Often in software development I encounter code that seems overly complex. It's not always obvious at first glance whether that complexity is because it's solving a really difficult problem, or because the developers made it more complex than it needed to be.

Having no domain knowledge of the problems of detecting cracks in blades, this sounds like either a genius solution to a super hard problem, or unnecessary complexity.

Given the forces involved, the need to avoid wireless communication, the complexity of any bearing with associated electrical contact, and so on this seems like the least complicated solution. You can rely on radioactive elements to emit radioactivity above background, you can build a pretty reliable pressure indicator, and you can fill a cavity in the blades with gas pretty reliably. You sidestep all of the complicated mechanical linkages in favor of a solution that's not in the rotor hub at all.

I though it sounded pretty clever. Now, that can be good or bad depending on context. I mean it in a good way. It seems simple conceptually (I have no idea if it adds a lot of complexity to the manufacturing) and rather foolproof. I guess the radiation shield could jam and not move when it should.

Chesterton's Fence