Comments on the visit planner requirements. Mark Giuliano 9/5/01 1. I am not sure I see the value in allowing the user to turn off implicit physical constraints such as the sun and moon restrictions. Also the system should distinguish these from constraints explicitly requested by the user (e.g. orientation). 2. Not all SPIKE absolute constraints are independent. In particular guide stars, orientation, and sun avoidance are all tied together. Unless we change the computation of these constraints we cannot really turn the constraints off/on independently. 3. I did not see any performance requirements on the system. I believe the system is meant to be run in an interactive mode. The runtime of the system would have to be sufficient to meet the need for an interactive system. 4. Requirement 3.1.1 states that constraints will be computed using the current version of SPIKE. What is meant by the current version of SPIKE? The version currently in operational? The version included in the APT release? 5. The ability to suggest changes to fix schedulability issues is a hard problem. In order to be testable the requirements would need to be expanded for particular cases and made mode explicit. 6. The requirements might want to acknowledge that the scheduling windows are not accurate for fine grain windows. For example, I believe that SPIKE does not calculate phase windows when the granularity is too small. A related issue is the ability for windows to be displayed at ANY granularity. 7. Do we still need to support save offset capabilities?