Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Iridium Satellite System.


Iridium satellite system is used to provide voice and data coverage to satellite phones, pagers and other equipment with full global coverage (including the poles). The Iridium satellite system is owned by Iridium LLC based in the USA. This corporation not only operates the satellite constellation, but also provides equipment and services.
The system was originally aimed at providing a global satellite phone system, in the days when terrestrial cellular based systems were not as widely used. However the speed at which cellular telecommunications systems were deployed meant that Iridium is now used for more specialised applications.

Iridium satellite system basics
The Iridium satellite system consists of a constellation of 66 satellites which are arranged in six planes. There are eleven satellites in each orbit which is a near circular orbit inclined, each one being inclined at 86.4°. These orbits provide full global coverage, including the polar areas which are not covered by satellites in geostationary orbits.
The Iridium satellite system uses a frequency band in L band 1616 - 1626.5 MHz for communication with the users. The phone systems communicate directly with the satellite which then routes the data accordingly. The data may then be routed to other satellites or to the ground.
The data may be routed directly to the ground network from the satellite. The ground network comprises two major elements:
  • System control segment (which supplies the operational support and control of the constellation as well as providing tracking data to the gateways and messaging control).
  • Telephony gateways (used to provide connectivity with the terrestrial PSTN system. Gateways also provide local management functionality).
The system control segment has three main constituents:
  1. Four telemetry tracking and command and control stations (TTAC).
  2. Satellite operation network centre (SNOC).
  3. Operational support network.
In addition to the direct links to the ground, each Iridium satellite is linked to four other satellites in the constellation. It links to two other satellites in the same orbit - these will be the ones either side of it, and it also links to two other satellites in adjacent orbits. These links provide a network in space which allows data to be routed between satellites without having to return to the ground from each satellite. Messages may even be routed across several satellites before reaching the ground. This provides a number of advantages:
  • It provides a robust network that can still operate even if a ground station becomes non-operational.
  • It enables a network to be run with stations placed in available regions - a particular advantage as it is not possible to set up stations in all areas for geographic reasons (polar, oceanic, etc) or for political reasons.
  • It allows the network to be run with fewer ground stations - this allows costs to be reduced as manned ground stations can be expensive.
Iridium frequency bands and channels
The Iridium satellite system uses L band transponders to communicate with the ground based users with frequencies in the band 1616 - 1626.5 MHz while the backhaul to the terrestrial gateways is in the band between 29.1 and 29.3 GHz for the up-link and in the band between 19.1 and 19.6 GHz for the downlink. Links for the inter-satellite links to are in the frequency band between 22.55 and 23.55 GHz.
The user-satellite link uses a total of 10.5 MHz starting at 1616 MHz. This provides 240 channels, each separated by 41.67 kHz. This allows for a channel bandwidth of 31.5 kHz together with a suitable guard-band to accommodate inter-modulation and Doppler shifts caused by the satellite velocity relative to the ground stations.

Iridium access schemes
In order to support many users, it is necessary for the Iridium satellite system to operate a scheme where the different users can be managed so that they may gain access to the satellite system without interfering with each other. Iridium satellite technology uses both FDMA (frequency division multiple access - where users are allocated different frequencies) and TDMA (time division multiple access - where users are allocated different time slots in a transmission).
Iridium satellite summary
A tabular summary of the Iridium satellite technology is given below:
PARAMETER
SPECIFICATION
Iridium satellite orbit
LEO
Orbit altitude
780 km
Iridium applications
Voice and data
Satellites in constellation
66
User satellite link band
1616 - 1626.5 MHz
L band
Gateway -> Satellite up-link
29.1 - 29.3 GHz
Satellite -> Gateway downlink
19.1 - 19.6 GHz
Inter-satellite link
22.55 - 23.55 GHz
Satellite relative velocity
26 804 km/hr
Minimum angle of elevation
for acceptable operation
8.2°
Approximate satellite view time
9 - 10 minutes
Access scheme
FDMA / TDMA
Frequency re-use factor
12
Total system capacity
172 000 users


History of Iridium satellite system
The concept of the Iridium satellite phone system arose before cellular telecommunications systems had been globally deployed in the way they are today. It was therefore anticipated that a phone system offering global coverage would be of great commercial value.
To achieve the goal, Iridium SSC was set up, with Motorola providing the technology and much of the finance. The system gained its name from the fact that originally 77 satellites were planned to orbit the Earth. This had a strong similarity to a nucleus with 77 orbiting electrons - a description that fits the element Iridium.
The satellite system was completed in may 1998, but some trails and commissioning were then required. The Iridium communications service itself was launched on 1st November 1998 with a call made by the then Vice President of the USA, AL Gore. Services were then offered to all forms of personal users and business.
Despite the successful technical launch of the system, the uptake was very much slower than anticipated. This was attributed to the fact that the deployment of cellular telecommunications systems, especially using GSM was much faster than had originally been anticipated. With roaming features, users could take their phones to many countries and make calls cheaper than they could over the Iridium system. Also there was a massive initial cost for building and launching all the satellites. Accordingly Iridium SSC entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 13 August 1999.
Initially no buyers were found for the company and it was anticipated that all the satellites would need to be de-orbited so that they would not be a danger when they re-entered the atmosphere. During the period that discussions about this were ongoing a set of private investors re-launched the company as Iridium Satellite LLC and they restarted the service in 2001.
The service was obviously more expensive than cellular systems and it was therefore used for specialist applications, especially in areas where no cellular coverage was available. For example rescue services, missions to remote areas of the globe, military, etc found the service useful.
With satellites becoming older, some have failed. These have been replaced with in-orbit spares. It takes some days for these replacement satellites to be moved into service, but with the number of satellites in orbit, service is only marginally degraded. Examples of replacements have occurred at various times, e.g. Iridium satellite 28 failed in July 2008 and was replaced by Iridium satellite 95.
Another incident took place in 2009. At 16.56 UTC on 10 February 2009, an Iridium satellite (satellite 33) and Kosmos-2251, an out of service Russian satellite collided. Although a major collision creating large amounts of space debris, it was be replaced by a spare satellite already in orbit. This was completed during March 2009

Iridium Next
With the original constellation of satellites nearing the end of their life, Iridium announced its vision in February 2007 for the next generation of Iridium satellites. Known as Iridium Next, the new Iridium satellite system promises not only to replace the existing constellation of satellites, but Iridium Next also incorporates many new features. The basic functions for the system include:
  • Backward compatibility with existing Iridium systems
  • Full global coverage as before, including the polar areas not accessible to Geostationary satellites
  • Low earth orbits enabling low power phones to be used.
Although it would be possible to provide a simple replacement programme for the existing Iridium satellites, it has been decided that Iridium Next will incorporate new technology to enable the system to move forward and keep up wit the enhanced requirements expected by many users today. Accordingly the new system will incorporate the following features:
  • End to end IP technology
  • Additional bandwidth capability to allow users more flexibility
  • Incorporation of Earth imaging and other secondary payloads - thereby providing additional functionality to further utilise the satellites.
  • Ability to provide data links to other space based payloads.
It is planned to replace the existing Iridium satellites so that a seamless upgrade can be effected.

