HSO Forum Ops-Sat presentation
-
Upload
esaesoc-darmstadt-germany -
Category
Technology
-
view
2.602 -
download
2
description
Transcript of HSO Forum Ops-Sat presentation
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 1
OPS-SAT – Evolving Software Technology for Spacecraft Operations
David Evans, HSO-OSA
Mario Merri, HSO-GD HSO exchange
23 March 2012
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 2
A quiz
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 3
Let me take you back to 1994
A top of the range PC was a 486, 33 MHz with 250 MByte hard drive
1994 was also the year that the Packet Utilisation Standard was issued
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 4
Now wind forward 18 years….
It is now 2012 and we..
live in an world of smart phones and high speed wireless networks
are surrounded by “always on, always connected” smart devices
take for granted the ease with which we interface with them
We still interface with our satellites using the Packet Utilisation Standard
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 5
Because its difficult to sell innovation to project managers and operators Time after time we settle for reuse and therefore remain static Why? Is it because operators are not innovative? No, you can see that when a mission has a problem and we have many new ideas in the spacecraft control domain (patents, innovative applications, new standards, concepts) – they just never fly With mission critical software there are always strong barriers to flying something new
Risk aversion Hard to completely ground test - simulation is not real life Few flight opportunities and long development times Comfort zones
We wanted to break these barriers down but how?
Why has this happened?
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 6
In 2011 the ESOC future studies section dreamed up a concept we christened…… OPS-SAT A satellite specifically designed to allow constant experimentation with critical on-board and ground software using modern space to ground interfaces A satellite that’s mission would be to demonstrate innovation that is asked for by operators rather than imposed on operators. Only this would accelerate adoption (and sales for the innovators) A satellite that would be
Representative Cheap Quick to launch
OPS-SAT is born
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 7
The solution
2008: started collaborating with SwissCubeSat (EPFL) 2010: considered embarking IOD experiments on SwissCubeSat2 2011: contacted by CNES about hardware experiments they wanted to fly on a cubesat. Potential synergies and could be representative now! 2011: GSP agreed to fund a CDF to test concept feasibility - out of cycle
Cheap
Quick to develop
Robust
Can carry powerful processors
Representative
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 8
We were not the first with the idea..
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 9
We were not the first with the idea..
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 10
We were not the first with the idea..
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 11
We were not the first with the idea..
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 12
The Concurrent Design Facility (CDF)
OPS-SAT CDF Jan-Feb 2012 1st ESOC customer 1st Software position 1st Cubesat design
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 13
OPS-SAT CDF Core Requirements
• Must allow easy and complete replacement of on-board software in flight - i.e. an open experimental platform
• Software should be able to be updated quickly, easily and often – a complete reload of the entire software in less than 3 passes
• Allow the use of standard terrestrial CPU, OS and Java – aim for the equivalent of mobile phone performances
• It must be no bigger than a 3U cubesat (30x10x10 cm) • COTS units shall be used wherever possible (no new developments) • Cost to be kept below 2 MEuro • Time to launch between 1-2 years from kick off
• Single string but minimize single point failures • Make the satellite safe by design (even without processor running) • Do not assume that any unit will work all the time • Always ensure the ground can power cycle any unit
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 14
The ESOC experiments
The first thing we did was collect the IOD experiment ideas from within ESOC ….over to Mario
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 15
Software Experiments
1. CCSDS Mission Operations Services • PI: M. Merri (HSO-GD)
2. File-based Operations • PI: C. Haddow/M. Pecchioli (HSO-GI)
3. Autonomy Operations and Opportunistic Science • PI: A. Donati/N. Policella (HSO-OS)
4. Housekeeping Telemetry Compression • PI: D. Evans (HSO-OS)
5. Potentially many more SW experiments
• PI: … maybe you • Limited by imagination …!
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 16
Hardware Experiments
Deployment of Drag Enhancement Device • PI: R. Jehn (HSO-GF) • Downgraded during CDF to free flier monitor
Miniature X-Band Transmitter
• PI: CNES
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 17
CCSDS Mission Operations (MO) Services Experiment
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 18
Network
Domain Specific Services
SM&C MO Framework
Communication Technology
Introduction: What is CCSDS MO about?
