Transcript MOSCG Presentation to IOAG-IOP_final
M ISSION
MOSCG
O PERATIONS S YSTEMS C OORDINATION G ROUP
presentation to the IOP-3
Note MOSCG: Coordination Group (this group) MOSSG: Strategy Group (to be convened after IOP-3)
Mike Kearney
NASA MSFC [email protected]
Octavio Camino
ESA ESOC [email protected]
MOSCG IOP-3 Agenda
Introduction & background
Goals and process
The MOSCG Survey
Additional findings
Considerations
Recommendations
Proposed IOP-3 resolutions
2
Why are we discussing this?
CCSDS started working these Mission Ops services topics back in 2003. CCSDS has successfully validated the technology and developed some services with many more planned in the future.
The large number of services proposed has caused the CCSDS working group to ask the IOAG to provide priorities. (2009) Resulting questions: Should IOAG give user inputs to CCSDS in this new technology area?
Should IOAG have a broader Operations role than Comm & Nav? The IOAG created the MOSCG to evaluate this request and provide a recommendation to the IAOG and the IOP.
Mission Mission Services Services Operations Services
3
Problem Statement
Mission Ops TLM Services – ISS Current formats
ESA USOC CSA CSA Internal data formats Col-CC ESA Internal data formats SSIPC JAXA Internal data formats ASI ASI Internal data formats MCC-M FSA Internal data formats JSC ISP TLM Service MSFC EHS TLM Service ESA DASS TLM Service JAXA TLM Service MCC-H JSC Internal data formats POIC MSFC Internal data formats NASA TSC TSC NASA TSC Page 4 April 24, 2020
Problem Statement
Mission Ops TLM Services – ISS Current formats
Possible scenario for all agencies to exchange all TLM data; Even more with payload formats. And this is TLM only.
standards
Service I/F Service I/F
CSA CSA Internal data formats Col-CC ESA Internal data formats
Service I/F
SSIPC JAXA Internal data formats ESA USOC
Service I/F
ASI FSA Internal data formats
Service I/F
MCC-M FSA Internal data formats Transactions based on Service Oriented Architectures, web services and service interfaces MCC-H JSC Internal data formats
Service I/F
POIC MSFC Internal data formats
Service I/F
NASA TSC TSC NASA TSC Page 5 April 24, 2020
CCSDS-PROPOSED SOLUTION Statement
How Does This CCSDS MO Service Architecture Work?
Service Oriented Architecture
widely used in other industries
Service Function
TLM, CMD, Plan, etc.
Application Layer
Discovery of Services
(allows automated access)
Transport
6
CCSDS-PROPOSED SOLUTION Statement
How Can This CCSDS MO Service Architecture Work?
Cross-support is based on operational configuration and on security
NOT on a new software development project. Plan Video
Function
FSA Module Application Layer
Spacecraft
TLM TLM CMD Plan Video ESA Module
Ground
Video Plan CMD TLM TLM CMD Plan Video ESA MOC
7
GOALS, PROCESS, SURVEY
8
MOSCG Goals
MOSCG (Pre-IOP-3) goals:
Consensus on a recommendation to create (or not) the MOSSG (post-IOP-3), under the IOAG.
Addressed with a Survey A recommended work plan for the MOSSG.
Using the results of the survey
Preliminary assessment of:
Potential benefits Types of missions Priorities 9
Survey Process
Solicited survey from other IOAG agencies, but only the MOSCG participating agencies responded.
Responses from 33 sources in programs/projects.
Survey split in 2 parts: Systems exchange of mission data types.
Practices pre-mission, real-time, training, simulation functions, emergency support.
ESA EO ESA METERON ESA Ext. Tracking Supt ESA Venus Express CNES CALIPSO CNES GALILEO LEOP CNES JASON1 CNES Jason 2 CNES Mars Sci Lab CNES Pleiades CNES SMOS CNES MAMMACS CNES Venµs NASA JPL AMMOS NASA MSFC ISS POIC NASA JSC ISS Pgm Ofc NASA GSFC Future Missions NASA GSFC GSFC E Obs NASA APL MESSENGER JAXA HTV JAXA ISS JEM JAXA Aqua and TRMM JAXA GPM/DPR JAXA ASTRO-H JAXA MMO JAXA Hayabusa2 DLR TDP-1 DLR ISS Columbus DLR GRACE DLR FIREBIRD DLR Future Missions DLR TET-1, EU:CROPIS DLR DLR-Robotic 10
Survey results
Systems Exchange of mission data types Practices Pre-mission, real-time, training, simulation functions, emergency .
