CSE475

Satellite and Space Networks
ÖMER KORÇAK
omer.korcak@marmara.edu.tr

Marmara University
Department of Computer Engineering

Satellite Networks Research Laboratory (SATLAB)
Department of Computer Engineering,
Boğaziçi University
Istanbul, Turkey
2
OUTLINE
• Satellites
–GEO, MEO, LEO
• High Altitude Platforms
• Integration Scenario
• Problem Definition & Solution Approach
SATELLITES
3
Distance: 378.000 km
Period: 27.3 days
Basics
• Satellites in circular orbits
– attractive force F
g
= m g (R/r)²
– centrifugal force F
c
= m r e²
– m: mass of the satellite
– R: radius of the earth (R = 6370 km)
– r: distance to the center of the earth
– g: acceleration of gravity (g = 9.81 m/s²)
– e: angular velocity (e = 2 t f, f: rotation frequency)
• Stable orbit
– F
g
= F
c

3
2
2
) 2 ( f
gR
r
t
=
4
Satellite period and orbits
10 20 30 40 x10
6
m
24
20
16
12
8
4
radius
satellite
period [h]
velocity [ x1000 km/h]
synchronous distance
35,786 km
5
Basics
 elliptical or circular orbits
 complete rotation time depends on distance satellite-earth
 inclination: angle between orbit and equator
 elevation: angle between satellite and horizon
 LOS (Line of Sight) to the satellite necessary for connection
 high elevation needed, less absorption due to e.g. buildings
 Uplink: connection base station - satellite
 Downlink: connection satellite - base station
 typically separated frequencies for uplink and downlink
– transponder used for sending/receiving and shifting of
frequencies
– transparent transponder: only shift of frequencies
– regenerative transponder: additionally signal regeneration

6
Inclination
inclination o
o
satellite orbit
perigee
plane of satellite orbit
equatorial plane
7
Elevation
Elevation:
angle c between center of satellite beam
and surface
c
minimal elevation:
elevation needed at least
to communicate with the satellite
8
Link budget of satellites
• Parameters like attenuation or received power determined by four
parameters:
 sending power
 gain of sending antenna
 distance between sender
and receiver
 gain of receiving antenna
• Problems
 varying strength of received signal due to multipath propagation
 interruptions due to shadowing of signal (no LOS)
• Possible solutions
 Link Margin to eliminate variations in signal strength
 satellite diversity (usage of several visible satellites at the same time)
helps to use less sending power
2
4
|
.
|

\
|
=
c
f r
L
t
L: Loss
f: carrier frequency
r: distance
c: speed of light
9
Atmospheric attenuation
Example: satellite systems at 4-6 GHz
elevation of the satellite
5° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°
Attenuation of
the signal in %
10
20
30
40
50
rain absorption
fog absorption
atmospheric
absorption
c
10
Satellite Orbits
Distance (km) Period
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) 700 - 2000 ~2 hr
Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) 10.000 – 15.000 ~6 hr
Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) 36.000 24 hr
11
Satellite Orbits 2
earth
km
35768
10000
1000
LEO
(Globalstar,
Irdium)
HEO
inner and outer Van
Allen belts
MEO (ICO)
GEO (Inmarsat)
Van-Allen-Belts:
ionized particles
2000 - 6000 km and
15000 - 30000 km
above earth surface

12
GEO Satellites
• No handover
• Altitude: ~35.786 km.
• One-way propagation delay: 250-280 ms
• 3 to 4 satellites for global coverage
• Mostly used in video broadcasting
– Example: TURKSAT satellites
• Another applications: Weather forecast, global
communications, military applications
• Advantage: well-suited for broadcast services
• Disadvantages: Long delay, high free-space attenuation

13
MEO Satellites
• Altitude: 10.000 – 15.000 km
• One-way propagation delay: 100 – 130 ms
• 10 to 15 satellites for global coverage
• Infrequent handover
• Orbit period: ~6 hr
• Mostly used in navigation
–GPS, Galileo, Glonass
• Communications: Inmarsat, ICO


14
MEO Example: GPS
• Global Positioning System
– Developed by US Dept. Of Defence
– Became fully operational in 1993
– Currently 31 satellites at 20.200 km.
• Last lunch: March 2008
• It works based on a geometric principle
– “Position of a point can be calculated if the distances between this point
and three objects with known positions can be measured”
• Four satellites are needed to calculate the position
– Fourth satellite is needed to correct the receiver’s clock.
• Selective Availability
• Glonass (Russian): 24 satellites, 19.100 km
• Galileo (EU): 30 satellites, 23.222 km, under development
(expected date: 2013)
• Beidou (China): Currently experimental & limited.

