Extension of the Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics OPS-G Forum Daniel Werner, Vemund Reggestad (OPS-GD) Nuno Sebas...
<ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>The Operational Simulator and the HPTDG </li></ul><ul><li>The Working Group </li></ul...
<ul><li>Two separated simulators   </li></ul><ul><li>HPTDG (Flight Dynamics) & Operational Simulator (Flight Control Team)...
<ul><li>The Operational Simulator   </li></ul><ul><li>used by the Flight Control Team </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces:  to th...
<ul><li>HPTDG   </li></ul><ul><li>Flight Dynamic’s High Precision Test Data Generator </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces:  to FD...
<ul><li>Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>To assess the feasibility of sharing an Operational Simulator with Flight Dynamics...
Commonalities <ul><li>HPTDG and Operational Simulator   </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison </li></ul><ul><li>HPTDG functionaliti...
<ul><li>HPTDG: adopting the Operational Simulator   </li></ul><ul><li>The HPTDG has evident commonalities with Operational...
<ul><li>Addressing and Analysing the Issues   </li></ul><ul><li>Drivers to the suitability of the Simulator for FD usage <...
<ul><li>Accuracy requirements for infrastructure & mission specific models   </li></ul><ul><li>Spacecraft Model, Environme...
<ul><li>Faster than real-time performance requirements   </li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Driv...
Infrastructure  A new Emulator <ul><li>A new Emulator </li></ul><ul><li>Current processor emulators are 50-100 times slowe...
Infrastructure  QERx - Dynamic  Translation <ul><li>Dynamic Translation </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional emulators read each ...
Infrastructure  QEMU => QERx <ul><li>QEMU Dynamic Translation Emulator </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source </li></ul><ul><li>Sup...
Infrastructure  QERx Conclusions <ul><li>Derived from open source QEMU (LGPL Licence) </li></ul><ul><li>Alignment with QEM...
<ul><li>Batch mode </li></ul><ul><li>To allow running Simsat in a fully automated way from start to end, it shall be possi...
<ul><li>Run as Fast as Possible  </li></ul><ul><li>A fast forward mechanism shall be added to the  SIMSAT  scheduler allow...
Infrastructure  FDS-DIF SIMSAT Operational S/C Simulator Flight Dynamics Systems Simulated Systems/HPTDG FDSDIF SimDIF LAN...
<ul><li>Positioning Model (PEM) Accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Rigid Body Dynamics (SIMDYN) </li></ul><ul><li>Packet Handling ...
Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 |   Pag.  Infrastructure  Supp...
<ul><li>Availability of representative reference test data   </li></ul><ul><li>One of the major issues related to the deve...
<ul><li>Flight Dynamics Database (FDDB) and Configuration  </li></ul><ul><li>Let’s do it right </li></ul><ul><li>The FDDB ...
<ul><li>Provision of suitable Hardware for Flight Dynamics   </li></ul><ul><li>Server platforms are purchased and deployed...
<ul><li>Development Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Single development targeted for two user communities </li></ul><ul><li>Requ...
Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 |   Pag.  Development   Approa...
<ul><li>Tight Schedule versus Availability of Information </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of Information </li></ul><ul><li>...
Current Status <ul><li>Gaia Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Current Status </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure:  </li></ul><ul><l...
<ul><li>Trend for the future…  </li></ul><ul><li>GAIA selected as pioneer mission </li></ul><ul><li>Investments in infrast...
Conclusion <ul><li>For each of the issues, suitable solutions have been identified </li></ul><ul><li>to satisfy both the F...
Conclusion <ul><li>We work towards: </li></ul><ul><li>Closer co-operation </li></ul><ul><li>Common infrastructure </li></u...
THANK YOU <ul><li>Daniel Werner & Nuno Sebastião  (OPS-GDS) (OPS-GIC) </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>...
