[CESG] CESG Presentation to CMC / TC BB?

[Barkley, Erik J (317H)]

Please read 42 Ghz as 2 Ghz.

-Erik

From: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:41 PM
To: 'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int'; Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group
Subject: RE: [CESG] CESG Presentation to CMC / TC BB?

Perhaps my terminology was not exact in terms of definition of next-generation uplink. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that as a result of the EFCLTU testing, it is clear that the current CSTS Forward framework will not handle the data rates nor the data types needed to support what CCSDS EFCLTU orange book does (AOS uplink + isochronous data delivery types). The agency review of the framework resulted in a RID indicating that the forward framework was too oriented towards today's robotic only very low rate telecommand (probably very deep space oriented?) application. We may also wish to keep in mind that CCSDS 415 has been published (Data Transmission and PN Ranging 42 GHz CDMA Link Via Data Relay Satellite) which is a specification related to telemetry, command, and ranging that supports such operations as the NASA space network (and was agreed to by the SNIP, which included ESA, NASA, JAXA).    NASA's relay satellite currently has uplinks on the order of 25 Mb per second and is aiming to go to 50 Mb per second to the best of my knowledge.  The basic issue is that there is no way, as currently constructed for the CSTS forward component of the framework to achieve these data rates given its current stop-and-wait approach (which works fine for a 4Kbps type uplink).  Therefore I think the CSTS working group approach is a good one (recall there is a fall back option) so that the terrestrial component of the forward services  is properly supported.

Having said that,  if the powers-that-be do not care to spend the time/resources for efforts to upgrade the framework I believe the difference as indicated in the roadmaps developed by the working group are only on the order of nine months earlier for the MD and TD -based CSTS services.   In any case, if there is any guidance on this issue from the management Council or the CESG I will work to ensure that we execute whatever plan is put forth, but I believe we need to carefully consider the longer-term picture.

-Erik

From: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Nestor.Peccia at esa.int
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:43 AM
To: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int
Cc: cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org; CCSDS Engineering Steering Group
Subject: Re: [CESG] CESG Presentation to CMC / TC BB?

Gippo

>From your presentation it is not clear that the book will be orange

and
if it is orange, why did you create a WG to produce a GB and a Orange book ?

@ Erik: new CSTS FW Option 2a implies an inclusion of NGU (from an Orange book ) ????

ciao
nestor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20111116/df772903/attachment.html