Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Introduction

The idea of this meeting is for SOC to communicate a few issues we found during the early STPs to the instrument teams, but more importantly it is an opportunity for you to give us some feedback on how you think the process went, so we can work to improve things.

We will collect the feedback on this page during the meeting.

SOC Perspectives

Overall, we're happy with how things have gone so far, everyone has been very responsive and we've been able to solve all the problems that have come up. And, things are getting smoother! Thank you!

STP

Number of

Instruments

Number of IORGs

Submitted

1001058
101519
102515
103714
10436
105711
106 (as of 17/07)58

Issues from the SOC

Telemetry Corridors

So far, the majority of teams have been under-producing data:



  • In the plot to the left:
    • The black line is the measured generation.
    • The dotted line the prediction from LTP. This is what defines the shape of the corridor.
    • The red line is our prediction from your IORs
  • Please remember that if you are below the bottom of your corridor downlink is wasted
  • We understand some teams have had instrument anomalies, commanding mistakes, and so on, and this has implications for data generation, that's unavoidable and we're not so cencerened about that now.
  • What we are less happy about is when no attempt is made to correct for routine under-generation.
  • BUT: remember you can't generate previously 'missed' data, so if you undergenerate, in effect your corridor is reduced by the difference between the black line and the blue line in the plot.
  • All teams have assured us they are capable changing of instrument configuration to keep data generation within the corridor, so please try to do so.

Database Stability

Between the start of short term planning fo STP-100 and now, we have seen eight different database versions, with another due to be distributed on Friday.

We have been able to manage several last-minute database changes but this won't always be possible, and isn't sustainable in the long term.

If you make a change to an in-use sequence there's a very compressed schedule for the updates. The new database cannot be distributed until any pending commands have been uplinked to the spacecraft. For a database that will be applicable for STP-112, for instance:

Tuesday

STP-111 POR Deadline


Wednesday

STP-111 Commanding uplink

STP-112 IOR Deadline

FridaySTP-111 Commanding Uplink backup slot

Friday - Monday

(depending on pass time)

STP-112 MIB made applicable at MOC,

distributed to SOC and ITs

Monday

Updates to SOC instrument models,

STP-112 MIB made applicable at SOC

Tuesday

STP-112 IOR processing

STP-112 POR Deadline

Wednesday

STP-113 IOR Deadline

This leaves very little margin for error, so if you need to make non-critical updates to existing sequences, please let your MOC contact point know as early as possible, with us in copy, so we can coordinate all pending changes in the most efficient way.

Of course we will make any safety-critical updates as fast as possible.

Issue from MOC - Last minute resubmission of PORs

This is still happening more than is ideal, because of commanding errors being noticed late. They ask that teams are a bit more careful.


Questions for Instrument Teams

Current Schedule

The IOR delivery window is open for one week (target Wednesday to Wednesday), opens at STP start -19 days 

POR iteration window <  1 week (Thursday to Tuesday, sometimes results in new IOR deliveries).

  • Would you prefer a shorter but later IORG delivery deadline?
  • Is it useful to have the window open over 2 different calendar weeks as we have now (e.g. for holidays)?

Feedback Teams:

  • MAG: would prefer to have longer IOR delivery windows (2 weeks if possible). Would like to submit the IORGs earlier to go through initial checks.
  • EUI: similar feedback. In Cruise the operations have been very specific and 1 week between MIB distribution and IOR deadline has been very tight.
  • EPD: no strong feelings on extending the window but longer period would be helpful, especially during vacations.
    • SOC reaction: the frequent MIB updates in the last few weeks have prevented us opening the windows early, at least for the instruments that have MIB changes 
    • But SOC would be in favour of having less frequent and better managed MIB updates, which would allow more flexibility on when IOR delivery windows can be opened

SOC Models and Constraints

SOC models the instruments' resource usage (both power and data generation) to compare against available resources and pre-agreed TM corridors.

As part of the IOR simulation, also constraints against mode transitions, overlapping sequence durations, command incompatibility wrt EFECS events, etc. are being checked.

  • Do instrument teams have any feedback on these modelling efforts?

We realise some instrument models need updating, and in case of significant updates, a dedicated meeting with the instrument team will be arranged.

Feedback Teams:

  • EUI: in some occasions, the SOC modelling did spot errors that were not seen by the instrument team. This was very helpful.
  • MAG: same comment
  • SWA: SOC modelling is very useful because the constraints that have been fed by Airbus to MOC (and SOC) have often been misleading or wrong. The modelling has highlighted these inconsistencies
  • EPD: some constraints on thruster firings have changed during early Cruise and team thanks MOC and SOC for being flexible in handling these changes, and updating models

IORG delivery and interfaces

  • Any comments or feedback?
  • Note that the IOR version number is currently limited to 1 character only. We hit or came very close to this limit a few times. Heads-up: SOC plans to propose to SOWG to update the version to 2 characters (= IOR ICD update)

Feedback Teams:

  • EUI: fully in favour with the change of nb of characters in IOR version
  • no further comments on interfaces

Other Feedback from Instrument Teams

To be filled in during the telecon.

  • EUI question: TMC-M files showed that EUI was underproducing. At what cadence is this information fed back? 
    → it is produced after each pass and automatically distributed through GFTS
  • SPICE question: how are the number for TMC min and max are set? SPICE team has the impression that in LTP1 the min was set higher than the data generation profile in SOOP Kitchen. 
    → SOC will check offline (see http://solopsppb.n1data.lan:8080/stp-tools/#/simulations/stp-101.2-RELEASE)
  • several teams are in favour of SOC sharing the TMC-plots including the LTP simulation as displayed in SOC-internal STP tools (as PNG)

Reminders

  • MIB consistency in IORGs: Please make sure the MIB version in your IOR header matches the applicable MIB for each STP.
  • No labels