[CESG] Following on Daniel's slides

[Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)]

CESG Colleagues,

I tend to support the approach, ideas that are in the "Role of CCSDS with respect to PNT at the Moon" document.  I think that taking on a PNT effort in CCSDS cannot just be one single working group. And I think it should be the system engineering area in conjunction with the CESG that figures out how to prioritize and look at the standards that need to be produced. It may be that this is really not so much given we already have, presumably, a good start with the signal format from ICG.  Having said that, it may be that it is easiest for a more public audience to grasp "expansion" of a working group in CCSDS to consider PNT more thoroughly for the moon. I will note that the proposed group here is technically not the "Timing WG" as noted in the presentation, but really rather the "Time Management WG". Given that this is in the system engineering area, then this is probably going in the right direction.

With regard to the document, it may well be that some sort of magenta book codifying what is good practices ultimately makes sense, but I don't think you want to lead with that in the presentation. I worry that this will come across as too much "PhD-ing" (theory) versus getting towards practical solutions. At the same time, I think we could may be add something in the presentation to make it clear that one of the advantages of CCSDS would be the ability to marshal and orchestrate and/or tune as necessary supporting standards that might be needed to get to a proper international PNT solution for the moon.  So a suggestion for slide 4 could be to add a bullet point like:


  *   Ability to address supporting standards to facilitate complete PNT systems needs

(nodes that support PNT delivery will of course need to be managed, implying trajectory determination, collision assessment, telecommand, telemetry, etc., for these nodes, all of which CCSDS addresses via its suite of standards)

Slide 3 of the presentation - the Navigation WG and "Timing WG" (really "Time Management WG") boxes are present throughout the entire set of animations.  Perhaps this is intentional to highlight two of the key groups that would likely be involved with PNT?  But I find it detracts quite a bit from trying to present an overview of the CCSDS technical areas.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Lux, Jim (US 3370) via CESG
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 10:13
To: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CESG] Following on Daniel's slides

Daniel's slides and my ideas sort of crossed in the mail.
In the attached, Peter Shames and I came up with some thoughts (not intended for direct distribution, more as thoughts to feed into what we might want to do).  I was thinking that maybe CCSDS could define a PNT architecture (within the framework we already have) - defining PNT unique aspects: satellites, pseudolites, ground stations, users, control segment - everyone has their own preferences for the actual implementation, but CCSDS could at least define a common way to describe their implementation.

Jim Lux

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20250210/49a3e0b2/attachment.htm>