Enjoy the Santa Run! for those who participate…  
Working Group Composition   Involving Flight Dynamics, Mission Data Systems, Infrastructure & Operations Supporting   Slid...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

OPS Forum: Extension of Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics - 04122009

4,354
-1

Published on

With the evolution of mission requirements and simulator technologies, a working group was set up prior to Gaia simulator development in order to assess the possibility of satisfying both the Flight Dynamics and the Flight Control Team requirements using a single integrated simulator. The presentation will focus on the main drivers and challenges to this approach.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,354
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Mission Control Team Training is including FD (Sims Campaign) Regarding the modeling of the full s/c: sometime with the exception of payloads
  • TPF (Task parameter files) allow to load specific commands or sequences in a manual stack with specific set of parameter values. They can also be used to update the parameter values for specific commands or sequences already loaded in a running auto stack.
  • - Analyses were performed in order to cover all generic aspects so that conclusions will also be applicable to other missions
  • Old slide contained: Increasing fidelity of AOCS OBSW Reducing AOCS OBSW development efforts Both can be achieved by running the real On-board s/w
  • Regarding high rate downlink disabling and SPID filter: For GAIA the requirements go up to 8,7 Mbps TM downlink rate (mainly because of Science TM). To run this at 5 times real-time would be extremely challenging. FD to not require modeling of the entire TM produced by the S/C but are mainly concerned about the real-time (AOCS) TM rate ~ 20-25 kbps.
  • In the traditional approach of the Ope Sim, input from FD was also valuable. (put at the right place) FCT also benefits of higher accuracy (put on the right slide)
  • Problems that both we &amp; FD have anyway faced in the past. But importance of the FDDB is even more important
  • It is recommended that ESOC continue to encourage that AOCS models from the spacecraft prime contractors become available to the Ope Sim developers.
  • OPS Forum: Extension of Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics - 04122009

    1. 1. Extension of the Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics OPS-G Forum Daniel Werner, Vemund Reggestad (OPS-GD) Nuno Sebastião (OPS-GI) Susanne Kasten-Coors (OPS-GF) ESOC - 04.12.2009
    2. 2. <ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>The Operational Simulator and the HPTDG </li></ul><ul><li>The Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>Commonalities </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption & Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Issue Analysis & Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Development Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Problematics and Concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Current Status </li></ul><ul><li>Other Missions </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Outline
    3. 3. <ul><li>Two separated simulators </li></ul><ul><li>HPTDG (Flight Dynamics) & Operational Simulator (Flight Control Team) </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Background
    4. 4. <ul><li>The Operational Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>used by the Flight Control Team </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces: to the Mission Control System (SLE) </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: </li></ul><ul><li>Ground software system testing, </li></ul><ul><li>Mission Control team training, </li></ul><ul><li>Operational validation of the OBSW, </li></ul><ul><li>Spacecraft operation procedure validation. </li></ul><ul><li>Models: </li></ul><ul><li>Entire Spacecraft (S/C) & environment, </li></ul><ul><li>Ground Station Network </li></ul><ul><li>Allows: </li></ul><ul><li>Full On-Board Software (OBSW) emulation, </li></ul><ul><li>Accepts all TCs as the real S/C and responds accordingly, </li></ul><ul><li>Realistic TM generation from all equipments, </li></ul><ul><li>Failure Injection, </li></ul><ul><li>Breakpointing, </li></ul><ul><li>Running AOCS in closed loop (satisfying OBSW FDIR checks). </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. The Operational Simulator
    5. 5. <ul><li>HPTDG </li></ul><ul><li>Flight Dynamic’s High Precision Test Data Generator </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces: to FD systems (proprietary) </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: </li></ul><ul><li>Performance and functional validation of AOCS related FD applications & systems, </li></ul><ul><li>of procedures, data-products and timelines, </li></ul><ul><li>training of FD teams (although most of it achieved via the operational simulator). </li></ul><ul><li>Models: </li></ul><ul><li>S/C dynamics & environment, </li></ul><ul><li>high fidelity Sensors and Actuators, </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on AOCS parts of the OBSW </li></ul><ul><li>Allows: </li></ul><ul><li>Telemetry generation (relevant to FD), </li></ul><ul><li>TPF execution (generated by FD systems) </li></ul><ul><li>Failure Injection, </li></ul><ul><li>Breakpointing, </li></ul><ul><li>Faster than real-time simulation (up to 50 times). </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. The HPTDG
