[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS: Maneuver Message Requirements 1/5/17 update

Mon Jan 9 12:58:13 UTC 2017

That makes sense to me. Is this another case illustrating the need to perhaps consider a more functional decomposition of the standards so that each one doesn't have to have time, propagation, attitude, etc? Rather, they could refer to the standard on each of those sub topics and whatever differentiators are required for the specific issue at hand.

dav
David A Vallado
Senior Research Astrodynamicist, CSSI/AGI
719-573-2600, 719-573-9079 FAX, 610-981-8614 direct
There is a new STK ... agi.com/ThisOneGoesTo11<http://agi.com/ThisOneGoesTo11>

From: MOIMS-NAV-EXEC [mailto:moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Oltrogge, Daniel
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 9:14 AM
To: Thienel, Julie K. (GSFC-5990) <julie.k.thienel at nasa.gov>; Gramling, Cheryl J. (GSFC-5950) <cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>; moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS: Maneuver Message Requirements 1/5/17 update

I think I'm  aligned with Julie's thoughts to keep it generic.  Perhaps something like:

For each maneuver, the SMM shall provide the ability to include orbit and/or attitude time series state histories associated with the maneuver.

I'm not sure how we'll meet such a requirement in the OCM since attitude is not currently present in it, but at least the above might capture what we're trying to accomplish.

Thanks,

Dan

Daniel L. Oltrogge
SDC Program Manager & Senior Research Astrodynamicist
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics Incorporated
Voice: 719-482-4552; E-mail: oltrogge at agi.com<mailto:oltrogge at agi.com>

From: MOIMS-NAV-EXEC [mailto:moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Thienel, Julie K. (GSFC-5990)
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 5:41 AM
To: Gramling, Cheryl J. (GSFC-5950) <cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov<mailto:cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>>; moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS: Maneuver Message Requirements 1/5/17 update

I think maybe it should remain generic 'for each maneuver', rather than splitting by maneuver type.   The split associates a time series trajectory state with a trajectory-changing maneuver, but you may want an attitude state history during a trajectory-changing maneuver as well.   And vice versa if the attitude changing maneuver is done with thrusters.

Julie

From: MOIMS-NAV-EXEC <moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of "Gramling, Cheryl J. (GSFC-5950)" <cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov<mailto:cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>>
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 11:59 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>>
Subject: [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] CCSDS: Maneuver Message Requirements 1/5/17 update

Happy 2017, Everyone.

The attached spreadsheet of maneuver message requirements has two new tabs: "Requirements for SMM-14Dec2016" that shows the updates from the telecom on 12/14/16; "FINAL SMMRequirements-1-4-17" that attempts to clean up the requirements as we've dispositioned them to date, re-align them in a logical ordering, for a [soon-to-be] final set of maneuver message requirements.  My hope is that by following the comments on the "...14Dec2016" tab one should be able to trace to the requirements on the "FINAL...1-4-17" tab.

There is one requirement I'd like feedback on: Requirement SMM-P15 on tab "FINAL SMMRequirements-1-4-17".

This was to consolidate all the separate requirements for an epoch, state, end state, and state during the maneuver into optionally providing a state history file.  I formulated the requirement in a generic sense in order to provide a multi-element state for orbit, attitude, or both, along with time. This is in line with our discussions on the interaction between a maneuver that is planned for one purpose (e.g. orbit inclination change), but that has an impact on both the trajectory and the attitude of the spacecraft.  The text between the square brackets "[xx-changing]" may be removed from the requirement in order to maintain the generic aspect. However, if we want to include separate options for a trajectory state and for an attitude state, then I could split the requirement and include the specific maneuver. So the requirement would go

FROM the single requirement:

For each maneuver, the SMM shall provide the ability to include a time series state history associated with the maneuver.

TO two requirements:

For each trajectory-changing maneuver, the SMM shall provide the ability to include a time series trajectory state history associated with the maneuver.

AND

For each attitude -changing maneuver, the SMM shall provide the ability to include a time series attitude state history associated with the maneuver.

I look forward to any feedback you have to offer on the set of requirements.

Thank you,

Cheryl

--

Cheryl Gramling

cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov<mailto:cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>

[O] 301-286-8002

[C] 240-328-5517

On 12/9/16, 1:29 PM, "Gramling, Cheryl J. (GSFC-5950)" <cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov<mailto:cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>> wrote:

    Hello Everyone,

    The attached spreadsheet file incorporates updates to the Maneuver Message requirements based on our telecom on 30Nov2016.

    There are three tabs.  The right-most tab [....history] has all of the original requirements, the suggested updates, comments from our telecons of 16 and 30 Nov, and the resultant update to the requirements and rationale with new requirement numbering. There is also a new Comments column for the updated requirements.

    From the [...history] tab, I created the left-most tab [...Dec2016] that only contains a listing of the resultant requirements, rationales, and updated requirement numbers, along with the associated comments column. This allows us to work with a fresh listing of the requirements, hopefully for clarity.

    The third sheet in the file is the center tab [Definitions] that lists terms and descriptions. Some of these terms are not currently used in the requirements set, but we may use these in the text of the Standard so I did not delete them. We can always update the listing with additions/deletions later.

    I'd appreciate your feedback on the [...Dec2016] and [Definitions] tab, particularly on requirements SMM-P15, SMM-P20, SMM-P26, and SMM-P30.

    Thank you.

    Best Regards,

    Cheryl

    --

    Cheryl Gramling

    Senior Navigation Systems Engineer

    cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov<mailto:cheryl.j.gramling at nasa.gov>

    [O] 301-286-8002

    [C] 240-328-5517

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20170109/e117e462/attachment.html>