=?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[Sls-rfm]_CCSDS_Review_of_CCSDS_401.0-P-25.1, _Radio_?= Frequency and Modulation Systems­Part 1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft

[Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670)]

Enrico,

My comments are:

  1.  ESA-MB-01:  The addition of proposed text to specify pi/2-BPSK symbols is inconsistent with the rest of the text that recommends only QPSK, OQPSK, 8PSK, 16APSK, 32APSK, or 64APSK, modulations.  In addition, since pi/2-BPSK only exist in CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and CCSDS 131.2-B-1 and not in 401.0-B, it has not been studied formally as a modulation technique where we would need evaluate the modulation and demodulation complexities.  I would reject this RID.
  2.  ESA-SM-01: The inclusion of 10Hz-100Hz specification of the phase noise mask is necessary because there is no lower bound on symbol rate of the recommendation.  Recommends (2) in fact specifies QPSK, OQPSK, or 8PSK modulations below 10 Ms/s where there could be significant AWGN noise power.  Missions trying to operate with very narrow of loop bandwidths to mitigate AWGN noise need to know that they could increase phase noise.  I would reject this RID as well.

The rest I agree with.

Regards,


Wai Fong, Ph.D.

Communications Engineer

Flight Microwave and Telecommunications Systems Branch

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Code 567

Greenbelt, MD  20771




From: <sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> on behalf of Enrico Vassallo <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int<mailto:Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int>>
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:49 AM
To: "sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>" <sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Cc: "Marco.Lanucara at esa.int<mailto:Marco.Lanucara at esa.int>" <Marco.Lanucara at esa.int<mailto:Marco.Lanucara at esa.int>>, "Salvador.Marti at esa.int<mailto:Salvador.Marti at esa.int>" <Salvador.Marti at esa.int<mailto:Salvador.Marti at esa.int>>
Subject: [Sls-rfm] CCSDS Review of CCSDS 401.0-P-25.1, Radio Frequency and Modulation Systems­Part 1: Earth Stations and Spacecraft

Dear All,

this is to inform you of the outcome of the above review.

CNES, DLR, INPE and JAXA concurred with the pink sheets.

ESA and EUM generated 3 RIDs each. They are attached for your review.

My proposal is:

1) ESA-MB-01

We were initially thinking of adding Pi/2-BPSK symbols definition as an additional recommendation in 401. However, it makes more sense to have it inside recommendation 2.4.23 that becomes self standing.

Disposition: ACCEPTED

2) ESA-ML-01

Makes the recommendation ECSS compatible (specifications cannot be in footnotes).

Disposition: ACCEPTED

3) ESA-SM-01

The phase noise between 10 and 100 Hz is not important for this kind of missions with at least 10 Ms/s (even for 1 Ms/s that is behind recommends (2)).

Disposition: ACCEPTED

4) EUM-XE-001

Editorial clarification.

Disposition: ACCEPTED

5) EUM-XE-002

Editorial.

Disposition: ACCEPTED

6) EUM-XE-003

Almost editorial. In the ESA implementation, pilots are used also for lower order modulations but the suggestion of this RID is reasonable.

Disposition: ACCEPTED



If I do not hear from you by June 10, I will assume that the WG concurs with my proposed disposition and will send disposed RIDs and final version of the recommendation to the CCSDS management for approval.

Regards, Enrico




This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20160519/c528ab3e/attachment.html>