From Mario.Merri at esa.int Tue Dec 2 05:24:34 2008 From: Mario.Merri at esa.int (Mario.Merri@esa.int) Date: Tue Dec 2 04:50:10 2008 Subject: [Moims-sc] Proposal to change SM&C into MO In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20081127110115.02c004f8@mail.jpl.nasa.gov> Message-ID: Adrian, my original note was targeted mainly to the WG people and, despite not including any secret, it omitted some of the background discussions that took place in the WG before. So, it might have looked a little bit out of context to you. Below, I will try to elaborate a little bit more on the issues you raised. ***Change of Name Since the beginning, the SM&C WG has been indeed covering end-2-end MO services at application level and it is not a case that our already published Green Book has the title "Mission Operations Services Concept". We have currently earmarked some 10 MO services and we always said that the list is flexible, i.e. can grow or shrink. Where the MOIMS should stop is a good question: I think the key words here are "Application level" and "end-2-end". The WG seems to have 2 main problems with the current name: 1) Considering the above, the name SM&C significantly reduce the scope of what we are doing. We are not just M&C a spacecraft. 2) Additionally, and I face this problem on a daily basis at ESA, it sends the wrong message to the uninitiated listener (who might be decision makers): standardisation in the SM&C area is often understood as a technology that allows cross M&C of spacecraft across agencies. While this is in principle possible using the standards that we develop, it is clearly not a need for any agency. This implies that the usefulness of SM&C standardisation is challenged all the times. >From the replies I got from the WG members, the majority is in agreement to change from SM&C to MO in the document titles (Yes: BNSC, CNES, CSA, DLR, ESA; No: FSA). There is some concern on whether this change should be extended also to the WG name, mainly because SM&C is somehow a known trademark. Therefore, I will instruct the WG to change the titles of the documents. We will discuss more on the WG name change. ***Applicability of SM&C to Space or Ground Segments One of the key design driver of the MO services has always been that they make no assumption on the physical location of the service. This implies that migration of a service (or part of it) from ground to space is in our plans. Here there are plenty of examples that could be made, starting from the Core SM&C service that could be similarly used to monitor a spacecraft or a remote ground object, for instance a ground station (here I already raised you attention to the duplication that is happening in the CSS area with the ground station monitoring service). The bottom line is that, for the time being, I think it would be smarter to focus our applicability more strongly on the ground segment simply because acceptance on the ground will be easier for obvious reasons. Clearly, SM&C will always retain its end-2-end characteristics and the space segment cannot be out. It is just easier to learn to walk first and then start running! This has no impact on the work, it is just a slight "communications" or "public relation" steer. ****international* mission operations interoperability points Here I could also give a few examples, which I would like to see reflected at IOAG level (as you know, I am not involved in IOAG). - MO Core service * Agency B received TM from the S/C of Agency A using Agency A mission control system as a proxy of the S/C * Agency B sends TC to the S/C of Agency A using Agency A mission control system as a proxy of the S/C - MO Planing Service * Agency B sends planning requests to Agency A mission planning system for a given S/C * Agency B receives planning information/status on its planned activities from Agency A mission planning system for a given S/C - MO Flight Dynamics service * In a cooperative mission, Agency B offers Flight Dynamics services (orbit/attitude determination) to Agency A I could continue. As you can see there are a lot of possibilities also at interoperability level across agencies. It might be an idea that the WG produces a short TN highlighting what are the intra and inter operability possibilities offered by MO services. What do you think? Best regards, __Mario "Adrian J. Hooke" To "Mario.Merri@esa.int" 27/11/2008 17:16 cc "moims-sc@mailman.ccsds.org" , "CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - ADs" Subject Re: [Moims-sc] Proposal to change SM&C into MO Mario: I do agree that it would be useful to change the title of the working group. However, "Mission Operations" is a big topic. Are you proposing to be one big WG that covers *all* aspects of mission operations - in which case what function does the MOIMS Area perform? Certainly, at this point in time the focus of "SM&C" should be within the ground segment. However, it is still not quite clear to many of us where the *international* mission operations interoperability points in the ground segment should be. Will you be addressing this, as well as how this work will fit into the sphere of interest of the IOAG? Is there a case to be made for segregating *inter*operability across Agency boundaries from *intra*operability within a single Agency (or within a subset of politically-confederated Agencies)? I am a bit concerned about abandoning the space segment. There is certainly a valid *intra*operability reason to have a basic spacecraft command and control capability standardized, running over SIS and SLS services. Emergency commanding may extend this to *inter*operability. Your comment about "without preventing their eventual applicability to the space segment" therefore worries me, because it is unlikely that such applicability will be serendipitous: it needs to be designed-in. Best regards Adrian At 06:19 AM 11/26/2008, Mario.Merri@esa.int wrote: >Dear all, > >I have a couple of suggestions/proposals that I would like to bring to your >attention: > >1. At this time, we should, wherever possible, mainly target our deliverables >to the ground segment as opposed to the space segment (without preventing >their eventual applicability to the space segment). It is clear to me now >that, if we push too much on the space segment side, we will fail as it would >be too much of a change for a lot of people. > >2. I propose to replace in the title of our documents SM&C with MO (Mission >Operations). SM&C