Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2022, Volume: 35 Issue: 4, 1521 - 1533, 01.12.2022

İbrahim Öz

https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823

Abstract

References

  • [1] Ristono, A., Santoso, P. B. and Tama, I. P. A., “Literature review of design of criteria for supplier selection”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11, 4: 680- 696, (2018).
  • [2] Dachyar, M., Purnomo, H., “Spaceport site selection with analytical hierarchy process decision making”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 11: 10, (2018).
  • [3] Aksaker, N., Yerli, S. K., Erdoğan, M. A., Erdi, E., Kaba, K., Ak, T., Zati, A., Barış, V., Demircan, O., Evren, S. Keskin, V., Küçük, İ., Özdemir, T., Özışık, T., Selam, S., “Astronomical site selection for Turkey using GIS techniques”, Experimental Astronomy, 39(3), 547-566, (2015).
  • [4] Finger, G., Keller, D., Gulliver, B., “Public-private spaceport development”, SpaceOps 2008 Conference; Heidelberg, Germany, 3584, (2008).
  • [5] Erbuyuk, H., Ozcan, S., Karaboga, K., “Retail store location selection problem with multiple analytical hierarchy process of decision making an application in Turkey”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58: 1405-1414, (2012).
  • [6] Tugba, B., Tas, G., Herekoglu, A., Tozan, H., Vayvay, O., “A fuzzy AHP based decision support system for disaster center location selection and a case study for Istanbul”, Disaster Prevention and Management, 20(5): 499-520, (2011).
  • [7] Koc-San, D., San, B., Bakis, V., Helvaci, M., Eker, Z., “Multi-criteria decision analysis in- tegrated with GIS and remote sensing for astronomical observatory site selection in Antalya province, Turkey”, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1: 39-51, (2013).
  • [8] Finger, G., David, K., Gulliver, B., “Launch site infrastructure cost trends”, AIAA Space 2007 Conference and Exposition; Long Beach, CA, USA, 6014, (2007).
  • [9] Ahmad, W, Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S., Tavasszy, L., “Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using best worst method”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 153: 242-252, (2017).
  • [10] Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, R., Deng, Y. He X., Kumar, P., Bansal, R. C., “A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69: 596-609, (2017).
  • [11] Chai J., James, N. K., Liu, Eric, W. T.., “Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature”, Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 10: 3872-3885, (2013).
  • [12] Rezaei, J., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model”, Omega, 64, Issue C, 64: 126-130, (2016).
  • [13] Pamučar, Dragan, Ecer, F., Cirovic, G., Arlasheedi, M., A,. "Application of improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in real-world problems", Mathematics, 8, 8: 1342, (2020).
  • [14] Hasan, M., Gulzarul, Z., Mohammad F., "Multi‐choice best‐worst multi‐criteria decision‐making method and its applications", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, (2021).
  • [15] Beemsterboer, D, Hendrix, E, Claassen, G., “On solving the best-worst method in multi-criteria decision-making”, IFAC - Papers OnLine, 51, 11: 1660-1665, (2018).
  • [16] Sadjadi, S., Karimi, M., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A robust approach”, Decision Science Letters, 7, 4: 323-340, (2018).

Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method

Year 2022, Volume: 35 Issue: 4, 1521 - 1533, 01.12.2022

İbrahim Öz

https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823

Abstract

Launch site location selection is a critical managerial and technical decision-making problem in the space industry. The criteria obtained from a massive amount of essential factors, considerations, and pre-requests provide input for the assessment process. The decision-makers evaluate many candidate launch site locations considering various aspects during the evaluation phase. The best worst method developed recently is a multi-criteria decision-making process proposed to evaluate the criteria' weights in this work. The weights of technical, commercial, and safety, which are primary criteria, and twelve sub-criteria are evaluated with the proposed method. The weights of the criteria and the importance of technical, managerial focusing factors are determined with the BWM. The results assist the administrators in selecting the best priority launch site. The best worst method provides reliable and usable results that are also consistent with the other evaluation. The uncertainties associated with the input parameters have been analyzed with the Ben-Tal best and worst methods. In a launch site for Turkey's illustrative example, Sinop is selected as the best priority launch site in Turkey's provinces, and Somalia is found the best-proposed launch site location among four candidates. Appropriately established launch site supports accessing space successfully.

