that this is unlikely is, there are a lot of things that do not make sense in our universe. Like, why does matter attract matter, resulting in gravity? This exists in our universe, but can it exist in a different universe? Not really, or most likel