European Space Operations Centre

1
European Space Operations Centre
EGOS Workshop 2005OPS-O Customer View
ESOC, Darmstadt 8 November 2005
P.Ferri OPS-OPR A.Rudolph OPS-OFO
2
Mission Control Systems Status of Missions in
Operation

• Missions on Scos 1 kernel
• ERS2, ENVISAT, Cluster II no plan to migrate to
  S2K in view of planned mission lifetime
• Mission Control Systems and kernel will be ported
  to address OS and computer obsolescence issues
• Missions on S2K classic version (2.4.1)
• SMART1 no plan to migrate
• Rosetta, Mex are in the process/plan to migrate
  to evolution (V3.1)
• Missions on S2K evolution version (3.1)
• XMM, Integral migrated recently

3
Mission Control Systems Missions in Preparation

• Missions on S2K evolution version (3.1)
• VEX to be launched on 9-Nov, V3.1 will be used
  during LEOP !
• METOP-A no plans to migrate since only short
  LEOP support
• Currently planned use of future versions of S2K
  for missions to be launched in the next few
  years
• GOCE V4.0
• Herschel-Planck V4.0
• Aeolus, Cryosat II (TBC) V5.0
• Lisa-Pathfinder V5.0

4
Mission Control Systems Migration

• Migration from SCOS-1 to SCOS-2000
• Initial performance problems now basically
  resolved
• Robustness (reliability and availability) has now
  reached an acceptable level
• Migration to SCOS-2000 Evolution (3.1) under way
• Initial main problems solved, but several
  critical SPRs are still open
• Integral and XMM are using it in routine First
  LEOP will be Venus Express
• Rosetta is testing it with EQM spacecraft
  migration planned for next year followed by Mars
  Express.
• Envisat/ERS2, Cluster II will not migrate and
  stay on SCOS-1

5
Mission Control Systems Experience ()

• MCS development cost dramatically decreased on
  SCOS-2000 based systems, thanks to large reuse of
  common infrastructure kernel
• MCS development schedules also significantly
  shortened, in particular for missions of the same
  family
• A good process now exists for feeding back to the
  common kernel SPR fixes and new functions
  introduced at mission specific level

6
Mission Control Systems Experience (-)

• Maintenance is a problem
• Large number of SPRs results in only the first
  few high priority ones to be worked/discussed
• Often SPRs are tested/closed without user direct
  involvement
• Migration plans often conflict with users plans
• Migration is a very slow process, due to the high
  workload on users side (test and validation)
• Cases of loss or degradation of functions from
  old to new versions discourage users from
  supporting migration
• Common, long term maintenance of 3.1 for several
  missions is planned. Very good experience with
  similar approach on SCOS-1 missions.

7
Network Interface (NCTRS)

• NCTRS 10 is the current target baseline version
  migration to Solaris 8 and new application
  version was a smooth process
• Various problems (e.g. delay in command release,
  wrong command message time stamping) solved
  already since version 9
• System is robust, no major problems experienced,
  at least for missions using it as bent pipe
• NCTRS remote control by MCS added on SCOS-1 LEO
  missions (Envisat, ERS2) using MCS scheduler.

8
Ground Station Systems (1)

• TMP/TCE are stable and reliable (with some
  robustness problems on TM storage in the TMP
  still remaining) - to be replaced by TMTCS which
  is being deployed to ESTRACK network
• TMTCS not stable yet (problems with TM frames
  delivery) also a problem with TM frames time
  stamping caused by TCDS exist, preventing
  operational use for VEX
• SLE interface with TMTCS will finally eliminate
  the extremely unstable and troublemaking OSI
  stack, thus dramatically increasing reliability
• Automation functions of Station Computer 2,
  deployed in most of the ESTRACK network, are
  available and in the process of being implemented
  for operational use

