3 ms·
Engineering, physical principles, I guess. Those who place bets or making predictions may know a thing or two on mechanics, rocket science and history of buildi
by avmich 3y ago
Engineering, physical principles, I guess. Those who place bets or making predictions may know a thing or two on mechanics, rocket science and history of building launchers.
- bumby 3y agoTo put a finer point on it, those seem like rather blunt instruments for prediction compared to how risk is typically measured by aerospace reliability engineers.
- avmich 3y agoI'm sure some aerospace professionals are wondering how it's possible to predict stock behavior on an exchange, but have no problem with educated predictions of launcher performance.
- bumby 3y agoThat right. The point being, they are very different systems with different information inputs. Meaning what works for one may not be a good method the the other.
- persolb 3y agoThink of it like top down budget va bottom up budget. RAMS engineers do a bottom up analysis. However, it is fairly typical for the to be subtlety biased in a way that changes the final answer. (Usually by ‘rounding up’ on individual hazards). Top down takes an outside view and says ‘this looks like these other past projects. It should land in around the same place.’ I’ve found top down tends to be more accurate project wise. Bottom up more accurate for specific subsystems.
- bumby 3y agoRelated to this discussion, the results found by Feynman in the Challenger investigation found that the top-down risk assessment was off by orders of magnitude.