is much too restrictive and gives the wrong impression that >we are writing standards so that Agency A can control the spacecraft of >Agengy B, which horrifies a lot of people. > >3. I propose to have some naming convention for the titles that will allow >better sorting of the documents when listed in alphabetical order (for >example on the CWE website). For instance: > >- for MAL: "MO Message Abstraction Layer" >- for reference model: "MO Reference Model" >- for service BB: "MO Service: Common", "MO Service: Planning", "MO Service: >Remote Buffer Management" >- for language binding: "MO language API: Java", "MO language API: C++" >- for technology binding: "MO Technology Mapping: Space Packet" > >Let me know urgently what do you think and if you have any alternative >convention to propose. > >Regards, >__Mario >_______________________________________________ >Moims-sc mailing list >Moims-sc@mailman.ccsds.org >http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-sc From Mario.Merri at esa.int Fri Dec 5 12:21:28 2008 From: Mario.Merri at esa.int (Mario.Merri@esa.int) Date: Fri Dec 5 11:46:58 2008 Subject: [Moims-sc] New names of SM&C documents Message-ID: As agreed, I have changed the names of the document. The new names can be found at http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/Lists/Framework/AllItems.aspx you need to click on "Click here" next to "2.4 Spacecraft Monitoring and Control Working Group". Regards, __Mario From Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk Mon Dec 8 10:40:44 2008 From: Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk (Sam Cooper) Date: Mon Dec 8 10:06:18 2008 Subject: [Moims-sc] Updated version of the MO Concept Green book for review Message-ID: <3258DBDEDE979E4DBEEC0565338E181E0113871E@mx-bri-exch0.scisys.co.uk> Dear All, Sorry for the delay in getting this out for review. It has been updated to realign it with the concept as it currently stands: http://cwe.ccsds.org/moims/docs/MOIMS-SMandC/Draft%20Documents/Concept%2 0Green%20Book/520x0g3[A4master]-issue%203.doc The schedule had two weeks for comments to be made on this copy but as this is a difficult time of year with holidays I am happy for this to be extended until the end of the year i.e. I won't process the responses until 2009. I am also assuming that most comments would be of an editorial level and therefore I am more than happy for people to edit a copy using change tracking and send me the changes rather than having to use the complexity of Bugzilla. Regards, Sam. The Directors and Staff of SciSys would like to take this opportunity to wish all customers, suppliers and business partners Best Wishes for the Festive Season and a very happy New Year Instead of issuing Christmas cards, the company will be making a donation to the following registered charities: Alzheimers Society, British Heart Foundation, Children's Hospice South West and Macmillan Cancer Support SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. * Before printing, please think about the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-sc/attachments/20081208/5983253a/attachment.htm From Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk Fri Dec 19 09:10:29 2008 From: Sam.Cooper at scisys.co.uk (Sam Cooper) Date: Fri Dec 19 08:36:18 2008 Subject: [Moims-sc] MAL prototyping Message-ID: <3258DBDEDE979E4DBEEC0565338E181E09F700@mx-bri-exch0.scisys.co.uk> Dear All, Through another project my company is undertaking for Eumetsat (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) something very interesting has come up . They are looking at using the CCSDS services as a backbone for the ground systems for their next generation of science spacecraft and they want a proof of concept prototype of the parameter service over the MAL. Their main requirement is to show the levels of performance that can be achieved using this layering and backbone concept, something that is very much worth us investigating regardless. The difficulty is that they want this by the end of February 2009. We've scoped the work and think it will require four weeks of my time to do the actual prototype. This has an impact on the schedule for the books, mainly it means that the update to the MAL for comments wouldn't be available until mid Feb, and that also there would be a delay of approximately one month added to Common & Core services. I realise that the update to the MAL should be out at the beginning of January but I've been disrupted by other projects. This, I feel, is an important exercise for us to undertake as it shows a real interest from another operator in our work and we would want to encourage their involvement. Another big advantage for us is that this work is an early prototype of the MAL and Core parameter service and it allows us to check our work before we publish the documents for Agency review. I have discussed this with Mario and he agrees that it is a positive reason for having the delay but I wanted to make you all aware of this now rather than just miss the deadlines. The the changed dates for the book schedule are below (dates are DD/MM/YYYY): MAL: Draft circulated : 16/2/2009 Comments by : 2/3/2009 Submitted to AD : 9/3/2009 Secreat processing : 11/3/2009 First Agency Review : 30/3/2009 Document Approved : 15/7/2009 Common & Core: Draft circulated : 2/7/2009 Comments by : 30/7/2009 Submitted to AD : 3/8/2009 Secreat processing : 6/8/2009 First Agency Review : 17/9/2009 RID Resolution : 30/11/2009 Prototyping : 30/11/2009 Document Approved : 15/1/2010 Please, of course, send me any thoughts or comments you have but I shall be out of the office until the 6th of January on holiday just in case you think I am ignoring you! Many regards, Sam. PS. Happy xmas and new year! The Directors and Staff of SciSys would like to take this opportunity to wish all customers, suppliers and business partners Best Wishes for the Festive Season and a very happy New Year Instead of issuing Christmas cards, the company will be making a donation to the following registered charities: Alzheimers Society, British Heart Foundation, Children's Hospice South West and Macmillan Cancer Support SciSys UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4373530. Registered Office: Methuen Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 0GB, UK. * Before printing, please think about the environment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-sc/attachments/20081219/e20d290f/attachment.html