Yes. I linked below a slide set by a Lee Petersen, JPL engineer who was instrumental in setting up the uncertainty accounting for the Mars lander EDL system - b

Yes. I linked below a slide set by a Lee Petersen, JPL engineer who was instrumental in setting up the uncertainty accounting for the Mars lander EDL system - both Curiosity and Perseverance. (Among other uses of UQ for engineered systems at JPL.) In the slides he’s deliberately contrasting a “MUF” (model uncertainty factor) approach that uses safety factors, possibly stacked as indicated in the OP, versus a “BE+U” (best estimate plus uncertainty) approach. The latter uses verified physics-based models, validation of model predictions versus experimental tests, and uncertainty quantification of sources of error, to get a best estimate of whatever quantity is critical to safe operation, and an uncertainty. A final margin can then be added onto that, see slide 13. The mess at the system level that can result from a stack of ad hoc MUFs applied at the subsystem level is shown on slide 15. Incidentally, many of the comments nearby seem to think the application of domain specific safety factors is still state of the art. This just isn’t true any more for high risk systems. https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/Filedownload.cfm?thisfile=39465.pdf&dir=CommitteeFiles&44348.0865972 https://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/Filedownload.cfm?thisfile...