[CESG] Comments (and only comments) on space link directionality discussion yesterday

[Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)]

Dear CESG Chairs,

Now that I have had a little time to digest yesterday's proceedings, I offer some comments and observations with regard to the CESG discussion yesterday on the directionality of space links and related conversation.


  1.  The apparent lack of progress/resolution of the issue leaves the CSS Area with a dilemma of how to proceed with publication polling for the FF-CSTS (Forward Frame) recommendation.  From all reports that I have from the CSTS working group, the book will be ready for publication very soon as prototyping has been satisfactorily completed. To the best of my recollection it was three years ago, the spring meetings of 2017, where a request was made to see if some sort of reference could be provided such that we could include it in the forward frame book. At this point I suspect the forward frame book will be ready for publication long before the issue is resolved -- in the CSS area we may have to figure out some sort of wording to work around the fact that there is no CCSDS standard that can be referenced -- this could be something to indicate that as per common usage in the real world FF-CSTS can use this for forwarding of AOS frames etc.
  2.  I believe the comments yesterday about AOS already being used in real world operations in the forward direction are correct. As such I find it concerning that CCSDS as a whole cannot muster the ability to document this as a proper use of the AOS standard. It is also troubling as, if it is correctly reported, this was already indicated in prior versions of documentation and changed circa 2004.
  3.  We have seen this past week very real evidence of the ascendancy of commercial ventures with the launch of a privately developed rocket contracted to NASA for carrying astronauts to the ISS (which I believe uses AOS in the forward direction). I'm concerned that in this case, CCSDS seems to be unable to keep up with current developments on the world stage and that this may present a risk to long term CCSDS relevancy.

The above is offered only as commentary and is not meant to impugn the integrity or good work of anybody that labors for the cause of CCSDS standardization. Rather I'm concerned that this issue, if not resolved sooner rather than later, will impact CCSDS as a whole and may serve to make CCSDS less viable in general, thereby exacerbating what I see as already an issue of succession planning toward the next generation of engineers who may have an interest in international standardization.

These are only my comments - I do not speak for any other parties.  The comments are meant only for consideration by the CESG Chairs, with CESG copied for cognizance.

Best regards,
-Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20200604/21d122ac/attachment.htm>