1. Adrian Hooke, CESG Chair ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands 27 Oct 2009 SERVICE ARCHITECTURE FOR SPACE: why this BOF? 1

2. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications “Communications View” of Space Mission Operations

3. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications Space Link Access Service Provision (“SLE”)

4. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications Data Relay Service Provision (Prox-1)

5. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications Surface Service Provision (new Surface BOF)

6. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications Space Internet Service Provision (IOAG-SISG)

7. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications Mission Operations Application Service Provision CFDP, AMS Audio, Video CFDP, AMS Audio, Video

8. Link Network Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services Common Operations Services User Applications User Applications User Applications User Applications The SM&C View? ?

9. We don’t understand what you are trying to standardize (Operations Concept), or why (User Requirements) It looks like you are (at best) ignoring a whole bunch of painstaking work that has been done to date or you are (at worst) trying to throw it all out and force everyone to “do it our way” Either go away and stop annoying us, or learn to communicate better To paraphrase the initial CESG reaction to SM&C: But on further reflection came the recognition: We don’t have an agreed “business model” for CCSDS standardization We don’t have an agreed architectural model of the services that we are trying to standardize

10. Cross Support Partner Spacecraft A Ground Station B Control Center A Spacecraft B Ground Station A Control Center A Spacecraft A Ground Station A Control Center A Spacecraft B Ground Station B Control Center B Is our business model - Commonality? Cross Support? Interoperability?

11. Hence -- Form a cross-cutting team from across the Areas to define our business model and some kind of service framework into which all of our work can be referenced and evaluated Be prepared to merge in several related working groups which have been chipping away at parts of the problem Try to get something really useful, really quickly so that we don’t cause uncertainty in ongoing work