[Smwg] Inputs for PIF

Barkley, Erik J (3970) erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Sat Sep 23 01:24:11 UTC 2017


Thank you for taking a look and the comments.  Below please find some responses.

CSSM Colleagues,

If you have any inputs, thoughts please feel free to post them.  I'd like to see if we can arrive at an agreed update plan for the draft white book and then to think about getting agency review underway.

Best regards,

From: Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de [mailto:Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:45 AM
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>; smwg at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: RE: [Smwg] Inputs for PIF

Hi Erik & CSSM,

Below my short inputs to the PIF as requested (numbers correspond to events as in attached Excel):

1.       I agree with Erik's comment here, this event needs additional specification or naming (like ElevationAscendingEvent5Deg, ElevationAscendingEvent10Deg, etc...).
EB> A few follow up points here:

a)     it looks like we agree on intent here but I'm not sure of the proposed solution involving the what I will call "elaborate" naming. It seems to me that it might be rather cumbersome if we have even just a few of these.   Also, I believe the event definition is to include the angle so the exact degree will be in the event output and so I don't think the addition of "5Deg" it is necessarily useful.

b)     What I was thinking is more along the lines of if there are some well-known thresholds perhaps we should state the names of those in the document and indicated that an elevation ascending and can be returned for that.

c)      But, there is also the other question of the configuration as the basis for the generation of the communication geometry. It tends to be kind of a question of what sort of elevation angles are you asking for - is that somehow conveyed in the SMURF or in some sort of communication geometry request profile or?   -- I think we will have to have a bit of a focus discussion to sort this kind of thing out.

2.       See above.

3.       This one may be treated two way: either it has no meaning for free space spacecraft station, or this would define the closest distance within the visibility range (however the visibility be limited).

4.       Comment from Erik is fine for me and additional (optional) parameter would be ok.

5.       As above

6.       No special thoughts on that. Erik's comment is valid.

7.       I think this is straight forward - if some distance/range is reached (no difference from which direction coming) the event is being generated. The exact meaning will become apparent in context with other surrounding events (like Elevation ones).
EB> I am not sure that the exact meaning will become apparent but I agree with you that the interpretation is more likely that some sort of event in terms of range has been achieved. The most common ones I can think of are things like apoapsis  and periapsis. Here again it may get down to two what is the communication geometry generation configured to report on. Going on that thought a bit further it may be that we can in fact define the "planning information simple configuration profile" as the minimum type of things that need to be output.

8.       This would be analogue to the above, just wrt range rate.

9.       No special thoughts. Erik has a point in his comment though.

10.   Ok

11.   Ok

12.   Ok

13.   Ok

14.   On the first shot, I'd agree with Erik (split it into start and stop event), but maybe I'm overseeing something. I have an impression we already discussed that, but not remember.

15.   As above.

Best Regards

From: SMWG [mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Sent: Dienstag, 29. August 2017 01:16
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG
Subject: [Smwg] Inputs for PIF

CSSM Colleagues,

Some comments and questions are in the attached spreadsheet. These come from thinking about the prototyping and producing a CCSDS PIF based on current planning information that is generated within the DSN.

Not in the spreadsheet but somewhat implied is the ability to add some annotation data to the event (for example of regard to the comment on the elevation ascending to indicate perhaps the semantics of clearing the particular elevation degree).  Also, the current PIF UML diagram has the notion of extension just being a parameter/value pair. Perhaps that is okay, but I think we probably should take a step back and look at the extension techniques that were developed for the SSF and see if they apply for the PIF, and to the SMURF for that matter as well.

I propose that we discussed this briefly at the teleconference tomorrow.

Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20170923/a7e1b309/attachment.html>

More information about the SMWG mailing list