    6. 6. <ul><li>Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>To assess the feasibility of sharing an Operational Simulator with Flight Dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>When? </li></ul><ul><li>Mid-2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Who? </li></ul><ul><li>Composed of various experts from: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Flight Dynamics, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission Data Systems, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gaia Flight Control Team. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goals: </li></ul><ul><li>Assess the suitability of the Operational Simulator extension for FD usage, </li></ul><ul><li>Identify and address any programmatic and technical issues, </li></ul><ul><li>Provide different options and recommendations on the way forward. </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome Report: </li></ul><ul><li>Fidelity of AOCS models and Environmental models </li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirements, </li></ul><ul><li>Interface between Operational Simulator and FD Systems requirements </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Working Group
    7. 7. Commonalities <ul><li>HPTDG and Operational Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison </li></ul><ul><li>HPTDG functionalities supported by the Operational Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Interface: to FD Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Models: </li></ul><ul><li>S/C dynamics & environment model, </li></ul><ul><li>high fidelity Sensors and Actuators, </li></ul><ul><li>AOCS Parts of the OBSW </li></ul><ul><li>Other Features: </li></ul><ul><li>Telemetry generation, </li></ul><ul><li>TPF execution (generated by FD systems) </li></ul><ul><li>Failure Injection, </li></ul><ul><li>Breakpointing, </li></ul><ul><li>Faster than real-time simulation. </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    8. 8. <ul><li>HPTDG: adopting the Operational Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>The HPTDG has evident commonalities with Operational Simulators </li></ul><ul><li>The Goal: </li></ul><ul><li>Exploring synergies in expensive and risky areas: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emulation of On-board processor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High fidelity Data Handling System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Execution of real OBSW inducing AOCS part. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Harmonising ESOC simulation tools and environments. </li></ul><ul><li>Eliminating development duplications </li></ul><ul><li>Concentrating validation efforts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce risks. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reduce costs </li></ul><ul><li>Use-case Target: </li></ul><ul><li>The HPTDG use cases related to AOCS models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Command generation and AOCS monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e. not Orbit determination and prediction. </li></ul></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Adoption & Goals
    9. 9. <ul><li>Addressing and Analysing the Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Drivers to the suitability of the Simulator for FD usage </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Issues: </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy requirements for infrastructure & mission specific models </li></ul><ul><li>Faster than real-time performance requirements on emulation & downlink </li></ul><ul><li>Updates to simulator infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Connection between FD systems and S/C model </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of representative test data </li></ul><ul><li>Flight Dynamics Database and configuration </li></ul><ul><li>Provision of suitable Hardware for FD </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Issue Analyses
    10. 10. <ul><li>Accuracy requirements for infrastructure & mission specific models </li></ul><ul><li>Spacecraft Model, Environment and Dynamics Accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Model accuracy needs: </li></ul><ul><li>For Operational Simulators the models must allow correct functional behaviour of the OBSW </li></ul><ul><ul><li>dynamic modelling capable of satisfying the OBSW FDIR checks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No attempt to validate against Spacecraft system level AOCS related accuracy requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Flight Dynamics require higher accuracy than FCT for some models: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sensors & actuators (mission specific), environment & dynamics (infrastructure) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Way forward: </li></ul><ul><li>Sensor & Actuator Models </li></ul><ul><li>Functional and Performance needs were expressed in FD requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Provision of Mathematical Description was considered (responsibility issue) </li></ul><ul><li>Review of detailed algorithm definitions shall be done </li></ul><ul><li>FD involvement in Acceptance & Validation of the operational Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Updates to Environment & Dynamics (PEM & SIMDYN) Infrastructure Models </li></ul><ul><li>addressed as part of a separate GaiaSim D0 delivery </li></ul><ul><li>separate team working on these updates </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Issue Analyses