9
Ground Station Systems (2)

• Good operational experience with cost-effective
  off-the-shelf systems tailored for some ESA
  missions
• CORTEX back-end equipment used in several
  stations of the ESTRACK core augmented network
  (Kiruna, Malindi, Svalbard, Perth and DLR station
  Weilheim (SMART1))
• CSMC station computer station operations
  executed automatically using schedules for many
  years (Kiruna for EO missions, Malindi)

10
Auxiliary Systems

• Data Disposition System
• DDS supports most missions it is stable and its
  performance is good
• DDS reliability is affected by the quality of
  external users requests, causing software support
  manual intervention
• Performance Evaluation
• TDRS is unreliable and of little use. Old SPEVAL
  (and WebSpeval) functionality is lost current
  workaround for most flying missions is MUST
  (user-developed tool)
• MUST is very simple and efficient however it is
  not yet formally part of the infrastructure and
  still misses key functions (e.g. packet level
  retrieval, TC history)

11
Future Needs Recover Lost Functions

• Important functionalities lost with progressing
  MCS versions
• Archive / Data back-up approach for raw telemetry
  and auxiliary data is missing
• Generic data provision and off-line analysis
  tools need to be streamlined (WEB-SEC, WEB-RM,
  SPEVAL TDRS, MUST)
• Management of MCS distributed database extremely
  cumbersome and inadequate to a multi-mission
  environment
• Printouts a forgotten function

12
Future Needs Additional Functions

• Automation tools for spacecraft and ground
  systems control
• ESTRACK planning and scheduling support tools
• Improve MCS displays (especially graphics)
  capabilities for telemetry data
• Mission Planning Systems standardisation, at
  least of core functions.

13
Future Needs Other Improvements

• Automation tools shall be integrated in the
  overall operations preparation and execution
  environment, taking into account Flight Dynamics,
  Mission planning, Mission Database, Procedure
  Generation tools
• Improve centralisation of MCS control and
  configuration information (e.g. command stacks,
  OBSM files, temporary displays, etc.), to avoid
  dispersion and loss of configuration control on
  individual clients
• Improve integration of mimic displays editing,
  maintenance and configuration control in the
  overall database and mission control system

14
Future Needs Testing Improvements

• Testing approach to increase users involvement in
  definition and evaluation of pre-delivery system
  level tests
• Non-regression testing to patches and new
  deliveries to be systematically applied

15
Conclusions

• Significant achievement SCOS 1 2000 kernel
  support a wide range of satellite missions in
  operations
• Validation experience and fixes/improvements
  feedback from missions allows to arrive at stable
  MCS infrastructure
• Maintenance and migration approaches to be
  streamlined in agreement with the users
• SLE implementation in TMTCS allows cleaner ground
  station interfaces and easier cross-operability
• More robust testing approach, exploiting
  synergies with users testing is recommended
• Future needs to concentrate in the areas of
  automation and planning/scheduling systems.

16
Abbreviations
SCOS S/C Operations System SLE Space Link
Extension SPEVAL S/C Performance Evaluation
System STC Station Computer TCE Telecommand
Encoder TDRS Telemetry Data Retrieval
System TMP Telemetry Processor TMTCS Telemetry
Telecommand System WEB RM Remote Monitoring
(External User Application) WEB SEC Security
Server WINFOPS Flight Operations Plan
System (based on Windows)
CORTEX compact I/F and baseband
equipment CSMC Central Station Monitoring
Control DDS Data Distribution System EGSE Electric
al Ground Support Equipment EMS ESTRACK
Management System FEC/NT Front End Controller on
NT basis FTS File Transfer System IPR Intellectual
Property Rights MC Monitoring
Control MCCM Mission Configuration Control
Management MCS Mission Control System MMI Man
Machine Interface MOIS Mission Operations
Information System MPS Mission Planning
System MUST Mission Utility Support
Tool NCTRS Network Control TM Routing
System PSS Portable Satellite Simulator PUS Packet
Utilisation Standard