15
LEO Satellites
• Altitude: 700 – 2.000 km
• One-way propagation delay: 5 – 20 ms
• More than 32 satellites for global coverage
• Frequent handover
• Orbit period: ~2 hr
• Applications:
– Earth Observation
• GoogleEarth image providers (DigitalGlobe, etc.)
• RASAT (First satellite to be produced solely in Turkey)
– Communications
• Globalstar, Iridium
– Search and Rescue (SAR)
• COSPAS-SARSAT



16
Globalstar



• Satellite phone & low speed data comm.
• 48 satellites (8 planes, 6 sat per plane)
and 4 spares.
• 52˚ inclination: not covers the polar
regions
• Altitude: 1.410 km
• No intersatellite link: Ground gateways
provide connectivity from satellites to
PSTN and Internet.
• Satellite visibility time: 16.4 min
• Operational since February 2000.
• 315.000 subscribers (as of June 2008)
• Currently second-generation satellites
are being produced (by Thales Alenia
Space) and 18 satellites launched in
2010 and 2011.


17
Globalstar – Coverage Map
18
Iridium



• 66 satellites (6 planes, 11 sat per plane)
and 10 spares.
• 86.4˚ inclination: full coverage
• Altitude: 780 km
• Intersatellite links, onboard processing
• Satellite visibility time: 11.1 min
• Satellites launched in 1997-98.
• Initial company went into bankrupcy
– Technologically flawless, however:
– Very expensive; Awful business plan
– Cannot compete with GSM
• Now, owned by Iridium satellite LLC.
• 280.000 subscribers (as of Aug. 2008)
• Multi-year contract with US DoD.
• Satellite collision (February 10, 2009).

19
COSPAS-SARSAT
(Search And Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking)
• An international satellite-based
SAR distress alert detection &
information distribution system.
• 4 GEO, 5 LEO satellites
• Aircraft & maritime radiobeacons
are automatically activated in case
of distress.
• Newest beacons incorporate GPS
receivers (position of distress is
transmitted)
• Supporters are working to add a
new capability called MEOSAR.
– The system will put SAR processors
aboard GPS and Galileo satellites




20
Since 1982, 30.713 persons rescued
in 8.387 distress situation.
Satellites - Overview
• GEOs have good broadcasting capability, but long
propagation delay.
• LEOs offer low latency, low terminal power
requirements.
• Inter-satellite links and on-board processing for
increased performance and better utilization of satellites
– From flying mirrors to intelligent routers on sky.
• Major problem with LEOs: Mobility of satellites
– Frequent hand-over
• Another important problem with satellites:
– Infeasible to upgrade the technology, after the satellite is
launched
21
High Altitude Platforms
(HAPs)
• Aerial unmanned platforms
• Quasi-stationary position (at 17-22 km)
• Telecommunications & surveillance
• Advantages:
– Cover larger areas than terrestrial base
stations
– No mobility problems like LEOs
– Low propagation delay
– Smaller and cheaper user terminals
– Easy and incremental deployment
• Disadvantages:
– Immature airship technology
– Monitoring of the platform’s movement
22
HAP Coverage
23
HAP-Satellite Integration
• HAPs have significant advantages.
• Satellites still represent the most attractive solution for broadcast and
multicast services
• Should be considered as complementary technologies.
24
An Integration Scenario
• Integration of HAPs and mobile satellites
• Establishment of optical links
HAPs
Satellites
25
Optimal Assignment of
Optical Links
CONSTRAINTS:
• A satellite and a HAP should have line of sight in order to
communicate with each other.
– Elevation angle between HAP and satellite should be larger than a
certain ε
min
value.
• Number of optical transmitters in satellites is limited.
– A satellite can serve maximum of H
max
HAPs.
• One to many relation between HAPs and satellites.
AIMS:
• As much HAP as possible should be served (Maximum utilization)
• Average of elevation angles between HAPs and satellites should be
maximized.

