final presentation phase 1 analysis and definition of the ... · pdf file06/02/2009 d.mignolo...

06/02/2009 D.Mignolo TIA-TF 1

[email protected]

ESTEC - Noordwijk 6th Feb. 09

Final Presentation Phase 1

Analysis and Definition of the Satellite System (Phase A)

Introduction


Outline PresentationOutline Presentation

• Satellite studies tasks description • Study logic and execution• Communication study input for Task 2• ESA Link Budget for Task 3• Conclusions

Satellite System Studies Satellite System Studies DescriptionDescription


AVISATAVISAT•EADS Astrium Services: Prime - business case, service model, risk analysis and •end-2-end concept

•EADS Astrium Satellites: Satellite system, Payload, ground segment

•SITA: User requirements, service model, business case

•Vitrociset: Communication systems and user requirements

•TriaGnoSys: Communication system and user requirements

•Audens ACT: Communication system and user requirements

•Norspace: Support on payload components

•Carlo Gavazzi Space: Small-satellites platform design

•IABG: Design and development plan

•Skysoft: End-2-end operational concept and define Iris sub-set

•EADS CASA Espacio: Payload Accommodation

•Deimos Space: Product Assurance and Mission Analysis

•Dutch Space: Consultancy on Satellite Platform

•Iridium: Consultancy on LEO constellation

•Airbus: Consultancy in ATM and Aircraft avionics


SAMARASAMARA

Thales Alenia Space Italia S.p.A.

Thales Alenia Space Espana

Thales Alenia Space France SAS

TAS-I: Prime - System requirements, Satellite System Design, ATM payload Baseline Design, Ancillary Payload Baseline Design, Business case contribution, Cost Estimate, Safety and Dependability Analysis

TAS-F: Satellite System Design contribution, EGNOS ancillary payload design, support on Cost Estimate, Risk Management Plan,

TAS-E: ATM repeater design and costing, Ground to Ground Ancillary Payload design

SELEX: Operational Concept, Service Model, Business Case contribution

OHB: Small satellite platform Design, Payload accommodation and system data provisioning

INDRA: Satellite Ground Control Segment definition, Space System Operational Concept

AIRTEL: Analysis of commercial and institutional needs, Analysis of enduser requirements and standards, Space System Operational service plan

NPO-PM: Highly Elliptical Orbit satellite option initial design & Payload accommodation

CONPLAN: Business Case analysis

FREQUENTIS: Certification analysis


Satellite Studies main objectivesSatellite Studies main objectives

• Propose options for the space segment• Propose a deployment strategy• Identify operational concept and service model• Propose business case options • Analyse issues related to certification, safety and risk• Identify all system elements required to validate the

communication standard (subset)

Study Logic and Execution Study Logic and Execution


Study Logic and ExecutionStudy Logic and Execution

TASK 1TASK 1 Space Segment Architecture options

System Requirement

TASK 2TASK 2Link budget

Capacity

ICOS payload (options)Phoenix payload (options)

Payload with reduced capacityPreliminary Costs Analysis

TASK 3TASK 3Link budgetCapacity requirements)

(optimization)

Input Studies Outcome

Refined designed of each space segment optionCost Analysis

Dependability analysisService model and Business case

Certification analysisRisk analysis

PHOENIX&

ICOSStudies

ESA

ESA


Study Logic and ExecutionStudy Logic and Execution

• Both consortia have proposed space segment options for each Phase A communication studies air interface

• Solutions differ due to different assumptions taken by each consortium:– Capacity (traffic to be accommodated)– Communication performances (data rate and access scheme)– Geographical Coverage– Link Budget

• A large range of payload options has been analyzed showing the impact (costs, performances, complexity) of different assumptions on the overall space segment.

• Each consortium has been defined a deployment strategy leading to full operational system by 2020

• Each consortium has designed a payload with reduced capacity that could contribute to the operational system architecture

• Costs for the operational system have been derived and used in the Business Case options analysis

Communication study input for Task 2Communication study input for Task 2(Preliminary Design)(Preliminary Design)


Coverage requirementsCoverage requirements

System Requirement Document Geographical coverage requirements:•ECAC coverage as main target (up to 70 deg latitude) •Polar coverage as potential extension•Global beam for Oceanic and Remote areas (i.e. visible Earth from GEO orbit) as potential extension

ECAC TerritoryTarget Coverage


Phase A studies propose either 3 or 6 spotbeams to cover ECAC

Spot beams coverage optionsSpot beams coverage options

Phoenix ICOS


Data Rates Data Rates

Both consortia used the following data rates from communication studies

• ICOS– 64kbps (FL) information rate– 36kbps (RL) information rate

• Phoenix– FL: up to 42kbps corresponding to 14kbps information rate– RL: up to 21kbps corresponding to 7-10kbps information rate


Capacity and performancesCapacity and performances

• Capacity and link budget provided by each communication study as input for Task 2 preliminary payload design

ECAC + GlobalThroughput=3.1 MbpsG/T= Spots 2.5 dB/K; G/T Regional -4.5 dB/K

ECAC Throughput=2.1MbpsGlobal Throughput= 1.MbpsG/T= -1dB/KReturn Link

ECAC+GlobalThroughput=5.3MbpsEIRP=41.7dBW single carrier

ECAC Throughput=2.9MbpsGlobal throughput= 1MbpsEIRP=46 dBW single carrierForward Link

PHOENIXICOS

ESA Link Budget for Task 3ESA Link Budget for Task 3(Space Segment Refinement)(Space Segment Refinement)


ESA Link BudgetESA Link Budget

• Task 3 payload refinement has been carried out using the link Budget prepared by ESA which is a harmonized and optimized version of ICOS and Phoenix.