Summary
The Iridium satellite system offers many advantages and is currently used by many people. This satellite phone system offers full global coverage for voice and data (albeit at a low rate). It is also certified for airborne use and along with many other roles, the Iridium satellite phone system is able provide a useful service to many.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Space Surveillance Telescope.



The Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have just created the world’s sharpest telescope:
 The Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) uses image-capturing CCD (curved charge coupled device) technology and boasts a wide field-of-view and large-aperture optics.
This combination helps the SST to move easily so it can quickly scan the sky - perfect for watching for strange spacecrafts or debris "The SST will give us in a matter of nights the space surveillance data that current telescopes take weeks or months to provide," explained Air Force Lt. Col. Travis Blake, DARPA's Space Surveillance Telescope program manager.
Beyond providing faster data collection, the SST is very sensitive to light, which allows it to see faint objects in deep space that currently are impossible to observe.
The detection and tracking of faint objects requires a large aperture and fast optics. The SST uses a 3.5 meter primary mirror, which is large enough to achieve the desired sensitivity.
The system is an f/1.0 optical design, with a large-area mosaic CCD camera constructed from the curved imagers and a high-speed shutter allowing for fast scanning at the high sensitivity.
Some of the missions assigned to the SST include watching for debris in low earth orbit to help avoid satellite collisions, tracking objects in deep space and taking wide-angle pictures of stars and comets for astronomers.
 The Pentagon's DARPA has begun deploying new ground-based telescopes that can take wide-angle views of small deep-space objects and keep the space sentinels safe.
"Currently we have a 'soda straw' view of deep space, where we can only see one narrow segment of space at a time," Blake said. "The Space Surveillance Telescope should give us a much wider 'windshield' view of deep space objects, significantly enhancing our space situational awareness."
DARPA's telescope uses curved charge coupled device (CCD) technology similar to what exists in digital cameras. That helps create a compact size which helps the new telescope survey the sky more rapidly on its moveable mount – it represents one of the most agile telescopes ever built for its size.
The telescope's CCD camera consists of curved imagers and a high-speed shutter that allows for both fast scans and high sensitivity. Such sensitivity helps the telescope detect and track the very small, very faint objects zipping across the wide-angle view of space.
Ultimately, the new telescope aims to find more of the space objects in the geosynchronous region of space around the Earth's equator. That would allow the Pentagon to better keep track of collision dangers for its satellites – at least until the expensive spacecraft get better shields.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Space Based Radar



