4.5 Article

Novel Assessment Model for the Launch Success Ratio for Lunar Exploration

Journal

JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000467

Keywords

Launch success ratio (LSR); Assessment model; Lunar exploration (LE); Integrated system health management (ISHM); Goodness of fit; Reliability

Funding

  1. Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [71401136]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M552375]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A successful launch is the first step in a successful lunar exploration (LE) mission. Because spacecraft are very expensive, it is difficult to conduct sufficient flight tests to assess the launch success ratio (LSR) for the LE. Instead, the LSR needs to be comprehensively assessed using simulation tests with several large data samples and flight tests with small data samples. However, the data distribution in these different tests may not come from the same population, and the large-sample simulation test information may dominate the small-sample flight test information. Aimed at these problems, this paper proposes an LSR assessment model for the LE. The model introduces reliability measures to more accurately reflect the differences between the data populations, uses a goodness-of-fit test to check the compatibility of the simulation test data and the flight test data and to calculate the corresponding reliability, and combines the prior simulation test data distribution and the flight test data to estimate the final LSR using Bayesian statistical inference. A theoretical analysis and simulation tests illustrate how the proposed model can overcome the problem of reconciling different data sources with different populations, successfully estimate the LSR for an LE, and solve the problem of large-sample data dominating small-sample data. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available