[Css-rasg] RE: ExoMars Architecture update?

Thu Oct 20 12:25:53 EDT 2011

Hello Colin,

Thank you for the status information.  I can appreciate that you are applying some judgment etc., so as not to burden the reviewer with discarded revisions, etc.  Any thoughts as to making a partial update available, if need be, prior to the completed document being updated?  There is only about 75 min. on the agenda for review of the document and I believe it will be more effective if participants have a chance to gain some familiarity with the architecture/document prior to conducting the meeting.   Thanks again for the information and I look forward to seeing you week after next.

Best regards,

-Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin.Haddow at esa.int [mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int] 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:12 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (317H)
Cc: CCSDS RASG; Villemos, Gert; Mario Merri; Nestor Peccia; Shames, Peter M (313B); Steven.James at logica.com
Subject: RE: ExoMars Architecture update?

Hi Erik,
                I've currently got an updated draft of the ExoMars
architecture document, but I think it still needs some work before
distributing to a wider audience, not sure when that will be available tho',
I'll let you know as soon as possible.

Cheers for now,

Colin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Colin R. Haddow,
HSO-GI, European Space Agency,
European Space Operations Centre,
Robert-Bosch-Str 5,
64293 Darmstadt,
Germany.

Phone; +49 6151 90 2896
Fax;      +49 6151 90 3010
E-Mail;  colin.haddow at esa.int
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From:       "Barkley, Erik J (317H)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>                                                                                   

  To:         "Villemos, Gert" <gert.villemos at logica.com>, "Shames, Peter M (313B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "Colin.Haddow at esa.int"              
              <Colin.Haddow at esa.int>                                                                                                                   

  Cc:         Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>, Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int>, CCSDS RASG <CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org>                        

  Date:       13/10/2011 20:25                                                                                                                         

  Subject:    RE: ExoMars Architecture update?                                                                                                         

Hello Gert,

I hope everything is going well for you. I would like to inquire as to your
estimation for the document being available for the upcoming CCSDS meetings.
I would like to reserve some time on the RASIG agenda for review and
discussion of the architecture document. Thank you very much in advance for
any update as to the availability of the document.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Villemos, Gert [mailto:gert.villemos at logica.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:21 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (317H); Shames, Peter M (313B); Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Cc: Nestor Peccia; Mario Merri; CCSDS RASG
Subject: AW: ExoMars Architecture update?

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the answer.

There has been a heavy update of the document and its right now being
reviewed by ESA. Its some rather fundamental changes, but in my eyes
definitly to the better. I hope it will be ready soon for general
distribution.

Kind regards and enjoy your weekend,
Gert.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Barkley, Erik J (317H) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov]
Gesendet: Fr 16.09.2011 03:19
An: Villemos, Gert; Shames, Peter M (313B); Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Cc: Nestor Peccia; Mario Merri; CCSDS RASG
Betreff: RE: ExoMars Architecture update?

Hello Gert,

I hope this e-mail finds you doing well.  Unfortunately I have been extremely
preoccupied with other matters and so have not really had time (not to
mention budget)  for the Exomars architecture effort.

With regard to point 7, I think that Peter's inclusion of the service
management component is okay from the overall architecture point of view as
this is indeed something that has to occur. I have no objections to assuming
that the management port for the managed components is implicitly -- perhaps
some sort of stereotype could be to indicate this for the managed components.
I realize that all of this may be somewhat academic at this point as you
perhaps may not have any further budget to produce any further updates the
document.  Which brings me to the main point of writing which is to see if
there is an update of the document that is to be made available such that it
should be scheduled for some sort of discussion/review at the fall CCSDS
meetings beginning in approximately 6 weeks.  Any information as to the
updated document would be most appreciated.

Best regards,

-Erik

From: Villemos, Gert [mailto:gert.villemos at logica.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:47 AM
To: Shames, Peter M (313B); Barkley, Erik J (317H); Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Cc: Nestor Peccia; Mario Merri; CCSDS RASG
Subject: RE: ExoMars Architecture update?

One comment more regarding point 7;

In principles all services should have a 'Service Management' service as
well, allowing the agreement, configuration, scheduling, etc of the specific
service. I think the 'Cross Support Functional Model' as defined in RASIG and
in the CSTS-RM contains the concept that all functions have service ports and
management ports.

Question is whether we want to model the management port explicitly every
time, or whether we say that a (set of) services has an associated
'management service', but doesn't show it to keep the diagram simple?

