• Advances in aircraft and spacecraft science
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.225-237
• /
• 2018

The difficulties of satellite vibration testing are due to the commonly expressed qualification requirements being incompatible with the limited performance of the entire controlled system (satellite + interface + shaker + controller). Two features cause the problem: firstly, the main satellite modes (i.e., the first structural mode and the high and low tank modes) are very weakly damped; secondly, the controller is just too basic to achieve the expected performance in such cases. The combination of these two issues results in oscillations around the notching levels and high amplitude beating immediately after the mode. The beating overshoots are a major risk source because they can result in the test being aborted if the qualification upper limit is exceeded. Although the abort is, in itself, a safety measure protecting the tested satellite, it increases the risk of structural fatigue, firstly because the abort threshold has been already reached, and secondly, because the test must restart at the same close-resonance frequency and remain there until the qualification level is reached and the sweep frequency can continue. The beat minimum relates only to small successive frequency ranges in which the qualification level is not reached. Although they are less problematic because they do not cause an inadvertent test shutdown, such situations inevitably result in waiver requests from the client. A controlled-system analysis indicates an operating principle that cannot provide sufficient stability: the drive calculation (which controls the process) simply multiplies the frequency reference (usually called cola) and a function of the following setpoint, the ratio between the amplitude already reached and the previous setpoint, and the compression factor. This function value changes at each cola interval, but it never takes into account the sensor signal phase. Because of these limitations, we firstly examined whether it was possible to empirically determine, using a series of tests with a very simple dummy, a controller setting process that significantly improves the results. As the attempt failed, we have performed simulations seeking an optimum adjustment by finding the Least Mean Square of the difference between the reference and response signal. The simulations showed a significant improvement during the notch beat and a small reduction in the beat amplitude. However, the small improvement in this process was not useful because it highlighted the need to change the reference at each cola interval, sometimes with instructions almost twice the qualification level. Another uncertainty regarding the consequences of such an approach involves the impact of differences between the estimated model (used in the simulation) and the actual system. As limitations in the current controller were identified in different approaches, we considered the feasibility of a new controller that takes into account an estimated single-input multi-output (SIMO) model. Its parameters were estimated from a very low-level throughput. Against this backdrop, we analyzed the feasibility of an LQG control in cancelling beating, and this article highlights the relevance of such an approach.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.16 no.6
• /
• pp.467-483
• /
• 2007

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a kind of planning technique to seek ways to minimize environmental impact, a scheme to encourage sustainable development. With the launch of the Ministry of Environment in 1980, the EIA was introduced in Korea. Its full operation was initially driven by regulations on documenting EIA reports in 1981, which was piloted as a decision-making scheme where final decision were made at the development department after considering opinions suggested by the Ministry of Environment. At that time, dominance of the economic logic overwhelmed environ-friendly opinions, but thanks to the fourth revision of the Environmental Conservation Law in 1986, private projects came to be included on the EIA list. This was a turning point for the EIA to become a regulatory system. Local governments are also conducting the EIA regardless of the national-level EIA. In order to prevent and resolve increasingly severe environmental problems in Seoul in advance due to various construction projects, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the first time as a local government in Korea, legislated city decrees to introduce the EIA which has been underway from September 1, 2002. In particular, the Seoul government, unlike the Ministry of Environment, has included construction works on the list of evaluation projects, adopting the scoping and screen procedure scheme. In addition, complementing operational setbacks, the city government has revised and implemented decrees and enforcement laws on the Impact Assessment on Environment, Transportation and Disasters by shortening the consultation period, eliminating the submission of reports on construction, and expanding the waiver requirements in consultation over the reports. Therefore, development measures for the EIA scheme of the Seoul Metropolitan Government will be the target of the research. To that end, the up-to-date data of the Ministry of Environment, the Seoul government and local governments was collected, and latest materials from the EU, previous research and the Internet were gathered for analyses. By doing so, the flow of the EIA was reviewed, and the EIA schemes of local governments under the national EIA were analyzed. Furthermore, based on the Seoul government's recent data on the EIA based on the decrees, the background and legislation of the Seoul government's EIA were analyzed along with the developments for the environmental organizations. Setbacks were derived from the implementation period, evaluation procedures, consultation period and details of the EIA, and corresponding development measures were proposed.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.293-302
• /
• 2002

China in the era of economic transition has conducted the housing reform policy over the past 20 years. Housing providing systems have changed from the free distributing housing system under the governmental planning to the monetary housing system for individual customers. The 1998 monetary housing distribution policy, which ended the 20-year Chinese housing reform, departed from the direct distribution system that had blocked housing commodification. The purpose of the housing reform was to provide and reproduce housing without the expenses of the Chinese government and work unit (danwei), which is different from Russia. In order to achieve the housing reform, the Chinese government introduced various policies, which enabled residents to purchase housing by themselves. However, it took long for residents, who had taken government's welfare system granted, to accept housing as goods. In addition, the Chinese government's efforts to reproduce housing by market systems failed because housing was closely linked to land and was expensive consumption goods, which differentiates housing from other goods that can be commodified through market prices and diverse ownerships. Accordingly, despite a political burden, the Chinese government waived the real distribution policy for housing. After the waiver, the housing commodification process excelled through the private housing markets.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.187-211
• /
• 2016