Space Based Radar
During the Discoverer II program, a DoD program that ended in 2000, prime contractors and payload suppliers were funded by the United States Government to study the use of radars in space. The planned successor program, SBR, will fund the development and production of an operational radar reconnaissance satellite system.
In response to the FY01 DoD Authorization Conference Report, the National Security Space Architect is led a multi-service, multi-agency effort to develop an SBR Roadmap, to bring together requirements for both the DoD and national users. As part of the Roadmap development, the Air Force was heavily involved in an analysis of alternatives that will allow the DoD leadership to make SBR decisions in concert with decisions being made on other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
Space-Based Radar was a new major defense acquisition program in 2001 delegated by the Secretary of Defense to the Air Force. The Directorate of Developmental Planning at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA led this joint program with principle participation from Electronic Systems Center in Bedford, MA, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy. The main objective of the SBR program is to field, beginning in 2008, a space borne capability for theater commanders to track moving targets. The focus in 2002 and 2003 includes requirements development (led by Air Force Space Command), technology risk reduction, concept exploration, and cost feasibility.
The 2001 Multi-Theater Target Tracking Capability (MT3C) Mission Needs Statement (MNS) establishes the requirement for continuous multi-theater surveillance, identification, tracking, and targeting of ground-moving targets. In June 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) directed an accelerated acquisition program to leverage technology from the cancelled Discoverer II technology demonstration program and provide a capability satisfying the MT3C MNS no later than FY10. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Acquisition Memorandum (AM) directive dated 30 November 2001 initiated SBR as an ACAT ID program. As a result, the SBR program was established with the purpose to develop and implement a space-based capability to provide surface Moving Target Indications (MTI), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging, and High Resolution Terrain Information (HRTI) mapping to national decision makers and joint/coalition forces deployed worldwide.
The Space Based Radar Program is administered by Air Force Space Command, Space and Missile Systems Center (AFSPC/SMC) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), in coordination with the Services and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).
The SBR Joint Program Office (JPO) at Space and Missile Systems Center will be beginning the process of awarding a concept development contract that will allow development of the system through the Increment 1. The acquisition strategy is to conduct a best value, progressive ompetition / down-selection. The source selection will result in the award of one or possibly two contracts with performance through System Design Review (SDR) plus six months.
In February 2002 Space and Missile Center (SMC), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) announced a Space Based Radar On-Board Processing (OBP) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as supplemented and applicable to Program Research and Development Agreement (PRDA) soliciting research proposals from private industry, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations for research. The purpose of this PRDA was to design and demonstrate a prototype OBP Architecture that can meet the tactical user near real time needs of Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED). The OBP development must be affordable and capable of being transitional to the evolving SBR baseline with a planned Initial Launch Capability (ILC) in 2010. Proposed technology development must be demonstrated in 2004 or 2005 at TRL-5 as a minimum. Proposals to the PRDA shall identify key interface parameters such as data rate, power requirements, word length, speed, storage capacity, buffer requirements, number of ports (channels), redundancy, interchangeability, etc. Processor and Mass Data Storage (MDS) size, weight, power, cost and radiation tolerance are key parameters and will be factors in determining contract award(s). Output data shall be compressed for communications downlink capability. Output data and communications interface capability and parameters shall be proposed. Note that the MDS and downlink capabilities shall also support raw wideband data downlink to CONUS. All OBP algorithms shall be documented as well as all OBP features that would allow on-orbit algorithm modification. For the purpose of this PRDA, the Government considers the OBP to include MDS, Back End Processor (BEP) and interface elements (at the beamformer/pulse compression interface). The BEP shall provide algorithm capability for sub-band combining to create either GMTI detections or SAR image data. OBP system proposed concepts that incorporate a complete FEP (distinct from current payload designs and including A/D, channelizers and beamformer) with a BEP shall provide justification as to how this enhances performance, cost parameters, and the SBR mission. Output data shall be compressed for communications downlink capability, if appropriate. Output data and communications interface capability and parameters shall be proposed. Note that the MDS and downlink capabilities shall also support raw data (post-FEP) downlink to CONUS.
Several significant efforts were underway in 2002. These include the System Concept Analysis task order executed via the Engineering, Analysis, Design and Development (EADDII) contract (awarded in December 2002) the ongoing SBR On-Board-Processor (OBP) and the Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) contracted activities that are planned to continue through 2003. Results of this effort may influence the design of the SBR Concept of Operations, OBP design, ESA design, and system design.
On March 19, 2003 Harris Corporation (NYSE:HRS) announced that it is one of three companies awarded three-year contracts by the U.S. Air Force to develop and demonstrate a prototype radar payload for Space-Based Radar. The initial value of the contract is $8.6 million, with options that could bring it to $88 million over the three-year period of the prototype program. The final payload design, development, production and support program for all SBR spacecraft could reach $1 billion by 2013 for the winning company, which will be selected at the conclusion of the prototype phase. Under terms of the contract with the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Joint Program Office, Harris will lead the three-year study of SBR's radar payload. The Harris SBR radar payload concept includes state-of-the-art On-board Processing (OBP) technology and a large Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) that will enable each spacecraft to collect and process large amounts of data and imagery in near real-time.
On 17 September 2003 the Space and Missiles System Center announced plans to release Request for Proposal No. FA8820-04-R-0001 between the 1st and 31st of November 2003 for the Space Based Radar (SBR) Concept Development effort. SBR is an ACAT 1D program currently entering Acquisition Phase A as defined in NSS 03-01.
As of early 2003 the formal RFP was to be issued in October 2003 by the SBR Joint Program Office (JPO) at Space and Missile Systems Center. Proposals were due 45 days later with an anticipated contract award date in March 2004. If one contract was awarded, the contract will be a cost-plus award fee arrangement. If two contracts are awarded, the contract will be a cost-plus fixed fee arrangement. The launch vehicle, launch vehicle integration, spacecraft operations, spacecraft ground station, telemetry and data dissemination, and ground beacons, if required, will be provided. The contractor is expected to provide experiment plans and proposed mission CONOPS, data analysis to verify performance, and command and control software for spacecraft operation. The demonstration will include a partially populated array (mass simulation as required). A one year "on orbit" test, evaluation, and extrapolation is planned, with structural constituent equations and FEM verification to provide a statistically significant beam-pointing and transmit calibration & compensation variances.
At the development milestone of SDR, the Government will request a Call for Improvement (CFI) proposal. This CFI will be used to conduct and evaluate a progressive down-selection intended to identify the single contractor offering the superior (best value) design approach to continue the development and manufacture of the SBR system. It is anticipated that only those contractors participating in the preceding phase will be capable of successfully competing for the next phase contract awards, although other offerors will not be precluded from consideration at the down-selection decision point.
The contractors will be required to submit a priced proposal for the first phase of this effort through SDR plus six months, and evidence of affordability of the total system. This will allow the Government to judge best value through SDR and judge the affordability of the system. While the Government intends to down-select at the System Design Review (SDR), we reserve the right not to, and either extend the parallel development effort to a future down-selection milestone or to proceed with a full and open competition if that approach is determined to be in the Government?s best interest.
On 21 October 2003 Raytheon Company was awarded a $37.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to define, analyze, design and demonstrate a Space-Based Radar (SBR) pre-prototype payload consisting of an electronic scanned array and an on-board processing component. The Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the contracting agency. The developmental payload will be designed to meet the tactical/national user near real-time data needs for ground moving target indication (GMTI), synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and digital terrain elevation data.
In October 2003 SAIC's Space, Air and Information Group announced a contract award to support the U.S. Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) in the development of the Space-Based Radar (SBR), an important national defense program. Under the terms of the agreement, SAIC will be the lead System Engineering and Integration (SE&I) contractor for this effort. This delivery order contract has a base value of $4.6 million, with the potential of eight option years valued at a total of $139.4 million. For the SBR SE&I program, SAIC will implement and execute systems engineering and integration processes and oversee the delivery of systems engineering products necessary for effective execution of the SBR program and oversight of SBR system developers. SAIC also will lead the integration of the surface, air and space components of the nation's ISR system-of-systems. Members of the SAIC-led team include Lockheed-Martin Corp., headquartered in Bethesda, Md.; ARINC, based in Annapolis, Md.; Veridian Engineering, based in Arlington, Va.; TASC, Inc., based in Chantilly, Va.; and Titan Corp., headquartered in San Diego, Calif.
The FY2004 budget request for the Space Based Radar was $274 million. The FY2004 DOD authorization bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050) approved the requested funding and directed DOD to assess the contribution SBR could make to missile defense. In the FY2004 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 108-87), Congress cut SBR by $100 million.
SBR was in the initial phase of development, and passed its first Key Decision Point A (KDP-A) to enter Phase A (the Study Phase) in July 2003. The purpose of the Study Phase is to develop concepts and architectures to a sufficient level of maturity to enter the KDP-B Design Phase, expected in FY04. The Study Phase will consist of further concept definition, concept of operations and requirements development, risk reduction, and initial planning to develop a test and evaluation strategy prior to KDP-B. After KDP-B, the program is expected to enter a system pre-acquisition period lasting through a planned KDP-C at the end of FY07, when system acquisition activities will begin.
The 2004 program invested in technology and concept definition activities to include but not limited to up-front, in-depth system engineering, risk reduction activities. Continue Technology Risk Reduction activities on Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) and on-board processing efforts that included end-to-end payload test beds and prototype development of high-risk signal processing algorithms, expanded tactical integration effort that includes interface identification and definition, support an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) and on-orbit demonstrations. Additional near term efforts include technology risk reduction demonstrations as well as, system-of-systems engineering activities, wargames and experiments, and Modeling & Simulation (M&S) capability, to include access to operational C4ISR systems for enhanced data expoitation.
In April 2004, both Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were awarded $220 Million SBR study contracts. They were selected as phase “A” or concept development prime contractors. Each of them selected several subcontractors to join them as part of their teams. During phase A, each contractor developed concepts for the system which that can best satisfy the government’s draft requirements.
Although DOD had taken positive steps to strengthen the involvement of senior leaders within DOD and the intelligence community in setting requirements, as of mid-2004 SBR's concept of operations [CONOPS] had not been approved and signed by requirements boards for either of the two partners. Without documentation and formal approval, it was unclear who will be held accountable for setting requirements or how disagreements among SBR's partners will be resolved when DOD moves SBR into ensuing phases of acquisition.
During the Discoverer II program, a DoD program that ended in 2000, prime contractors and payload suppliers were funded by the United States Government to study the use of radars in space. The planned successor program, SBR, will fund the development and production of an operational radar reconnaissance satellite system.
In response to the FY01 DoD Authorization Conference Report, the National Security Space Architect is led a multi-service, multi-agency effort to develop an SBR Roadmap, to bring together requirements for both the DoD and national users. As part of the Roadmap development, the Air Force was heavily involved in an analysis of alternatives that will allow the DoD leadership to make SBR decisions in concert with decisions being made on other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
Space-Based Radar is a new major defense acquisition program in 2001 delegated by the Secretary of Defense to the Air Force. The Directorate of Developmental Planning at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA led this joint program with principle participation from Electronic Systems Center in Bedford, MA, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy. The main objective of the SBR program is to field, beginning in 2008, a space borne capability for theater commanders to track moving targets. The focus in 2002 and 2003 includes requirements development (led by Air Force Space Command), technology risk reduction, concept exploration, and cost feasibility.

