曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

Space Access also asks whether an overall accident history of approximately ten to fifteen percent is acceptable. The FAA has not made a determination regarding an acceptable mishap rate at this point, and is hesitant to prejudge the question. The answer may turn more on the facts underlying a mishap rather than on a particular rate. The FAA would also like to stress what it defines as a launch accident. By definition, a launch accident is an unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the known impact of a launch vehicle, its payload or any component thereof outside designated impact limit lines, or a fatality or serious injury to any person who is not associated with the flight, or resulting in damage estimated to exceed $25,000 to property not associated with the flight. This has rarely, if ever, happened in the history of the U.S. space program. Space Access appears to be referring to other mishaps such as mission failures that are not launch accidents. An unsuccessful mission is not necessarily an un-safe flight. In fact, a successful mission may not even be a safe one, as recognized by the FAA’s definition of "launch incident," which is an unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle, other than a launch accident, involving a malfunction of a flight safety system or failure of the licensee's safety organization, design or operations. Because the FAA is concerned with public safety, a safe launch record is judged based on whether an applicant’s launches have placed the public at risk, not whether the launches have placed payloads in space.
Space Access contends that any launch accident, incident or mishap should result in a license amendment reflecting changes made to prevent a reoccurrence. If circumstances warrant, this may prove a likely result. Space Access also asks whether a launch operator accident that is not covered by an FAA license, that is, perhaps, a government launch, is considered part of a licensee’s accident history, and whether an accident would result in a license revocation. An un-licensed launch resulting in a mission failure may certainly raise safety concerns for future licensed launches, but need not necessarily lead to license revocation. When a mishap occurred with McDonnell Douglas’ Delta vehicle in January 1997, during a government launch, the FAA did not revoke, suspend or modify McDonnell Douglas’ launch operator license. This was because McDonnell Douglas’ license specified that it comply with the requirements of the federal launch range from which it was authorized to launch, and the FAA knew that the Air Force would not allow additional Delta launches to take place until the problem was identified and resolved. Space Access’ inquiry arises, perhaps, out of contemplating launch activity that is not governed by federal launch range oversight. To avoid prejudging a hypothetical situation, the FAA will not address that situation until confronted with it.
Relationship between FAA and Federal Government Launch Ranges
The FAA's launch requirements as promulgated through part 415, subpart C, of this rulemaking apply to launches as they currently take place from Department of Defense (DOD) or NASA launch ranges. Public meeting comments strongly supported avoidance of duplication of launch safety oversight for launches that take place from a federal launch range. The rules are consistent with that desire. Although the FAA requires information and analyses not required by federal launch ranges to ensure that all flight safety issues are addressed, and imposes certain additional requirements derived from a National Transportation Safety Board investigation, the FAA will not duplicate the safety assessments performed by federal launch ranges.
Federal launch ranges manage the launch facilities from which the great majority of commercial launches now take place. The federal ranges act, in effect, both as landlords and as providers of launch facilities and services. The ranges require compliance with their safety rules as a condition of using their facilities and services. Because different federal launch ranges confront different safety issues, practices are not always standardized; the Air Force ranges did, however, produce a joint set of documentation requirements and procedures, "Eastern and Western Range Requirements 127-1" (Mar. 1995). In addition to providing for public safety, the federal launch range procedures protect government property and launch capability, and are designed, to some extent, to ensure mission success.
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations(17)