## 10 Application and Analysis of Proposed Approach  
In this section the application and analysis of the proposed approach are presented together with a flowchart ([PERSON], 2018) of the proposed method with related stages. Table 7 presents the flowchart of the proposed method with related stages. The main difference between the single-objective and multi-objective approaches is presented. A proposed practical approach is divided into eight stages. What the decision-maker has to do in each stage is explained.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{p{142.3 pt}}{**Space Mission Planning**} \\ \hline
**Stage 1:** & Input data for the optimization model & & \\ \hline
**Stage 2:** & Building optimization model for space mission & A single objective optimization approach & Multi-Objective optimization approach \\ \hline
**Stage 3:** & Criteria definition & Risk & \\ \cline{2-4}  & Sustainability & Minimization of space mission risk(s) & Maximization of space mission sustainability & Maximization of space mission supply chain efficiency \\ \hline
**Stage 4.** & Analysis of results & Three independently computed single objective models. & One multi-objective computed model with a non-dominated set of pareto solutions & \\ \hline
**Stage 5.** & Decision-maker choice based on obtained results. & No relation between the criteria. Choice is limited, due to the not calculated impact between risk, sustainability, and supply chain structure. & Decision maker is capable to choose the best decision alternative from the inter-connected solution from a non-dominated set of pareto solutions, showing the relations between risk, sustainability, and supply chain efficiency (structure/portfolio of the optimal set of suppliers).  
It has been clearly presented, that the multi-objective model for optimizing risk, sustainability, and supply chain of a space mission, outperforms the single objective approach, since relations, connections, and impact between space mission risk, sustainability, and supply chain can be taken into account by the decision-maker only in case of non-dominated sub-optimal pareto solutions. A single objective approach is focused on risk, or on sustainability, or only on supply chain structure and efficiency. In space mission planning, organization, run, nowadays it is not efficient to consider each factor without relation to other factors.  
Finally, controlling the subjectivity of decision-makers in the context of space missions or any complicated decision-making process can be tough but achievable. Strategies to help mitigate subjectivity and promote more objective decision-making are: explicit decision criteria, quantifying and standardizing factors, use of decision support tools, seeking diverse perspectives, employing deliberative processes, providing support, training, and guidance, using independent reviews and audits, and maintain a transparent record of the decision-making process, including the rationale behind decisions, the data considered, and the criteria applied. Documenting the process enhances responsibility, allows for retrospective analysis, and permits future improvements.  
It is crucial to highlight that total eradication of subjectivity may not always be achievable or desirable. Some decisions may necessarily entail subjective factors. However, by employing these tactics, decision-makers can limit subjectivity and strive for more objective and informed decision outcomes.