Although DOD had taken positive steps to strengthen the involvement of senior leaders within DOD and the intelligence community in setting requirements, as of mid-2004 SBR's concept of operations [CONOPS] had not been approved and signed by requirements boards for either of the two partners. Without documentation and formal approval, it was unclear who will be held accountable for setting requirements or how disagreements among SBR's partners will be resolved when DOD moves SBR into ensuing phases of acquisition.
The U.S. Air Force announced 23 May 2005 that Lockheed Martin had been selected to continue development of the Innovative Space Based Radar Antenna Technology, known as ISAT. The contract, valued at $19.5 million, is for the next phase of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA) ISAT project, administrated by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Lockheed Martin will continue development of the ISAT Flight Demonstration Experiment design over the next 14 months, which will take it to the Critical Design Review (CDR) maturity level. Following the CDR, DARPA and the Air Force plan to select a contractor to build and deploy a scale version of the antenna for a one-year proof of technology experiment in low earth orbit.
The FY 2005 Appropriations Bill reduced the President's Budget from $327M to $75M, and redirected the Air Force's development efforts "towards technologies and concepts that would lead to program costs far lower than currently conceived" and "breakthroughs that fundamentally change the cost-benefit equation for a space based radar system."
To address Congressional concerns and to arrive at a technically feasible solution, the Air Force placed increased emphasis on innovation and affordability on the SR concept exploration efforts. This emphasis has resulted in significant changes to the SR program. While continuing to be dual-use to meet Department of Defense (DoD) and IC needs, the SR is focused on smaller constellations of high performance, more affordable satellites. This move to smaller, more affordable constellations was driven by the realization that it is ultimately unaffordable for a single system to provide global continuous target tracking capability. The resulting more affordable system concepts remain highly effective by leveraging advanced technologies and increased levels of horizontal integration with other ISR platforms, national infrastructure and DoD weapon systems.
Air Force and OSD leadership will further address Congressional concerns through an on orbit demonstration that will validate Space Radar costs and technology maturity. The program will also shift focus towards payload maturation, a robust technology risk reduction and system-of-systems engineering program, and a structured revalidation of requirements. In addition, leadership commissioned an Independent Technology Assessment to look at alternative technologies to reduce cost and improve utility.
The 2006 program focused on overall program affordability by stressing innovation through program risk reduction and technology maturation. The program will leverage National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) activities to ensure both DoD and Intelligence Community requirements are satisfied in the baseline SR effort. In addition, an on orbit demonstration will be developed to validate Space Radar costs and technology maturity.
The Air Force leads the SR Joint Program Office (JPO) with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA) as the principal partners with other Service, DoD, and Intelligence Community participation. The SR JPO awarded two contracts for Concept Definition and plans to select a single contractor after KDP-B.
As of 2005 Space Radar was intended to provide synthetic aperture radar mapping and surface moving target indication capabilities in all weather conditions. The first operational spacecraft would be launched beginning about 2015, with plans calling for a constellation of nine satellites.
As of 2004 DoD had estimated total life-cycle costs for a nine satellite Space Radar constellation of $34 billion, including the ground segment. The 2006 FYDP and Congressional Budget Office [CBO] long-term projection include $19 billion through 2024 for the space segment of Space Radar. CBO assumed that starting in 2023, the constellation would be reconstituted or possibly increased. The CBO projection used a cost for each Space Radar satellite of $500 million, based on a potential weight of 7,000 pounds at $70,000 per pound. 



Wednesday, April 6, 2011

SPACEX - Space Exploration Technologies Corporation



Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) is an American space transport company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. It has developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, both of which are built with a goal of being reusable launch vehicles. SpaceX is also developing the Dragon spacecraft to be carried to orbit by Falcon 9 launch vehicles. SpaceX designs, tests and fabricates the majority of their components in-house, including the Merlin, Kestrel, and Draco rocket engines. In December 2010, SpaceX became the first private company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft (a Dragon) 


In an era when most technology based products follow a path of ever-increasing capability and reliability while simultaneously reducing costs, launch vehicles today are little changed from those of 40 years ago. SpaceX aims to change this paradigm by developing a family of launch vehicles which will ultimately reduce the cost and increase the reliability of space access by a factor of ten. Coupled with the newly emerging market for private and commercial space transport, this new model will re-ignite humanity's efforts to explore and develop Space.
Our company is based on the philosophy that simplicity, low-cost, and reliability can go hand in hand. By eliminating the traditional layers of management, internally, and sub-contractors, externally, we reduce our costs while speeding decision making and delivery. Likewise, by keeping the vast majority of manufacturing in house, we reduce our costs, keep tighter control of quality, and ensure a tight feedback loop between the design and manufacturing teams. And by focusing on simple, proven designs with a primary focus on reliability, we reduce the costs associated with complex systems operating at the margin.


