Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix A: Findings and Recommendations
Pages 43-45

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 43...
... Finding 3-2. The complete transfer of range safety development, developmental testing and evaluation, and sustaining engineering to AFMC would, if properly implemented, increase efficiency and reduce costs without compromising safety by eliminating overlapping responsibilities between the ranges and AFMC, by minimizing differences in range safety policies and procedures applicable to the Western and Eastern Ranges, and by enabling users to deal with a single office when seeking approval to use new or modified systems on both ranges.
From page 44...
... 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 STREAMLINING SPACE LAUNCH RANGE SAFETY uprange. If other requirements for downrange tracking exist, AFSPC should validate those requirements and reexamine this recommendation in light of the additional requirements.
From page 45...
... A limit of 1 x 10-5 for individual ship-hit probability, Pi, is reasonable and consistent with an Ec of 30 x 10-6. However, the use of collective risk in the Eastern Range ship exclusion process is not consistent with either the corresponding Western Range process or accepted guidelines for the evacuation of hazard areas, which are both based on individual risk.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.