On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:06:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Adrian delivered an invitation to organize a panel discussion for
>next year's ISDC (International Space Development Conference) on the
>topic of "Alternatives to NASA". This conference will be held in San Jose
>next Memorial Day weekend. Since Randall (not being present at the
>time) failed to demonstrate sufficient reluctance, he was volunteered to
>head this task.
When Randall was informed of this, he *again* failed to demonstrate
sufficient reluctance. What was I thinking? (I actually objected,
but Michael and Dave M resolved my objections. I plead hunger. I wuz
railroaded. :-)
> XCOR has received the payment for its high-pressure tank. Two
>other disbursements were made to members for parts they had
>purchased.
Ah, good. I'll try to get down to Mojave in the next few days and
collect it. Doug - 300 pounds?? We'll need a couple guys with strong
backs. I volunteer Buzz and Mike. ;-)
>REGULATORY
>AFFAIRS
>-------
>Randall Clague
>
> Randall reported that AST will issue a supplemental Notice of
>Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) RE: EWR120-1. The gist of it is that Air
>Force range safety rules will become FAA doctrine. A public meeting is
>planned for the end of September, at which time the comment period will
>be closed.
Um...
AST has issued the SNPRM, in July. This a continuation of a
controversy they started last year when they issued an NPRM proposing
to adopt EWR 127-1, Air Force Range Safety Regs, as FAA regs. I mean
when Lockheed and Boeing, who are already launching under these regs,
protest to AST about the NPRM, you know it's bad. The problem, in a
nutshell, is that the proposed regs are so strict that they would
prevent all launches, which makes them useless as regulations. Every
licensed launch would have some requirement(s) waived, and all the
waivers could be different - so the proposed regs are also useless to
the launch service provider's regulatory compliance officer, because
he can't use them to plan anything. If the proposed regs were
finalized as proposed, launch safety criteria for civilian launches
would become, "Whatever AST says they are today. They may be
different tomorrow."
Hopefully AST will see reason and set up something rather less
draconian than a parallel to EWR 127-1.
> For POGO testing, Randall plans to obtain both a burn-time
>waiver and a launch license.
This is to give me experience dealing with AST, and vice versa. When
we send AST a real launch license application, I don't want them to
say, "You're who? And you want to do what?" I want them to say, "Oh,
them. They do all their homework? OK."
-R
--
"Sutton is the beginning of wisdom -
but only the beginning."
-- Jeff Greason
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
