[CESG] Request for a SIG to discuss SCID "band" assignments

[Shames, Peter M (312B)]

Dear All,

During our discussions in the SANA Steering Group (SSG) it has become clear that we really must do the work to arrive at a better policy for allocating Spacecraft Idenifiers (SCID).  We are all aware that we have been close to “exhausting” that number space for a while.  Instead of just discussing it some more we wish to form a focused CCSDS Special Interest group for SCID Registry Assignments (SIG-SRA) to address this and to make a recommendation for CESG and CMC approval.  We believe that this SIG must contain people from key SLS WGs, from the CSS, possibly from the Nav WG, and from SEA.   I am sending this specifically to those AD and WG chairs.  If others from the CESG feel that they should have an active role please signal your interest now.

I think we can do this quickly, or as quickly as CCSDS can ever do anything, because there are only a limited number of viable approaches (short of defining a new protocol with a bigger number range).  And I think we should do it quickly because based on SANA Operator analysis and SSG discussions we clearly have a problem with at least one of the registries now.

Can we schedule a telecon in early October to discuss this?  I would like to try and get this moving well ahead of the working meetings.  In this way if there are topics that do need further discussion in the WGs that can happen then.

The topics I think we need to address are these:

  1.  Revision of CCSDS policies
  2.  Use of “bands” to segregate S/C alocations
  3.  Relationship to spectrum assignments
  4.  Orbital / spatial segregation
  5.  and handling of S/C simulators

For topic 2 we have a proposal on the table to create “Band Bins” that might look like this:

· Everything below S-Band (HF, VHF, UHF, L)   0-2 GHz
· S-Band & C-Band  2-8 GHz
· X-Band  8-12 GHz
· K-Band (Ku, K, Ka)12-40 GHz
· None or unstated

For topic 3 we need to hear back from our RF & M experts and to learn if there is anything that we need to do in regards the spectrum and frequency groups.  Are they considering anything to deal with these issues?  Do they see some other approach or some other issues?

For topic 4 we may wish to consider what is effectively spatial or orbital and trajectory segregation.   This clearly works for “proximity" links of various types, such as around Mars or the Moon, but it also provides suitable isolation when “short-haul” links like 802.xx are used as well.    But because all of these celestial objects are always in motion, and spatial domains will overlap at least some of the time, we might want to consider deep space bands separately from near Earth (exploration) bands.  This could lead to an even greater number of “Band Bins”.

I do not know that we need additional “territorial distinctions”, at least for the next 20 years or so, unless we consider what might be called the “CubeSat explosion”.  Perhaps someone from the RF&M or mission planning communities could comment usefully on this?

For topic 5 I think that we can just use the Band Bin = “none” approach from topic 2.  Or we could even create a per agency registry of “not radiated” SCID numbers that SANA or the agencies themselves manage.  I think that this is really a pretty easy problem to solve, it is just a matter of the most effective way to do it.  Given a “per agency” approach the only situation where there would be an issue would be for collaborative missions where the simulators from different agencies are communicating.

If anyone has other alternatives, considerations, or issues please bring them up using email.  Unless there are strong objections to this whole approach I will propose a Doodle Poll to see if we can find a time in October to have a telecon.

Thanks, Peter






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150915/564ccc52/attachment.html>