CONJUNCTION
DATA MESSAGE
TEST PLAN/REPORT
CCSDS RECORD
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
YELLOW BOOK
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
FOREWORD
This document records the plans for prototype testing and results of that testing for the
Conjunction Data Message, CCSDS 508.0-R-1, Red Book. As a record of prototype testing,
it is expected that expansion, deletion, or modification of this document will not occur. This
document is subject to CCSDS document management and change control procedures, which
are defined in the Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space
Data Systems. Current versions of CCSDS documents are maintained at the CCSDS Web
site:
http://www.ccsds.org/
Questions relating to the contents or status of this document should be addressed to the
CCSDS Secretariat at the address indicated on page i.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page i
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
At time of publication, the active Member and Observer Agencies of the CCSDS were:
Member Agencies
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI)/Italy.
British National Space Centre (BNSC)/United Kingdom.
Canadian Space Agency (CSA)/Canada.
Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)/France.
China National Space Administration (CNSA)/People’s Republic of China.
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR)/Germany.
European Space Agency (ESA)/Europe.
Federal Space Agency (FSA)/Russian Federation.
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)/Brazil.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)/Japan.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/USA.
Observer Agencies
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Austrian Space Agency (ASA)/Austria.
Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BFSPO)/Belgium.
Central Research Institute of Machine Building (TsNIIMash)/Russian Federation.
Centro Tecnico Aeroespacial (CTA)/Brazil.
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)/China.
Chinese Academy of Space Technology (CAST)/China.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)/Australia.
Danish National Space Center (DNSC)/Denmark.
European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
(EUMETSAT)/Europe.
European Telecommunications Satellite Organization (EUTELSAT)/Europe.
Hellenic National Space Committee (HNSC)/Greece.
Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)/India.
Institute of Space Research (IKI)/Russian Federation.
KFKI Research Institute for Particle & Nuclear Physics (KFKI)/Hungary.
Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI)/Korea.
MIKOMTEK: CSIR (CSIR)/Republic of South Africa.
Ministry of Communications (MOC)/Israel.
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)/Japan.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/USA.
National Space Organization (NSPO)/Chinese Taipei.
Naval Center for Space Technology (NCST)/USA.
Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO)/Pakistan.
Swedish Space Corporation (SSC)/Sweden.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)/USA.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page ii
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document
Title and Issue
CCSDS
508.1-Y-1
Conjunction Data Message Test/Plan Apr 2013
Report, CCSDS Record, Issue 1
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Date
Page iii
Status
Initial Issue
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
CONTENTS
Section
1
2
3
4
5
Page
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 RATIONALE .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.5 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE.................................................................................. 1-1
1.6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 1-2
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION..................................................................... 2-1
CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE (CDM) TESTING GOALS ........................... 3-2
3.1 CDM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 3-2
TEST PLAN OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 4-3
TEST PLAN DETAILS ................................................................................................. 5-4
5.1 TEST CASE #1: JSPOC CSM COMPARISON .................................................... 5-4
5.1.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-4
5.1.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-4
5.1.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-4
5.2 TEST CASE #2: JSPOC OCM COMPARISON .................................................... 5-4
5.2.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-5
5.3 TEST CASE #3: NASA/JPL NON-EARTH CENTERED CDM .......................... 5-5
5.3.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-5
5.3.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-5
5.3.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-5
5.4 TEST CASE #4: CNES SPECIFIC CDM .............................................................. 5-6
5.4.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-6
5.4.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-6
5.4.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-6
5.5 TEST CASE #5: AGI/CSSI CDM INCLUDING COLLISION PROBABILITY . 5-6
5.5.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-6
5.5.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-6
5.5.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-6
5.6 TEST CASE #6: ESA/ESAC CDM INCLUDING SCREENING VOLUME ....... 5-7
5.6.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-7
5.6.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-7
5.6.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-7
5.7 TEST CASE #7: XML TO KVN CONVERSION ................................................. 5-7
5.7.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-7
5.7.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-7
5.7.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-7
5.8 TEST CASE #8: TRACING OF OBLIGATORY KEYWORDS TO ANNEX B
PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 5-8
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page iv
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
5.8.1 TEST PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 5-8
5.8.2 TEST DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 5-8
5.8.3 EXPECTED RESULTS .............................................................................. 5-8
6 TEST REPORT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 6-1
7 TEST REPORT DETAILS ........................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 TEST CASE #1 JSPOC CSM COMPARISON ..................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 IRIDIUM TEST RESULTS ....................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 AGI/CSSI TEST RESULTS ....................................................................... 7-3
7.1.3 JAXA TEST RESULTS ............................................................................. 7-4
7.1.4 CNES TEST RESULTS ............................................................................. 7-6
7.1.5 ESA/ESAC TEST RESULTS ..................................................................... 7-8
7.1.6 DLR/GSOC TEST RESULTS .................................................................. 7-10
7.1.7 OVERALL TEST RESULT ..................................................................... 7-11
7.2 TEST CASE #2: JSPOC OCM COMPARISON .................................................. 7-12
7.2.1 TEST CASE 2A: NASA/JSC RESULTS ................................................. 7-12
7.2.2 TEST CASE 2B: NASA/GSFC RESULTS ............................................. 7-13
7.2.3 TEST CASE 2C: NASA/GSFC RESULTS ............................................. 7-14
7.2.4 OVERALL TEST RESULT ..................................................................... 7-15
7.3 TEST CASE #3: NASA/JPL NON-EARTH CENTERED CDM ........................ 7-16
7.3.1 TEST CASE 3A: NASA/GSFC RESULTS ............................................. 7-16
7.3.2 TEST CASE 3B: ESA/ESOC RESULTS ................................................. 7-16
7.3.3 OVERALL TEST RESULT ..................................................................... 7-17
7.4 TEST CASE #4: CNES SPECIFIC CDM ............................................................ 7-18
7.5 TEST CASE #5: AGI/CSSI CDM INCLUDING COLLISION PROBABILITY7-20
7.6 TEST CASE #6: ESA/ESAC CDM INCLUDING SCREENING VOLUME .. 7-22
7.7 TEST CASE #7: XML TO KVN CONVERSION ............................................... 7-25
7.8 TEST CASE #8: TRACING OF OBLIGATORY KEYWORDS TO ANNEX B
PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 7-27
ANNEX A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................... 7-31
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page v
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to describe the prototype testing conducted on the CCSDS
Conjunction Data Message (CDM), CCSDS 508.0-R-1 (reference [2]). An initial draft of the
test plan was prepared by the members of the CCSDS Navigation Working Group (NavWG)
at the CCSDS Spring 2012 meetings conducted in Darmstadt, Germany. The test plan was
finalized at the CCSDS Fall 2012 meetings conducted in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and the
testing was completed in April 2013.