Ground Segment
MCS
Messaging Middleware
MO Applications
Space Data Link Protocols
Space Network Protocols
(e.g. Space Packet)
Message Abstraction Layer
Ground Segment
MCS
MO Applications
Message Abstraction Layer
Messaging Middleware
Space Segment
TM/TC Device
OBC
Space Data Link Protocols
Spacecraft Transfer Layer
Subnetwork Packet Service
Subnetwork Packet Service
CCSDS Packet Router
Subnetwork Memory Access
Service
Subnetwork Synchronisation
Service
Subnetwork Device Discovery
Service
Subnetwork Test
Service
Space Network Protocols
(e.g. Space Packet)
Message Abstraction Layer
MO Applications
Onboard Subnetwork
MO Messages
SOIS
Message Transfer Service
File and Packet Store
Services
Command and Data
Acquisition Services
Time Access Service
Device Enumeration
Service
CCSDS Packets
Space Link
Essentially proprietary architecture
using basic ECSS datalink standards
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 19
Objectives
Demonstrate equivalence of the MO services with PUS • Study implications of MO on the Space-to-Ground link • Demonstrate control of on-board application using either MO or PUS services
on the ground
Demonstrate selected precursor MO services • Monitor & Control Service • Navigation Service • Software Management Service • Remote Buffer Management • Data Product Management • Time Management Service
Demonstrate the SOA Service Plug-In concept
• Provide an On-Board MO “Framework” • Universities can develop and upload their own Apps using
MO Services
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 20
Scenario A: PUS/MO Equivalence
Scenario A1) Simple isolated MO application • A simple MO-based on-board application is deployed
in isolation from the main OBSW • Very trivial “2+2=4” application for testing communications • MO based OBSW is extremely simplified to a single
application as Proof of Concept
Scenario A2) Hybrid MO/PUS system • One aspect of the existing OBSW is mirrored with
an MO equivalent • Seen from the ground the MO application behaves
the same as the PUS equivalent • On-Board GPS application would be a good candidate
Scenario A3) Full TM/TC Switch between PUS and MO
• Ground user can switch fully between PUS based or MO based TM/TC
All scenarios also demonstrate integration of MO concept with S2k ground infrastructure
TM/TCTM/TC SSMMSSMM OtherDevices
OtherDevices
Primary OBCPrimary OBC
OBC Hardware
OS
Onboard software
Thermal
Power
Mode mgmt
FDIR
AOCS
MTL Services
OBT Mgmt
Context mgmt
SSMM mgmt
TMTC
MO Software
MO Application
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Java VM
TM/TCTM/TC SSMMSSMM OtherDevices
OtherDevices
Primary OBCPrimary OBC
OBC Hardware
OS
MO Software
MO Based OBSW
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Java VM
AOCS
Onboard software
Thermal
Power
Mode mgmt
FDIR
AOCS
MTL Services
OBT Mgmt
Context mgmt
SSMM mgmt
TMTC
TMTCMTLOBT
ContextSSMM
ThermalPower
Mode mgmtFDIR
TM/TCTM/TC SSMMSSMM OtherDevices
OtherDevices
Primary OBCPrimary OBC
OBC Hardware
RTOS
System services Applications
Thermal
Power
Mode mgmt
FDIR
AOCS
MTL Services
OBT Mgmt
Context mgmt
SSMM mgmt
TMTC PUS GPS MO GPS
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 21
Example of PUS and MO Equivalence
PUS TC(14,5) Enable Forwarding HK Packets
PUS TC(3,6) Disable HK Par. Report Generation
PUS TC(3,5) Enable HK Par. Report Generation
PUS TM(3,25) HK Parameter Report
PUS TC(14,6) Disable Forwarding HK Packets
MO Core::Aggregation::monitor::subscribe
MO Core::Aggregation::disableGeneration
MO Core::Aggregation::enableGeneration
MO Core::Aggregation::monitor::publish
MO Core::Aggregation::monitor::unsubscribe
PUS Sequence MO Sequence
… in addition MO expand the PUS service catalogue
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 22
Scenario B: On-Board MO App-Store
Provide an on-board MO Application Platform (Platform as a Service, PaaS in the Space)
3rd parties can deploy and execute on-board MO-based ‘Apps’
Access to devices and on-board parameters provided as MO Services
