[Sls-rfm] Fw: GSFC's Response to RFM Action Items

[Andrea Modenini (external)]

Dear all, 
 please find in attachment ESA feedback to NASA/GSFC replies on AI-20_03 
and -04. 

Kind Regards


AI-20_02 Indicate if the recommendation should be for generic 
earth-to-space links or only for earth-to-moon links
NASA/GSFC doesn't know of any planned missions with the 22 GHz uplink that 
are not lunar missions, but would be ok with this being generic for all 
near-Earth missions.
ESA as well doesn't know of any planned missions with the 22 GHz uplink 
other than Lunar, but will support to make the recommendation generic for 
all near-Earth missions as well.

AI-20_03 Indicate if the included modulation schemes and data rates are 
sound
On the proposed modulations, GSFC has the following questions: 
What is the driver for the higher order mods on the uplink? 
Are there any mission profiles? 
Anyone cares about spectrum on uplink?
What is the requirement on the failure rates for the higher order mods? 
Do the higher order mods for uplink need to be further analyzed?
In ESA opinion, taking into account the rising interest in Lunar missions 
by space agencies, higher order modulations (HOMs) would be a mean to 
preserve the available spectrum in case of future RFI risks.
Although on today's date there are no mission profiles asking for HOMs, it 
is understood that manned mission could require hundred of Mbps, with 
coding rate as low as 1/2 (see IOAG report on Future lunar mission). 
Considering that the available spectrum is just 600 MHz, and spatial 
separation between Lunar missions could be limited, ESA believes some HOMs 
(not all of them) should be included into the standard as possible way to 
tackle RFI.
A possible starting point, could be to adopt the same ACMs that are 
adopted in CCSDS 401 (2.4.17A) B-3, up to 8PSK, that also make some 
harmonisation with Near Earth Space-to-Earth links.


HE Space Operations for ESA - European Space Agency
Ph.D. Andrea Modenini
Communication Systems & Technologies Engineer 
TT&C and PDT Systems & Techniques Section (TEC-EST)
RF Systems Division
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299
NL-2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
andrea.modenini at esa.int | www.esa.int
T +31 71 56 53439



From:   Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int
To:     sls-rfm at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:   14-12-20 08:57
Subject:        [Sls-rfm] Fw: GSFC's Response to RFM Action Items
Sent by:        "SLS-RFM" <sls-rfm-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



Dear All, 

please find below the response by NASA/GSFC on AI-20_02, -03 and -04. 

I guess that response to AI_20-03 may trigger further actions on the 
proponents of the relevant recommendation. 

Best Regards, Enrico 

----- Forwarded by Enrico Vassallo/esoc/ESA on 14/12/20 08:53 ----- 

From:        "Lee, Wing-tsz (GSFC-5670)" <wing-tsz.lee-1 at nasa.gov> 
To:        "Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int" <Enrico.Vassallo at esa.int> 
Cc:        "Fong, Wai H. (GSFC-5670)" <wai.h.fong at nasa.gov>, "Rodriguez, 
Shannon (GSFC-5670)" <shannon.rodriguez-1 at nasa.gov>, "Sank, Victor J. 
(GSFC-567.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]" 
<victor.j.sank at nasa.gov>, "Huang, Wei-Chung. (GSFC-5670)" 
<weichung.huang at nasa.gov> 
Date:        11/12/20 19:58 
Subject:        GSFC's Response to RFM Action Items 


Enrico,
 
Below is GSFC’s response to the RFM WG action items:
 
AI-20_02         Indicate if the recommendation should be for generic 
earth-to-space links or only for earth-to-moon links
NASA/GSFC doesn't know of any planned missions with the 22 GHz uplink that 
are not lunar missions, but would be ok with this being generic for all 
near-Earth missions.
 
AI-20_03         Indicate if the included modulation schemes and data 
rates are sound
On the proposed modulations, GSFC has the following questions:
What is the driver for the higher order mods on the uplink? 
Are there any mission profiles? 
Anyone cares about spectrum on uplink?
What is the requirement on the failure rates for the higher order mods? 
Do the higher order mods for uplink need to be further analyzed?
  
AI-20_04        Provide additional considering and recommends as needed
None, since we don't have any other mission profiles to consider.
 
Thank you,
GSFC RFM WG Members (Shannon, Wai, Victor, Wing)
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may 
contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or 
dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies 
appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA 
Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

_______________________________________________
SLS-RFM mailing list
SLS-RFM at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sls-rfm




This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sls-rfm/attachments/20210113/4c8d90cf/attachment.htm>