曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

The recently enacted change to the definition of launch in the Act establishes which pre-flight activities are part of a launch. There are certain pre-flight activities so integral to the launch of a launch vehicle that they should be considered part of the launch itself even though they do not constitute flight. Additionally, there are hazards associated with pre-flight activity that are proximate in time to flight and unique to space flight. Because the changes to the Act dictate that launch include preparation of a launch vehicle and payload for flight, the FAA defines the commencement of launch as the moment at which hazardous activities related to the assembly and ultimate flight of the launch vehicle begin, which, for purposes of consistency and clarity, the FAA deems to be when the major components of a licensee's launch vehicle enter, for purposes of preparing for flight, the gate of a
U.S. launch site, whether situated on a federal launch range or not, and regardless of whether flight occurs from there or not.
In its NPRM, the FAA determined that defining "launch" as the arrival of the launch vehicle at the gate of a launch site accorded with the proposals of a number of earlier commenters, who suggested that the FAA define "launch" to begin when hazardous activities start. The FAA is charged by statute with protecting the public, and a definition that recognizes hazards will address concerns regarding public health and safety. Only if an activity is so hazardous as to pose a threat to third parties should regulatory oversight by the FAA be exercised, and "indemnification" to recompense third parties be available. Because shortly after vehicle components arrive, hazardous activities related to the assembly and ultimate flight of the launch vehicle begin, the arrival of the vehicle or its parts is a logical point at which the FAA should ensure that a launch operator is exercising safe practices and is financially responsible for any damage it may cause. These hazardous activities include, but are not limited to, fuel tank wet testing, ordnance installation, spin balancing and the stacking of motors. They are hazardous because they expose third parties and government property to risk of damage or loss. The FAA believes that this test is well within the new licensing authority conferred by the Congress’ 1998 revision to the Act. Also it both broadly incorporates the activity test advocated by commenters such as Lockheed Martin and Orbital and accommodates the FAA’s need for simplicity in administration. A launch license will encompass hazardous activities without requiring numerous decisions regarding individual hazardous activities on a piecemeal basis.
Moreover, with the expansion of the definition as originally proposed to encompass the ground operations of a launch operator at a commercial launch site not situated on a federal launch range, the advisability of this approach is further evident. The FAA believes that a launch operator contracting with a licensed launch site operator should be the licensee responsible for activities in preparation for flight. To the extent that the government may hope to achieve seamless safety and financial responsibility coverage, the FAA would rather look to a launch operator, who has control and authority over its employees, contractor and subcontractors, including any launch site operator providing services as well as a location from which to launch, for regulatory responsibility. Otherwise, the FAA might have to attempt to apportion responsibility for ground operations between a launch operator and a launch site operator and develop additional criteria for doing so. In this regard, commenters such as Kistler and Space Access should note that were a launch license for ground operations not required a license to operate a launch site might be.
For purposes of ascertaining the start of launch, and particularly with the 1998 addition to the definition of launch, the FAA reviewed the hazardous activities associated with the launch of a launch vehicle to determine when those hazardous activities started. The FAA’s experience shows that commercial launch vehicles share a number of hazardous procedures, and that most of those procedures take place once the vehicle is at a launch site in order to minimize hazardous transport and exposure time. The DOT Office of Commercial Space Transportation prepared a study in 1994, available in draft, titled "Prelaunch Hazardous Operations for the Delta, Atlas, Titan at Cape Canaveral Air Station, Pegasus at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Conestoga at Wallops Flight Facility and Black Brant at White Sands Missile Range." The study analyzed similarities in the risk profiles for pre-flight processing of these vehicles, and compared the pre-flight processing timelines for the various vehicles. The results complement information available in a DOT "Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Transportation," May 1988. The amount of damage that a vehicle may cause varies from vehicle to vehicle, depending upon such factors as the mass of the vehicle, the number of stages, the presence and number of solid rocket motors, and the type and quantity of propellants. The launch vehicles studied and their pre-flight processing procedures are similar in that each has a similar hazardous potential.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations(10)