[Sea-sa] Brief minutes from SEA-SA RASDS working meeting on 12 July 21
Shames, Peter M (US 312B)
peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Jul 13 00:54:02 UTC 2021
SEA-SA RASDS working meeting on 12 July 21
Attendees: Huang, Krosley, Radulescu, Shames, Slane, Stangl
Review of TC20/SC14 issues – Fred Slane
* Review the two existing SC14 spreadsheets that represent its plan of work: a spreadsheet showing all of the projects, one line per document, showing the WG responsible, and a PDF file from Akiro-san that sorts the documents according to what might be described as “categories”, as in “ICD”, “SE”, “Management”, “Design”, “Operations”, and “Debris/disposal”. Akiro-san’s categories tend to be topical: environment, launch, I&T, etc.
* In the Project Spreadsheet Fred has added four new columns: “Element”, “Tier”, “Viewpoint”, and “Technical Area”, with the intent of providing the means to tag each of these standards as to what role they play along these different dimensions:
* Element: space, ground, launch, or some combination thereof
* Tier: Mission, Segment, System, Subsystem, Unit, Assembly, materials
* Viewpoint: Physical, Operational, Enterprise, Functional, …
* Technical Area (maybe really ISO 15288 “Stage”): Mgmt, Design, Engineering, I&T, V&V, Operations
* We reviewed some of the specific documents and how they appeared in each spreadsheet. The set of docs was: 22009 (model of Earth’s magnetic field, largely Physical VP in RASDS ++), 16457 (Earth’s ionosphere, much the same as 22009), 17689 (ICD between ground elements and launch vehicle, largely Physical technical & operational), and 18146 (space debris mitigation design and operation guidelines, mostly Physical VP, but also with design and operational elements).
* It became clear (at least to us) that the four categories that Fred had proposed provided a finer grained characterization of these documents.
* => Action Item: Fred has agreed to look at this in some detail and to review it with the nascent SC14 architecture team. Fred will report back during a future meeting.
* => Action Item: agree to incorporate in the early sections of the RASDS++ update a description of the concepts that power Fred’s additions to that spreadsheet. Definitions of the terms “stage”, “tier”, Tech area” will be briefly introduced, because will reference them in the revised Enterprise VP, along with a recommendation for a project that uses RASDS++ to adopt, and carefully define, their own terms and meanings. Note that different orgs may well use different terms.
“singing and dancing” Operations / Function diagrams – Shames
* Reviewed the file “SEA SAWG RASDS Definition updates 15Jun21” sent out earlier
* Discussed the value of developing a “profile” for any project showing the decomposition, any color codes, etc. The one we use is just an example, the point is to define it for your project
* Discussed the set of proposed definitions of operations terms. Christian pointed out that the European agencies may have a different set of terms.
* => Action Item: everyone is to review these terms, on pgs 8 & 9, and either concur, or provide some other self consistent set of definitions and relationships for these Operations VP terms.
* Reviewed the Functional VP and Operational / Actitivity VP diagrams on pgs 11-13. General agreement on what they represent and how they do it. There may, or may not, need to be some distinction drawn re whether the terms should be different, I.e., Maneuever Design (function) vs Maneuver Design Process
* We reviewed the “singing and dancing” pairs of diagrams, pgs 14-18, where the functions from the functional view are numbered and matched with the activity view and animated step by step
* Peter agreed that these “singing and dancing” pair diagrams, would be more effective that way, but declined to expend the resources to do that. It’s a task “left for the student”.
Next Steps Discussion – Shames
* Peter asked if there were other major items that we needed to address in the current set of VP under discussion.
* General agreement that we have covered the Enterprise and Operational topics as far as coverage, and that the details of Engineering VP and Mission Assurance are to be left to the existing ISO 15288 and related agency engineering specs. There is no benefit in trying to revisit these rather well understood topics. We will just point to these other docs.
* The major set of topic areas where more work is needed appears to be the Physical / Structural viewpoint(s). Will these be one set, or several (structure, electro-magnetic, gravitational, mass, thermal, orbit, propulsion? Is this one VP with aspects or multiple VP? What do we need to say about representations?
* => Action Item” All to review the current draft PPT set and propose specific topics to be addressed.
Next Working Meeting, 9 August 21 @ 0700 AM PDT
* Briefly review these notes
* Review Costin & Ramon’s explorations into updated diagrams and representation approaches (deferred from 12 Jul21 meeting)
* Review any new definitions that people offer (Christian and others)
* Discuss topic coverage among the RASDS++ viewpoints (pg 4 in the updated Ops VP presentation that is attached)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SEA SAWG RASDS Ops VP Definition updates 12Jul21.pptx
Size: 1469454 bytes
Desc: SEA SAWG RASDS Ops VP Definition updates 12Jul21.pptx
More information about the SEA-SA