1.2
SCOPE
The scope of this document is testing of the Conjunction Data Message. The CDM is part of
the technical program of the CCSDS NavWG. The CDM document completed a CCSDS
Agency Review in June 2012, with revisions following this initial review to apply RIDs
from the review and proofreading changes; this process is described in reference [1].
Note that in applicable places the prototyping includes results based on modifications to
the CDM document provided via the Agency Review Item Discrepancy (RID) process
(see reference [3], available internally through the NavWG). Changes based on the ongoing
working group activity were also incorporated as applicable, and as documented in reference
[3].
1.3
APPLICABILITY
This document applies to the prototype testing required to advance the CDM from Red Book
to Blue Book status.
1.4
RATIONALE
The CCSDS Procedures Manual states that for a Recommendation to become a Blue Book,
the draft standard must be tested in an operational manner. The following requirements for an
implementation exercise were excerpted from reference [1]:
“At least two independent and interoperable prototypes or implementations
must have been developed and demonstrated in an operationally relevant
environment, either real or simulated.”
This document outlines the NavWG’s approach to meeting this requirement for the CDM
508.0 Red Book.
1.5
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
The first sections of this document describe the Test Plan for the prototyping activity; the
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 1-1
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
last sections of the document provide a Test Report of the realized plan. Acronyms are
provided in Annex A.
1.6
REFERENCES
The following documents are referenced in this document. At the time of publication, the
editions indicated were valid. All documents are subject to revision, and users of this
document are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of
the documents indicated below. The CCSDS Secretariat maintains a register of currently
valid CCSDS documents.
[1]
Organization and Processes for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems.
CCSDS A02.1-Y-3. Yellow Book. Issue 3. Washington, D.C.: CCSDS, July 2011.
[2]
Conjunction Data Message. Recommendation for Space Data System Standards,
CCSDS 508.0-R-1. Red Book, Washington, D.C.: CCSDS, January 2012.
[3]
Conjunction Data Message. Recommendation for Space Data System Standards,
CCSDS 508.0-R-1.6. Red Book, Washington, D.C.: CCSDS, March 2013.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 1-2
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
2
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The test plan and test reports documented herein substantiate that the organizations
participating in the CCSDS NavWG have successfully conducted prototype testing of the
Conjunction Data Message (CDM) document (references [2], [3]). During the testing, CDMs
were produced by 5 different organizations, and the ability to correctly read the messages and
utilize the information in analyses was demonstrated by 9 different organizations.
The prototype implementations demonstrated the utility of the CDM, and the few minor
discrepancies identified helped to improve the quality of the prototype implementations. In
several instances, the CDM prototypes are being prepared for integration into operations
pending official release of the CDM Recommended Standard.
Based on the diversity of organizations able to read/write the messages, and the positive test
results, the NavWG recommends that the CDM Red Book document be promoted to a Blue
Book CCSDS Recommended Standard.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 2-1
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
3
CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE (CDM) TESTING GOALS
The test of the CDM described in Section 4 and Section 5 of this plan will be conducted in
order to meet the CCSDS requirements described in Section 2. In Section 6 and Section 7,
the results of the testing are presented.
3.1
CDM OVERVIEW
The CDM is an ASCII file in “keyword=value notation” (KVN) formatted message as well
as an Extensible Markup Language (XML) formatted message. It specifies a standard
message format for use in exchanging spacecraft conjunction information between
originators of conjunction assessment (CA) data, satellite owner/operators and other
authorized parties. The file is organized into 4 sections: a header section, a relative
metadata/data section, a metadata section and a data section. The header section contains
identification information (version, creation date, originator, etc.). The relative metadata/data
section contains metadata/data describing relative relationships between the two conjuncting
objects. The metadata section contains information regarding the objects to which the
conjunction assessment information applies, operator contact information, applicable
reference frames, etc.. The data section contains the Cartesian state vector for the conjuncting
objects at the time of closest approach (obligatory), a 6x6 position/velocity covariance matrix
(obligatory) for both objects, the 7, 8 and 9 terms for a 9x9 covariance matrix (optional) for
both objects, needed for propagation of the covariance to another time point, and information
describing the orbit determination used for each object in producing the state vectors and
covariance.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 3-2
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
4
TEST PLAN OVERVIEW
Prototyping of the CDM will be performed as shown in the following table, which lists the
Test Number, participating member agencies of the Navigation Working Group, and
direction of message transfer. All CDM optional elements will be exercised in the test cases.
In the event of discrepancies, troubleshooting will be conducted by the participants in the
test.
Test#
1
From
JSpOC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JSpOC
NASA/JPL
CNES
AGI/CSSI
ESA/ESAC
JSpOC
N/A
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
To
AGI/CSSI, Boeing/Iridium, CNES,
DLR/GSOC, ESA/ESAC, JAXA
NASA/GSFC, NASA/JSC
ESA/ESOC, NASA/GSFC
DLR/GSOC
ESA/ESAC
AGI/CSSI
Boeing/Iridium
N/A
Page 4-3
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
5
5.1
TEST PLAN DETAILS
TEST CASE #1: JSPOC CSM COMPARISON
5.1.1 TEST PURPOSE
This tests the ability of the CDM to replace an existing operational JSpOC practice using the
Conjunction Summary Message (CSM).