• On-board storage (both TM packets and files) • Access to real devices like GPS receivers, cameras, thermal sensors • Access to on-board parameters such as satellite attitude, calibrated
parameters
The MO Application Platform shall provide the capabilities for
• Multiple, concurrent App execution • MO-based Inter-app communication
Also IoD for on-board Java
TM/TCTM/TC SSMMSSMM OtherDevices
OtherDevices
Primary OBCPrimary OBC
OBC Hardware
OS
MO Software
MO Framework
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Onboard Communications H/W(e.g. MIL-STD-1553B, SpaceWire, CAN RS422)
Java VM
Onboard software
Thermal
Power
Mode mgmt
FDIR
AOCS
MTL Services
OBT Mgmt
Context mgmt
SSMM mgmt
TMTC
Apps
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 23
Requirement Comment Scenario A1 A2 & 3 B
Support for Java Support required in execution context On-board GPS receiver To make the experiments more interesting to
Universities On-board camera To make the experiments more interesting to
Universities
Access to TM/TC channels Read only access to parameter pool
Read only access to attitude determination information
This could be via the Parameter pool Read only access to sensor information
This could be via the Parameter pool Other onboard characteristics •Memory •Storage •Downlink Bandwidth
No hard requirement (as much as possible)
Communication No specific Requirement
Requirements on the Spacecraft
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 24
File-Based Operations Experiment
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 25
Background
All ESA missions are currently based on the Packet Utilisation Standard
The use of packets has significant limitations in some operational scenarios
Several ESA scientific missions have already adopted partial solutions enabling the use of files as a complementary space/ground data unit
An ESOC Working Group has been tasked to identify an operational concept about the use of files for spacecraft operations of ESA missions
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 26
File Based vs. File Transfer
File based operations is not only file transfer. We need… • Data Transport
- The low level communication protocols
• Files Transfer - File Delivery Protocol and associated management
• Files Management (on ground and in space) - Basically a File System
• Files Utilisation (on ground and in space) - This is the only layer which deals with the file content
A full solution covering all areas is needed! • E.g. transferring files from/to a system that doesn’t support and
use files brings very little
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 27
Spacecraft Control Scenario CFDP
SLE
Terrestrial Bearer
SLE
Terrestrial Bearer TM/TC
TM/TC
SLE Protocols CCSDS Space Link Protocols
Control Centre Ground Station Spacecraft
PUS/MO CFDP PUS/
MO
CFDP in open or closed loop
PUS/MO
Spacecraft Control Scenario
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 28
Mission Data Delivery to End Users Scenario
File / Packet Transfer Service
File Delivery Protocol
Terrestrial Bearer
File Delivery Protocol
Terrestrial Bearer
don’t care
File don’t carePayload Data
Centre Control Centre PayloadSpace Asset
don’t careon-board
file / packet delivery
mission product generation
File / Packets
File
on-board file / packet handling
on-board file / packet delivery
Spacecraft Asset Control via Data Relay Scenario
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 29
Several Other Possible Demonstration Scenarios …
For instance, direct delivery of files from Ground Station to PI
… but also for ground technologies, e.g. • Use of Multi-Domain S2k for the MCS
- Domain 1 PUS TM/TC processor - Domain 2 MO TM/TC processor
• Automation of recovery from some contingency cases • … and more
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 30
Requirements on the Spacecraft
Something that can produce files on-board, e.g. camera An on-board file management system PUS/MO (as parallel stream to files) OBSW that implements the new protocols related to files (e.g.
