• Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.413-422
• /
• 2012

After development of GPS in the 1960's, the United States released SA(Selective Availability) in 2000 and then the GPS has become commercialized to the present. The result of repeatedly developed GPS observation, the GPS real-time observation methods is RTK which basically always needs two base stations and has a fault of the accuracy decreasing as the distance between a mobile station and a receiver is increasing. Because of these weakness, VRS method has come out. VRS(Virtual Reference Station) generates the imaginary point near mobile station from several observatory datum of GPS, sets the accurate location of mobile station, thus shows high reliability and mobility. Now, the cadastral datum point is used with azimuth, repetition, and graphical traversing method for traverse network. The result of measurement indicates many problems because of different accomplishment interval given point, restrictions on the length of the conductor, many errors on the observations. So, this study did comparative analysis of the cadastral datum points through VRS method by Continuously Operating Reference Station. Through the above comparative analysis, The comparative result between surveyed result with repetition method through total station observed Cadastral Control Points and surveyed result with VRS-RTK has shown that average error of x-axis is -0.08m, average error of y-axis, +0.07m and average distance error is +0.11m.

• 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.