I’ve started to check and implement fixes and features for station status and availability in network.
My plan is to have one status and two different properties:
Status: online or offline, this will be automatically changed to online when client requests jobs from network and to offline when client hasn’t requested jobs from network for X time.
Properties:
Testing: true of false, this will be manually changed by the station owner in the station settings and will show if the station is under development/testing or ready for being fully utilized.
If the status of the testing station is online, then the owner will be able to schedule observations. Access for scheduling will be also available to admin for test/debugging reasons or in case of special events (new deployments, scheduled contacts, requests for helping receiving a satellite etc).
Availability: true or false, this will be also manually changed by the station owner. However owner will be able to schedule availability (or better downtime), in this case network will automatically change the availability when the time comes. True means that observations can be scheduled for this station, False means that no observations can be scheduled for the station and that if there were any scheduled ones will be removed.
When a change happens in one of the above then it will be logged in the station log with details, in order to keep track.
Please let me know if you have any objections/ideas/feedback on my plan.
Let each gs owner limit the number of schedules from other stations. My gs has been hijacked by one gs and it is almost unusable for me. I have posted this screenshot on another post, but think it shows the problem clearly.
Dimitrios is one of the SatNOGS schedulers, so I wouldn’t call that hijacking.
What I hate is the random owners who schedule and then don’t bother validating. Even worse are the ones who schedule obs for non-events, ie SSTV on ISS when there is none planned. Then of course they fail all observations.
Common sense and courtesy is required.
I assumed he was involved in scheduling for Satnog, but, when I wish to schedule, I usually have to delete one of his to schedule mine. That is very time consuming.
Possibly, the time difference between our stations is the problem. By the time I try to schedule, it is late in his part of the world.
Maybe we need to select Satnog schedulers that are nearer the host gs so that the owner will have time to schedule for the day without deleting schedules that were made 6 hours earlier.
Dimitrios is one of the SatNOGS schedulers, so I wouldn’t call that hijacking.
That is irrelevant. If this is truly an “open source project”, then nobody should have special privileges. Forcing any GS owner to manually delete mass scheduled observations in order to shoehorn in their own observations is system abuse.
That is irrelevant. If this is truly an “open source project”, then nobody should have special privileges. Forcing any GS owner to manually delete mass scheduled observations in order to shoehorn in their own observations is system abuse.
No, it is not irrelevant. GS owners signed up to the SatNOGS project and offer their hardware/bandwidth/time in support. So the priority goes there.
You can always run in “stand-alone” mode if you do not wish to contribute to the program.
I’m sorry, where does it say “priority is given to xxx” anywhere in the description of the program? I can only find mention of “first come, first serve”, and that admins have ability to schedule during remote GS’s testing mode.
Which is essentially what I was doing before even installing the satnogs software. But seeing as 95% of my groundstation(s) time was idle, it is entirely appropriate to allow others to use it. My point being that the GS owners needs ultimate control of their own hardware (and indeed, each ground station owner should have priority over their own equipment). And when other users can mass schedule tens to hundreds of observations remotely with one click of a mouse button, but it requires the GS owner several clicks (and significant background research) to manually delete an individual event, you effectively take control of the ground station out of the owner’s hands.
That’s not fair to the people that are building and maintaining the groundstations.
Dimitrios doesn’t have any special privileges. He has a station like the others and he is able to schedule to other stations too. The only difference is that Dimitrios is dedicated contributor on scheduling observations.
Let me do a quick flashback on satnogs past, this will probably explain the current status. When the first stations joined the network, usually their owners didn’t have the time or didn’t want to schedule observations on their own or on other stations. This is why Dimitrios with some other people (referred some times as observation team) decided to contribute to satnogs by helping on scheduling and utilizing the stations. Just a notice here, that observation team doesn’t mean more privileges, is just a quick name we use in order to name people that coordinate and contribute to scheduling in a systematic way.
This daily contribution gave to these people experience and a general view of the satellites and the ground stations which help for a better network utilization. However that doesn’t mean that they just scheduling and don’t care. A simple request here in discourse or in the matrix/irc channel, (usually with a mention to me or @BOCTOK-1 ) is enough for stopping or reducing scheduling on a station.
I think that communication (like this and other topics) and some code solutions (as the described ones) are the key that will bring the balance on observation scheduling and let everyone happy.
I agree with royldean that the statements about remote scheduling was clearly stated that admins and remote schedulers would remotely schedule for special events. And, has become unrealistic and out of control.
I have posted a couple of times that anyone that needs to use my gs is welcome. But mass scheduling my gs by one remote scheduler just to fill the satnogs db is not reasonable.
Take a look at the sats scheduled in the list above and tell me how many of those schedules are necessary for the benefit of satnogs or anyone…
Appears that the only way to take control of my gs is to take it offline, as that is the recommended protocol here.
You might not see what is necessary - it is just your personal point of view, what you don’t need.
Might be there is a use case for teaching something, like automated vetting.
And please: be kind
You - and one or two, might even be three, others are using very strong words to say what you want. What I learned in many hours of contributing to several projects is: expect nothing, but do what you can
Since you think that I am abusive with my language, then I will leave you with this thought.
I support many entities, with time/talent and money. I live in a free country in which things that I own/purchase/work for, are mine to use as I see fit as long as within the law of the land. My gs is mine. The software is open source. I owe no one for this project.
Therefore, I will not accept your harsh opinion of me, or others that state changes that need to be made.
If you want to live in a world in which someone tells you what to do with your material possessions, then you are free to do so, but don’t try to tell me how I should state how I feel.
With that, my gs is going off line immediately and will not be available to anyone.
I will miss most of the guys here, and I hope thatt the more than one thousand scheduled passes that I have logged into the satnogs server is helpful to those that need it.
Many of us are volunteering one way or another on SatNOGS. Since I belong to the initial team I can’t thank enough the people that contribute on the project.
Let’s focus on the the issue at hand which is @fredy’s proposal on “Station status and availability” Which I do think makes sense considering that in the several parts of the process might be automated.
One other point one might argue could be a UI improvement so station owners & admins can delete multiple scheduled observations on their stations? Are there any other parameters or improvements needed that we should take into account?
You didn’t get my point! I am not telling anyone what to do with whatever hardware.
And to be precise: this is my personal point of view.
This whole system is grown huge and gets more and more interesting to a lot of people. Sure there are coming up new problems with every new user! The whole team tries to catch up every single point - but you can’t expect that things are changed in no time! And maybe not the way one single person wants to…
I was just asking to be kind! There is a development with automated scheduling etc., and possible you already read about it. It is announced in this forums…
I get your point very clearly. Your statment is hypocritcal and offensive.
I never entended to be harsh or “my way or no way”. I was in a discussion that asked for opinions and I see clearly where changes are needed. Never did I say when or how, just why.
You took offense to my post and apparently at least two others that did not agree with you on the most pressing problems.
I will not tollerate a hypocryte at work or play.
You apparently have a superiority complex issue since this is the second conversation that you have acted this way.towards me.
Notice that my station ID has been deleted from the system because of you.
If the situation changes and you find another project to harrass, I may return to satnogs.
Thanks elkos
I am aware of the improvements that have been discussed and those that might be automated. I hope that @fredy can proceed with the needed changes. I have followed this discussion on two tabs here, and on the matrix.
I think @fredy, with some others, have posted some great ideas.
@bob I understand that some discussions might get heated sometimes. Nevertheless all other participants have been civil in their responses. Please be considerate of all contributors and ideas, and please avoid jumping to conclusions about intends and stances from other community members.
And also a lot easier.