Established in 2002 by Elon Musk , the founder of PayPal and the Zip2 Corporation, SpaceX has already developed two brand new launch vehicles, established an impressive launch manifest, and been awarded COTS funding by NASA to demonstrate delivery and return of cargo to the International Space Station. Supported by this order book and Mr. Musk's substantial resources, SpaceX is on an extremely sound financial footing as we move towards volume commercial launches.
Although drawing upon a rich history of prior launch vehicle and engine programs, SpaceX is privately developing the Dragon crew and cargo capsule and the Falcon family of rockets from the ground up, including main and upper stage engines, the cryogenic tank structure, avionics, guidance & control software and ground support equipment.
With the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX is able to offer a full spectrum of light, medium and heavy lift launch capabilities to our customers. We are able to deliver spacecraft into any inclination and altitude, from low Earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit to planetary missions. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are the only US launch vehicles with true engine out reliability. They are also designed such that all stages are reusable, making them the world's first fully reusable launch vehicles. And our Dragon crew and cargo capsule, currently under development, will revolutionize access to space by providing efficient and reliable transport of crew and cargo to the ISS and other LEO destinations.
Our design and manufacturing facilities are located near the Los Angeles International airport, leveraging the deep and rich aerospace talent pool available in Southern California . Our extensive propulsion and structural test facilities are located in Central Texas. We currently have launch complexes available in Vandenberg and Kwajalein Island , and in April 2007 we were granted use of and began developing Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral.



Falcon Heavy’s first stage will be made up of three nine-engine cores, which are used as the first stage of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. It will be powered by SpaceX’s upgraded Merlin engines currently being tested at the SpaceX rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas. SpaceX has already designed the Falcon 9 first stage to support the additional loads of this configuration, and with common structures and engines for both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, development and operation of the Falcon Heavy will be highly cost-effective.

callouts2.jpg


FALCON HEAVY
Mass to LEO (200 km, 28.5 deg):
53,000 kg (117,000 lb)
Overall Length:
69.2 m (227 ft)
Width (body):
3.6 m (12 ft) x 11.6 m (38 ft)
Width (fairing):
5.2 m (17 ft)
Mass on liftoff:
1,400,000 kg (3,100,000 lb)
Thrust on liftoff:
17 MN (3,800,000 lbf)

HIGH RELIABILITY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE

The Falcon Heavy is designed for extreme reliability and can tolerate the failure of several engines and still complete its mission. As on commercial airliners, protective shells surround each engine to contain a worst-case situation such as fire or a chamber rupture, and prevent it from affecting the other engines and stages. A disabled engine is automatically shut down, and the remaining engines operate slightly longer to compensate for the loss without detriment to the mission.
Falcon Heavy will be the first rocket in history to feature propellant cross-feed from the side boosters to the center core. Propellant cross-feeding leaves the center core still carrying the majority of its propellant after the side boosters separate. This gives Falcon Heavy performance comparable to that of a three-stage rocket, even though only the single Merlin engine on the upper stage requires ignition after lift-off, further improving both reliability and payload performance. Should cross-feed not be required for lower mass missions, it can be easily turned off.
Anticipating potential astronaut transport needs, Falcon Heavy is also designed to meet NASA human rating standards. Falcon Heavy is designed to higher structural safety margins of 40% above flight loads, rather than the 25% level of other rockets, and triple redundant avionics. Despite being designed to higher structural margins than other rockets, the Falcon Heavy side booster stages have a mass ratio (full vs. empty) above 30, better than any launcher in history. By comparison, the Delta IV side boosters have a mass ratio of about 10.

SAVING THE USA $1B ANNUALLY

If allowed to compete, SpaceX can help the Department of Defense save at least one billion dollars annually in space launch services, while providing a truly independent family of vehicles to help assure access to space.
The Falcon Heavy is classified as an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The EELV program was established by the United States Air Force to launch satellites into orbit more economically. The program was intended to both secure access to space for the Department of Defense and other United States government payloads and lower costs by at least 25%, and with a goal of 50%.
Unfortunately, primarily due to lack of competition, costs have actually escalated–increasing by over 30% for FY 2012 alone. The total cost of the current program now exceeds $2.7B, with over $1B paid to a single provider just to sustain the program. That is one billion dollars per year, whether they launch or not.
Falcon Heavy with more than twice the payload but less than one third the cost of a Delta IV Heavy, will provide much needed relief to government and commercial budgets. This year, even as the Department of Defense budget was cut, the EELV launch program, which includes the Delta IV, still saw a thirty percent increase.
The 2012 Air Force budget includes $1.74B for four launches, an average of $435M per launch. With Falcon Heavy priced at $80-125M per launch SpaceX has the potential to provide the US government significant value. In addition, the medium-lift Falcon 9 could support a number of medium-lift Air Force launches at only $50-60M per launch, if SpaceX were allowed to compete for this business.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Microwave Satellite Communication.



                                                 Satellite Microwave

A communication satellite can be seen as a microwave repeater in space. It is equipped with a number of devices called transponders, each of which listens to some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, amplifies an incoming signal (the uplink), and re-broadcasts it at another frequency (the downlink). Geostationary satellites are placed in orbit above the equator at a height and speed that enables them to maintain a position above a specific location on the earth’s surface. The antenna used to receive signals from these satellites can thus be mounted in a fixed position.

satellite01.jpg
The Astra 1H geostationary satellite

The downlink signal can be relatively narrowly focused (a spot-beam), or may cover a substantial fraction of the earth’s surface. The area covered by the signal is called its footprint. The size of the satellite dish required to receive a signal from a satellite depends on its location within the footprint (see below).

satellite02.jpg
The footprint for the Astra 1G and 1H geostationary satellites

Although signals travel between earth stations and satellites travel at the speed of light (circa 3x108 kilometres per second), the distances involved introduce substantial delays (typically 250-300 milliseconds). Satellites are also inherently broadcast media - very useful for some applications, but necessitating the use of encryption if security is an issue.
Low earth orbit (LEO) satellites are only visible for a short period. For this reason, large numbers of these satellites are required to implement a satellite communication system. When one satellite passes from view, another one replaces it. Satellite networks (or constellations) can provide worldwide telecommunication services using hand-held devices that communicate directly with the satellites.

satellite03.jpg
Iridium is a constellation of 66 low earth orbit communication satellites

In the Iridium system, the satellites are positioned at a height of 750 kilometres in circular polar orbits, and are arranged in north-south necklaces, with one satellite every 32 degrees of latitude. Each satellite completes one orbit every 100 minutes, and six such necklaces are sufficient to provide coverage of the entire earth. The uplink and downlink frequencies used make it possible to communicate with a satellite using a small battery powered device equipped with an omni-directional antenna. Messages are received by one satellite and then relayed from one satellite to another around the world until the message can be transmitted to the destination mobile device (or via an Irridum gateway if the call is being routed via the public switched telephone network). The user simply requires line-of site between their antenna and one of the Iridium satellites. 