5.1.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, the JSpOC will send five Conjunction Summary Messages (CSMs) and their
associated CDMs, in XML format to JAXA, ESA/ESAC, DLR/GSOC, Iridium, CNES and
AGI/CSSI. In this case, the CDM shall include optional elements routinely provided by the
JSpOC on the CSM as well as all obligatory elements.
5.1.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that JAXA, ESA/ESAC, DLR/GSOC, Iridium, CNES and AGI/CSSI will be
able to successfully read the CDM in their chosen format. Comparisons and a mapping of
data will be made to corresponding CSMs. Each recipient will provide a summary of the
results to the NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a teleconference to determine
success.
5.2
TEST CASE #2: JSPOC OCM COMPARISON
5.2.1 TEST PURPOSE
This tests the ability of the CDM to replace an existing operational JSpOC practice using the
Orbital Conjunction Message (OCM).
5.2.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, the JSpOC will send CDMs and Orbital Conjunction Messages (OCMs), in both
the XML and KVN format, to NASA/JSC and NASA/GSFC. For all CDMs, the full 9x9
covariance shall be included along with all the obligatory elements and optional elements
routinely provided by the JSpOC on an OCM.
1.2.2.1 Test Case #2A The first CDM, which will be sent to NASA/JSC, will be computed
based on Object1 and/or Object2 residing in a 400 kilometer (approximately) near-circular
orbit. This test case will provide computation of the CD_AREA_OVER_MASS and its
associated covariance terms CDRG.
1.2.2.2 Test Case #2B The second CDM, which will be sent to NASA/GSFC, will be
computed based on Object1 and/or Object 2 residing in a geostationary orbit. This test case
will provide computation of the CR_AREA_OVER_MASS and its associated covariance
terms CSRP.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 5-4
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
1.2.2.3 Test Case #2C The third CDM, which will be sent to NASA/GSFC, will be
computed based on Object1 and/or Object 2 residing in a geostationary orbit which executes
longitudinal station keeping maneuvers using a xenon-ion propulsion system (XIPS). This
test case will allow the orbit determination process to solve for the INTRACK_THRUST. It
will also allow computation of the associated covariance terms CTHR.
5.2.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that NASA/JSC and NASA/GSFC will be able to successfully read the
CDMs in their chosen format. Comparisons and a mapping of data will be made to
corresponding OCMs. Each recipient will provide a summary of the results to the NavWG.
The NavWG will discuss the results in a teleconference to determine success.
5.3
TEST CASE #3: NASA/JPL NON-EARTH CENTERED CDM
5.3.1 TEST PURPOSE
To test the case for a non-earth center and additional optional parameters not tested
elsewhere.
5.3.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, NASA/JPL will send CDMs (in both KVN and XML formats) describing a
conjunction to NASA/GSFC and ESA/ESOC. In this case, the conjuncting objects are
orbiting the Moon or Mars and all obligatory and some optional elements shall be present.
Optional elements that shall be included in this test are:
1) OBJECT_TYPE
2) OPERATOR_CONTACT_POSITION
3) OPERATOR_ORGANIZATION
4) OPERATOR_PHONE
5) OPERATOR_EMAIL
6) MASS
7) ORBIT_CENTER
1.3.2.1 Test Case #3A The first CDM, which will be sent to NASA/GSFC, will be computed
based on a conjunction between LRO and ARTEMISx.
1.3.2.2 Test Case #3B The second CDM, which will be sent to ESA/ESOC, will be
computed based on a conjunction between MRO and MEX and/or Odyssey and MEX.
5.3.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 5-5
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
It is anticipated that NASA/GSFC and ESA/ESOC will be able to successfully read the
CDM. Each recipient will provide a summary of the results to the NavWG. The NavWG will
discuss the results in a teleconference to determine success.
5.4
TEST CASE #4: CNES SPECIFIC CDM
5.4.1 TEST PURPOSE
Provides an additional originator of the CDM.
5.4.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, CNES will send multiple CDMs to DLR/GSOC. In this case, the CDM shall
include all obligatory elements.
5.4.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that DLR/GSOC will be able to successfully read the CDM. DLR/GSOC will
provide a summary of the results to the NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a
teleconference to determine success.
5.5
TEST CASE #5: AGI/CSSI CDM INCLUDING COLLISION PROBABILITY
5.5.1 TEST PURPOSE
This will test keywords related to collision probability and area as well as perform
consistency testing.
5.5.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, AGI/CSSI will send a CDM describing a conjunction to ESA/ESAC. All
obligatory elements shall be included. Optional elements that shall be included in this test
are:
1) COLLISION_PROBABILITY
2) COLLISION_PROBABILITY_METHOD
3) AREA_DRG
4) AREA_SRP
5) CD_AREA_OVER_MASS
6) CR_AREA_OVER_MASS
7) MASS
5.5.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that ESA/ESAC will be able to successfully read the CDM. ESA/ESAC will
perform consistency testing of the CDM by re-computing the collision probability, assuming
AGI/CSSI and ESA/ESAC have implemented the same probability formulation, using the state
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 5-6
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
vectors and covariance for Object1 and Object2 at TCA and comparing to the corresponding
value on the CDM. ESA/ESAC will also perform consistency checking with the coefficients
of atmospheric drag and radiation pressure, the area and the mass. ESA/ESAC will provide a
summary of the results to the NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a
teleconference to determine success.
5.6
TEST CASE #6: ESA/ESAC CDM INCLUDING SCREENING VOLUME
5.6.1 TEST PURPOSE
This will test additional optional keywords related to screening volumes.
5.6.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, ESA/ESAC will send a CDM to AGI/CSSI. All obligatory elements shall be
included. Optional elements that shall be included in this test are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
START_SCREEN_PERIOD
STOP_SCREEN_PERIOD
SCREEN_VOLUME_FRAME
SCREEN_VOLUME_X
SCREEN_VOLUME_Y
SCREEN_VOLUME_Z
SCREEN_ENTRY_TIME
SCREEN_EXIT_TIME
5.6.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that AGI/CSSI will be able to successfully read the CDM. AGI/CSSI will
provide a summary of the results to the NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a
teleconference to determine success.