    11. 11. <ul><li>Faster than real-time performance requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Driver is the support of simulations (command validation) of 7 day operations within a few hours </li></ul><ul><li>5 times faster then real-time has been specified by the WG as acceptable. </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements lined-out as part of the GaiaSim RFP (Request For Proposal): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 times real-time mandatory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 times real-time highly desirable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Way forward: </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic code translation on the Emulator </li></ul><ul><li>Disabling memory scrubbing </li></ul><ul><li>Disabling effect of high rate downlink commands and SPID filter </li></ul><ul><li>By-passing Ground Models (RFCS, frame encoding, TTC Streams etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Disabling models not required by FD (thermal network, payloads etc.) </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Issue Analyses
    12. 12. Infrastructure A new Emulator <ul><li>A new Emulator </li></ul><ul><li>Current processor emulators are 50-100 times slower than host </li></ul><ul><li>Work for older generation of space processors </li></ul><ul><li>Relied on increasing clock-speed to keep pace </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly serial in nature - multi-core machines little help </li></ul><ul><li>LEON2 </li></ul><ul><li>3-5 times ERC32 performance </li></ul><ul><li>Need for new approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Hardware </li></ul><ul><li>Software </li></ul><ul><li>Align to TSIM, the de facto standard </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    13. 13. Infrastructure QERx - Dynamic Translation <ul><li>Dynamic Translation </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional emulators read each target instruction and translate to the equivalent host instruction(s) every single time they are encountered </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic translation compiles blocks of target instructions to host instructions </li></ul><ul><li>Blocks typically between branches, ~5-10 instructions long </li></ul><ul><li>Blocks compiled on the fly and stored in memory </li></ul><ul><li>When a block is encountered again it is retrieved from memory and executed. </li></ul><ul><li>This is the where the performance gain comes from. </li></ul><ul><li>But: </li></ul><ul><li>Execution at block level raises issues with the processor clock and I/O timing. </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    14. 14. Infrastructure QEMU => QERx <ul><li>QEMU Dynamic Translation Emulator </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source </li></ul><ul><li>Supports many target processors including SPARC </li></ul><ul><li>Supports emulation of the complete machine </li></ul><ul><li>FAST </li></ul><ul><li>But: </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly used to emulate complete machine </li></ul><ul><li>(not just a processor) </li></ul><ul><li>No support for ERC32 </li></ul><ul><li>No support for LEON </li></ul><ul><li>No shared library </li></ul><ul><li>No TSIM interface </li></ul>Intel Pentium 4 EM64T @ 3.6 GHz Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    15. 15. Infrastructure QERx Conclusions <ul><li>Derived from open source QEMU (LGPL Licence) </li></ul><ul><li>Alignment with QEMU now maintained </li></ul><ul><li>Allows improvements to QEMU to be incorporated </li></ul><ul><li>Performance is ~4-8x that of conventional emulators </li></ul><ul><li>Provides the ability to run OBSW in a simulated ERC32 or LEON2 faster than real-time </li></ul><ul><li>“ Real-time” clock much improved </li></ul><ul><li>Floating point instruction counting needs better estimation </li></ul><ul><li>Trade-off in performance vs. timing accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Allows multiple processor emulations on a single machine </li></ul><ul><li>But TSIM interface would need to be extended to allow a processor instance to be specified </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    16. 16. <ul><li>Batch mode </li></ul><ul><li>To allow running Simsat in a fully automated way from start to end, it shall be possible to start and </li></ul><ul><li>operate Simsat via the so called “batch mode&quot;. </li></ul><ul><li>Comment: The objective is to allow the control of the simulation (including starting and stopping) from the command line. </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. $ SimHost.exe -i [other parameters...] simsat> ScriptHost.AddCorbaObjectByName (‘MyCounter’,’SMP2/ClassBased/Counter1’) simsat> Counter.step 1 Simsat> Kernel.Exit() Simsat Simulation Completed. $ Infrastructure SIMSAT Upgrades
    17. 17. <ul><li>Run as Fast as Possible </li></ul><ul><li>A fast forward mechanism shall be added to the SIMSAT scheduler allowing the scheduler to progress SimTime at the maximum speed. </li></ul><ul><li>This implies: </li></ul><ul><li>Disabling the Real-Time slip checking </li></ul><ul><li>Skipping all wait statements in the scheduler aiming at maintaining a selected Speed Factor </li></ul><ul><li>External Data Access </li></ul><ul><li>It shall be possible to access data recorded and saved to file </li></ul><ul><li>by the SIMSAT Recorder from any source while it is still being </li></ul><ul><li>recorded and/or saved. </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Infrastructure SIMSAT Upgrades
