[CESG] FW: IOAG: Priorities concerning the SM&C Services

[Hooke, Adrian J (9000)]

From: Michael.Schmidt at esa.int [Michael.Schmidt at esa.int]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:02 AM
To: Soula Jean-Marc; Adde, Barbara (HQ-CG000)
Cc: Hooke, Adrian J. (HQ-CG000)[JPL]; inoue.hiroshi; 'Salotti Luca'; 'Martin Pilgram'; Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); Paolo.Ferri at esa.int; 'peter.allan at stfc.ac.uk'; Liebrecht, Philip E (HQ-CG000); 'razoryonov at rambler.ru'; '???'; 'sks at isac.gov.in'; Kearney, Mike W. (MSFC-EO01); Warhaut Manfred
Subject: IOAG: Priorities concerning the SM&C Services
Dear All,

my impression from the last telecon was that the MOSCG might not continue since it is not possible to identify a new chair. However, since the SM&C services have some importance and since the corresponding SM&C WG in CCSDS has asked for some guidance I believe that it is useful to identify the priorities from an operations points of view.

Therefore please find attached the ESA proposal concerning the priorities of the various SM&C services.

Priority 1a: Completion of services that are almost done
The SM&C should complete the work on services, which are almost done. This concerns:

 *   M&C Service: This service is almost completed and is required by agencies that are already implementing corresponding solutions. The effort should be limited.
 *   Common Service: Since this provides capabilities that are needed in conjunction with all other services and since the work is almost the service should be completed. The effort should be limited.
Note: The above services are not important for operations of unmanned missions at this stage. It is possible that manned missions have a certain interest in these services.

Priority 1b: Services that are highly important to operations at ESA

 *   Planning Services: The planning interfaces (on ground) and the corresponding data products should be dealt with first. These are the areas in which even within a single Agency very little standardisation exists. At the same time, these are also areas in which a lot of cross-agencies interfaces are already established, so the benefits of standardisation would be immediate. Since this service covers also the data products it is recommended to also look at the required Data Product Delivery Services in this context.
Priority 2: Services that are of medium importance to operations at ESA

 *   Navigation Service: The data structures are already well defined in the context of the CCSDS NAV working group, so the service layer on top of this should be relatively straightforward.
Priority 3: Services that are of less importance to operations at ESA

 *   Scheduling: There is a lack of standardisation of the interfaces or "services" offered by Planning systems and also in the distribution of schedules to be executed.  Increasing use of on-board scheduling and on-board procedures also mean scheduling and automation services are exposed to the space-ground interface.  The services need to be considered as a set to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to managing the control aspect of M&C, both in live operations and history, by ensuring referential integrity and a clear audit trail from planning request to scheduled task to automated activity to discrete action.
Note: Only the automation services that are relevant in the context of scheduling are to be taken into account  here.

Priority 4: Services that are not relevant to operations at ESA at this stage
This category concerns services that are not relevant to cross-support at this stage.

 *   On-Board S/W Maintenance, Time Services: It is recommended that these services are not dealt with in detail at this stage. The work should be resumed when the corresponding concepts have been widely established across Agencies.
 *   Automation Service: It is recommended that the automation services that are not relevant in the context of scheduling are not dealt with at this stage.
Kind Regards
Michael Schmidt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20110405/17c436c4/attachment.htm