[CESG] Following on Daniel's slides

Wed Feb 12 01:11:11 UTC 2025

Hi Daniel,

The updated presentation looks good. Thank you for the clarification regarding the Time Management WG. That makes sense.

Regarding CESG and transparency, it seems to me we (CESG) could perhaps have some sort of "main points" bulletin that is issued within a month after the Fall/Spring CESG meetings that would summarize the main decisions and maybe post it in the CWE?  Perhaps something to discuss at the next CESG telecon?  For example, coming out of the Fall 2024 meetings was consensus to fast-track, as much as possible, BP V7 publication.

Best regards,
-Erik
From: Lux, Jim (US 3370) <james.p.lux at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:32
To: Daniel Fischer <Daniel.Fischer at esa.int>; Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Following on Daniel's slides

This looks just fine..

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Daniel Fischer via CESG
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:14 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CESG] Following on Daniel's slides

Dear Erik, Jim, all,

Many thanks for the feedback. I made some adjustments on the slides based on your comments (see the update).

I do believe the main "fear" that we should mitigate is the perception (probably not entirely wrong) that CCSDS so far has no (or very little) expertise in the Lunar PNT domain but still wants to "push" into the field as an "expansion of the business". That was very clear when I talked to Cheryl a few weeks ago. As such, the main message I am aiming for is to outline the benefits of working with CCSDS as an organisation (reaching all major space agencies, affiliation with ISO, well recognised,  synergies with other CCSDS domains that are needed to build the full picture, etc.). Basically, extend the hand and its up for them to take it. Because lets be honest, if they don't there is very little we can do about it. They were also very cautious when it came to (a) duplication of effort/ overlaps e.g. with ICG - this is why I am offering them to come with the same people to CCSDS and (b) the "slow nature" of CCSDS. For the latter, we should be able to offer them quick solutions aka "lets take a look together on the work that has already been done for Lunar PNT e.g. by LunaNet and use CCSDS to make it an international,  consensus-based, standard".

I do also agree with Jim and Peter that an architecture would be very helpful, in particular to put together all the building blocks needed for a Lunar PNT system from the various WGs. We should work on it in parallel. But for the sake of showing quick progress, I recommend not to wait for it to be done before we proceed.

And I also agree that we have not yet finalised the discussions on working group competence, but as Erik said, we need to pass a simple message. In the last CESG meeting we agreed (as minuted by Klaus-Jürgen) that the main responsibility will be with the (then evolved) Time Management WG with other working groups (and this was the intention on slide 3) to support them as needed.

Does this make sense?

Cheers
Daniel

PS: Cheryl also complained that the discussions taking place in the CESG (at least from the Fall meetings) regards to CCSDS approach to Cislunar PNT are totally untransparent to the technical people actually working on these topics (including her and her team in LunaNet) and I believe she has a point. I would recommend that we prepare a few slides on these aspects for the plenary session in June including also the feedback from the community that we hopefully get this week. Would you agree to this (we can discuss in our next telco)?

ESA - European Space Agency
Dr. Daniel Fischer (he/him) I  Lead Ground Systems Engineering Architect
Ground Segment Engineering and Innovation Department
Directorate of Operations
ESOC I Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel: +49 6151 902718
Daniel.Fischer at esa.int<mailto:Daniel.Fischer at esa.int>   I   www.esa.int<http://www.esa.int/>

From: CESG <cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (US 3970) via CESG
Sent: 10 February 2025 21:06
To: CESG <cesg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cesg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [CESG] Following on Daniel's slides

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20250212/0a598c8b/attachment-0001.htm>