Keywords

Launch site Spacecraft launch Satellite launch Decision making Best and worst method

References

  • [1] Ristono, A., Santoso, P. B. and Tama, I. P. A., “Literature review of design of criteria for supplier selection”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11, 4: 680- 696, (2018).
  • [2] Dachyar, M., Purnomo, H., “Spaceport site selection with analytical hierarchy process decision making”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 11: 10, (2018).
  • [3] Aksaker, N., Yerli, S. K., Erdoğan, M. A., Erdi, E., Kaba, K., Ak, T., Zati, A., Barış, V., Demircan, O., Evren, S. Keskin, V., Küçük, İ., Özdemir, T., Özışık, T., Selam, S., “Astronomical site selection for Turkey using GIS techniques”, Experimental Astronomy, 39(3), 547-566, (2015).
  • [4] Finger, G., Keller, D., Gulliver, B., “Public-private spaceport development”, SpaceOps 2008 Conference; Heidelberg, Germany, 3584, (2008).
  • [5] Erbuyuk, H., Ozcan, S., Karaboga, K., “Retail store location selection problem with multiple analytical hierarchy process of decision making an application in Turkey”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58: 1405-1414, (2012).
  • [6] Tugba, B., Tas, G., Herekoglu, A., Tozan, H., Vayvay, O., “A fuzzy AHP based decision support system for disaster center location selection and a case study for Istanbul”, Disaster Prevention and Management, 20(5): 499-520, (2011).
  • [7] Koc-San, D., San, B., Bakis, V., Helvaci, M., Eker, Z., “Multi-criteria decision analysis in- tegrated with GIS and remote sensing for astronomical observatory site selection in Antalya province, Turkey”, Advances in Space Research, 52, 1: 39-51, (2013).
  • [8] Finger, G., David, K., Gulliver, B., “Launch site infrastructure cost trends”, AIAA Space 2007 Conference and Exposition; Long Beach, CA, USA, 6014, (2007).
  • [9] Ahmad, W, Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S., Tavasszy, L., “Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using best worst method”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 153: 242-252, (2017).
  • [10] Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, R., Deng, Y. He X., Kumar, P., Bansal, R. C., “A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69: 596-609, (2017).
  • [11] Chai J., James, N. K., Liu, Eric, W. T.., “Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature”, Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 10: 3872-3885, (2013).
  • [12] Rezaei, J., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear model”, Omega, 64, Issue C, 64: 126-130, (2016).
  • [13] Pamučar, Dragan, Ecer, F., Cirovic, G., Arlasheedi, M., A,. "Application of improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in real-world problems", Mathematics, 8, 8: 1342, (2020).
  • [14] Hasan, M., Gulzarul, Z., Mohammad F., "Multi‐choice best‐worst multi‐criteria decision‐making method and its applications", International Journal of Intelligent Systems, (2021).
  • [15] Beemsterboer, D, Hendrix, E, Claassen, G., “On solving the best-worst method in multi-criteria decision-making”, IFAC - Papers OnLine, 51, 11: 1660-1665, (2018).
  • [16] Sadjadi, S., Karimi, M., “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A robust approach”, Decision Science Letters, 7, 4: 323-340, (2018).
There are 16 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Industrial Engineering
Authors

İbrahim Öz 0000-0003-4593-917X

Publication Date December 1, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 35 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Öz, İ. (2022). Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method. Gazi University Journal of Science, 35(4), 1521-1533. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823
AMA Öz İ. Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method. Gazi University Journal of Science. December 2022;35(4):1521-1533. doi:10.35378/gujs.721823
Chicago Öz, İbrahim. “Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site With The Best and Worst Method”. Gazi University Journal of Science 35, no. 4 (December 2022): 1521-33. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823.
EndNote Öz İ (December 1, 2022) Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method. Gazi University Journal of Science 35 4 1521–1533.
IEEE İ. Öz, “Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method”, Gazi University Journal of Science, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1521–1533, 2022, doi: 10.35378/gujs.721823.
ISNAD Öz, İbrahim. “Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site With The Best and Worst Method”. Gazi University Journal of Science 35/4 (December 2022), 1521-1533. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.721823.
JAMA Öz İ. Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method. Gazi University Journal of Science. 2022;35:1521–1533.
MLA Öz, İbrahim. “Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site With The Best and Worst Method”. Gazi University Journal of Science, vol. 35, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1521-33, doi:10.35378/gujs.721823.
Vancouver Öz İ. Decision Making in Evaluation and Selection of Launch Site with The Best and Worst Method. Gazi University Journal of Science. 2022;35(4):1521-33.