I'm trying to find out what holds the record for the most moving parts
in a single device or system.  I recognize that the definition of
"device or system" is somewhat ambiguous - for the purposes of this
question, I think a reasonable definition would be "something that can
be moved all at once".  For instance, the space shuttle counts, but
the city of New York does not.

For full credit, I'll need the name of the device, how many parts it
has, at least one reference or link supporting the information, and a
reasonable train of thought that suggests that the answer is correct.

I can think of two candidates for the current record holder: one is
the space shuttle, the other would be the Digital Light Processor
produced by Texas Instruments (a MEMS micromirror array).

Dear drmarc-ga;

Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting
question.

Your question will undoubtedly be answered by logic and by narrowing
it down to the largest mobile mechanism built in modern times
(“modern”, meaning high technology). While the space shuttle is
certainly an example of modern technology at its largest, it is, after
all, quite empty inside in terms of equipment. Most of the vehicle is
designed to act as a storage bay, and that is closely monitored for
excess weight before and during flight. A heavy ship cannot fly, so
ideally, the fewer items stored in this bay the better. In addition,
the large fuel tanks on either side of the vessel which make up the
bulk of the ship before takeoff (and which also happen to get
jettisoned before leaving the atmosphere) are technically not even
part of the vehicle itself. Even so, they are relatively devoid of
moving parts on the inside as they mostly contain fuel.

My guess is that the mechanism with the most moving parts can only be
one of these United States Navy Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers:

FORRESTAL (CVA 59) 
SARATOGA (CVA 60) 
RANGER (CVA 61) 
INDEPENDENCE (CVA 62) 
KITTY HAWK (CVA 63) 
CONSTELLATION (CVA 64) 
ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 
AMERICA (CVA 66) 
JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA 67) 
NIMITZ (CVN 68) 
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69) 
CARL VINSON (CVN 70) 
THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71) 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72) 
GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) 
JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) 
HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) 
RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76) 
GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77)


Logically, it would seem that the USS Enterprise is probably the
winner here; enormously dwarfing the Space Shuttle (or any other
vessel for that matter) by comparison. Taking a quick look at the
vessel (based on what the military will let us know for certain) we
can clearly see that this thing is a behemoth. It possesses eight –
count them, eight – onboard reactors, a huge array of tracking
devices, computerized equipment and armament (which is certainly quite
technical nowadays as opposed to the old guns used on the old ships).
In addition, this machine has the functionality of a small city
providing living quarters, cooking/dining facilities, entertainment
facilities (theaters, gyms, etc), training facilities, meeting rooms,
auditoriums, water purification plant, sewer plant/plumbing system,
research facilities and medical facilities (to some degree) for up to
5382 full time crewmembers (passengers/residents). This of course is
not to mention the enormous storage capacity that can hold tons of
sophisticated equipment, vehicles, guided missile systems and of
course many fighter jets (after all, it is an aircraft carrier). The
electrical system’s wires alone undoubtedly weigh more than that of
every man and woman aboard combined. Since all of the onboard systems
are electronic or nuclear, it goes without saying that it takes
hundreds of not thousands of pieces to put together devices for even
the most minor functions on this ship. Whereas the old ships might
have employed a crank or a handle device to open or close a door, this
modern ship may devote miles of wire, computer hardware/software and a
vast array of technology for the same purpose. I’m sure you can
imagine what it must take to run this sea-based city.

USS ENTERPRISE   (CVAN-65)
(later CVN-65) 
CLASS - ENTERPRISE 
Displacement 75,700 Tons, Dimensions, 1101' 2" (oa) x 133' x 37' 1"
(Max)
Armament None as built, fitted with Sea Sparrow in 1967. 
Armor, Unknown. 
Machinery, 280,000 SHP; 8 Westinghouse (A2W) Reactors driving geared
turbines, 4 screws
Speed, 35+ Knots, Crew 5382.

The USS Nimitiz, on the other hand, displaces significantly more
weight than the Enterprise, so in terms of volume it might be
considered even larger. It’s not quite as long and doesn’t have near
as many reactors but it can hold about 300 more people (and probably
more aircraft, but no one is saying):

USS NIMITZ   (CVAN-68)
(later CVN-68) 
CLASS - NIMITZ 
Displacement 91,300 Tons, Dimensions, 1088' (oa) x 134' x 37' 8" (Max)
Armament 3 Sea Sparrow-SAM, Starting with CVAN-70 4 20mm CIWS, 90
Aircraft.
Armor, Unknown. 
Machinery, 260,000 SHP; 2 Westinghouse (A4W) Reactors Driving Geared
Turbines, 4 screws
Speed, 35+ Knots, Crew 5617.

