CSSM Meeting Summary CCSDS CSSM Technical Meetings London, UK 10 – 14 November 2014

Agenda & Coverage at Meeting Conclusion

Simple Schedule of Services RIDS Processing Red-1 Agency Reviews completed 07 Nov RIDS Total Rejected 38 (50.7 %) Accepted 22 (29.3 %) Pending 6 (8.0 %) Clarification 7 (9.3 %) Withdrawn 2 (2.7 %) As a result of RID processing: - Minor updates to the recommendation - Assessment of WG is that subsequent agency review is not needed - Assessment of WG is that further prototyping is not needed - But note to be added to prototype test report - Blue-1 candidate project to be ready by Jan 2015 Note: RID processing consumed ~10 hours of meeting time (~8 RID dispositions/hour) AgencyRIDs ASI0 CNES11 CNSA0 CSA0 DLR3 ESA16 EUMETSAT17 FSA0 INPE1 JAXA0 NASA27 UKSA0

Service Package Request Functional Components Model Reviewed and thinned out the model developed last May (it was deemed as overreaching at that time) Resulting model shown below Recurrent Requests – for example: please provide services such that they occur every day between 1200 and 1300 hours each day for the next month. Or please provide 3 contacts per week with at least 2 hours per contact as a minimum.“ Chaining – for example: I will take "A", but if not available, I will take "B", etc. (e.g., where B may be subset of A)

Configuration Profile/Service Agreement 19 “families” of configuration profiles have been identified Based on functional resource model Trade study to support “loose-leaf” binder approach (or not) identified To be executed/concluded by mid Feb 2015 Concern is that there are potentially many combinations among the 19 families to be addressed Approach is to see “how bad” it is for the a small likely candidate set for combinations related to telemetry, command and ranging Extensibility here may be of a temporal development sort whereby new combinations are released as need/likelihood for use is identified For more details see presentation in CWE SM/Meeting%20Materials/2014/Fall/ConfigProfileAndServiceAgreem ent ppt

Trajectory Prediction Revised extensibility model to just be CCSDS format definitions vs bilateral definitions Further noted that NAVWG NDM spec defines the CCSDS formats All other parameters in trajectory prediction header deemed to be okay General model looks like diagram below [ Editorial question: will there ever be a need for mixing bi-lateral and CCSDS standard trajectory prediction formats? ]

Planning Data Format Session focused on request format Two use cases identified Mission successive refinement model Request is for “everything” type information subject to very few constraints Return information subsequently utilized by requestor to refine subsequent contact opportunities of interest Typical scenario foreseen is long-term (ed., strategic?) planning Provider suggested solutions Request is with respect to fairly specific constraints Return information indicates likely contact opportunities that are available for booking Typical scenario foreseen is short-term (ed., tactical?) planning For both use cases, planning information is begin returned; ie., booking is not occurring and is the purview of the Service Package Request entity In turn this leads to potential for a common request definition for planning and service requests

Accountability Data Survey Inputs from ESA, DLR Summary of ESA inputs Units of Service defined Policy for charging (and therefore accounting for) units of service defined Elements for reporting on accounting defined; include XML schema definition Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and fault categories on per service basis are defined Service performance defined taking all of this into account (basically ratio of service outage to service volume) Summary of DLR inputs No formal format definition currently Mostly a matter of reliability statistics at the moment Actual provision of services vs availability for provision is distinguished – ie., if not able to uplink but spacecraft was not expecting uplink at the time, this will be factored into whether or not the contact is considered “good” Inputs for NASA are still to be provided For ESA/DLR inputs see files in CWE

Functional Resource Model and Auto Doc Generation Proof of concept has essentially been provided Questions include whether or not the CSS Area registers the functional resource model and the subsequent pre-defined “cookie cutters” (ie well understood configuration of functional resources provided as a standard combination of functional resources). Also questions about distribution and maintenance of software tools For more information see presentation in CWE

Event Sequences Draft outline of book is available After discussion it appears that functional resource model and event sequences are in alignment But worth noting that event sequences may express events that do not necessarily change the set of functional resources being used but rather adjust their performance – e.g, an increase (or decrease) in bit rate

Inter-recommendation Tracking Tracking spreadsheet reviewed Especially of interest are the table of content comparisons so far Should help in keeping the recommendations consistent and also understanding where one recommendation may need to vary vs others, etc.

Plan  Spring 2015 Meetings Editorial Note: March 21 dates moved to March 23 as the 21 st is a Saturday

Thank You Thank you to Participants for traveling to and contributing to productive meetings UKSA for excellent hosting and facilities