Modulation Microwave Communication

1, With the explosive growth of information flows, the current to the carrier's space satellite microwave communications technology gradually exposed the weaknesses of its own, that as the communication data rates have increased, as traditional means of microwave began to close to its maximum transfer rate bottleneck theory. In this context, it is natural to look to transfer to the laser signal with the optical communications, laser communications expect to rely on high data transfer rate to solve the problem.



Satellite optical communication is a new means of space communication. Use of artificial earth satellites as relay stations transmit laser signal can be achieved between multiple spacecraft and between spacecraft and earth station communications. The high transfer rate, high security and reliability, confidentiality and strong, terminal devices are small, light weight, low power consumption perseverance attracted national experts to explore the [1-4]. Space laser communication system in the structure should have an interface with the microwave communications. There is no one country has established space laser communication link, and therefore the satellite microwave communication and optical communications, few studies of mutual conversion process. In the field of optical communication has been a breakthrough, the successful realization of the satellite - terrestrial, satellite - satellite optical communication between tests in recent years is expected to enter the practical application [5-6]. Therefore, the space optical communications and microwave communications interconnection is a problem to be solved.



2, laser inter-satellite links Laser inter-satellite links include synchronous satellite communication link between, synchronous orbit and low orbit satellite communication link between China and LEO satellite communications links between satellites and ground stations and communication between link.



Based on consideration of the space environment, satellite and ground-based microwave link can only. Therefore, in order to meet the demanding star power, volume and complexity of the request, must study the satellite communications and microwave communications polish the mutual conversion technology. In addition, the existing satellite network using microwave technology, in order for satellite optical communication to optimize their effectiveness, the need to address the traditional satellite communications and satellite communications, optical networking technology, therefore, necessary to conduct in space optical communications and microwave communications interchangeable.



3, satellite communications and microwave communications optical conversion method

For most satellites, it is both microwave and optical communication link conversion node, is also a satellite routing optical network switching nodes. On the one hand, when the node up / down link, the satellite must complete the microwave / optical and optical / microwave interchangeable. On the other hand, routing is determined by the middle of the satellite onboard processors, according to the dynamic routing table lookup to complete, so that the packet needs to go through complex demultiplexing, demodulation process and routing the exchange of such treatment.



The relay satellite and the LEO satellite (GEO-LEO) relay link between the laser, the need to send back to the ground to LEO LEO high-speed data initially modulated laser communication terminals to the relay satellite complicated by the GEO laser communication terminal for receiving, processing obtained by the regeneration of the baseband demodulation signal, then microwave for QPSK modulation, the frequency to Ka-band, Ka-band satellite ground line via the link sent to ground stations. LEO sent to the first floor to the low-speed data, the spread spectrum, BPSK modulated, the ground line from the Ka-band satellite link sent to the relay satellite, GEO received baseband demodulation signal regeneration processing, enter the GEO optical laser communication terminals prepared and sent to LEO laser communication terminal. This microwave communication and optical communication method exists mutual conversion process complex, cumbersome equipment and network delay to increase the volume and other shortcomings, can not meet the requirements of the satellite payload.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Laser Satellite Communication.



1. Introduction

Communication technology has experienced a
continual development to higher and higher carrier
frequencies, starting from a few hundred kilohertz at
Marconi's time to several hundred terahertz since we
employ lasers in fiber systems. The main driving force
was that the usable bandwidth - and hence
transmission capacity - increases proportional to the
carrier frequency. Another asset comes into play in
free-space point-to-point links. The minimum
divergence obtainable with a freely propagating beam
of electromagnetic waves scales proportional to the
wavelength. The jump from microwaves to light
waves therefore means a reduction in beamwidth by
orders of magnitude, even if we use transmit antennas
of much smaller diameter. The reduced beamwidth
does not only imply increased intensity at the receiver
site but also reduced cross talk between closely
operating links and less chance for eavesdropping.
Space communication, as employed in satellite-to-
satellite links, is traditionally performed using
microwaves. For more than twenty five years,
however, laser systems are being investigated as
alternatives. 1-3) One hopes that mass, power
consumption, and size of an optical transceiver
module will be smaller than that of a microwave
transceiver. Also, fuel consumption for satellite
attitude control when quickly re-directing antennas
should be less for optical antennas. On the other hand,
a new set of problems had to be addressed in
connection with the extreme requirements for
pointing, acquiring, and tracking the narrow-width
laser beams.
In this tutorial we will first discuss the basics of an
optical free space link (Sect. 2) and then point out the
differences to terrestrial fiber systems and to
microwave links in Sect. 3. Section 4 presents the
requirements for and the available technologies to
implement transmitters, receivers, optical antennas, as
well as the PAT system (PAT...pointing, acquisition,
and tracking). Next we sketch application scenarios,
and we conclude with both a glimpse onto past and
future system technologies.

2. System Layout

A scenario typical for the transmission system in
question asks for  point-to-point data transfer between
two spacecraft. The distances to be
bridged may extend anywhere from a few hundred
kilometers to 70 000 km (e.g. in near-earth
applications) up to millions of kilometers in case of
signals transmitted by a space probe.4) Today the data
rates in mind range from several hundred kbit/s to
some 10 Gbit/s.
Terminals for optical communication in space are
mostly designed for bi-directional links, at least
concerning the optical tracking function. They
comprise both a transmitter and a receiver that
generally share the optical antenna. Another
peculiarity is the necessity of beam steering (or
pointing) capability with sub-microradian angular
resolution and possibly with an angular coverage
exceeding a hemisphere.
These requirements lead to a transceiver block
diagramlevels of the duplexer are an essential prerequisite.
Duplexers can be based on spectral discrimination (i.e.
filtering), on polarization diversity, or on both. Hence
a common suggestion is to use left hand and right
hand circularly polarized light for the two directions,
respectively. This also makes the transmission
insensitive against rotation of the terminals along their
antenna axes. Because polarization duplexing will
provide only some 15 dB of isolation, wavelength
duplexing must be designed into the system in any
case.
For the general case that both terminals experience
a relative velocity along the line-of-sight, vD, the
Doppler effect will yield a frequency shift ∆f in the
received signal. As long as vD << c (c ... velocity of
light), one has ∆f = vD/λ where λ is the carrier
wavelength. In a LEO-GEO* link, vD may amount up
to some ± 8⋅103 m/s. Because of the small wavelength,
the resulting Doppler shift is large and amounts up to
± 7.5 GHz at λ = 1.06 µm for the example cited. Such
a large frequency shift might be negligible in a direct
detection receiver (as long as no extremely narrow
optical filtering is applied). In a heterodyne receiver,**
however, the frequency shift has to be compensated by
either tuning the local laser oscillator, by tuning the
electrical oscillator in a second intermediate frequency
stage, or by both.
In space applications - even more than in undersea
fiber systems - reliability and lifetime is of special
importance. As examples, the laser source itself or a
(cooled) detector may represent a weak point
concerning reliability and thus require redundancy.
Other subunits, like the telescope or the coarse
pointing assembly may be too bulky and present such
a high fraction of the mass budget that a single failure
point is accepted in their case.