5.7
TEST CASE #7: XML TO KVN CONVERSION
5.7.1 TEST PURPOSE
This test case is a variant of Test Case #1 in which the XSLT convertor is used to transform
an XML CDM to a KVN CDM.
5.7.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
For this test, the JSpOC will send Conjunction Summary Messages (CSMs) and their
associated CDMs, in XML format to Iridium. In this case, the CDM shall contain optional
elements routinely provided by the JSpOC on the CSM as well as all obligatory elements.
5.7.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 5-7
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
It is anticipated that Iridium will be able to successfully use the XSLT convertor to compare
the converted XML messages to the KVN messages. Iridium will provide a summary of the
results to the NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a teleconference to determine
success.
5.8
TEST CASE #8: TRACING OF OBLIGATORY KEYWORDS TO ANNEX B
PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS
5.8.1 TEST PURPOSE
This is a test by analysis to ensure requirements of the CDM are met.
5.8.2 TEST DESCRIPTION
A trace will be performed by the NavWG of all the CDM obligatory keywords to ensure that
there is an applicable Annex B primary requirement, on the premise that all the keywords
that have been designated as 'obligatory' should have an associated primary requirement.
5.8.3 EXPECTED RESULTS
It is anticipated that for each obligatory keyword at least one Annex B primary requirement
will apply. Assuming that these criteria are met, the test will be considered successful. The
results of the trace will be presented and discussed to determine success.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 5-8
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
6
TEST REPORT OVERVIEW
CDM recipients at CNES, JAXA, ESA/ESAC, NASA/JPL, NASA/JSC, NASA/GSFC,
Iridium, DLR/GSOC and AGI/CSSI will provide a summary of their test results to the
NavWG. The NavWG will discuss the results in a teleconference to determine success.
The test report details will be consolidated in Section 7 of this document. A summarization of
the test process and the recommendation of the NavWG may be found in Section 2 of the
report. The report will be submitted to the CCSDS Engineering Steering Group (CESG) and
CCSDS Management Council (CMC), along with results of the agency reviews. At that time,
a formal request will be submitted to the CMC for progression of the CDM to CCSDS Blue
Book status.
The next page contains a format for the test data sheets that will be used to report the results
of individual tests. The form includes sections for the originator of the message and the
recipient of the message as well as sections to document the test results.
.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 6-1
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
SAMPLE
Conjunction Data Message (CDM) Prototype Test Data Sheet
Report Date
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
CDM Recipient
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 6-2
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7
TEST REPORT DETAILS
7.1
TEST CASE #1 JSPOC CSM COMPARISON
7.1.1 IRIDIUM TEST RESULTS
Table 7-1 gives the test results from Iridium.
Table 7-1: Iridium Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Jan 29, 2013
1
CDM Originator
JSpOC
CDM Recipient
Iridium
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) 5 Conjunction Summary Messages (CSMs) and
5 corresponding Conjunction Data Messages
(CDMs) in both KVN and XML format were
processed
by
Iridium’s
Conjunction
Assessment (CA) software.
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
All 5 CDMs were successfully processed by
Iridium’s software and yielded probability of
collisions and assessment plots essentially
identical to those of the CSMs.
Page 7-1
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
1. The JSpOC did not report the time of
the last observation in the CDM, though
this is an optional field. Since the
intended purpose of
TIME_LASTOB_START and
TIME_LASTOB_END was to give the
JSpOC and others the means to
obfuscate the exact measurement time,
it would be good to understand why the
fields were not utilized.
Discrepancies from Expected Results
2. The JSpOC did not report the optional
AREA_PC. This did not impact
Iridium’s assessment tools because the
RCS from the Satellite Situation Report
is used when available, and a value was
available for all test conjunctions.
3. The CSM vectors are in the TDR frame
whereas the CDM vectors were in
ITRF, which led to minor comparison
differences on the order of 10 meters
because the vectors were not rotated
into a common frame for the test.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Pass.
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
Page 7-2
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.1.2 AGI/CSSI TEST RESULTS
Table 7-2 gives the test results from AGI/CSSI.
Table 7-2: AGI/CSSI Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Jan 15, 2013
Report Date
1
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
JSPOC
CDM Recipient
CSSI
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Converted CDM to KVN (readable) format
The data was successfully read
Summary of Test Results
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
The state vector of the accompanying CSMs
differed slightly from the CDM. This is because
the CSM uses PEF and the CDM uses ITRF.
We also noticed that the CDM XML format had
additional blank lines that were not present in
the new CDM XML files that were created
during the test.
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013 Navigation
Working Group telecon).
The extra white space issue noted was corrected
in the XSLT converter.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-3
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.1.3 JAXA TEST RESULTS
Table 7-3 gives the test results from JAXA.
Table 7-3: JAXA Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Jan 30, 2013
1
CDM Originator
JSPOC
CDM Recipient
JAXA
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Read 5 CDMs in xml format, and compared
them with respective CSMs for conjunction
analysis.
1. All the items were confirmed to be
Summary of Test Results
included in CDMs based on the Excel file
of “CDM Test data fields for Test 1.xlsx”
having been provided before the test.
(Note: a covariance was extended from 6*6
to 8*8 in one case.)
2. A CDM in xml format was successfully
read. In JAXA, we didn’t use XML schema
or XLST for converting from XML to KVN
format.
3. A CDM had different
“INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR”
from CSM in one case ( CDM => “1999025BF”, CSM=>”1999-025BFP”).
We calculated probabilities of collision,
which showed no difference between CDM
and CSM.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-4
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
1. The
last
character
of
INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR
on
CDM (i.e. 1999-025BF) was missing when
compared with CSM (i.e. 1999-025BFP) in
one case.
2. The information of RCS and the time of the
last accepted observation used in the OD
were not included although the remark of
“CDM Test data fields for Test 1.xlsx”
included “A binned Time of Last Ob will be
listed as a comment” and “AREA_PC is the
same as RCS; A binned RCS value will be
listed as a comment.” These items are
necessary for CA operation and thus it is
strongly desired to have them displayed,
even displaying as a comment is also an
option to be considered.