4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 ESA NASA JAXA DLR CNES
Good correlation for:
left side of Systems, Planning Systems (not planning practices) “Emergency support” in Practices CNES had low ranking for Medical/Voice/Video (no ATV inputs) Lesson: These are partial responses, not comprehensive.
Post-IOP-3 MOSSG should consider making them comprehensive.
11
Survey – Conclusions on priorities
First priority for scores above 2.0 (some benefit) counting NA/NE as 0 Second priority for scores above 2.0 (some benefit) ignoring NA/NE (casting a wider net) Third priority for scores below 2.0 in any case General observations: Service Catalog was positive IOAG coordination was low 1 st priority (in general) Core data systems: CMD, TLM, Nav, archive, Veh. planning, Security Practices: Only Emergency support 2 nd priority: Systems: Other planning, Voice, Video, CMD history, Telerobotics, training Practices: Planning, training 3 rd priority: Systems: Crew medical, o/b maint, o/b buffers, playback voice/video, SW mgt.
Practices: Science planning, launch, flight control procedures ORIG SORT 1 6 12 22 14 7 2 3 20 4 27 41 30 21 23 24 15 26 33 17 37 36 8 31 5 32 9 13 10 19 16 11 38 39 40 34 29 25 18 35 Prac.
Sys Prac.
Prac.
Sys Prac.
Sys Prac.
Sys Sys Sys Sys Prac.
General Sys Sys Prac.
Sys Sys Prac.
Prac.
Prac.
System or Practice Sys TLM Sys Sys Nav File Xfer Sys Sys Sys Plan - Pass File up/dn Archive Sys Sys Sys Sys Sys Prac.
General Sys Sys Sys Sys Sys RT CMD Pre CMD Plan - Veh CMD Resp Security Flt Ctrl - Emerg Svc Cat?
Plan - Crew Plan - Surface Logistics RT Voice Time Crew Plan RT Video Train - Crew Train - Gnd Telerobotics S/C Plan CMD Hist Sci Plan Ant Man Medical Onbd buf Vid Ctrl Launch proc Coord?
Onbd Maint PB Video Launch supt PB Voice SW Mgt Flt Ctrl - LEOP Flt Ctrl - LEO Flt Ctrl -Cruise N/A=No Benefit
1ST PRIORITY
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.7
0.8
1.2
0.6
1.8
0.8
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
0.4
1.5
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.4
1.2
1.8
1.4
0.8
1.3
Ignoring N/A
2ND PRIORITY
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.1
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.1
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
12
Focus on Priorities from the survey
Legend MO Systems data exchange (CCSDS) MO Practices (Flight Ctrl Teams) General Questions
PRIORITY 1
Telemetry Navigation File Transfer Planning – Communications Passes File Uplink/Downlink Archive Realtime Commanding Preplanned Commanding Planning – Vehicle Systems Command Responses Security Flight Control Emergency Support Service Catalog 3
PRIORITY 2
Planning – Crew Activities (systems) Planning – Planetary Surface Logistics Realtime Voice Time Synchronization/Correlation Planning – Crew Activities (procedures) Realtime Video Training – Flight Crew Train – Ground Crew Telerobotics Planning – Spacecraft Systems Command History MOSCG believes that the Survey results are the best starting point for post-IOP-3 prioritization effort.
PRIORITY 3
Planning – Science Antenna Management Crew Medical Onboard Buffer Management Video Systems Control Launch Processing IOAG Coordination of Practices Onboard Maintenance Playback Video Launch Operations Playback Voice Software Management Flight Control - LEOP Flight Control - LEO Flight Control -Cruise 13
Overall Survey Conclusions
Certain data types scored high on benefits from standardization, others did not.
