<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Lloyd Wood wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid200702090102.BAA01960@cisco.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At Thursday 08/02/2007 16:21 -0800, Scott Burleigh wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Operationally more expensive" would be accurate. See
K. Hogie, E. Criscuolo and R. Parise, Putting more Internet nodes in space, CSC World, Computer Sciences Corporation, pp. 21-23, April/June 2006.
K. Hogie, E. Criscuolo and R. Parise, Using standard Internet Protocols and applications in space, Computer Networks, special issue on Interplanetary Internet, vol. 47 no. 5, pp. 603-650, April 2005.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/lwood/cleo/hogie-papers/README.html"><ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/lwood/cleo/hogie-papers/README.html></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/lwood/cleo/hogie-papers/README.html">ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/lwood/cleo/hogie-papers/README.html</a>
L.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Thanks, Lloyd. I was actually hoping for a study that demonstrated the specific, quantitative performance inferiority of, say, AOS as compared to frame relay/HDLC -- in terms of measured throughput, undetected bit errors, etc. over some interval of operation. Or, alternatively, a detailed cost breakdown of the expense of engineering, procuring, and operating the communication systems on two spacecraft that exercise the same applications and have comparable traffic loads but that use different link-layer and physical-layer protocols -- again, AOS vs frame relay/HDLC.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->But you can carry HDLC over AOS and other CCSDS protocols using the bitstream services - the point being that doing that gives you the layering separation of modem-to-other devices, meaning you don't have to change all your installed base or reengineer as much if the modem has to change at a later pooint to support a different physical coding, while still using CCSDS links. You have less integration, and less expensive reengineering of infrastructure, without worrying about how IP packets map to CCSDS frames map to specific codings or reengineering it as the coding choices change. (Then CCSDS is used in the same way as any modem and channel coding - to do the coding alone.)
As for detailed cost breakdowns: "But we are all busy people, Assi. Considering an issue honestly and thoroughly takes time and money, neither of which are ample for our purposes.". Money spent on such a study to "prove" what a large number of missions have demonstrated in practice is likely better spent elsewhere; I'd be very surprised if you find such a specific study done.
</pre>
</blockquote>
An excellent point, Lloyd. As I was saying earlier, none of us are
eager to
invest resources in work unless we think it will produce
significant value. If a careful analysis of documented communication
system costs leading to verifiable conclusions about mission decisions
is not something that one considers valuable, then clearly one
shouldn't spend time on it.
<br>
<br>
I doubt that a comparative advantage in
operational expense can be convincingly demonstrated any other way,
though. Absent this sort of discipline,
it seems to me that all we've got is intuition, vigorous assertion, and
folklore. Shouldn't one be able to answer a question like "How much is
operational expense reduced, given mission parameters x, y, z?" with
some sort of number? An estimate, certainly, but still a number.
<br>
<br>
But we have wandered kind of far afield here. Let's continue this
off-list, if you like.
<br>
<br>
Scott<br>
</body>
</html>