3. The coordination system displayed in the
header section on CDM was TDR, while
actual values utilized were ITRF.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Partial Pass:
It lacked INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR.
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
The INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR issue
has been corrected in the JSpOC
implementation.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-5
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.1.4 CNES TEST RESULTS
Table 7-4 gives the test results from CNES.
Table 7-4: CNES Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Feb 04, 2013
1
CDM Originator
JSPOC
CDM Recipient
CNES
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Read 5 CDM in xml, Compare with respective
CSM for conjunction analysis
Summary of Test Results
The data was successfully read.
2 remarks given by importance :
1- “RADAR CROSS SECTION” is in CSM
and in comment in CDM => information on
size (small, medium, large) is very useful and
should be put, as for test#1, in comment in real
CDM even if AREA_PC is populated or not.
2- “TIME OF LAST ACCEPTED OB” (<24h
or >24h) is in CSM, for real CDM it will be
very
useful
that
JSpOC
uses
“TIME_LASTOB_START”
and
“TIME_LASTOB_END”
to indicate the
information which is in CSM.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-6
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
The difference of frames between CSM (TDR)
and CDM (ITRF) implies differences in state
vectors (around 15 meters for LEO). Once
frame transformation is done, it remains
differences of the order of 10cm due to the
IERS data and model taken into account.
MISS_DISTANCE should not be a truncated
value but a rounded one given with the same
level of precision than the relative state vector.
When miss distance is 4483.99, CDM has 4483
when it should have 4484.0.
There
is
a
misspelling
for
“NBODY_PERTUBATION” :
should be
“N_BODY_PERTURBATION”
The CDM we got for 38755 had “*ERROR*”
in field “N_BODY_PERTUBATION”.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
Noted discrepancies with truncation and
spelling errors have been addressed in the
operational version of the prototype and in the
XSLT converter.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-7
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.1.5 ESA/ESAC TEST RESULTS
Table 7-5 gives the test results from ESA/ESAC.
Table 7-5: ESA/ESAC Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Jan 17, 2013
1
CDM Originator
JSPOC
CDM Recipient
ESA/ESAC
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) CDM files received have been compared
to their corresponding CSM files using
Excel and by visual inspection.
In addition, the xsd file has been verified
for consistency and against the XML
files produced by the ESA/ESAC prototype.
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Files were correctly read. Some minor
problems found in CDMs received and in xsd
file.
Page 7-8
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
The following problems were found:
• There are some blank spaces that
need to be removed from four
locations in the xsd:
"ndm:objectDescriptionType " -->
"ndm:objectDescriptionType"
"AREA_PC
" --> "AREA_PC"
"AREA_DRG " --> "AREA_DRG"
"AREA_SRP " --> "AREA_SRP"
• International designator seems to be
truncated in CDM for some cases (see
results below).
• Invalid value for MESSAGE_FOR
parameter in messages for CRYOSAT 2.
• Minor differences found in SV
comparison due to different reference
frame used (this is not considered as a
problem).
• Truncation of MISS_DISTANCE and
RELATIVE_SPEED values found.
• Units of state vector are found
to be different.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
Pass
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
Noted discrepancies with truncation and extra
spaces in the tag names have been addressed in
the operational version of the prototype and in
the CDM XML schema.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-9
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.1.6 DLR/GSOC TEST RESULTS
Table 7-6 gives the test results from DLR/GSOC.
Table 7-6: DLR/GSOC Test Results for JSpOC CSM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Feb 1, 2013
1
CDM Originator
JSpOC
CDM Recipient
DLR/GSOC
Test Details (Summary of Read 4 sets of CSM (XML format) and CDM (XML format,
using XML-to-KVN TRANSLATOR), and check consistency of
cases examined)
CSM/CDM results.
Summary of Test Results
The data could be successfully read.
The updated XML-to-KVN TRANSLATOR (received from
David Berry on Jan.30) was used to process the CDMs. (see the
next section for details)
Discrepancies from
Expected Results
GRAVITY_MODEL for GEO satellites (test for 35943 and
36582) was different. "EGM-96: 36D 36O" for CDM, and
"EGM-96 8Z, 8T" for CSM. (36 for GEO too large?)
In CDM for 36582, N_BODY_PERTURBATIONS of object2
was "*ERROR*" instead of "NO".
In the test for 27391, INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR of
object2 was "1999-025DXK" in CSM, and the last "K" was
missing in CDM.
Difference in the state vectors because of the TDR/ITRF in
CSM/CDM. (not a problem)
Using the updated XML-to-KVN TRANSLATOR (received
from David Berry on Jan.30) together with the xsltproc tool
(Linux), the CDMs could be read and converted only after
following modifications:
1. Removing
xmlns="urn:ccsds:recommendation:navigation:schema:ndmxml"
in the second line of the provided CDM test file.
2. Modifying keyword "N_BODY_PERTUBATIONS" (spelling
error) in the provided CDM test file.
3. Adding keyword "RESIDUALS_ACCEPTED" and moving
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-10
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
keyword “ORBIT_CENTER" in the translator (item also
addressed by Iridium).
Additional remark:
The output KVN file includes too much blank lines. (not a
problem)
Recipient’s
Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To
be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013 Navigation Working Group
telecon).
Noted issues of spelling errors, keyword placement and extra
white space have been addressed in an update of the XSLT
converter.
7.1.7 OVERALL TEST RESULT
Based upon discussion at the 06-Mar-2013 telecon of the Navigation Working Group, the
overall result of Test Case #1 is PASS.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-11
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.2
TEST CASE #2: JSPOC OCM COMPARISON
7.2.1 TEST CASE 2A: NASA/JSC RESULTS
Table 7-7 gives the test results from NASA/JSC.