    18. 18. Infrastructure FDS-DIF SIMSAT Operational S/C Simulator Flight Dynamics Systems Simulated Systems/HPTDG FDSDIF SimDIF LAN Data Handling OBSW TC Files TC Path TM Path Parameter Recorder Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    19. 19. <ul><li>Positioning Model (PEM) Accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Rigid Body Dynamics (SIMDYN) </li></ul><ul><li>Packet Handling Toolkit (SIMPACK) </li></ul><ul><li>Thermal Network (TNET) </li></ul><ul><li>Electrical Network (SENSE) </li></ul><ul><li>Validated against Flight Dynamics Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Fulfilling Flight Dynamics Accuracy Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Ported to SMP2 </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Infrastructure Generic Models
    20. 20. Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Infrastructure Support to FD ITEM STATUS 5x Real-Time (New Emulator, Free Running Mode) Flight Dynamics Direct Interface Batch Mode Offline External Data Access Generic Models Precision
    21. 21. <ul><li>Availability of representative reference test data </li></ul><ul><li>One of the major issues related to the development and integration of AOCS systems is for both systems: </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of data to perform unit and system level testing against </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional sources are: </li></ul><ul><li>Previous missions </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamics simulations from the Mission real-time Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>AOCS validation reports from the S/C prime contractor </li></ul><ul><li>Way forward: </li></ul><ul><li>RTS and AOCS validation output from the prime contractor, </li></ul><ul><li>Run acceptance of the simulator against SVT data, </li></ul><ul><li>FD to provide validation methods for each requirement, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>related to algorithm specifications, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to cover AOCS subsystem tests </li></ul></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Common Issues
    22. 22. <ul><li>Flight Dynamics Database (FDDB) and Configuration </li></ul><ul><li>Let’s do it right </li></ul><ul><li>The FDDB contains configuration data relevant for the spacecraft </li></ul><ul><li>information is also needed to have the Simulator configuration consistent </li></ul><ul><li>Problems: </li></ul><ul><li>FDDB formats differ from one mission to the other </li></ul><ul><li>For similar information, formats even changed during a same mission </li></ul><ul><li>Way forward: </li></ul><ul><li>FDDB ICD </li></ul><ul><li>Usable format that can be parsed for loading (e.g. excel format) </li></ul><ul><li>Advantage: </li></ul><ul><li>FDDB remains a deliverable from prime </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent format during the entire mission (simplifies handling of updates) </li></ul><ul><li>Long term goal: </li></ul><ul><li>Define a FDDB ICD that can be standardized across missions (maybe even international agencies) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>used by FD, FCT, Sim Developers and Prime </li></ul></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Common Issues
    23. 23. <ul><li>Provision of suitable Hardware for Flight Dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Server platforms are purchased and deployed by OPS-GD/OPS-EC </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid divergence in the simulator runtime environment between FD and FCT </li></ul><ul><li>Suitable platform compatible with: </li></ul><ul><li>Simulator infrastructure needs, </li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Specification of the Gaia Simulator Servers: </li></ul><ul><li>DL380 G5 servers </li></ul><ul><li>SLES 9 Operating System (migration to SLES 11 foreseen) </li></ul><ul><li>5 Simulator Servers foreseen for the Gaia Mission </li></ul><ul><li>Currently: </li></ul><ul><li>FCT & development server </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 Xeon 5470 (quad core) processor each, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>16GB RAM each. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FD server </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 Xeon 5470 (quad core) processors, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>32GB RAM. </li></ul></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Common H/W Platform
    24. 24. <ul><li>Development Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Single development targeted for two user communities </li></ul><ul><li>Request for Proposal: </li></ul><ul><li>Single set of requirements and single contract </li></ul><ul><li>FD Delta developments as option in RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Responsibility sharing: </li></ul><ul><li>OPS-GF staff co-TO for relevant parts of the Simulator, </li></ul><ul><li>Shared responsibilities for the entire Simulator s/w lifecycle </li></ul><ul><li>(requirement, architectural design, acceptance & review phases) </li></ul><ul><li>Synergies: </li></ul><ul><li>Identical hardware platform (Hewlett-Packard / Linux) </li></ul><ul><li>Common simulation infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Upgrades of infrastructure models and new developments (I/F’s) </li></ul><ul><li>Partial implementation under GaiaSim Contract </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to be retrofitted into simulation infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Progressive increase in fidelity/accuracy of mission specific models: </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce risk on development for FCT </li></ul><ul><li>Target FCT and FD schedule requirements </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Development Approach
