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

Those involved in commercial, defense and scientific uses of space have been voicing a growing space safety concern due to the increasing number of objects being placed in orbit, which increases the potential for collisions between objects in space. Collisions in turn create additional objects, increasing the potential for harm or damage. The operation of launch vehicles in space affects and is affected by hazards associated with space debris. Accordingly, the requirements of this section serve to mitigate hazards associated with space debris. Federal launch ranges perform a collision avoidance analysis, commonly referred to as a COLA, prior to launch only to ensure that manned or potentially manned spacecraft will not be affected through orbital insertion. The FAA has elected to adopt only selected debris mitigation practices that are of almost universal applicability. It has not, for example, opted for requiring collision avoidance measures or post-mission disposal, or for specifying a minimum lifetime on orbit.
Orbital noted in its comments that preventing unplanned contact is a primary goal of each launch because it "represents sound technical, operational, safety and financial business practice," rendering a regulation prohibiting such contact unnecessary. Orbital at 10. Orbital recommends that the prohibition on unintended contact be deleted or modified so that rather than ensuring there be no contact, such contact be prevented "to the fullest extent feasible." Id. For the reasons stated in the NPRM the FAA now implements this requirement. In light of the fact that preventing unplanned contact is already a primary goal of a launch operator, the FAA does not consider the requirement unduly burdensome. At the time of the NPRM, the FAA intended that the original requirement constitute a performance standard that could be implemented in any manner that achieved the goal, thus avoiding an overly intrusive degree of regulation.
Orbital’s recommendation that a licensee ensure against unplanned contact "to the fullest extent feasible" cannot be adopted because it only adds ambiguity to what is required. Ensuring against an event is a clear requirement. It means that the event must not occur. Ensuring against that event to the fullest extent feasible raises questions regarding whether something need not be done if it is technically not feasible, too expensive or for some other reason. The FAA does not discern a reason for making such distinctions that outweigh the safety benefits of requiring a licensee to prevent unplanned contact.
Orbital also maintains that it is impossible to ensure that debris generation will not result from the conversion of energy sources into energy that fragments the vehicle as required by paragraph (b). Although Orbital is correct that it is impossible to ensure with utter certainty that energy will not fragment the vehicle, or, indeed that any given event could be prevented with utter certainty, there are practices that have been shown to prevent this occurrence. As noted in the NPRM, the FAA is aware of a number of standard industry practices designed to prevent or reduce this on-orbit risk. These practices include depleting residual fuels and leaving fuel lines valves open, venting pressurized systems, and leaving batteries in a permanent discharge state. These practices are routine. The NPRM intended to require that these practices be employed for all commercial launches, rather than ignored for reasons of cost or otherwise. The FAA recently uncovered ambiguity in the proposed requirements. Therefore, the FAA now clarifies the requirement by specifying that a licensee must remove stored energy by depleting residual fuels and leaving fuel line valves open, venting pressurized systems, leaving batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining sources of stored energy, or other equivalent procedures. The practices enumerated in paragraph (c) should satisfy the requirement in paragraph (b).
A number of standard industry practices reduce potential on-orbit risks arising out of flight following orbital insertion. A launch operator may maneuver its launch vehicle orbital stage after payload separation to minimize the likelihood that the orbital stage will recontact the payload. This avoids the consequences of either a malfunctioning payload or orbital debris. In order to reduce the possibility of future explosions that could create orbital debris, a launch operator must render liquid fueled orbital stages as inert as possible by expelling all propellants and pressurants and protecting batteries from spontaneous explosion. A launch operator may keep stage-to-stage separation devices and other potential debris sources captive to a stage with lanyards or other means. Also, a launch operator may choose launch times to geosynchronous transfer orbit designed to align the final orbit of the orbital stage so as to lower the perigee of the stage more quickly than other orbits.
　
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(36)