Table 7-7: NASA/JSC Test results for JSpOC OCM Comparison
Report Date
Test Case Number
Feb 11, 2013
2A
CDM Originator
JSPOC
CDM Recipient
NASA-JSC/TOPO
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Examined cases for objects 2092, 2153, 2154,
2680, and 2800. Ensured consistency of data
between OCM and CDMs delivered. Did not
do any comparisons with state vector data.
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Did not look at CSM messages as JSC does not
No
noticeable
differences in data. Some
use the
CSM now.
comments were a little inconsistent in the
CDM.
Page 7-12
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
OCMs delivered were version 3. JSC currently
uses OCM version 2. Only known difference
is that version 3 has Probability of Collision,
Scaling Factor, and exclusion volume. Those
numbers were just ignored for this test.
As noted in GSFC’s test 2B and 2C results, the
geopotential model varied between the two
files (EGM-96 8Z, 8T for OCM, EGM-96 36
D, 36 O for CDM).
Comment at the top of the CDM references DC
SPAN although that is now called OD_SPAN.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass
Comment at the top of the CDM still references
the TDR reference frame, although the vectors
in
the(per
CDM
are in ITRF.
Pass
discussion
at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
7.2.2 TEST CASE 2B: NASA/GSFC RESULTS
Table 7-8 gives the test results from NASA/GSFC.
Table 7-8: NASA/GSFC Test results for JSpOC OCM Comparison For Test Case 2B
Report Date
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
CDM Recipient
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
01/16/2013
Test 2B
JSpOC
NASA CARA Team (GSFC)
Examined cases for objects 21639, 23613.
25001, 27389. Ensured data continuity
between CDM, CSM, and OCM delivered.
Only notable difference is the listed
geopotential model (EGM-96 8Z, 8T for
Page 7-13
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
OCMs, EGM-96 36 D, 36 O for CDMs).
This may simply be because in fact the two
were made using different geopotential
models and not a sign of erroneous output.
See Summary of Test Results. If the
geopotential model used for the CDMs
was in fact EGM-96 36 D, 36 O, no
discrepancies were observed.
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
7.2.3 TEST CASE 2C: NASA/GSFC RESULTS
Table 7-9 gives the test results from NASA/GSFC.
Table 7-9: NASA/GSFC Test results for JSpOC OCM Comparison For Test Case 2C
Report Date
01/16/2013
Test 2C
JSpOC
NASA CARA Team (GSFC)
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
CDM Recipient
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
Examined cases for object 13969. Ensured
data continuity between CDM, CSM, and
OCM delivered.
Summary of Test Results
Only notable difference is the listed
geopotential model (EGM-96 8Z, 8T for
OCM, EGM-96 36 D, 36 O for CDM).
This may simply be because in fact the two
were made using different geopotential
models and not a sign of erroneous output.
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
See Summary of Test Results. If the
geopotential model used for the CDM was
in fact EGM-96 36 D, 36 O, no
discrepancies were observed.
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
Page 7-14
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.2.4 OVERALL TEST RESULT
Based upon discussion at the 06-Mar-2013 telecon of the Navigation Working Group, the
overall result of Test Case #2 is PASS.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-15
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.3
TEST CASE #3: NASA/JPL NON-EARTH CENTERED CDM
7.3.1 TEST CASE 3A: NASA/GSFC RESULTS
Table 7-10 gives the test results from NASA/GSFC.
Table 7-10: NASA/GSFC Test results for Test Case 3A
Report Date
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
CDM Recipient
Test Details (Summary of
cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
Discrepancies from
Expected Results
Recipient’s
Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be
filled out by NavWG)
19 MAR 2013
3A
NASA/JPL
NASA/GSFC (CARA)
Visual inspection of content and schema validation of “CCSDSCDM-TestCase3A-2013-02-08-ARTEMISP1-LRO.xml”
Schema validation passed and visual inspection of content passed
None
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 20-Mar-2013 Navigation Working Group
telecon).
7.3.2 TEST CASE 3B: ESA/ESOC RESULTS
Table 7-11 gives the test results from ESA/ESAC.
Table 7-11: ESA/ESOC Test results for Test Case 3B
March 18th, 2013
Report Date
3B
Test Case Number
CDM Originator
NASA/JPL
CDM Recipient
ESA/ESOC
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
Minimum test for validation of the CDM
message in XML using the CWE XML schema
Visual inspection of expected
elements as per test case definition
optional
1) OBJECT_TYPE  present
2) OPERATOR_CONTACT_POSITION  present
3) OPERATOR_ORGANIZATION  present
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-16
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
4) OPERATOR_PHONE  present
5) OPERATOR_EMAIL  present
6) MASS  present
7) ORBIT_CENTER  present
Validation with the CWE schema shows an
error in file ndmxml-1.0-cdm-R1.4.xsd.
<xsd:element name="OBJECT_TYPE"
type="ndm:objectDescriptionType
" minOccurs="0" />
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Has an extra empty space at the end of the
ndm:objectDescriptionType
that
prevents the validation with XMLSpy.
None except the error in the XML schema
indicated above.
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 20-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
The discrepancy noted in the XML schema has
been corrected in a subsequent version.
7.3.3 OVERALL TEST RESULT
Based upon discussion at the 20-Mar-2013 telecon of the Navigation Working Group, the
overall result of Test Case #3 is PASS.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-17
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.4
TEST CASE #4: CNES SPECIFIC CDM
Table 7-12 gives the test results from DLR/GSOC.
Table 7-12: DLR/GSOC Test results for CNES Specific CDM
Report Date
Test Case Number
Feb 5, 2013
4
CDM Originator
CNES
CDM Recipient
DLR/GSOC
Test Details (Summary of Read CDMs (XML format, using XML-to-KVN
TRANSLATOR), and check consistency of the results.
cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
The data could be successfully read.
The miss-distance was reproduced with a difference of 0.1 m.
The relative position (in RTN frame) was reproduced exactly.
The relative speed and velocity could not be reproduced because
of missing optional parameters in CDMs for reference.
Discrepancies from
Expected Results
In the test for 26997, the rounded value given for
MISS_DISTANCE (943.5 m) is different from the calculated
one using the state vectors of the objects. From the position
vectors a distance of 943.391 m is calculated giving a rounded
value 943.4 instead of 943.5.
