Generic procedure for designing and implementing plan management systems for space science missions operations

Science operations planning expertise: A neglected component of mission design

“…Finally, it is worth noting that this paper has a similar scope to Chaizy et al (2009aChaizy et al ( , 2011) but a different purpose.…”

“…Therefore, a higher quality expertise will come from people who have spent a significant amount of time into the understanding and rationalisation of what they have been doing, more or less intuitively, in the past. Such expertise does exist and is labelled "Type II" expertise, hereafter; see for instance, Boden and Larson (1996), Squibb et al (2006), Chaizy et al (2009aChaizy et al ( , 2011. It is currently the best available expertise.…”

“…Consequently, it will also reduce the chances of increasing the autonomy of unmanned scientific missions. For instance, the use of an operations planning ontology, an issue already discussed in Chaizy et al (2009a), or of functional scenarii, see Chaizy et al (2011), can help to avoid such tautology. The key point here is that the developments of operations planning architecture that optimises automation can be complex (see Chaizy et al, 2011).…”

“…This expertise can be complex (e.g. Chaizy et al, 2009aChaizy et al, , 2011 and is specific to operations planning in general and to science operations planning in particular. This means that this expertise is more specific than the one described in generic system engineering best practice usually expressed as standards such as those from the European Cooperation for Space Standardisation (ECSS) or from the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems.…”

“…Manpower can be reduced during the: h Design phase, by identifying faster, during the MDP, the potential problems and the best ways of solving or avoiding them; via for instance, the use of functional scenarii (Chaizy et al, 2011).…”