CFDP and File Services) CCSDS SOIS (it would already provide several of the File
Services)
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 31
Autonomy Operations and Opportunistic Science Experiment
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 32
Overview
Main objective: To validate enabling algorithms and technologies in the areas of
• autonomous planning • autonomous diagnosis • autonomous decision making processes
Rationale: Autonomy operations will enable a new repartition of processes and functions between ground and space
• on-ground routine operations workload will be reduced and refocused on supervisory role
• operator intervention will be required only for non-nominal situations
Three different scenarios • Autonomous planning and opportunistic science • On-board autonomous spacecraft health monitoring • Interactive improvement of on-board software
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 33
General Mission Scenario
Data taken by spacecraft
Event detection
On-board autonomous diagnosis On-board autonomous planning
No Event
Event detected
Re-plan to: 1. Add downlink activity
to inform ground
2. Add new scientific data taking activity in the relevant region
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 34
Scenario A: autonomous planning and opportunistic science
Continuous image acquisition of soil • Conditional (e.g. GPS based) image acquisition (high and low
resolution) • On-board processing and analysis of low-res image • Decision making for down-selection • Autonomous re-planning for hi-res image dumping and site
revisiting Opportunistic science in a target area
• Conditional (GPS based) image acquisition limited to the target area (high and low resolution)
• On-board processing and analysis of low-res image • Autonomous re-planning for hi-res image
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 35
Scenario B: on-board autonomous spacecraft health monitoring
Autonomous analysis of house-keeping data and selective downlink of the following products:
• In nominal conditions, the on-board system downlinks only
summary HK TM • In the case of contingency or not-nominal situations, the on-board
system detects the anomaly, records the relevant detailed HK TM and re-plans such that this could be downlinked at the next opportunity
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 36
Scenario C: interactive improvement of on-board software
During the execution of the mission, the on-board models & algorithms will be continuously improved based on the analysis of the mission products (both science and HK telemetry)
The expected benefits are • Optimise the image analysis and selection • Increase the capability of performing opportunistic science • Optimise the use of the downlink bandwidth • Understand and improve the role of the ground operator while using
autonomous systems
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 37
Requirements on the Spacecraft
Payload: • Camera with programmable resolution • GPS receiver
On-board SW • Planner: 10-50 MIPS, RAM 32 MB • Diagnosis: 10 MIPS, RAM 8MB • RTEMS (?), LINUX (?)
At least 1GB for data storage Access to science and HK TM Ability to upload onboard procedure, software and algorithms
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 38
Housekeeping Telemetry Compression Experiment
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 39
Housekeeping Telemetry is Hard to Compress
Packet Store
RICE (present CCSDS standard for on-board compression) expands them
Because it is a mix of different parameters and data types
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 40
Patents pending
The future studies section has two patents pending on HKTM compression waiting to be flown
• Transposed Packet Store Reader (Patent 553) • POCKET and POCKET compression
Patent 553 is a method for reading packet stores in a particular
way that allows compression of the resulting data stream i.e. STORED data
POCKET is a method that can compress housekeeping type spacecraft data units (frames or packets) individually as they are generated into smaller packets i.e. ON THE FLY
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 41
Better, faster and simpler than Zip
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rosetta PROBA-1 Venus Express Herschel Goce
Both Patent 533 and POCKET perform well enough to change the design paradigm but we need to demonstrate this in flight!