Using the updated XML-to-KVN TRANSLATOR (received
from David Berry on Jan.30) together with the xsltproc tool
(Linux), the CDMs could be read and converted only after
following modifications:
1. Removing
xmlns="urn:ccsds:recommendation:navigation:schema:ndmxml"
in the second line of the provided CDM test file.
2. Adding keyword "RESIDUALS_ACCEPTED" and moving
keyword “ORBIT_CENTER" in the translator (item also
addressed by Iridium).
The TRANSLATOR needs to be adapted to the CDM format.
Recipient’s
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Partial Pass
Page 7-18
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To
be filled out by
Pass (per discussion at 06-Mar-2013 Navigation Working Group
telecon).
NavWG)
Discrepancies in the XLST conversion have been addressed in a
subsequent version of the converter.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-19
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.5
TEST CASE #5: AGI/CSSI CDM INCLUDING COLLISION PROBABILITY
Table 7-13 gives the test results from ESA/ESAC.
Table 7-13: ESA/ESAC Test results for AGI/CSSI CDM
Report Date
Test Case Number
Apr 10, 2013
5
CDM Originator
CSSI
CDM Recipient
ESA/ESAC
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Conjunction reported on the CDM sent by
CSSI has been reproduced by the ESA/ESAC
system and both CDMs have been compared.
Summary of Test Results
Some problems were found reading the OEM
ASCII files. TLEs were used instead.
Test objectives have been verified. In
particular:
 It was verified that the following
optional parameters are included in the
CDM sent by CSSI:
o COLLISION_PROBABILITY
(value: 1.756E-06)
o COLLISION_PROBABILITY_
METHOD
(value:
MAXIMUM)
o AREA_DRG (value: 5 m**2)
o AREA_SRP (value: 5 m**2)
o CD_AREA_OVER_MASS
(value: 0.0697 m**2/kg)
o CR_AREA_OVER_MASS
(value: 0.0317 m**2/kg)
 All obligatory elements are included in
the received CDM
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-20
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
The following issues were found:
 MESSAGE_FOR keyword has no
value. This was corrected later
including the right value.
 MISS_DISTANCE contained the value
(KM). This was corrected later
including the right value.
 COLLISION_PROBABILITY_METH
OD has the value MAXIMUM. This
method is not currently included in the
SANA list, but it will be added.
 The collision probability value
computed is different both for CDMs.
This is caused by the fact that the
method used is different.
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 10-April-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon).
The discrepancy regarding the collision
probability method will be addressed by
adding the maximum probability method to the
SANA Registry.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-21
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.6
TEST CASE #6: ESA/ESAC CDM INCLUDING SCREENING VOLUME
Table 7-14 gives the test results from ESA/ESAC.
Table 7-14: AGI/CSSI Test results for ESA/ESAC CDM
Report Date
Test Case Number
Apr 11, 2013
6
CDM Originator
ESA/ESAC
CDM Recipient
CSSI
Test Details (Summary of cases examined) Conjunctions reported in the XML CDMs sent
by ESA/ESAC has been re-calculated and
reproduced by the CSSI system and all XML
CDMs have been compared successfully.
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Test objectives have been verified. In
particular:
 I verified that the following optional
parameters were included in the CDMs
sent by ESA/ESAC:
o START_SCREEN_PERIOD
o STOP_SCREEN_PERIOD
o SCREEN_VOLUME_FRAME
o SCREEN_VOLUME_X
o SCREEN_VOLUME_Y
o SCREEN_VOLUME_Z
o SCREEN_ENTRY_TIME
o SCREEN_EXIT_TIME
 All obligatory elements are included in
the CDM
Page 7-22
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Discrepancies from Expected Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
The following issues were found:
 (Comment only) MESSAGE_FOR has
the international designator because
ESAC uses it for several fields.
 TCA epoch time is slightly different
(0.8 seconds). This is not deemed a
problem as there are two different
systems processing and finding the
conjunction time. The difference in
time affects the satellite positional data
later, but the differences are not
operationally significant and are
expected over a 0.8 second time
difference.
 Units
not
included
for
the
RELATIVE_POSITION
and
VELOCITY and SCREEN_VOLUME
terms.
 Collision probability method is
different, as found in CDM test 5.
 EPHEMERIS_NAME field is blank.
 (Comment only) OBJECT_NAME
(both objects) are the same as the
international designator because ESAC
uses the international designator for
several fields.
 Object states (X, Y, Z, XDOT, YDOT,
ZDOT, both objects) are slightly
different because of the different TCA
time mentioned above.
 Covariance matrices (both objects) are
different because ESA uses different
values for the TLE covariance.
 Covariance values (both objects) do not
have units associated with the
parameters.
 (Comment only) I did not see the
MISS_DISTANCE term when using
the XSL converter. The value “IS” in
the ESA/ESAC XML CDM however.
Page 7-23
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass
Pass (per discussion at 15-April-2013
Navigation Working Group meeting at
Bordeaux).
Issues with the various fields and units are
minor
issues
with
the
prototype
implementation that have been addressed by
the ESA/ESAC implementer.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-24
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.7
TEST CASE #7: XML TO KVN CONVERSION
Table 7-15 gives the test results from Iridium
Table 7-15: Iridium Test Results for XML to KVN Conversion
Jan 29, 2013
Report Date
7
Test Case Number
JSpOC
CDM Originator
Iridium
CDM Recipient
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
Summary of Test Results
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
5 (CDMs) were received from the JSpOC in
XML and KVN format. The XML files were
converted into KVN using XSLT. xsltproc (on
redhat linux) and Matlab’s xslt function were
used with the stylesheet from appendix G of
CCSDS 508.0-R-1.3 (November, 2012).
All 5 XML CDMs were successfully converted
to KVN, matched the provided KVN files
(ignoring whitespace), and were usable for
conjunction assessment.