Cheers,
Gert.

From: Shames, Peter M (313B) [mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Juni 2011 23:30
To: Villemos, Gert; Barkley, Erik J (317H); Colin.Haddow at esa.int
Cc: Nestor Peccia; Mario Merri; CCSDS RASG
Subject: Re: ExoMars Architecture update?

Guys,

Here are some hacks at the model.  I am sure that I did no lasting damage,
but hopefully the tweaks to the Exomars diagram will help clarify some
things.  I found the following confusing things, but it may just be how I am
reading your intent:

1.        A "Space Link" is normally thought of as an RF physical thing.   As
such it is not a function, but you may wish to model it as a first class
entity.  It will not have ports such as SLE RAF, and F-CLTU, if anything it
would have only an RF port and attributes such as frequency, modulation, and
pointing.
2.        Ditto for the "Proximity Link", which is how "space to space links"
are usually described
3.        I do not think we need to go into all of the details of how RF
links are created, just to model them at a high enough level to show how they
participate in communications.
4.        I added Space Link Production component (and Proximity too) since
we need to separate the service production from the service provisioning,
which is what SLE actually connects to.
5.        You seem to have SLE bits and pieces scattered all over the place.
The only place they really belong is between the elements in the OMOC that
produce and aggregate frames and the element in the service provide that
accepts them.
6.        I added a Spacecraft Tracking element that would produce tracking
and radiometric data, which what the Flight Dynamics functions needs to get
its job done.
7.        I added a Space Link Management (or Planning) function in the OMOC,
which is what would connect to the Service Management function in the service
provider, using the CCSDS Service Management protocol.  I showed it connected
to SLE as shorthand, since the diagram was getting rather cluttered.
8.        The DSN, EDL & Rover, OMOC are listed as Organizational Elements in
the Functional View.   But these are also given "ports", which seems somewhat
strange to me.  I think of organizational elements as being in the Enterprise
view.  If they show up in the Functional View at all it is for purposes of
showing ownership.  If you called these things Facilities I would have less
of a problem, or you could call them Service and Service User Elements.
9.        Everything under "Ports" is called a Service of some type.  I would
think that Service Elements have Ports, which I think is backwards from how
you have it now.  But maybe I misunderstand how you are using this.
I am sure that there is more, but it escapes me right now.

Peter

From: Gert Villemos <gert.villemos at logica.com<mailto:gert.villemos at logica.com
>>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:46:33 -0700
To: Erik Barkley <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<
mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>, "Colin.Haddow at esa.int<
mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>" <Colin.Haddow at esa.int<
mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>>, Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<
mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Nestor Peccia <Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>>,
Mario Merri <Mario.Merri at esa.int<mailto:Mario.Merri at esa.int>>, CCSDS RASG
<CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:CSS-RASG at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: ExoMars Architecture update?

Hi Eric,

Peter send some very interesting documentation on methodology (thanks Peter),
but I did not receive any suggestions to update / addition of functional
elements from anyone. We would very much welcome this input.

I will update the recommendation with the comments raised at the meeting that
I can correct without input. I will be away next week, so it will be the 8th
of July, not the 20th of June as planned.

Regards,
Gert.

From: Barkley, Erik J (317H) [mailto:erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Montag, 20. Juni 2011 21:53
To: Colin.Haddow at esa.int<mailto:Colin.Haddow at esa.int>; Villemos, Gert;
Shames, Peter M (313B)
Cc: 'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int<mailto:'Nestor.Peccia at esa.int>'; Mario Merri;
CCSDS RASG
Subject: ExoMars Architecture update?

My notes from the Berlin meetings indicate that Gert was to receive inputs
with regard to the function definitions by 10 June. In particular, Peter had
an action item to provide additional functional inputs by 10 June. I will
admit that my e-mail goes by rather fast sometimes but to the best of my
knowledge I don't believe anybody supplied any inputs?  There was then
supposed to be an update with regard to the ExoMars architecture document so
that a teleconference could be held on 17 June. The general idea was then to
produce the updated document by 30 June. So far I don't think we are doing so
good on this. Does anyone have any updates with regard to their function
definition inputs and/or updates to the ExoMars architecture document?  I
suspect we need to do a bit of a rescheduling here.  Status updates would be
much appreciated. Thank you.

Best regards,

-Erik

Think green - keep it on the screen. This e-mail and any attachment is for
authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary
material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It
should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If
you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and
any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.