% left
ZIP
533
……..and POCKET works in real-time which zip cannot
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 42
… based on the requirements from the experiments the CDF kicked off in Jan 2012 …
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 43
A great experience
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/CDF/SEM0N72YRYG_0.html http://www.esa.int/esaMI/CDF/SEM9CD7YBZG_0.html
Position Team membersStudy Manager David Evans
Study Payload Manager Jens RomstedtTeam Leader Robin Biesbroek
Systems Marco Garcia MatatorosSystem Support Benoit DeperMission Analysis Rüdiger Jehn
Configuration/Structures Sandra MangunsongThermal Giovanni Chirulli
Thermal (Support) Matteo GiacomazzoGNC/AOCS Shufan Wu
Power Hadrien CarbonnierProgrammatics Jesus CrespoData Handling Gianluca FuranoData Handling Alberto Valverde
Software Mark DeanSoftware Mauro Caleno
Components Simon Vanden BusscheCommunications Paolo Concari
Ground Segment and Operations David PattersonCost Elisabetta LambogliaRisk Charles Lahorgue
Technical author Andy Pickering
Position ConsultantsMechanisms Michael Yorck
Contributions provided by non-CDF members:Mass budget & comms MC analysis Guido Ridolfi
X-band transponder Eric Paragin
MO servicesSam Cooper, Mario Merri,
Mehran Sarkarati
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 44
OPS-SAT overall design
X band TX (up to 50 Mbps down)
S band TX (1 Mbps down 256 kbps up)
Classic ESA TC/TM decoder/encoder
FPGA router
Up to 9.6 kbps Up to 4.8 kbps up
3 axis control 2 RWs Magnetotorquers Magnetometers GPS
Gumstix Overo Earth Processor boards 500 MHz, 500 Mbyte internal Flash Native LINUX
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 45
OPS-SAT CDF design
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 46
OPS-SAT CDF design
Deployable Solar Arrays Arrays on each surface except Nadir and anti-Nadir Omni-directional S band coverage Omni-directional UHF coverage 6 sun sensors 4 cameras
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 47
OPS-SAT CDF design
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 48
OPS-SAT CDF design
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 49
CDF engineers provide new ideas
Final slide from CDF software engineer in final presentation… • OBC Software easily expanded during mission
– Can be handled exactly like experimental software –New task / service uploaded to SD Card and executed
– Mix and match experimental / OBC software –Event logs stored to file system, compressed, CFTP to ground…
• Flexible architecture with endless possibilities –Compression –Encryption –Multiple operating systems –Artificial Intelligence / Spacecraft autonomy –Time and space partitioning –TCP/IP, telnet, shell etc. etc. –Plug and Play payload interfaces over WiFi / Bluetooth….
After CDF many ESTEC engineers have continued to support us An ESA Cubesat club between ESOC & ESTEC?
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 50
Building industrial support
CDF team leader and myself have contacted industry in the UK, Holland, Spain, France and Germany about the project
Cubesat Integrators Providers of advanced cubesat technology Software firms providing ground and on-board software
The response has been overwhelmingly positive Software companies saw many other possibilities for experiments.
Safe mode recoveries tested by actually triggering safe mode FDIR tested by actually triggering the FDIR Trying to use modified cameras as star trackers/mappers Advanced planning, scheduling and on-board decision making Exotic GN&C strategies (“lost in space”)
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 51
Building industrial support
This close contact with industry has also paid off in other ways Discovered new equipment that will help us improve the design
Many new ideas on uses for such a platform
Better understanding of some of the technologies that cubesat
developers themselves would like to see fly in their rapid approach to providing operational missions
Built a good relationship with some of these exciting new companies
Improved ESOC’s (and ESA’s) image as innovators
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 52
Building Cross Agency Support
Classic Cubesat (Cubesat community)
Software based experiments (ESOC, DLR, CNES)
Miniaturised S band technology (DLR)
Miniaturised X band technology (CNES)
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 53
GSTP workshop on IOD 19/20 March
Juan Miro/Manfred Warhaut organized that a small group from ESOC could attend the recent GSTP workshop on IOD to promote OPS-SAT 100 representatives from industry, national agencies and ESA delegates Common theme was the need for smaller, cheaper missions for
IOD Using cubesats for IOD was often proposed OPS-SAT was mentioned several times explicitly in industry
presentations TEC exceptionally allowed us to make an OPS-SAT presentation at the workshop Workshop report will be sent to the Director’s committee on Technology and as information to the IPC
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 54
OPS-SAT Future Steps
OPS-SAT is something different for ESOC • New operational concepts • New operational software technologies • New standards • New software development methodologies
OPS-SAT is an excellent platform for cooperation between ESA and
National Space Agencies, in particular CNES and DLR • All have heavily invested in the development of the new standards • Genuine technical cooperation with no competition
CDF feasibility and preliminary architecture completed. Now we need to
keep the momentum and move forward rapidly. Possible funding options: • Industrial study to Phase B1 with internal funding • GSTP • Special funds for cooperation with National Agencies • Special funds for new member states • Any other suggestion is welcome
OPS-Sat | D. Evans, M. Merri | HSO/ESOC | 23 March 2012 | Page 55
Help us make OPS-SAT a flying success!
Thank you