Details provided for IOAG/MOSSG.
Overall, the survey quantified the need for certain MO services, with associated priorities.
Survey indicated weak support for IOAG oversight in mission operations practices.
Except - Emergency Support had strong support.
Large, complex missions (like ISS and Human missions) stand to benefit the most.
14
Additional MOSCG findings
The operations teams are not currently familiarised with IOAG and the existence of the catalogues.
Many operations teams and managers do not fully comprehend the usage or benefits of this new technology for Mission Operations.
Most explanations of benefits provided to date are technical architecture benefits largely understood only by the development community.
To remedy this, the MOSCG advocates that a major multi-agency simulation should be arranged to demonstrate to operations teams and project managers the benefits that come from this technology. The script for this simulation would be orchestrated by both development and flight control representatives.
This is a new concept (and a new cost) – the SISG did not require such a simulation. 15
CONSIDERATIONS
Benefits Costs Missions 16
Considerations - Benefits
Benefits from CCSDS Standardization of Mission Operations Services After initial implementation for first mission, wide reuse for following missions.
More automation resulting from discovery of services, etc. (interfaces auto-configure, software development not required) Flight control team familiarity reduces team training, increases ability of ops team to transition to new missions quickly. (citing ESA experience) Allows ground segment and spacecraft manufacturers to share services and thus save in development costs and time.
Enables international cooperation in space activities.
Encourages the development of new applications that are built on those standardized services.
Easily configurable access may facilitate the socialization of space activities and services with the general public.
Benefits from IOAG oversight of Mission Ops Systems: Provide consolidated multi-agency input to CCSDS, including prioritization on what MO Services are needed next.
Practices: Greatest need in this area is for bringing up unplanned support during spacecraft emergencies. 17
Considerations - Costs
There will be costs related to new CCSDS Standards for MO Services.
Investment needed in agency infrastructure for new missions.
Both ground and on-board.
This is nothing new… It is the same as all standards investments that have long-term payoff (example: SLE). There will be costs related to IOAG oversight of Mission Ops Costs to create and staff the MOSSG studies.
Some agencies will need additional IOAG staffing with MO experts in addition to current Comm/Tracking experts.
18
Considerations - Missions
In general most missions would realize the benefits described previously.
Large, complex missions (like ISS and Human missions) stand to benefit the most. This is good – The most expensive missions have the most benefit.
“Reuse” from those large complex missions can benefit smaller missions.
Other analysis from the survey did not show significant change in benefits based on mission type (Earth Observing, Astronomy, Deep Space, etc.) Perhaps because sample size was too small. (33 missions) 19
MOSCG RECOMMENDATIONS
20
Recommendations – The IOAG Role
Concerning Mission Operations
Systems
Mission Operations Systems standardization work in CCSDS is needed and beneficial for future programs.
The SM&C MO Services is the right approach.
No alternatives, so work should continue.
CCSDS would benefit from additional “user input." The IOAG should provide consolidated multi-agency “user inputs.” The IOAG should have Mission Operations Cognizance added to its charter.
The IOAG should develop a Service Catalog 3 for MO Services.
The IOAG should form a MOSSG to accomplish these objectives.
21
Recommendations – The IOAG Role
Concerning Mission Operations
Practices
Survey indicated weak support for IOAG oversight in this area.
MOSCG agrees that generally benefit is minimal.
Primary rationale: No early program long-lead times (as in systems).
More opportunity for constraint with little benefit.
In general, IOAG coordination of MO practices is not recommended at this time, except for Emergency Services.
Emergency Support Services should be addressed with high priority.
Needs work for both Systems and Practices.
Not only Comm/Nav, but also Mission Operations.
22
Recommendations – Overall
Add Mission Operations to the IOAG Charter.
Create a Mission Operations Systems Strategy Group (MOSSG).
Generally formed along the lines of the SISG.
Less focus on architecture work.
More focus on Mission Scenarios to support Multi-agency operations. (human and unmanned) Revisit factors (benefits, missions, priorities, etc.) in more detail Rework priorities as needed. (revisit of survey is TBD) Primary products: Report on Mission Operations Service Catalog 3 Priorities delivered to CCSDS to help guide their work.