3.2 Differences to microwave systems
At a first glance, the equation governing the
amount of power received in an optical directional
link, PR, is the same as one knows from microwave
links, namely

Here PT is the optical output power generated at the
transmitter, GT and GR are the gain values of the
transmit and receive antenna, λ is the carrier
wavelength, R the distance between the terminals and
the factors LT and LR cover the loss within the transmit
and receive terminal. However, the last factor, LP,
which accounts for loss caused by non-ideal pointing,
may correspond to several dB in a free-space laser
link: Because of the extremely small beamwidths
involved in optical links, transmit and receive antenna
will, in general, not yield their maximum gain. Despite
the implementation of an active tracking control loop
                                                        
*
 LEO..low earth orbiting (satellite), GEO..geostationary (satellite),
see also Sect. 5
**
 see Sect. 4.2
to align the antenna axes, some mispointing will
persist and the receive intensity will vary statistically.
To a first approximation, the antenna gains GT, GR
are related to the diameters of the (circular) transmit
and receive antenna, DT, DR as
2

Substituting (2) into (1) reveals the 1/λ2-dependence
of receive power PR which makes the optical regime
so attractive compared to microwaves. Equation (2) is
applicable in case of diffraction limited antenna
operation. The full beam divergence then obtained is
on the order of
The very small beamwidths θ at optical frequencies
(some 5 µrad for typical values of λ and DT) are, of
course, the reason for the high antenna gain achievable
(some 115 dB). However, this advantage is not gained
for free: Establishing and maintaining contact with
extremely narrow beams is a tough task, especially if
transmitter and receiver change their relative position
(see Sect. 4.4).
One critical aspect of intersatellite laser
communications with narrow beams results from the
need to introduce a point ahead angle. Because of the
finite velocity of light (c) and the relative angular
velocity of two communication terminals moving in
space, the transmit beam must be directed towards the
receiver's position it will have at some later time. This
point ahead angle is given by 5)

where vR is the relative velocity component of
transmitter and receiver, orthogonal to the line-of-
sight, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Point ahead is generally
required in both dimensions. It amounts up to 40 µrad
for a GEO-GEO link and up to 70 µrad for a LEO-
GEO link and may thus be appreciably larger than the
beamwidth. The point ahead angle can be introduced
in either the receive or the transmit path of each
transceiver and must be adjustable if vR varies with
time. It is difficult to design a control loop for
automatic adjustment of point ahead. Therefore today's
concepts rely on the calculation of point ahead angles
from known ephemeris data and on open loop
implementation.

4. Requirements and technology

4.1  Data transmitter
The main parameters characterizing the optical
source are wavelength, output power, transverse mode,

polarization, linewidth, and modulation capability. A
smaller wavelength requires increased surface quality
of optical elements which in turn asks for bulkier
devices if diffraction limited operation is essential.
Thus the mass of the antenna (and hence the load for
the coarse pointing assembly) is strongly influenced
by the choice of λ. Also, the wavelength dependence
of the sensitivity of available optical receivers must be
considered. The output power will have to be in the
range of 100 mW and 1 W, depending on the link
distance and data rate. It should be available in a
single transverse mode to achieve maximum on-axis
antenna gain, and in a single longitudinal mode to
obtain optimum spectral efficiency. For coherent
reception, phase noise is detrimental and thus a narrow
linewidth of both the transmitter laser and the local
laser oscillator in the receiver is required. The usually
linear state of polarization emitted by the laser source
is to be converted into circular polarization before the
beam leaves the terminal (see Sect. 3.1). Modulation
may be achieved directly (e.g. in case of diode lasers
and moderate data rates) or with an external
modulator. Especially in connection with a subsequent
optical booster amplifier, the insertion loss introduced
by an electro-optic or acousto-optic modulator may be
tolerable. As with fiber systems, binary modulation
formats are envisaged for space links. In connection
with a coherent receiver, phase shift keying (and
possibly frequency shift keying) is an attractive
alternative to on-off keying, as it makes better use of
the carrier power.

4.2 Data receiver
For space applications, good  receiver sensitivity is
an extremely valuable asset, not at least because no in-
line amplification is possible. It is often characterized
by the minimum number of input photons per bit to
achieve a bit error probability of 10-6. If other sources
of noise than that due to the quantum nature of
radiation are negligible, a direct detection receiver
needs n = 6.6 photons/bit. As an example for a
coherent receiver, a homodyne receiver with PSK
modulation would require n = 5.6 photons/bit.*** To
what extent this quantum limit is reached in practice
depends on the engineer’s ability to make negligible
the effect of other noise contributions, as there is
– excess noise in avalanche photodiodes (APDs),
– optical preamplifier noise (amplified spontaneous
emission),
– transistor noise and circuit noise in the receiver
electronics,
– laser phase noise,
– transmit-receive cross coupling,
– background radiation.
Today direct receivers employing APDs can be
used up to 2.5 Gbit/s. Their sensitivity is determined
by electronic and by multiplication noise and may be
less than 100 photons/bit at low data rates.6) With
optical preamplification by an Erbium-doped fiber
amplifier, direct receivers have shown sensitivities of
40 photons/bit at 10 Gbit/s.7)
With coherent reception, the received optical field
is transposed into the electrical regime (intermediate
frequency, IF) by mixing it with the field of a local
laser oscillator.8) A photodetector serves as mixer
element. Information is preserved not only about
amplitude but also about frequency and phase of the
received field, hence frequency and phase modulated
optical signals can be detected, too.

 As optical mixers
have sensitive areas with dimensions large compared
to the wavelength, in the optical regime the spatial
modes of received and local field have to be matched
to obtain maximum IF signal. Matching  requires
identical polarization and asks for equal amplitude and
phase distribution, the latter two optimized with
respect to the mixer element.
Coherent receivers perfectly reject radiation from
other than the nominal input direction. Equally well
they discriminate against unwanted spectral
components by their IF filter. Therefore they are a
priori less sensitive against background radiation and
cross talk.

