Rosetta Science Operations The planning concept - current status

1. Rosetta Science OperationsThe planning concept - current status Detlef KoschnySpace Science DepartmentESA/ESTECDetlef.Koschny@esa.int Naming conventionsScience operations planning - general remarksThe three planning cycles Presented at the Rosetta Science Operations Working Group Meeting (SOWG) #5, 11 Jul 2001

2. Naming conventions - I • Mission phase: • Based on the CREMA but subject to modifications depending on the activities to be performed in the individual phases, defined in the EID C • Major time division of the Rosetta mission • Mission phase has a definite start event and end event • Example: Far approach phase (FAT) - starts when Comet Acquisition Point (CAP) is reached, ends when Approach Transition Point (ATP) is reached • Mission scenario: • A part of the mission fulfilling a certain set of science goals • Typically requires a dedicated trajectory • Within one mission phase, mission scenarios can be repeated more than one time • Example: Dust/gas jet sampling, Interference scenario

3. Naming conventions - II • Science Activity Plan (SAP): • A list of mission scenarios for the complete mission phase • ESOC expects one SAP before each mission phase • Master Science Plan (MSP): • The MSP describes the science operations for one given mission scenario on top level • Contains a list of the planned experiment operations, at least down to mode level (see tutorial on EPS, mode transition diagram, later in this meeting) • Contains the requested trajectory of the spacecraft • Contains the requested pointing of the spacecraft

4. Science operations planning - general remarks • In commissioning phase: “procedural” approach with Flight Control Procedures (FCPs) • Cruise, fly-bys: Transition to usage of Orbiter Instrument Operations Request (OIOR) and Lander Operations Request (LOR) files • Latest in comet phase: A three-step approach will be used (contents of the three cycles slightly changed as a result of the last review, especially lessons learnt from NEAR-Shoemaker and Cassini): • Long-term planning • Medium-term planning • Short-term planning • All operational timelines will be uploaded to the spacecraft in a “Mission Timeline” which will be executed autonomously on board. The Mission Timeline is valid for typically a few days.

5. The three planning cycles - I • Long-term planning: • Goal: A baseline SAP shall be available before each mission phase. • Activities: • Scenario development (scenario description, Master Science Plan) • Science Activity Plan (SAP) development • Schedule: Has started already (see “Pointing Scenario” discussion, this meeting). Covers the complete mission • Medium-term planning: • Goal: Ensure that the planning process was done at least once in all detail (fly-bys, comet phase) • Activities: • For each mission scenario, generate baseline POR file (based on baseline SAP, baseline scenarios) • Build up a “library” for operations • Schedule: ca. 2 years before Comet Acquisition Point is reached. Covers the comet phase (fly-by phases)

6. The three planning cycles - II • Short-term planning: • Goal: To actually perform the science operations at the comet • Activities: • POR file generation • Update SAP and scenario plans only if needed • Schedule: After Comet Acquisition Point is reached, until end of mission. Typically one planning period will cover one week

7. Long-term planning - scenario development FDT and FCT to provide inputs Flight Dynamics Team to comment RMOC EPS modelevel checks Group science requests, formulate science goals for given scenario Compile baseline scenario document with descriptive text, trajectory, mode- level ops, pointing, events, detailed ops where needed Final scenario description, Master SciencePlan Produce Scenario Para- meter List (SPL) Iterate RSOC Create a sample trajectory, pointing, slewing PTB simulations Produce science requests, document in EID-B, UMs,SWT... Provide inputs Experi- menter SOWGMeeting

8. Long-term planning - Science Activity Plan development FDT andFCT to provide inputs RMOC Trajectories fromscenario studies RSOC Prioritise scenarios, put low-risk items in beginning Compile draftScience Activity Plan (SAP) Baseline Science ActivityPlan (SAP) Order scenarios Iterate Science requests vs. time in mission, document in EID-B, UMs,SWT... Provideinputs Experi- menter SOWGMeeting

9. Medium-term planning - POR file generation FDT produces new predicted trajectory info: -> pointing + slewingboundaries -> event file -> trajectory (x/y/z) FDT produces final real pointing RMOC Final POR to Flight Control Team Final PTR Update Master SciencePlan (MSP) with new pointing; propose changes to mode level ops of experiments - Update final pointing requests - Update consolidated POR file - Check for conflicts Update Scenario Parameter List (SPL) Iteration Iteration RSOC POR Fill in detailed ops, possibly update pointing requests Experi- menter Provideinputs Provideinputs FDT = Flight Dynamics Team

10. Short-term planning - POR file generation FDT produces new predicted trajectory info: -> pointing + slewingboundaries (FTL file) -> events (OEF) -> trajectory (x/y/z) NOTE: The dotted boxes will bedone under major time pressure (lesson learnt from NEAR experience) FDT produces final real pointing, update FTL RMOC Final POR to Flight Control Team Final PTR Update Master SciencePlan (MSP) with new pointing; propose changes to mode level ops of experiments - Update final pointing requests - Update consolidated POR file - Check for conflicts Update Scenario Parameter List (SPL) Iteration Iteration RSOC POR Fill in detailed ops, possibly update pointing requests Provideinputs Provideinputs Experi- menter FDT = Flight Dynamics Team

11. Mission scenarios – Tutorial examples • Pointing scenario • “Science” goal: (a) Point to a certain star, the Earth, or the Moon. This will allow the experimenter to calibrate their experiments. (b) Measure the co-alignment of the Navigation Cameras (CAM), the Star Trackers (STR), and the remote-sensing experiments. • Trajectory: Don’t care. • Priority experiments: All remote-sensing instruments • Interference scenario • “Science” goal: To operate experiments in parallel to find potential conflicts. • Trajectory: Don’t care. • Priority experiments: Depends on details.