Though my answer does not specifically state how many moving parts are
on onboard this machine (presently there is somewhat of a blackout on
information pertaining to military equipment), it certainly fits the
criteria you’ve set forth. I came to this conclusion as a matter of
common sense, which clearly dictates that this, being the largest,
most technologically advanced, mobile piece of equipment ever produced
my man, is in all probability, the correct answer.

Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy
for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By
following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to
enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find
that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any
questions about my research please post a clarification request prior
to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final
comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near
future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga


* INFORMATION SOURCES *


USS NIMITZ   (CVAN-68)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/68.htm


USS ENTERPRISE   (CVAN-65)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/65.htm


NAVSOURCE ONLINE
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02idx.htm


SPACE SHUTTLE DRAWINGS AND TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/shuttle/shuttle.htm


* SEARCH STRATEGY *


Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

LARGEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER

ARICRAFT CARRIER DIMENSIONS

LARGEST NAVAL VESSEL

---

Request for Answer Clarification by drmarc-ga on 17 Jan 2003 17:45 PST

Okay, that's the name of the device (2) and a reasonable train of
thought (4).  But as I stated in the question, for full credit I also
need the actual number of parts (2), and at least one reference
supporting that number (3).  (I don't need the *exact* number - that
would be silly.  But I do need a good estimate, from a credible
source.)  I need 2 and 3 to give a good rating.

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 17 Jan 2003 18:32 PST

Dear drmarc-ga:

Your questions are indeed challenging ones, and I fear that there is
no public reference from which I can take (assume, estimate, etc.) a
plausible answer. For obvious reasons the military does not divulge
ALL the equipment onboard these vessels, but one must assume that the
world's finest, latest and most advanced technology is there. By
virtue of this alone the number of moving parts aboard an aircraft
carrier are not only impossible to determine, the number is also
impossible to estimate and believe that we are reasobly close.

If you'd like me to retract my answer, I'd certainly be willing to
allow someone else to give it a shot. However, as I mentioned earlier,
since this is the largest mobile mechanism, it is quite likley that
future answers will also return to this same subject again. Please let
me know how we shall proceed from here.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by drmarc-ga on 20 Jan 2003 10:06 PST

Hi tutuzdad-ga -

I am sorry, but I was pretty up-front in what the requirements were
when I posted the question.  Bottom line is that with only 2 of 4
parts answered, I can't justify more than 2.5 stars out of 5.  If you
want the money and are satisfied with that rating, I'll submit the
rating.  If you want to withdraw your answer, that's okay too.  It's
up to you.

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 20 Jan 2003 10:36 PST

Dear drmarc-ga:

I fully understand how specific you were with your question, but
unfortunately it just isn’t possible to entirely answer every question
that can possibly be asked in life with absolute figures, though
certainly if one were to spend a lifetime auditing the parts of an
aircraft carrier piece by piece one would eventually come to a firm
conclusion. However, this isn’t possible, even for someone who did
have access to every moving part (classified and non-classified) on
the ship. I’d venture to guess that such an answer might not even be
obtained from the engineers who designed the vessel.

I direct you to a comment by Lt. Gen. John D. Hopper Jr., Vice
commander, Air Education and Training Command, who said, “Believe me
when I say that our current advantage was not earned easily or without
great cost, and it must be guarded very carefully, because losing air
and space dominance would be very costly to our nation in blood and
treasure in the future. You see, we've held the "high ground" for so
long that we must be careful not to take it for granted. When viewed
through the lens of a television camera, it is difficult to appreciate
just how complex and perishable our air and space capabilities really
are … it is difficult to see the thousands of moving parts that come
together to achieve an objective. I think you are getting an
excellent, albeit rapid, look at some of those moving parts on this
orientation. You're seeing what the camera lens doesn't see … the
young airmen who turn the wrenches and load the bombs, the crew chiefs
who launch the aircraft.”

AETC SPEECHES http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/pa/Library/speeches/cv02-02.htm

As you can see, even this three star general in command cannot (or
will not) answer such a question.

Since you have left the decision up to me, I’d have to say that I am
absolutely confident in the answer I have provided. I does sadden me
that I am not able to provide you with the exact number of moving
parts as you have requested, and as such I have not fulfilled you full
expectations of this forum. But just as we cannot definitively answer
questions relating to unproven theories, some answers, like this one,
will remain elusive to even the best researchers. If the decision were
mine, I’d have to say that my answer, such as it is, stands as the
most accurate and complete answer that can possibly be provided. But
ultimately it is you who must determine whether or not to finally
accept it, rate it, or reject it. I hope that you will consider the
logic and accuracy of the content that I "was" able to provide in
making your decision.

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

Only a partial answer (2 out of 4 parts requested answered).  I am not
impressed by numbers of words, only by content.  The researcher might
be right that the aircraft carrier holds the record, but without a
number of parts it's difficult to judge.  Would it have a million
moving parts?  A MEMS micromirror array could have that many.  Ten
million?  That would probably win.

How long is a piece of string?