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
|Published (Last):||16 October 2015|
|PDF File Size:||15.13 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As a result, EWR is a huge document that is focused much more on methods and solutions than on basic, performance-based safety requirements. The basic responsibility of the range safety offices—the protection of human life and property—should not be changed. Based on the vehicle. Both ranges compute how long it would take for a vehicle to present an unacceptable risk if it flew straight up.
Range safety user manual EWR (Eastern and Western Range ) [PDF] – Все для студента
As indicated above and in Appendix Ethe committee noted that conservatism is, in fact, built into many range safety analytical models and procedures. To account for delays in operator response, uncertainties about vehicle breakup, winds, and other aerodynamic effects, destruct lines are defined inside of the ILLs. For example, models may assume that all debris survives to impact or use worst-case wind profiles.
Ensuring that safety analyses are accurate and free of unnecessary conservatism will help minimize the temptation to discount their results.
The process of revising EWR should include the following steps:. If for any reason the range safety personnel cannot verify that a vehicle is and will remain within specified boundaries e. Users may continue to use more expensive components because the cost of certifying lower cost components and recertifying other related hardware on the vehicle would wipe out the savings of using the lower cost components.
Annualized Collective Risk number of expected fatalities per year. The vehicle must pass through the gate or the flight will be terminated. Obtaining final Range Safety approval to launch can be a tedious and difficult objective to achieve; however, with an understanding of the process, proper planning, and proper engineering, you can accomplish this goal in a manner that is consistent with mission objectives with little or no impact to your program budget or schedule. The Western Range implements this policy by constraining the azimuth of orbital launches.
The last part of this chapter examines risk criteria, risk management, and analysis methods, including the potential for eliminating downrange safety-related assets at the ER. If the IIP fails to move downrange at the proper rate as shown on the chevron display, destruct commands are sent. While other requirements may exist, from the perspective of launch range safety the Air Force should move the Africa gates to within the limits of uprange flight termination and tracking systems; eliminate the use of assets in Antigua and Ascension for range safety support; and conduct a detailed technical assessment to validate the feasibility of moving other gates uprange.
The 45th Space Wing made the following statement in response to a query from the committee:. Safety assessments should be conducted to the level of detail appropriate to the scale and accuracy of the assumptions used in the models, and making the models more detailed is not always warranted. Development and Engineering Functions at the Ranges. Rather than requiring that each user develop its own methods of compliance, the ranges defined many design solutions and included them in EWR as requirements.
System program directors are responsible for all aspects of new system.
Therefore, the ewt of safety metrics tends to be conservative. The current placement of Africa gates derived from ILLs and destruct lines is based on risk avoidance.
Although this Handbook is not regulatory except when repeating or referencing EWRit does contain guidance that will make the Range Safety approval to launch process simpler and more expedient. In support of the acquisition process, AFSPC is responsible for 127–1 and prioritizing operational requirements for existing and new launch vehicles and systems and for communicating those requirements to AFMC.
EWR 21AUG95 EWR EASTERN WESTERN RANGE RANGE RANGE
Areas of particular interest include onboard safety systems, such as FTSs, receivers, batteries, and tracking devices. Operational responsibilities, such as generating safety requirements, operational testing and evaluation, and all prelaunch and launch safety operational functions, would be retained by AFSPC. 12-71 for other ways to read this? The overall 172-1 and analysis approaches at the Eastern and Western Ranges are similar, but there are some significant differences in analytical tools, assumptions, and operational procedures.
Looking for other ways to read this?
This conclusion should be validated by more detailed analyses covering current and future launch vehicles of interest. Despite the inherent danger of space launches, the U.
In contrast, personnel from launch vehicle manufacturers and the ranges indicated to the committee that the safety offices at both ranges which are part of AFSPC have assumed essentially full responsibility for analysis and testing of safety wwr to certify compliance with requirements in EWR In a space operations command i.
In addition, inconsistencies in the tailoring process may mean that different users incur different costs to certify the same equipment depending, in part, on the negotiating skills and expertise of the engineers working with range safety personnel.
Background on Destruct Lines and the Africa Gates. However, conservatism may also overly restrict operations and should be carefully limited. When combined with the subsequent probabilities of impacting a populated area and causing casualties, 5 the risks 1271- flying over Africa appear to be well within the standard acceptable for the U.
Range safety user manual EWR 127-1 (Eastern and Western Range 127-1)
Application of Risk Management. Cutting off fuel helps prevent the vehicle from veering off course and minimizes the size of the debris pattern by keeping the vehicle largely intact until it breaks up at lower altitudes. Risk managementhowever, is designed to meet standards of acceptable risk based on overall costs and benefits.
Detailed, often step-by-step procedures and processes are dictated in annexes. Streamlining Space Launch Range Safety discusses whether range safety processes eer be made more efficient and less costly without compromising public safety.
However, as already noted, the WR has demonstrated that the collective risk standard can be met without tracking, telemetry, or FTS during the later stages of flight.
Next, certain inconsistencies between these accepted risk-management criteria and operational methods based on risk avoidance are described. To manage the safety aspects of the acquisition-like functions specified in the memorandum of agreement, AFMC should establish an independent safety office.
P c can be used to determine whether specific personnel are at high risk in a given area. The committee endorses this and other efforts to determine the validity of specific requirements in light of industry standards and existing laws and regulations.
In addition, print and electronic accessibility to a variety of Range Safety documents is discussed. This chapter describes a risk management approach to space launch range safety. Over the years, research and development related to ICBMs, SLBMs, and other space launch systems have been reduced, and operations have became increasingly important.
AFMC is also responsible for the provision of sustaining engineering and depot-level maintenance for launch vehicles, upper stages, range systems, and associated ground equipment. The number of individual requirements in EWRwhich add to the costs borne by both the Air Force and the launch customer, would be greatly reduced.
At the ER, the measured winds are compared against predefined worst-case winds to determine if the launch may proceed. In fact, the additional complexity may have fwr effect—or even a negative effect— on accuracy.