A Simulation of some MO Services 23
Recommendations – The MOSSG Work Plan
Should complement CCSDS work, not duplicate it.
Should emphasize Ops Concept.
Should not include “Technical Architecture.” Provide the
Report
on MO Services.
“Recommendations on a Strategy for Cross-Support of Mission Ops.” May include an Ops Concept, or Ops Concept could be separate.
Will include new IOAG (or other) processes for Mission Operations functions (like Mission Model for MO, Survey, etc.) Review of SM&C approach.
To find improvement suggestions, not alternative proposals.
MOSCG has provided a report outline for MOSSG.
Provide a
Draft Service Catalog 3
.
Provide
prioritization recommendations
for CCSDS.
May be transmitted to CCSDS at any time, using the ICPA mechanism. (ICPA = IOAG-CCSDS Product Agreement) Orchestrate (with CCSDS cooperation) a
multi-agency simulation
to exercise some candidate MO Services and quantify the resulting benefits to programs and users. Schedule to be negotiated by the MOSSG.
24
Technology Drivers MOSCG Recommendation post IOP-3 Mission Needs and Requirements Inter Operability Plenary Future Mission Needs for Standardization Agency Plans and Policy Drivers ISECG Int’l Mission Programs and Projects Space Internetworking Standards Mission Ops Standards SISG MOSSG Service Catalog #1 Link Layer Service Catalog #2 Netwk Layer Service Catalog #3 App Layer Capabilities for Int’l Mission Interoperability
25
MOSCG: Proposed IOP-3 Resolution
• • • • •
In the domain of Mission Operations Systems, it is expected that the IOP delegates endorse the following:
The IOP acknowledges the interest of and benefit to the agencies in future joint missions with a high degree of interoperability between the agencies’ Mission Operations functions The IOP recognizes the progress already done so far and the potential benefits in the medium and long term for inter-agency cross-support.
The IOAG is charged to expand its charter to include Mission Operations functions, and explore appropriate and cost-effective methods of enabling such interoperability. The IOAG is encouraged to establish a Mission Operations Systems Strategy Group (MOSSG). The scope should encompass all systems and facility types (human and unmanned, flight and ground). The output of the MOSSG should be a study report with recommended priorities for CCSDS and a draft Service Catalog of Mission Operations Services. The MOSSG and CCSDS should also conduct a simulation aimed at quantifying the benefits of this work for the users and project community. This work should apply to the future missions and programs of the IOP, IOAG and CCSDS agencies. IOAG is encouraged to invite other agencies to participate in the MOSSG effort.
The IOAG is requested to report progress in the Mission Operations Systems area at IOP-4. 26
BACKUP
27
History
2003: SM&C (SOA technology) work started in CCSDS SM&C = CCSDS Spacecraft Monitor & Control WG Mission Ops (MO), ground software systems SOA = Service Oriented Architecture (interoperable service I/F’s) 2009: CCSDS presentation to IOAG on MO Services action to agencies:
Should we address MO under IOAG?
2010: IOAG reaction – Undecided; topic for study 2011: Initial MOS
C
G activity. Decision – Wait until IOP3 Much discussion, some consensus, not decisive 2013: MOSCG reactiviated to prepare for IOP3 Membership of 2013 MOSCG: NASA, ESA, CNES, DLR, JAXA Survey responses were invited from other agencies, but none were delivered 28
MOSCG Process
Agencies: NASA, ESA, DLR, CNES, JAXA
Some CSA support early in the effort, but dropped off.
Reviewed results of prior 2011 MOSCG activity
Did not duplicate tasks, instead focused on IOP-3 goal.
Conducted a survey of missions/programs/projects, to solicit external input on these topics.
Evaluated results of survey.
Coordinated with CCSDS SM&C WG Chair.
Brief look at key factors (benefits, missions, priorities).
Conclusive work on factors left for post-IOP3.
Discussed key questions for IOP3 recommendation.
Documented consensus of participating agencies.