    25. 25. Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Development Approach High / Low Fidelity approach Risk Mitigation
    26. 26. <ul><li>Tight Schedule versus Availability of Information </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of Information </li></ul><ul><li>S/C Documentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Late availability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documentation Changes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Availability of models, validation data and results </li></ul><ul><li>Details of Operational Concepts and impact on early assumptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. units that need calibration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Change in “working culture” for Flight Dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Early Requirements Definition, </li></ul><ul><li>FFP contract (with FUP support), </li></ul><ul><li>Offsite development, </li></ul><ul><li>New infrastructure </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Problematics and Concerns
    27. 27. Current Status <ul><li>Gaia Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Current Status </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure: </li></ul><ul><li>SIMSAT 4.2 PA delivery Dec 2009, Final Delivery March 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>FDS-DIF Initial Delivery Delivered today, PA delivery February 22 nd </li></ul><ul><li>PEM & SIMDYN updates due in Q1/2010 </li></ul><ul><li>GaiaSim Development Life Cycle: </li></ul><ul><li>SWRR completed </li></ul><ul><li>Working towards PDR: end January 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>D1 delivery foreseen Q2/2010 </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    28. 28. <ul><li>Trend for the future… </li></ul><ul><li>GAIA selected as pioneer mission </li></ul><ul><li>Investments in infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Exploring an unknown territory </li></ul><ul><li>Investments only pay off if more missions are following </li></ul><ul><li>Currently Sentinel-1 is starting </li></ul><ul><li>Requirement engineering ongoing </li></ul><ul><li>Joint RFP under preparation </li></ul><ul><li>Carry forward of experience is important </li></ul><ul><li>Setting a trend for future missions </li></ul><ul><li>Each mission is different </li></ul><ul><li>Not one solution for all problems </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag. Other Missions
    29. 29. Conclusion <ul><li>For each of the issues, suitable solutions have been identified </li></ul><ul><li>to satisfy both the FCT and FD </li></ul><ul><li>FD requirements can be taken on-board without any unacceptable risk to the FCT usage of the Simulator </li></ul><ul><li>Financial aspects and impacts on manpower allocation </li></ul><ul><li>not addressed as part of the working-group </li></ul><ul><li>although it is clear that the first mission (GaiaSim) will have a work overhead </li></ul><ul><ul><li>for Gaia, OPS-GI and OPS-GF contributed (financially and in terms of manpower) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>but a long term benefit and high reusability is expected from synergies </li></ul><ul><li>Earth-Observation missions also looked with interest to the outcome of this WG </li></ul><ul><li>Sentinel-1 are currently considering this approach </li></ul><ul><li>Co-operation is essential </li></ul><ul><li>Continuous commitment by all parties is required </li></ul><ul><li>FD Participation to all phases of the development cycle: </li></ul><ul><li>Requirement Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Review of detailed algorithm definitions </li></ul><ul><li>Software Delivery & Acceptance Process </li></ul><ul><li>Exploitation of expertise and experience gained with HPTDG developments </li></ul>
    30. 30. Conclusion <ul><li>We work towards: </li></ul><ul><li>Closer co-operation </li></ul><ul><li>Common infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Stronger Validation </li></ul><ul><li>Reducing risks on the long term </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing experience </li></ul>Extension of an Operational Simulator for Flight Dynamics | OPS-G Forum | ESOC | 04.12.2009 | Pag.
    31. 31. THANK YOU <ul><li>Daniel Werner & Nuno Sebastião (OPS-GDS) (OPS-GIC) </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Questions?
    32. 32. Enjoy the Santa Run! for those who participate… 
    33. 33. Working Group Composition Involving Flight Dynamics, Mission Data Systems, Infrastructure & Operations Supporting Slides (1) X. Marc (OPS-GF) J. Schwartz (OPS-GF) F. Dreger (OPS-GF) S. Karsten-Coors (OPS-GF) A. O’Connell (OPS-OA) G. Gienger (OPS-GF / Co-chair) N. Sebastiao (OPS-GI) D. Werner (OPS-GD) V. Reggestad (OPS-GD / Chair)
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×