[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Re: ODM v.2.30 Draft for your review...

[David Finkleman]

My comments are broad and cannot be expressed with respect to specific 
clauses.

First, the Mean Elements Message should be deprecated.  The intent was 
to supplant the Two Line Element Set with more efficient and widely 
applicable format.  Russia, for example, uses a different mean element 
model, and several providers use models descended from Paul Cefola's 
DSST model based on equinoctical elements.   The goal was not achieved.  
TLE's persist and are incontrovertibly institutionalized despite their 
well demonstrated deficiencies.

Second, the Orbit Hybrid Message should be omitted.  There are many 
substantive comments on the proposed Hybrid message whose resolution is 
to defer until the next meeting.   In addition, a standard with a 
preponderance of optional elements is not a standard.  We faced a 
similar issue with the CDM.   What is required is consensus on the 
minimum necessary for effective use.   The credibility of a provider is 
questionable when essential information is missing.   Optional elements 
are not the prerogative of the provider.  They must be negotiated 
between provider and recipient.   This not a standard; it is an ICD.  
Anything private between two parties is not a standard. In fact, 26699 
states that it is a guide for those who wish private agreements.

Finally, SC14/WG3 is the designated parallel developer, demonstrated by 
the agreement between SC13 and SC14 that led to the ISO registration 
with an SC14 designator.   This must be negotiated among SC14/WG3 members.

Respectfully,

Dave Finkleman




On 6/28/2015 11:59 AM, Berry, David S (3920) wrote:
>
> Dan:
>
> I've attached my review comments of the ODM P2.30, primarily for 
> sections 2 and 6, with a few Mfor Annex A.  A number of the suggested 
> changes could affect section 7, so I excluded that from consideration 
> at this time.
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> P.S.:  To all in the WG... please try to complete your ODM review 
> assignment as soon as possible (Section 2, 6, and Annex A... we can 
> deal with other sections in future drafts).  I'm not sure how much 
> feedback Dan has received to date but our target date was 15-Jun-2015 
> (YES, I'm late too...).
>
> Thanks!
> DSB
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Oltrogge, Daniel" <doltrogge at agi.com <mailto:doltrogge at agi.com>>
> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 8:43 AM
> To: "moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org 
> <mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>" 
> <moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org 
> <mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>>
> Cc: David Berry <David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov 
> <mailto:David.S.Berry at jpl.nasa.gov>>
> Subject: ODM v.2.30 Draft for your review...
>
> Per my ODM revision action item, here is draft ODM v.2.30 which 
> incorporates all of the 15 suggested revisions that you kindly 
> provided me at the Pasadena CCSDS meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dan
>
> Daniel L. Oltrogge
>
> SDC Program Manager & Senior Research Astrodynamicist
>
> Center for Space Standards and Innovation
>
> Analytical Graphics Incorporated
>
> Voice: 719-660-5142; E-mail: oltrogge at agi.com <mailto:oltrogge at agi.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC mailing list
> MOIMS-NAV-EXEC at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-nav-exec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20150628/38a6b6da/attachment.html>