Search Results

One of the major impetuses for the development of modern, robust design methodologies is the need for affordable aerospace systems. Because the affordability of a system is directly tied to the economics of developing, manufacturing, operating, and disposing of that system, it has become common practice to perform an economic analysis of a potential system to evaluate its viability. Additionally, as needs for improved modeling, analysis, and evaluation capability have arisen, several techniques which have proved themselves popular in economics have been adopted. While adopting these techniques has improved the capabilities of the designer/engineer, they do not proceed far enough. That is aerospace systems design, and consequently all complex systems design, could actually be considered an exercise in economics. All of the players, i.e. designers, firms, end users, and the systems themselves can be considered microeconomic entities.

Current robust design methods rely heavily on meta-modeling techniques to reduce the total computational effort of probabilistic explorations to a combinatorially manageable size. Historically most of these meta-models were in the form of Response Surface Equations (RSE). Recently there has been interest in supplementing the RSE with techniques that better handle non-linear phenomena. One technique that has been identified is the Gaussian Process (GP). The GP has fewer initial assumptions when compared to the linear methods used by RSEs and, therefore, fewer limitations. The initial implementation and employment techniques proposed in current literature for use with the GP are barely modified versions of those used for RSEs. A better, more tailored technique needs to be developed to properly make use of the nature of the GP, and minimize the effect of some of its limitations. Such a technique would allow for rapid development of a reusable, computationally efficient and accurate GP.

The success of a modern, complex engineering program is inherently a dynamic economic exercise. Because of this it is not possible to fully grasp what decisions are important to the success of a program using only the typical static or “frozen” design methods and processes. This paper attempts to provide a basic understanding of these design processes and illustrate what they leave to be desired when used in a true market environment. Further, this paper illustrates a dynamic method using tools from engineering, management, and finance to overcome these weaknesses. The dynamic environment allows decision parameters and metrics to change, along with the potential for true competition. Furthermore, it allows the engineer to determine which design choices matter most to the creation of a successful program and how to make the most appropriate choices in the face of uncertainty.