Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| en:safeav:as:typical [2025/10/17 09:08] – [The Sense–Plan–Act Paradigm] agrisnik | en:safeav:as:typical [2025/10/17 09:09] (current) – [Distributed vs. Centralised Architectures] agrisnik | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| * Essential for multi-vehicle coordination (swarm robotics, fleet operations). | * Essential for multi-vehicle coordination (swarm robotics, fleet operations). | ||
| Middleware frameworks like ROS 2 and DDS are inherently designed to support distributed computation, | Middleware frameworks like ROS 2 and DDS are inherently designed to support distributed computation, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Safety and Redundancy ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Safety is a critical design consideration. Redundant architectures replicate essential components (e.g., dual sensors, parallel computing paths) to ensure operation even during failures. For example, aircraft autopilot systems employ triple-redundant processors and cross-monitoring logic ((FAA. (2021). Advisory Circular 20-167A: Airborne Systems Safety. Federal Aviation Administration)). Similarly, marine vehicles use redundant navigation sensors to counter GPS outages caused by water interference. | ||
| + | Architectural safety mechanisms include: | ||
| + | * Failover controllers | ||
| + | * Health monitoring nodes | ||
| + | * Watchdog timers | ||
| + | * Self-diagnostics and logging subsystems | ||
| + | These ensure resilience, especially in mission-critical or human-in-the-loop systems. | ||
