OMG OMG OMG

[PowerMacG5]

Wow, I love my job. I just got a call from Doc Horowitz. My job involved NASA contracts, and my boss is a friend with Doc, and he was telling him how I enjoy aerospace, and how I am a good worker. Wow, this was a very interesting experience.

Scott Horowitz for all of you that do not know.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

 

[Amused]

Who?

 

[Xionide]

?

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Originally posted by: Amused
Who?

eh?

 

[Bootprint]

Bio

 

[Chronoshock]

I think this thread gets a resounding EH

Oh, but it sounds important to you so congrats! :thumbsup:

 

[Fritzo]

That's NOTHING! I just spoke with DAVE JOBLONSKI and FRED COLLINS!!!!

Can you believe it???

 

[PowerMacG5]

Scott Horowitz

 

[Atomicus]

Ask him if they'll let you be part of the manned mission to Mars :thumbsup:

BTW, I have some nice Kleenex tissues you can use :music:

 

[NuclearNed]

I'll bet the ladies go for that moustache.

 

[aphex]

I respect any individual that shares my last name

 

[mflacy]

Wow, that is amazing!

Before you know it, you will be talking to Garnster and The Wangman

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

 

[Ogg]

 

[JulesMaximus]

Geek alert!!!

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

whoa. that sounds awesome.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Until recently, I had a printout of the fault analysis tree for STS-107 (Columbia) here in my office. It was about 3' wide and maybe 14' long!

Anyway, Probalistic Risk Assesment is an interesting field ... it needs to be applied more often & more thoroughly. I had an intro class on failure of systems back in grad school.

 

[MaxDepth]

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Where in the tree does it say to use duct tape? Primary branch?

 

[ThePresence]

He looks like a huge geek.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Until recently, I had a printout of the fault analysis tree for STS-107 (Columbia) here in my office. It was about 3' wide and maybe 14' long!

Anyway, Probalistic Risk Assesment is an interesting field ... it needs to be applied more often & more thoroughly. I had an intro class on failure of systems back in grad school.

That definitely wasn't the full tree. The book that I have is titled "Space Transportation System Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Integrated Loss of Vehicle (LOV) Model." My boss worked on this book, and it is 540 pages of 8.5X11.

The book you have may be a subset of the tree I have. The subset may be the one evaluating what they believed may have caused Columbia to fail. My boss had me read parts of the tree, and its amazing how the get certain values, and how small probabilities can be.

And I agree, PRA should be used more often. Until the challenger incident, NASA even kind of shrugged it off, and used a different, not necessarily as accurate method.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Where in the tree does it say to use duct tape? Primary branch?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Until recently, I had a printout of the fault analysis tree for STS-107 (Columbia) here in my office. It was about 3' wide and maybe 14' long!

Anyway, Probalistic Risk Assesment is an interesting field ... it needs to be applied more often & more thoroughly. I had an intro class on failure of systems back in grad school.

That definitely wasn't the full tree. The book that I have is titled "Space Transportation System Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Integrated Loss of Vehicle (LOV) Model." My boss worked on this book, and it is 540 pages of 8.5X11.

The book you have may be a subset of the tree I have. The subset may be the one evaluating what they believed may have caused Columbia to fail. My boss had me read parts of the tree, and its amazing how the get certain values, and how small probabilities can be.

And I agree, PRA should be used more often. Until the challenger incident, NASA even kind of shrugged it off, and used a different, not necessarily as accurate method.

Yes, this was the fault tree on the LOV investigation only. So, unlike the book you mentioned (which I've seen BTW) it didn't have anything about ascent failure modes, etc. It started off at the top with "Loss Of Vehicle" or something to that effect. Then branched to "structural failure", "control system failure" etc. I'm sure it was pruned to some degree. It would get to something like "Failure of Tile LEP123A", and then looked like maybe a reference to the analysis that supported or cleared that mode as the cause of the overall failure. Was very interesting.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Until recently, I had a printout of the fault analysis tree for STS-107 (Columbia) here in my office. It was about 3' wide and maybe 14' long!

Anyway, Probalistic Risk Assesment is an interesting field ... it needs to be applied more often & more thoroughly. I had an intro class on failure of systems back in grad school.

That definitely wasn't the full tree. The book that I have is titled "Space Transportation System Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Integrated Loss of Vehicle (LOV) Model." My boss worked on this book, and it is 540 pages of 8.5X11.

The book you have may be a subset of the tree I have. The subset may be the one evaluating what they believed may have caused Columbia to fail. My boss had me read parts of the tree, and its amazing how the get certain values, and how small probabilities can be.

And I agree, PRA should be used more often. Until the challenger incident, NASA even kind of shrugged it off, and used a different, not necessarily as accurate method.

Yes, this was the fault tree on the LOV investigation only. So, unlike the book you mentioned (which I've seen BTW) it didn't have anything about ascent failure modes, etc. It started off at the top with "Loss Of Vehicle" or something to that effect. Then branched to "structural failure", "control system failure" etc. I'm sure it was pruned to some degree. It would get to something like "Failure of Tile LEP123A", and then looked like maybe a reference to the analysis that supported or cleared that mode as the cause of the overall failure. Was very interesting.

Ah, very cool. If you don't mind me asking, where do you work, and what do you do for a living?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
What are you doing, exactly? Who is Scott Horowitz?

Technically I am doing something called Probabilistic Risk Assessment. In reality I am reading a lot of technical papers, and learning a lot of software that I will be using after I learn the theory in college. One bug thing I learned here so far is fault tree analysis, and a computer program CAFTA that was developed within the company I work for as a joint venture with Rolls Royce.

A lot of the work comes from NASA, which means we do risk analysis on space programs. So far, I have studied the fault tree for the MSR EEV, and will be doing a paper about resupplying the Hubble.

Until recently, I had a printout of the fault analysis tree for STS-107 (Columbia) here in my office. It was about 3' wide and maybe 14' long!

Anyway, Probalistic Risk Assesment is an interesting field ... it needs to be applied more often & more thoroughly. I had an intro class on failure of systems back in grad school.

That definitely wasn't the full tree. The book that I have is titled "Space Transportation System Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Integrated Loss of Vehicle (LOV) Model." My boss worked on this book, and it is 540 pages of 8.5X11.

The book you have may be a subset of the tree I have. The subset may be the one evaluating what they believed may have caused Columbia to fail. My boss had me read parts of the tree, and its amazing how the get certain values, and how small probabilities can be.

And I agree, PRA should be used more often. Until the challenger incident, NASA even kind of shrugged it off, and used a different, not necessarily as accurate method.

Yes, this was the fault tree on the LOV investigation only. So, unlike the book you mentioned (which I've seen BTW) it didn't have anything about ascent failure modes, etc. It started off at the top with "Loss Of Vehicle" or something to that effect. Then branched to "structural failure", "control system failure" etc. I'm sure it was pruned to some degree. It would get to something like "Failure of Tile LEP123A", and then looked like maybe a reference to the analysis that supported or cleared that mode as the cause of the overall failure. Was very interesting.

Ah, very cool. If you don't mind me asking, where do you work, and what do you do for a living?

I'm an astrodynamics geek. I had a bit part in the Columbia investigation. Check your PM