1 / 8

Facility and Equipment Failure Analysis for Launch Pad and Integration Site in Russia

This document outlines the processes involved in the failure analysis of facilities, systems, and equipment related to launch pads and integration sites in Russia, under the leadership of Tsukanov, Eugeny. It reflects the ISO TC20/SC14 WG3 meeting from October 2011, highlighting the development of a standard, the adjudication of differences through Mr. Schultz's meeting, and the recommendation to proceed to the next stage of work. The report includes updates on voting outcomes and a clarification of editorial errors in distributed versions.

marrim
Download Presentation

Facility and Equipment Failure Analysis for Launch Pad and Integration Site in Russia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COOGSI RUSSIA ISO/DIS 16159 SPACE SYSTEMS — LAUNCH PAD AND INTEGRATION SITE — FACILITY, SYSTEM AND EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS Project Leader: Tsukanov, Eugeny ISO TC20/SC14 WG3 meeting October 2011

  2. Process of development of the Standard WG3/ODCWG Action: “Adjudicate the difference throughMr. Schultz. meeting WG recommendation is to movethis work item to the next 2011 Mai 23-26 stage with the section in question with clarification to follow during the next version and vote” 2011 August 17 Result of CD voting

  3. DIS voting was initiated by Secretariat, due date is 26 February 2012. By mistake, not the last DIS version was distributed by Central Secretariat (the distributed version doesn’t include editorial comments which had been sent by Cen.Sec.). We suppose it’s not critical, is it? Thanks for your attention!

More Related