 An experimental heterodyne receiver with
phase shift keying at 565 Mbit/s has demonstrated a
sensitivity of 22 photons/bit.9)

4.3 Antennas
The transmit antenna is essentially a telescope
which magnifies the diameter of the beam emitted by
the laser (or by a booster amplifier). This beam is
generally well modeled by a Gaussian intensity
distribution. The antenna will not only introduce
truncation via its finite diameter DT but may also cause
some central obscuration, depending on the telescope's
construction. These two effects reduce the ideal on-
axis antenna gain given by equ. (2) by typically 1.5
                                                        
 5
dB.10) The antenna pattern resembles that of an Airy
pattern. Alignment tolerances of the optical elements
constituting the telescope are usually very tight, as the
output beam has to be perfectly collimated for
maximum gain.
The main specifications of the optical antenna are:
diameter of primary mirror (or lens), magnification,
aberrations, wavelength dependence of throughput,
sensitivity to temperature changes and gradients, and
stray light level. Usually, refractive telescopes are
envisaged in case of small diameters while reflective
systems are preferred for diameters exceeding several
centimeters. With increasing antenna aperture it
becomes more and more difficult (and expensive) to
meet specifications. Large antennas will also increase
the mass and size of an optical transceiver
considerably, as the telescope and the coarse pointing
assembly do contribute appreciably to these
characteristics. Presently it is felt that the diameter of
diffraction limited antennas should not exceed some
25 cm for free-space laser links. Coarse pointing may
be accomplished via  gimbal mounting the antenna or
by a separate unit consisting of two orthogonally
mounted steering mirrors or one gimbaled reflector.

4.4 Pointing, acquisition, and tracking.
To establish an optical link in space, a
sophisticated spatial pointing and acquisition
procedure must be initiated. Information on the
position of the two space terminals has to be
available. Still, because of position uncertainty and
incomplete knowledge of the spacecraft's orientation
(attitude uncertainty), one terminal's beam width has
to be widened deliberately as to illuminate the second
terminal despite the uncertainty in position. A spatial
search operation by the (narrow beam) receive path of
the second, and subsequently, of the first terminal
have to follow before acquisition is completed and
switching to the tracking mode can occur. Wide-field-
of-view acquisition detectors in the form CCDs are
most helpful.
During data transmission, the angle between the
line-of-sight and the transmit beam axis must be kept
to within a fraction of the transmit beamwidth θ which
may be as small as a few µrad. To maintain sufficient
alignment of the transmit and receive antennas despite
platform vibrations, both terminals have to be
equipped with a tracking servo loop. Optical beacons
have to be provided in both directions to render input
information for the control loops. The data carrying
beams themselves may serve as beacon, or separate
optical beams may be implemented, e.g. in a one-way
link. Tracking should ensure a mispointing of typically
less than 1 µrad. Whenever the tracking loop signals
optimum receive position, the transmitted beam (or
beacon) will be correctly directed to the opposite
terminal. This would require a perfect coaxial
alignment for the optical transmit and receive path
within each transceiver. However, some bias, or point
ahead angle, has in general to be introduced into the
alignment, as was discussed in Sect. 3.2. To ensure
short acquisition time and adequate tracking accuracy,
sufficient optical power for the acquisition and the
tracking process must be received.

5. Application scenarios

One of the first scenarios considered was a bi-
directional, symmetric link between two geostationary
satellites (GEOs). The orbital distance between the
GEO satellites may lie  anywhere between a few
degrees and some 120°, corresponding to distances
between a few thousand kilometers and 75 000 km
. Such a link has the attractive features of
a single (or very seldom) acquisition process, of a
nominally zero Doppler shift, and of low angular
tracking velocities. Connections to ground stations
could be performed with microwaves.




Large data streams generated on a low-earth-
orbiting satellite (a LEO, with a distance to ground of
less than 1000 km) may advantageously be transmitted
to a GEO acting as a relay before being directed to the
earth via microwaves (see Fig. 4b). Distances for this
asymmetric link may be as large as 45 000 km. The
concept allows continual data transfer to a single earth
station for at least half a LEO orbit.
Another use of a laser data link was already
included in the upper part. Characterized by
very large distances (e.g. millions of kilometers) and
by relatively low data rates (e.g. some 100 kbit/s),
such a link would serve to transfer data from
interplanetary and deep space probes to relay satellites
orbiting the earth. This relay could be equipped with a
large receive telescope. Further transport to ground
stations would use microwaves. As an alternative, an
optical ground station would receive the probe's data
after passage through the atmosphere.
For satellite networks now being planned or
established to serve mobile data transfer,
interconnectivity  at very high data rates could be
achieved by optical links. Frequency

allocation problems - as they persist increasingly for
radio links - are practically non-existent, with the
merit of negligible mutual interference. Another
advantage is the expected smaller mass and volume of
optical terminals.

6. System technologies

The almost three decades of efforts towards
intersatellite laser links have seen various
technologies,1-3)  starting from those based on lamp-
pumped, mode-locked Nd:YAG lasers,11) on CO2
lasers 5) operating at λ = 10 µm, on GaAlAs diodes
(0.85 µm), up to those employing diode-pumped
Nd:YAG lasers (λ = 1.06 µm) 12) and InGaAsP
semiconductors operating at λ = 1.5 µm.
Only a few experimental systems have been
launched so far. The European space agency, ESA, has
put a terminal on SPOT IV, a LEO earth observation
satellite.13)  It employs a diode laser at λ = 0.85 µm and
shall transmit data at 50 Mbit/s. The counter terminal
still awaits its launch on board of the GEO satellite
ARTEMIS. The development of this system, dubbed
SILEX (semiconductor laser intersatellite link
experiment), started as early as 1985. Japan will
participate in this experiment by launching, in 2001, a
dedicated satellite named OICETS. This LEO satellite
is equipped with an optical terminal to communicate
with ARTEMIS. - Between 1994 and 1996 a laser link
was tested between a terminal placed on the Japanese
test satellite ETS-VI and ground stations in Tokyo and
in California, although the satellite did not reach the
intended GEO orbit but a highly elliptical one.14) The
down link operated with a diode laser, the up link with
an Argon laser.
For future applications, systems based on
Nd:YAG lasers 12) and on  diode lasers at 1.5 µm in
connection with Erbium-doped fiber amplifiers 7) are
investigated presently. With the specific properties
inherent to these laser sources, they lend themselves
especially to coherent detection and to optically pre-
amplified direct detection, respectively.
In the future one should take into consideration not
only recent technological developments like optical
demodulation of phase modulated signals, the use of
low-duty-cycle return-to-zero coding, or a
combination of both. One should also give serious
thoughts to use the large, mature, and reliable
technology base commercially available in the 1.5 µm
band. Only then one can hope to achieve economy in
medium-scale applications like intersatellite networks.