EWR 127-1 PDF

EWR 127-1 PDF

Title: EWR 21AUG95, Version: , Date: Aug, Status: Active, Desc: EWR EASTERN AND WESTERN RANGE (EWR). Tailored EWR , System Safety Program Plan, Noncompliance Requests, and Launch Complex Safety Training and Certification. Find the most up-to-date version of EWR CONT. DIST. at Engineering

Author: Kazrakinos Kagaramar
Country: Belgium
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 25 December 2009
Pages: 348
PDF File Size: 17.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.79 Mb
ISBN: 714-8-69720-199-1
Downloads: 2770
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nerisar

For example, the ranges use different assumptions and models in computing safety metrics, such as E cand they use analytical results differently. Before systems are turned over to operational commands, AFMC must certify that all systems have been designed to meet operational requirements and check out at the component, rwr, and system levels.

It may also be feasible to move other gates uprange and further reduce the need for downrange facilities. The nominal flight path, the actual course of the vehicle, and the computed IIP change during flight. Supplement to RCC Standard Vehicles that successfully complete uprange staging events are highly reliable, and their IIPs are travelling very fast—much faster even than the vehicles themselves as they approach orbital velocity; the IIP disappears as soon as the vehicle reaches orbital velocity.

Looking for other ways to read this?

Risk managementhowever, is designed to meet standards of acceptable risk based on overall costs and benefits. The supplement to RCC Standard also describes acceptable levels of risk in other domains. At the WR, safety analyses are rerun on launch days using measured wind data to reevaluate the safety metrics and verify that the launch meets the accepted safety criteria. The combination of vehicle reliability, short time over land, and high speed make it unlikely that moving the Africa gates to within the coverage of uprange assets i.

Even if a failure were to occur more than seconds after launch, the vehicle is travelling very fast and it would break up from dynamic forces upon reentering the atmosphere. The National Academies Ewg. The significantly lower risk standard established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for ew operation of nuclear power plants reflects concerns about a major catastrophe that could affect tens or hundreds of thousands of people near a nuclear power plant and the potential long-term consequences of a nuclear accident.


Several factors suggest that the collective risk standard, E ccould still be met if the Africa gates were moved uprange. Click ewt to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if 127–1.

In the course of its study of the risk criteria used at the WR and ER, the committee reviewed a number of documents. Close coordination between operational staffs at the ranges, system operators or developers, and the AFMC safety office would be necessary to evaluate risks, generate new safety tools, 1271- appropriate risk standards, and manage risk for these missions.

With space launches, this risk applies to the loss of the mission, property damage, or casualties for edr personnel or the public at large.

Range safety user manual EWR (Eastern and Western Range ) [PDF] – Все для студента

Page 20 Share Cite. The basic responsibility of the range safety offices—the protection of human life and property—should not be changed. The vehicle must pass through the gate or the flight will be terminated.

Soon thereafter responsibilities for dwr and sustaining engineering of range instrumentation were transferred back to an acquisition command i.

The current placement of Africa gates derived from ILLs and destruct lines is based on risk avoidance.

See Primary Recommendation on Roles and Responsibilities, below. Peterson Air Force Base, Colo.: Hazardous material storage Hong Kong. If a vehicle fails to turn downrange by the specified time the flight is terminated. Primary Recommendation on Africa Gates.

In addition to the operational workforce, each AFSPC range safety office also has an engineering workforce that establishes flight safety system design and testing requirements and certifies that flight safety systems meet safety requirements at the component, subsystem, and system levels.

Because the launch rate is quite low compared to the rate at which new technologies are developed, however, it can be difficult to predict the performance of new vehicles or systems using historical data. Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free? Safety procedures based on risk avoidance should be replaced with procedures consistent with the risk management philosophy specified by EWR Commercial nuclear power plants United States.


Numbers indicate time after launch in seconds. In parallel with this study, SMC, which is part of AFMC, initiated a study to document the sources of requirements, determine which requirements are design solutions, and identify the actual standards represented by design solutions. Population modeling is described in Appendix E. Ensuring that safety analyses are accurate and free of unnecessary conservatism will help minimize the temptation to discount their results.


Sign up for email notifications and we’ll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they’re released. In addition, the safety office could also 127-11, procure, 17-1 certify standard flight safety systems and make them available to users.

The final outputs of the assessment are used prior to launch with statistical wind profiles to determine whether the launch meets safety criteria and where evacuations are required. Destruct lines and flight termination system requirements should be defined and implemented in a way that is directly traceable to accepted risk standards. The goal should be to obtain the most accurate answer, not the most conservative one.

Findings and Recommendations 43—45 Appendix B: A collective risk wwr i. However, the AFMC safety office described above would also have to certify the safety of flight and ground systems for commercial space launches and other activities at the ER and WR e.

Our interpretation is that DoD Directive