1 / 5

CCSDS CMC / IOAG Joint Meeting

CCSDS CMC / IOAG Joint Meeting. Agenda item 6.1 CMC suggestions for improvement of relationship between CCSDS and IOAG. Observation #1: Agency Membership Differences. Chart is “partial” CCSDS has 24 additional Observers SC13 has 5 additional Observers

aolani
Download Presentation

CCSDS CMC / IOAG Joint Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CCSDS CMC / IOAG Joint Meeting Agenda item 6.1 CMC suggestions for improvement of relationship between CCSDS and IOAG

  2. Observation #1: Agency Membership Differences • Chart is “partial” • CCSDS has 24 additional Observers • SC13 has 5 additional Observers • Common membership would improve CCSDS-IOAG harmonization

  3. Observation #2: Scope differences • IOAG is not interested in all CCSDS areas • Mission Ops may be an upcoming addition • Some externals (ILN, ISECG) may need to go direct to CCSDS for those other areas. • CCSDS not interested in all IOAG topics • Process, procedures… CCSDS Areas of Interest Systems Engineering Cross Support Inter- Network Spacecraft Onboard Mission Ops Link Comm Probable addition IOAG Areas of Interest

  4. Observation #3: Process differences • “Top-Down” approach used by both IOAG and CCSDS • Agency-level program needs introduced directly by delegates • “Bottoms-Up” approach also used by CCSDS • Technology drivers introduced by domain experts • Specific mission or technology needs introduced by advocates • Difference in approaches is driven by different scope • In some cases, CCSDS technology development is aimed at enabling new capabilities that missions don’t yet recognize • “Pull” versus “Push” • CCSDS horizon farther out than IOAG horizon • Process differences have valid reasons, and hence are OK

  5. Summary Recommendations • Overall, current CCSDS-IOAG relationship is working well • “Loosely coupled” liaison relationship is appropriate. • Minor suggestions for improvement: • Harmonization of membership would help • Communication of resolutions (“ping-pong”) seems to add complexity and delays. No specific recommendations to improve. Good discussion topic. • Meeting schedule/location coordination • Meetings should be either joint or appropriately separated. • Avoid conflicting overlap (with SpaceOps, too!)

More Related