1. 7. LTP PLANNING EXERCISE: RESULTS Planning outcome Lessons learned from Planning Exercise

2. Planning Exercise Results 1.Status of the LTP-plan 2.Resource usage of current 6-months plan 3.How well did we address the science goals? 4.Does planning concept work at all? 5.Does software work at all? What extra functionality is needed? 6.Are models representative enough for high level LTP? 7.How much more complicated will this get (what we ignored for now) 8.LTP Output files and when they can be expected 9.What’s next?

3. Status of the LTP plan LTP plan status after half a day of SOOP building: (see SOUS-CHEF next slide) All SOOPs got defined but some instrument observation details did not get in in time (e.g. SPICE for SOOP 2) Calibration programs, annealing and pre-window observations were still incomplete after SOOP building -> most important ones got added by SOC Not all planning constraints were taken into account: WOLs? Attitude disturbances? (take care for high-cadence observations or safety limits) E-FECS events not complete -> will be added by the SOC Flush commands for PHI and EUI (later probably also STIX) should not be forgotten! Flush volume should fit to generated data. Similar for PHI processing time! IS payload should decide on where to schedule the coordinated bursts (-> to be added to notes per SOOP)

4. Status of the LTP plan – SOUS-CHEF

5. Resource usage of current LTP plan MAPPS view Copy and paste the mapps overview here OR present directly into mapps Power: above 250W? Local memory overruns? SSMM packet store overruns? Underruns: where could we have used more TM Final fill state of SSMM (aim: 25.9 Gbit) Highly fluctuating total power (EMC!?) Total avg (!) power spikes >250W Typical RS packet store, continuously emptied in first 3months, then rising quickly Typical IS packet store, continuously emptied in first 3months, then rising quickly Metis: concentrates data generation to last 12 days of RSWs: ends with higher fill-state PHI: processes and flushes after RSW1 Total memory usage SWA

6. Resource usage of current LTP plan MAPPS view II Data generation curves for all instruments

7. Resource usage of current LTP plan

9. (MB)

10. Few things spotted from the output figures: 1.EUI seems to not flush the last day of data from the RSW1 2.During the 2nd and 3rd RSWs, PHI flushes every day but flushes slightly less than what is being produced resulting in a slow accumulation of data in the local store. 3.Data production guidelines were not always followed (underproduction RSW1, bit overproduction for some instruments in last 2). SOOP 2 may not have needed more, but then we need to add extra SOOP or move resources in the SAP. 4.We still underspent the downlink by a lot. This highlights the importance of mission level downlink simulations adapted SAP and RSW location Pass optimisation Status of the LTP plan

11. How well did we address science goals? 1.Feedback of SOWG: ITs need time to come better prepared to the meeting: Proposal: SOOP coordinator should come up >1month before meeting with strawman plan for the SOOP. ITs should come with prepared instrument timeline for that SOOP to the meeting. SAP sub-objectives are too detailed, SOOP should address more than 1 of those -> starting by SOOPs for broad objectives & link them then to sub-objectives could be way forward Input information needed for preparation: Orbital characteristics, quadrature with other observatories, Flexibility, Add in SOUS-CHEF the availability of other observatories & Earth visibility & e.g. times of SPP requests for context Question: how sure are we that what ITs implement in IORs is what the SOOP subscribed? We may want to think about a way visualising MTP plan but may be very limited! (IORs talk instrument language, not science language) We may need secondary SOOPs when full resources are not used by main SOOP. Instruments may contribute to 2 SOOPs at the same time (e.g. parallel to SOOP5) 2.SOC ideas/questions: SAP got partially re-discussed (to be expected in this exercise, as mini-SAP got not yet discussed in view of orbital characteristics, and SOWG did not have time to prepare) Some SOOPs got filled in differently than described in mini-SAP (e.g. no EUI/HRI observations in SOOP 4b) Parallel SOOP discussions: did we have the right expertise in each SOOP group? Were you concentrating more on numbers than on science aspect?

12. Does planning concept work at all? 1.Feedback SOWG: We need SOOP coordinators BEFORE LTP meeting starts: at mission level planning when science goals are glued to orbits (typically 3 months before SOWG) 2.Questions/ideas from SOC: Should we start from a prepared plan (based on SAP) that gets tweaked in the SOWG meeting? Or rather work from scratch as in this exercise? -> see proposal on preparation Do the little subgroups per SOOP work, or do you want to plan all together? Does each subgroup need a SOOP kitchen operator? Having a SAP-per-planning-period discussed with the group first would have helped for operational planning as well SOOP boundaries should be very clear (e.g. window extensions)

13. Software / Planning tools: SOWG feedback Note: SOOP-kitchen shall be concatenated with SOUS-CHEF and E-FECS event handling What worked well? What did not work well? What extra functionality do we need? We need visibility on average datarate used in the SOOP (SK) SOOP kitchen should check violations of constraints (e.g. no high-cadence observations during WOL) For predefined pointing (patterns) we need a way to visualise the pointing FOVs should be visualised (in another tool?) over the 6months plan -> subfields? SPICE raster widths? Then we need to fix those at LTP! (otherwise science goal may be compromised) We need information on which triggers/reactions are active + avg guess on effect on resource usage (e.g. nb of events) Any other feedback?

14. Software / Planning tools: SOC view What worked well? SOUS-CHEF visualisation was absolute necessity and worked well SOOP kitchen offered several possibilities to tweak observations What did not work well? SOOP kitchen was little cumbersome to use from time to time We missed quick check of average TM usage per SOOP in SOOP kitchen What extra functionality do we need? Consolidation SOOP Kitchen and SOUS-CHEF Observations grouping into SOOPs Flexible adjustment of SOOPs and observation plan (dragging & dropping + copy & paste) Currently LL and HK data are being modelled very crudely in background SOOP boundaries should be very clear (e.g. window extensions) Any other feedback?

15. Feedback on instrument models Are models (observation level) representative enough for high level LTP? Do we need more or rather less flexibility in observation parameters? PHI needs specific modes for FDT vs HRT, but modes 0->6 may be not so relevant if we keep parameters flexible (raw mode?) METIS modes need to be updated SPICE needs to rethink some of the modes to exploit datarate allocation and science capabilities SPICE may also need observations of observations (macro- observations)

16. How much more complicated will this get During this exercise we did NOT consider the following aspects: Switch-ON activities and Door activations (heatshield door operations likely to end up in E-FECS) Constraint checks: observation-observation and observation-event Communication rolls (were not needed in this planning period) Data flows to ‘Turn-Around Calibration packet-store’ (TAC) Detailed EMC planning and accounting (awaiting list of noisy instrument activities)

17. LTP Output files At the end of the LTP planning SOWG, instrument teams can expect following output from SOC: Overall summary of the LTP plan (snapshot of sous-chef?) + minutes of the meeting TM corridors E-FECS Instrument timelines specifying instrument observations and link to SOOPs For this exercise we plan to also send you this output files. Can be expected by 1 April 2016 (E-FECS and TM-corridor compatibility test).

18. What next? SOC would like to use this LTP plan to test the next step in the planning process: MTP planning. Be prepared to write IORs based on this plan. As you need to define commanding sequences first (MIB), we propose following schedule: July 2016 – SOWG#9: (review LTP plan?) TBC Oct 2016: first test IORs Jan 2017 – SOWG#10: TBD Spring 2017: IORs based on LTP plan July 2017 - SOWG#11: MTP planning exercise presentation