On Fri, 30 May 2003 14:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In order to have a catastrophic explosion, you could
>design a system so that failures X and Y both have to
>happen.

Oddly phrased - sounds like you want to have a catastrophic
explosion...but that objection is trivial.

My non-trivial objection, which I'm apparently not making clear, is:
the whole point here is, something fails.  Almost by definition, you
designed and built it not to fail.  Therefore, if it fails, it is not
doing what it was designed and built to do.  Its having failed, then,
how can you be confident that it failed in such a way as to preclude
an explosion unless some other thing also fails?  If you knew the
failure modes that well, you'd mitigate them.  The very fact that
something goes wrong STRONGLY suggests you didn't know it would.

>if you can
>demonstrate that P(X_fail) and P(Y_fail) are each at
>most 1E-3 (say, run 1000 test flights in which neither
>X nor Y fail)

You need 2998 flights to demonstrate that with 95% confidence.

>P(X_fail) * P(Y_fail) is less than 1E-6, so
>P(X_fail) * P(Y_fail) * population_density *
>impact_area(explosive_failure) < 1E-6...which is the
>criteria for getting a launch license.

Er...

1E-6 is the launch license threshold probability for killing any one
person.  Overall public EC is 30E-6.

>It's not designed - and therefore theoretical -
>reliability, but proven reliability.  Or am I
>misreading what the AST means by "proven"?

AST does not use the word "proven."  They use the word "unproven," and
they refuse to define it.  That little dig aside, they are very
interested in real world flight test data, and their answers last week
were very sensible (to the extent the requirements were under AST's
control).

-R

-- "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.  Now, thanks to
the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky, UC Berkeley
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list

Reply via email to