[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] [EXTERNAL] Object name entries

[Oltrogge, Daniel]

David –

I agree with all of your thoughts.

Dan

Dan Oltrogge ҉ Director, Integrated Operations and Research ҉ COMSPOC Corporation  ҉ 719-482-4552 ҉ dan at comspoc.com<mailto:dan at comspoc.com>

From: Berry, David S (US 3920) <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: January 20, 2021 11:02
To: Oltrogge, Daniel <doltrogge at comspoc.com>; moims-nav-exec at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Object name entries


Dan:

Thanks for doing this analysis.

My thoughts:

It's nice that most of the recent works of the group are well aligned.

ODM: Let's leave the OPM, OMM, OEM unchanged. Rationale: If we change them, it could be argued that we would have to do prototype testing of these messages (which we currently do not have to do since all that was added was a "COMMENT equivalent", i.e., "MESSAGE_ID"). Additionally, these attributes of the messages have been unchanged for at least 11 years (OMM) and 16 years (OPM, OEM). Operations software built on the older standards would have to be updated with costs to the organizations that use them. This rationale does not apply to the OCM; the OCM setup is not a problem.

ADM: Let's leave APM, AEM unchanged. Rationale: Same as above (except for duration of status quo). This rationale does not apply to the ACM; the ACM setup is not a problem.

PRM: Leave unchanged. Rationale: Modifying the PRM would require us to start a new project in the CCSDS. I'd prefer we spend our collective energy (document editor time, prototyping time, and especially internal reviewing time) on other already in-progress activities. The document will be up for 5 Year Review in 2 years and we can start a project at that time if there are other necessary/desirable changes identified.

TDM: Leave V.2 unchanged, consider for V.3. Rationale: This issue has not been identified as a problem by the user community. Up to 5 different objects, some of which are not spacecraft, can be identified in each metadata section of the TDM (using the "PARTICIPANT_n" keywords, n=1..5). Considering this topic as a change in TDM V.3 is fair game and Cheryl can add it to her growing list of potential changes.

Regards,
David



From: MOIMS-NAV-EXEC <moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:moims-nav-exec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of "Oltrogge, Daniel" <doltrogge at comspoc.com<mailto:doltrogge at comspoc.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:39 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: [EXTERNAL] [MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] Object name entries

I’ve now compared the various ways that NAV WG standards reference objects.

The findings are interesting (attached).  The current OCM is well-aligned with the published CDM and RDM, only adding an ALTERNATE_NAMES field, but with all other keywords well-aligned.

By contrast, the OPM, OEM, OMM, ADM, PRM and TDM lack the ability to reference objects with catalog names and numbers (e.g. SSC number).  Perhaps the OPM, OMM and OEM and ADM should rectify this since we are actively working on these messages.

Thoughts?

Dan

Dan Oltrogge ҉ Director, Integrated Operations and Research ҉ COMSPOC Corporation  ҉ 719-482-4552 ҉ dan at comspoc.com<mailto:dan at comspoc.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20210120/a8a65adf/attachment-0001.htm>