My stated objective is to try to effect more inclusive and exhaustive consensus 
about UTC, not to influence the outcome personally.  Whichever way this goes, 
the outcome should be codified and guidance for either accommodating the 
current scheme or adapting to the new one is required.

Naïve at the outset (maybe still), I became involved in ISO as a representative 
of the space community believing that ISO would facilitate consensus among 
stakeholders and arrive at a widely acceptable solution.  So far this has 
happened most of the time in my working group.  The latest accomplishment is 
the data and metadata content as well as format for exchanging orbit data 
(Orbit Data Message).    I did influence including coordinate systems, 
reference frames, and time scales in the metadata.  

The approach suggested in our AAS paper and subsequent editorials and point 
papers is that ITU, ISO, BIPM, and other stakeholder organizations do this 
together.  There is precedent, since JTCG 1 was formed to accomplish this for 
metrology.  BIPM chairs JTCG1.  

I am making progress.   

To address Poul-Hennig's comments about selling standards, CCSDS and AIAA 
standards are free.  If anyone from ISO is on this thread, ignore what I am 
about to write!  We worked around ISO charges by making the Orbit Data Message 
standard a joint CCSDS/AIAA/ISO document.  It is free from CCSDS and AIAA.   

It is important that both ISO and ITU headquarters organizations have expenses. 
 ITU has UN funding.  ISO has voluntary contributions and document sales.   The 
headquarters organizations only administer the processes and publication.  They 
do not participate in the outcomes or decide what the work items should be.  
The decision to pursue a work area resides in the Technical Committees and 
Working Groups, which are pro-bono.  ISO HQ itself cannot initiate, encourage, 
or participate in authorizing standards work.

For everyone to criticize, I have almost convinced the USAF to issue a position 
statement to OSD and the State Department pleading that UTC not change from the 
current paradigm.  The rationale is that UTC is called out as the mandatory 
service for event time tagging and synchronization.   As such, contractors must 
implement UTC in every Air Force system.  If UTC changes, there will be 
consequences throughout current and emerging systems.  Any change would mandate 
extensive assessments and mitigation.  No change being the best alternative for 
them is a no-brainer.   

Dave Finkleman
Senior Scientist
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
 
Phone:  719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780
Fax:  719-573-9079
 
Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and outreach 
events at www.CenterForSpace.com.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Reply via email to