Search

Abstract: The number and complexity of systems that control Space Science Missions continues to increase. As a result, it is desirable to improve the efficiency of these systems and, in particular, their performance and their productivity. In this paper, we set out a strategy to achieve this goal. In order to talk about improving the Performance and Productivity of a system we need to discuss the functional architecture of the system. In order to make progress, our strategy is to develop a generic methodology that decomposes the functional architecture of a Space Science Mission System and uses this decomposition to identify areas where improvements can be made. This paper concentrates on the decomposition of one specific component, namely the Plan Management System. The purpose of the Plan Management System is to produce an operation plan that contains the directives that will operate the various nodes, i.e. physical parts, of the system such as the ground stations, the spacecraft, the instruments, or even human beings (when these are following specific instructions). In order to be generic, the decomposition of the Plan Management System must make no assumptions about the purpose and implementation choices that must ultimately be made. In order to describe a functional architecture, it must also make no assumptions about the nature and purpose of the nodes that the system will operate or the nodes on which it will run. In particular, it makes no assumptions as to whether the execution of the Plan Management System components is manual or automated or whether the functions will be executed on the ground or in space. The methodology is based on the key points that more than one functional architecture can be used to satisfy a given set of system requirements and that a one-fit-for-all functional architecture is impossible to achieve (due to the variety of requirements). Therefore, in developing the methodology, we use the concept of a Functional Architecture Module (FAM) to create the generic decomposition. The resulting Plan Management System architectures are constructed as an assembly of building blocks, the Functional Architecture Modules, which can call each other. We have identified seven modules of this kind. Specific requirements can allow, impose or forbid the use of particular modules so we discuss the criteria to decide whether a given module is relevant in a given situation. This can help current and future mission planning system designers who may wish to use the FAMs, or something equivalent, to design the functional architecture of their system(s). In addition, we propose seven practical steps to improve the performance and productivity during the design, implementation and execution of the Plan Management System. Finally, we would like to stress that this methodology is far from being abstract and is currently being used to develop generic (in the sense given above) planning tools and procedures. Indeed, FAMs facilitate the separation of generic systems requirements from implementation choices/constraints. Such a separation prevents prescriptive design and implementation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

During the 1960s, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) worked to develop laws that would regulate activity in outer space. In the treaty that followed, outer space, a resource that encompassed Earth, was to remain outside of existing political borders, free from sovereign claims, and open to use by all states. Because of these stipulations, many have labeled outer space a “global commons” or “global resource.” In most academic analyses of global commons, these laws rejecting sovereign claims are treated as the de facto way that a resource that materially spanned all states would be governed. As debates in and outside of COPUOS indicate, however, the status of outer space as beyond states’ sovereign territorial jurisdiction was not given. Rather, as I demonstrate in this paper, the status of outer space and orbits as beyond sovereign territories is a result of political contestation over the understanding of physical properties of outer space and Earth. I trace the debate in the late 1960s and 1970s over the border between sovereign air space and “global” outer space. This was a debate over how outer space would be incorporated into political–economic relations. By using a production of nature approach that recognizes the importance of physical materialities and scalar politics, I demonstrate the constructedness of outer space as a “global” resource and how its construction as such furthered uneven political–economic processes. Such analysis illuminates how such socionatures beyond and across borders are produced to achieve particular political–economic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last century and a half, space has moved from the realm of fantasy to everyday reality. In parallel, the way space has been regarded by the person in the street and the ideas of what access to space might be used for have evolved extraordinarily. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]