Page 7-25
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
1. The KVN files contained byte order
marks specifying UTF-8 at the start of
the file. Because the CDM refers to the
text as ASCII, it was not anticipated
that byte order marks would need to be
handled. These marks had to first be
removed before the KVN files could be
processed.
2. The XLST translator from appendix G
of CCSDS 508.0-R-1.3 (November,
2012) did not correctly translate
ORBIT_CENTER or
RESIDUALS_ACCEPTED. The
translation for ORBIT_CENTER
referenced relativeMetadata rather than
metadata, which appeared to cause it to
be missed and the value appended to the
previous field. The translation for
RESIDUALS_ACCEPTED was
missing. N_BODY_PERTUBATIONS
was also misspelled in the CDMs.
Discrepancies from Expected Results
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass.
Pass (per discussion at 20-Mar-2013
Navigation Working Group telecon). NOTE:
Many other test conductors also tested XSLT
conversion in the course of performing Test
Case #1.
Discrepancies noted with respect to XSLT
conversion have been addressed.
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-26
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
7.8
TEST CASE #8: TRACING OF OBLIGATORY KEYWORDS TO ANNEX B
PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS
Table 7-16 describes the test that traces the obligatory keywords to Annex B primary
requirements. Table 7-17 describes the Annex B primary requirements.
Table 7-16: Tracing of Obligatory Keywords to Annex B Primary Requirements
Report Date
10/16/2012
Test Case Number
8
CDM Originator
N/A
CDM Recipient
N/A
Test Details (Summary of cases examined)
A table containing all obligatory data items
was created from the keyword tables 3-1
through 3-4 in the CDM (see below). An
effort was made to trace each obligatory
keyword to a primary requirement.
A
secondary trace of requirements to keywords
was also conducted.
Summary of Test Results
Every obligatory keyword in the CDM traces
to a "primary requirement", with one
exception (CCSDS_CDM_VERS). This
keyword traces to a "desirable feature",
specifically, that the CDM be extensible
without disruption to existing users. In this
case, it is the VALUE associated with the
obligatory keyword, and not the keyword
itself, that satisfies the requirement. Thus
there is no issue. In the second part of the
test (the reverse trace), there are also several
primary requirements that do not trace to
obligatory keywords (e.g., relating to data
structures, data formats, units, and other nonkeyword related implementation details); as
such, these requirements are not applicable to
this test.
Discrepancies from Expected Results
It was expected that every obligatory
keyword would trace to a primary
requirement, but it was discovered that one
traced to a "desirable feature". This could be
an error in the classification of the feature
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-27
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
(maybe it actually is a "primary
requirement"). In any case, the obligatory
keyword does trace to an element in the
requirements set so this is not a serious issue.
It could easily be "corrected" by simply
renumbering the requirement into the
primary set and I doubt there would be any
objection.
Recipient’s Recommendation (Pass,
Partial Pass, Fail)
Pass
NavWG Disposition (To be filled out by
NavWG)
Pass
Table 7-17: Annex B Primary Requirements
Section
Keyword
Obligatory
Requirement
Header
CCSDS_CDM_VERS
Yes
CDM-D01
Header
CREATION_DATE
Yes
CDM-P03
Header
ORIGINATOR
Yes
CDM-P03
Header
MESSAGE_ID
Yes
CDM-P03
Metadata
OBJECT
Yes
CDM-P04
Metadata
OBJECT_DESIGNATOR
Yes
CDM-P04
Metadata
CATALOG_NAME
Yes
CDM-P04
Metadata
OBJECT_NAME
Yes
CDM-P04
Metadata
INTERNATIONAL_DESIGNATOR
Yes
CDM-P04
Relative Metadata/Data
TCA
Yes
CDM-P05
Metadata
COVARIANCE_METHOD
Yes
CDM-P07
Data
X
Yes
CDM-P07
Data
Y
Yes
CDM-P07
Data
Z
Yes
CDM-P07
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-28
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Section
Keyword
Obligatory
Requirement
Data
X_DOT
Yes
CDM-P07
Data
Y_DOT
Yes
CDM-P07
Data
Z_DOT
Yes
CDM-P07
Relative Metadata/Data
MISS_DISTANCE
Yes
CDM-P08
Metadata
REF_FRAME
Yes
CDM-P09
Data
CR_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CT_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CT_T
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CN_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CN_T
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CN_N
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CRDOT_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CRDOT_T
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CRDOT_N
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CRDOT_RDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CTDOT_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CTDOT_T
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CTDOT_N
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CTDOT_RDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CTDOT_TDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CNDOT_R
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CNDOT_T
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CNDOT_N
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CNDOT_RDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
Data
CNDOT_TDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-29
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
Section
Keyword
Obligatory
Requirement
Data
CNDOT_NDOT
Yes
CDM-P11
Metadata
MANEUVERABLE
Yes
CDM-P12
Metadata
EPHEMERIS_NAME
Yes
CDM-P16
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-30
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
ANNEX A
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(INFORMATIVE)
AGI/CSSI
Analytical Graphics Incorporated/Center for Space Standards and Innovation
ASCII
American Standard Code for Information Interchange
CA
Conjunction Assessment
CCSDS
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
CDM
Conjunction Data Message
CNES
Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales
CSM
Conjunction Summary Message
DLR/GSOC
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt (German Aerospace
Center)/German Space Operations Center
ESA/ESOC
European Space Agency/European Space Operations Center
ESA/ESAC
European Space Agency/European Space Astronomy Center
ITRF
International Terrestrial Reference Frame
JAXA
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
JSpOC
Joint Space Operations Center
KVN
Keyword = Value Notation
NASA/GSFC National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA/JPL
National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA/JSC
National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Johnson Space Flight Center
NavWG
CCSDS Navagation Working Group
OCM
Orbital Conjunction Message
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-31
April 2013
CCSDS RECORD CONCERNING CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE TEST PLAN/REPORT
SANA
Space Assigned Numbers Authority
TCA
Time of Closest Approach
XIPS
Xenon-Ion Propulsion System
XML
Extensible Markup Language
XSLT
Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations
CCSDS 508.1-Y-1
Page 7-32
April 2013