• The link budget is based on the adaptation of the carrier datarate as function of the channel fading conditions (multipath)

• This includes an allocation of carriers per spot beam as function of the traffic pattern.

• This results in lower power and mass requirements for the payload• Each consortium provided an optimized design in Task 3:

– a Small Satellite accommodating a reduced traffic for only ECAC coverage. No frequency reuse (SAMARA)

– A Large Satellite accommodating full traffic (for 2025) for both ECAC and Visible Earth coverage. With Frequency Reuse (AVISAT)


ESA Link BudgetESA Link BudgetMain Link Budget Assumptions• Access Scheme

– TDM in Forward Link– TDMA in Return Link

• Physical Layer– QPSK Modulation– Turbo Codes ½ code rate– 80 ms interleaver– Target PER = 10-3– Required Eb/No = 3 dB

• Multipath Margins– Forward Link

» 7.4 dB, for 5 deg ≤ elevation < 10 deg » 5.4 dB, for 10 deg ≤ elevation < 15 deg» 3.2 dB, for 15 deg ≤ elevation

– Return Link» 6 dB, for 5 deg <= elevation < 10 deg » 4 dB, for 10 deg <= elevation < 15 deg» 2.6 dB, for 15 deg <= elevation

• Ionospheric Scintillations Margin: 1.6 dB


ESA Link Budget Forward linkESA Link Budget Forward link

• With 41.8 dBW of EIRP is it possible to close the link with the following data rates:– 16 kbit/s, for 5 deg ≤ elevation < 10 deg – 32 kbit/s, for 10 deg ≤ elevation < 15 deg– 64 kbit/s, for 15 deg ≤ elevation

Link budget provided to Samara and Avisat

Forward link

Downlink Frequency 1.5 GHzSlant Range 41000 km

EIRP per carrier 41.8 dBWAES G/T -26 dB/K

Free Space Loss 188.23 dBElevation 5°-10° 10°-15° >15°Ionospheric Scintillations 1.6 1.6 1.6 dBMultipath Margin + Impl. Loss 7.4 5.4 3.2 dB

C/N Req 3 dB

Sustainable data rate 26.15 41.45 68.79 kbit/s


ESA Link Budget Return linkESA Link Budget Return link

Return link

Uplink Frequency 1.6 GHzSlant Range 41000 km

AES EIRP 13.5 dBW

Free Space Loss 188.79 dB

Transponder G/T 4.5 dB/KElevation 5°-10° 10°-15° >15°Ionospheric Scintillations 1.6 1.6 1.6 dBMultipath Margin + Impl. Loss 6 4 2.6 dB

C/N Req 3


Link budget provided to Avisat

Return link

Uplink Frequency 1.6 GHzSlant Range 41000 km

AES EIRP 13.5 dBW

Free Space Loss 188.79 dB

Elevation 5°-10° 10°-15° >15°Antanna Gain at AES location EOC EOC + 1 dB EOC + 2 dBTransponder G/T -1 0 1 dB/KIonospheric Scintillations 1.6 1.6 1.6 dBMultipath Margin + Impl. Loss 6 4 2.6 dB

C/N Req 3


Link budget provided to Samara

ConclusionsConclusions


Conclusions (1/2)Conclusions (1/2)

• Use of Low Gain Antenna on board aircraft drives the overall Payload sizing

• 2 satellites in hot redundancy are required to meet target spacesegment reliability

• For the full operational system a medium size platform (e.g. SB4000 B2, E3000) is required due to power constraints.

• A Large antenna (>5m) is required to implement frequency reuse.

• If WXGRAPH service could be implemented in multicast, the required payload would be smaller and could be accommodated on a smaller platform (e.g. Small GEO)


Conclusions (2/2)Conclusions (2/2)

• Most of the ECAC air-traffic is concentrated between AMS, LON, PAR, ROM, which are all in the same spot beam– the adoption of frequency reuse on ECAC would not result in

major spectrum savings unless very small beams are used, This would require a very large antenna.

• Visible Earth coverage would require frequency reuse leading to a large satellite with a very large antenna

• Provide high latitude coverage (5 deg elevation angle) with highdata rate (e.g. 64 kbps) would require large payloads (single carrier EIRP 45dBW).

final presentation phase 1 analysis and definition of the ... · pdf file06/02/2009 d.mignolo...

Documents