This study discusses the right of suspension of performance against anticipatory breach under SGA. Anticipatory breach originated in Hochster v De La Tour allows the innocent party to exercise immediately the right or rights reserved for the non-performance of obligations. But it has not been codified in English Law. Instead, under SGA s. 41 and s. 44, the seller may suspend his performance against the buyer' anticipatory breach. Lien under s. 41 and stoppage in transit under s. 44 are given only to the seller in a narrowly-defined situation. Under SGA s. 41, the unpaid seller is entitled to retain possession of goods where the buyer becomes insolvent. But under SGA s. 43, the unpaid seller loses the right of lien when he delivers goods to a carrier or other bailee or custodian for the purpose of transmission to the buyer without reserving the right of disposal, or when the buyer or his agent lawfully obtains possession of the goods, or by waiver of lien. Under SGA s. 44, the unpaid seller may exercise the right of stoppage in transit if the buyer becomes insolvent, despite the fact that the property of goods has passed or a bill of lading has been transferred to the buyer. But, under s. 45, the right of stoppage in transit is ended when the buyer or his agent takes delivery of goods. And where the buyer transfers a bill of lading to a sub-buyer, the unpaid seller loses his right to stop goods in transit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.155-219
• /
• 2004

This paper focuses on two recent legislative developments in electronic commerce: the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" ("UCITA") of USA and the "preliminary draft convention on the use of data message in [international trade] [the context of international contracts]" ("preliminary draft Convention") of UNCITRAL. UCITA provides rules contracts for computer information transactions. UCITA supplies modified contract formation rules adapted to permit and to facilitate electronic contracting. UCITA also adjusts commonly recognized warranties as appropriate for computer information transactions; for example, to recognize the international context in connection with protection against infringement and misappropriation, and First Amendment considerations involved with informational content. Furthermore, UCITA adapts traditional rules as to what is acceptable performance to the context of computer information transactions, including providing rules for the protection of the parties concerning the electronic regulation of performance to clarify that the appropriate general rule is one of material breach with respect to cancellation (rather than so-called perfect tender). UCITA also supplies guidance in the case of certain specialized types of contracts, e.g., access contracts and for termination of contracts. While for the most part carrying over the familiar rules of Article 2 concerning breach when appropriate in the context of the tangible medium on which the information is fixed, but also adapting common law rules and rules from Article 2 on waiver, cure, assurance and anticipatory breach to the context of computer information transactions, UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, UCITA contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context. The UNCITRAL's preliminary draft Convention applies to the use of data messages in connection with an existing or contemplated contract between parties whose places of business are in different States. Nothing in the Convention affects the application of any rule of law that may require the parties to disclose their identities, places of business or other information, or relieves a party from the legal consequences of making inaccurate or false statements in that regard. Likewise, nothing in the Convention requires a contract or any other communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract to be made or evidenced in any particular form. Under the Convention, a communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, is conveyed by means of data messages. Also, the Convention provides for use of automated information systems for contract formation: a contract formed by the interaction of an automated information system and a person, or by the interaction of automated information systems, shall not be denied on the sole ground that no person reviewed each of the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. Further, the Convention provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a contract concluded by a person that accesses an automated information system of another party has no legal effect and is not enforceable if the person made an error in a data message and (a) the automated information system did not provide the person with an opportunity to prevent or correct the error; (b) the person notifies the other party of the error as soon as practicable when the person making the error learns of it and indicates that he or she made an error in the data message; (c) The person takes reasonable steps, including steps that conform to the other party's instructions, to return the goods or services received, if any, as a result of the error or, if instructed to do so, to destroy such goods or services.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.125-147
• /
• 2011

Considering a trend of logistics and transport industry in these days, it can be said that international express courier service is one of the most familiar transport type to the general public. Especially in Korea, due to development of electronic commercial transaction and the popularity of television home shopping, it can easily anticipated that express courier business will continuously grown in the future. However, the legal basis for international express courier is not properly set up so far. The only clause about this can be found on Korean Aviation Law said as 'commercial documents delivery business'. The origin of the commercial documents delivery business in Aviation Law is to make exception from public postal services which has been exclusive status as monopoly based on the Korean Postal Law. Basically, according to this regulation, all the private postal delivery is prohibited except some sort of commercial documents such as consignment notes, packing list, invoice etc. Thus, those documents could be delivered not only by public postal services but also by private courier company according to the Korean Postal Law. This waiver has probably come from under developing condition of Korean postal circumstances, however it should be revised according to the modernized business practice. Reflecting these revisions, the articles of Korean Postal Law adopted 'international express courier document' as the exception of postal service. Therefore, Korean Aviation Law also needs to be revised as Postal Law in due course. In addition to revision of Korean Aviation Law, some sort of new legislation is required to govern the private legal aspects such as legal liabilities, duties and rights of each parties on international express courier. This should be governed by 'law' not by 'terms and conditions' provided by business operators. Furthermore, to support and develop the current domestic logistics companies as international express courier company, it is required to regulate with the separate express courier law.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.