29
Survey Process
Asked programs to “rank” benefit from: Benefits of standardization of Mission Operations Systems interoperability services Benefits of coordination by the IOAG of Mission Operations Practices Scale of responses: No benefit (score 0) Minimal benefit (score 1) Some benefit (score 2) Much Benefit (score 3) Critically Needed (score 4) Not Applicable (NA) or No Experience (NE) with this item Problems with the survey: NA/NE gave ambiguous results Some programs scored No Benefit when things were Not Applicable.
Some programs scored NA when things were Not Applicable.
Therefore our analysis factored in both approaches (NA ignored, and NA=0).
Question of IOAG coordination was asked only in context of Practices.
Many “lessons learned” on how to do a survey.
30
What’s already done by the SM&C MO group ?
SM&C MO services framework
Application Layer MO Services Layer Message Abstraction Layer Transport Layer Consumer/Provider Yet to be standardized by relevant operations experts Mission Operations Services Layer
COM, Common, M&C, Automation, Scheduling, Time, …
Already standardized by
Generic Interaction Patterns, Access Control, Quality of Service
Messaging Technology Mapping to implementation language Abstract service specification defined in terms of the MAL Abstract messaging infrastructure Mapping of the MAL to encoding and transport
31
How do you use MO services standards ?
SPECIFIC SERVICE MODEL (Platform Independent) (e.g. M&C) Available standards ABSTRACT SERVICE MODEL (Platform Independent) MAL Develop (required for Binding for your application’s language Language Binding (if not already done) Develop Technology Binding Binding for (required for interoperability) protocol (if not already done) API (calls to MO services) (Platform Dependent) available for your (e.g. M&C) Interoperability CONCRETE PROTOCOL components using this technology Encoding/Decoding (bridges shall be developed to talk towards other technologies)
32
Concept for a MO Services Simulation
The MOSSG (post-IOP-3) will develop a script for a simulation that demonstrates this scenario: An existing program is set up with interfaces between (a) control centers, ground to-ground; (b) flight-to-ground.
New requirements are added to that program which drive the exchange of new data services between agencies' assets.
The development community will demonstrate the speed with which the new capabilities can be provided.
The user community will exercise the usage of those new capabilities.
Time-to configure will be compared to a scenario of the “old school” approach of using an ICD to which both sides of the interface program.
A report will be generated with the assessment from the perspectives of the development community, the flight control community and a project management perspective. This real live operational scenario will require funding by the agencies to execute. The MOSCG was unable to estimate the cost during the MOSCG’s short lifetime. This scenario can provide other benefits: Changing the culture of the flight control team to take advantage of rapidly configured data exchange –
promoting new ops concepts.
(If a new service) Qualifying tests for CCSDS “Blue Book” status.
33
MOSSG Report Outline
Based on (with revisions) the SISG report outline Membership Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Executive Summary III. Characterization of “MO Cross-Support Today” IV. Projection for MO Cross Support 2015-2030 V. Management Considerations for MO Cross Support VI. Assessment of the Suitability of CCSDS SM&C MO Services VII. MO Services Operations Concept VIII. Proposed MO Services Reference Model IX. Transition Strategy and Roadmap Appendix A: MO Services Document Tree Appendix B: Glossary Appendix C: List of Acronyms Appendix D: References Appendix E: List of Findings and Recommendations Appendix F: Ongoing Projects in Mission Operations within the IOAG agencies Appendix G: The Scenario Template Table Appendix H: Errata/Clarifications 34
MOSCG Service Catalog #3 Outline
Introduction Scope Catalog #3 Services Concept of how services are negotiated and shared between centers Human process or automated discovery service process Description of SC3 Service Groups and Types Core M&C Services RT Telemetry PB Telemetry RT CMD Preplanned CMD Etc… Planning Services Common planning services Robotic planning services Human mission planning services Emergency Support Services Emergency support call-up process Services agreed to for emergency support IOAG Agency Facilities (Lists services available in each facility) NASA MCC-Houston MSFC-HOSC JPL Etc… ESA ESTEC ESOC Col-CC Etc..
Etc…
The MOSCG advocates that this capability should be an online dynamic resource, updated by each agency, rather than a PDF document downloaded and static.
The data could also be completed and maintained by the actual facilities or users within each mission, if it is an effective online resource.
35