← doc
dow-uap-d48-report-september-1996
p031 / 146
  (2) to down-weight only slightly, or not at all, those failures that are random in
      nature, that can still occur in replacement components, or that occur only once in
      100 or several hundred launches in components that have not yet failed.
No matter what technique is employed, filtering is at best a compromise. The perfect
filter would somehow down-weight to some extent or entirely those failures that have
been "fixed" or made less likely, without down-weighting those random failures with
unknown causes. The filters considered in this study have no such capabilities; they
produce a result based solely on the launch sequence, and where in the sequence
failures have occurred.
In predicting vehicle failure probabilities from empirical data, large representative
samples are essential for a good estimate, and the more reliable the vehicle, the greater
the need for a large sample. For example, if some characteristic exists in exactly 1% of a
population, the probability is 0.37 that it will not appear in a random sample of 100,
and 0.61 that it will not appear if the sample size is 50. If the characteristic exists in 2%
of the population, it fails to- appear about 36% of the time in a random sample of 50.

For reasons presented above, the data samples for Atlas, Delta, and Titan have been
made as large as possible consistent with the notion of representative configurations, as
set forth in Ref. [4]. In RTI's judgment, the value of F that best weights the performance
data is 0.98, although a value anywhere in the interval 0.97 to 0.99 cannot be ruled out.
For consistency in data weighting, the same values of F have been used for all vehicle
programs. The differences in predicted failure probability that result from these three
F's are illustrated in Figure 4 for Atlas. The plots show the inverse relationship
between filter volatility and the value of F. For F = 0.97 vis-a-vis larger values, it can be
seen that the filtered failure probability jumps higher with each failure and drops at a
faster rate with each successful launch that follows.




9/10/96                                     22                                           RTI


Vision Description (EN)

Page 28 of a technical analysis report (RTI, dated 9/10/96) on launch vehicle reliability and failure data filtering methodologies. The page presents detailed analytical discussion of propellant system performance, response modes, and statistical weighting of failure probabilities for Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Thor vehicles. A table titled "Table 15. Recommended Response Mode Percentages for Flight Phase 0-2" provides comparative percentage data across four response modes and three propellant system categories. The page is unclassified, unredacted, and entirely text-based with tabular analysis.

Descrição Vision (PT-BR)

Página 28 de um relatório técnico de análise (RTI, datado de 9/10/96) sobre confiabilidade de veículos lançadores e metodologias de filtragem de dados de falhas. A página apresenta discussão analítica detalhada de desempenho de sistemas de combustível, modos de resposta e ponderação estatística de probabilidades de falha para veículos Atlas, Delta, Titan e Thor. Uma tabela intitulada "Table 15. Recommended Response Mode Percentages for Flight Phase 0-2" fornece dados de percentuais comparativos em quatro modos de resposta e três categorias de sistemas de combustível. A página é desclassificada, não redacionada e inteiramente baseada em texto com análise tabular.