26
Optimal Assignment of
Optical Links (cont.)
SOLUTION APPROACHES
• This optimization problem can be represented as an Integer Linear
Programming (ILP) problem
• ILP solution approaches: Exclusive search, Branch-and-bound
algorithms, etc.
– Exponential time complexity
– Not feasible for large networks
• Optimization algorithm should be applied repeatedly
– In periodic manner: every ∆t time unit
– In event-driven manner: When a link becomes obsolete
• Faster algorithm is necessary.

• There exists a polynomial time solution approach

27
Solution Approach
• Example scenario
• Three satellites & seven
HAPs
• Visible pairs are
connected
• Elevation angles are
given on the links
28
Solution Approach (cont.)
• Bipartite graph
• First group: Node for each
satellite transmitter
• Second group: Node for each
HAP
• Edge exists between a HAP
and each transmitter of a
satellite, if they are visible to
each other.
• Weights: Elevation angles
29
Maximum weighted maximum cardinality matching
Max Weighted Max Cardinality Matching
• Matching: A subset of edges, such that no two edges
share a common node.
• Maximum cardinality matching: Matching with
maximum number of edges.
• Maximum weighted maximum cardinality matching:
Maximum cardinality matching where the sum of the
weights of the edges is maximum.
• Hungarian Algorithm: O(n
3
)
30
Results
31
100 HAPs (height: 20 km)
10 MEO Satellites: ICO (height: 10350 km, inclination: 45˚)
Total time: 1 day, Δt=1 minute
Increasing the Link Durations
• Matching with maximum “average elevation angle” may
result in frequent optical link switching
– Switching from one satellite to another is an expensive
operation.
• Reduction of switching = Increasing the link durations
• Method: Favor existing links with a particular amount γ
– Weights of utilized edges are incremented by γ
32
Results - 2
33
ε
min
=-2
Net gain function
) 0 (
) 0 ( ) (
) (
LD
LD LD
G
÷
=
¸
¸
) 0 (
) ( ) 0 (
) (
avg
avg avg
A
A A
L
¸
¸
÷
=
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ¸ q ¸ q ¸ L G NGF · ÷ ÷ · =
“Efficient Integration of HAPs and Mobile Satellites
via Free-space Optical Links,” Computer Networks, 2011
More on Satellites
• Hand-over
• Satellite-fixed / Earth-fixed footprints
• Network Mobility Management
• Routing


35
Handover in satellite systems
• Several additional situations for handover in satellite systems compared to
cellular terrestrial mobile phone networks caused by the movement of the
satellites
– Intra satellite handover
• handover from one spot beam to another
• mobile station still in the footprint of the satellite, but in another cell
– Inter satellite handover
• handover from one satellite to another satellite
• mobile station leaves the footprint of one satellite
– Gateway handover
• Handover from one gateway to another
• mobile station still in the footprint of a satellite, but gateway leaves the
footprint
– Inter system handover
• Handover from the satellite network to a terrestrial cellular network
• mobile station can reach a terrestrial network again which might be
cheaper, has a lower latency etc.
36
Satellite-fixed vs Earth-fixed
Footprints
Satellite Fixed Footprints
(asynchronous handoff)
Earth Fixed Footprints
(synchronous handoff)
37
 Physical network topology is dynamic  Virtual Node topology is fixed
A satellite corresponds to a VN in a time.
Routing is carried out without considering
the movement of satellites
Virtual Node
38
Routing
• One solution: inter satellite links (ISL)
 reduced number of gateways needed
 forward connections or data packets within the satellite network as
long as possible
 only one uplink and one downlink per direction needed for the
connection of two mobile phones
• Problems:
 more complex focusing of antennas between satellites
 high system complexity due to moving routers
 higher fuel consumption
 thus shorter lifetime
• Iridium and Teledesic planned with ISL
• Other systems use gateways and additionally terrestrial networks
39
Features of Satellite Networks
• Effects of satellite mobility
– Topology is dynamic.
– Topology changes are predictable and periodic.
– Traffic is very dynamic and non-homogeneous.
– Handovers are necessary.
• Limitations and capabilities of satellites
– Power and onboard processing capability are limited.
– Implementing the state-of-the-art technology is difficult.
– Satellites have a broadcast nature.
• Nature of satellite constellations
– Higher propagation delays.
– Fixed number of nodes.
– Highly symmetric and uniform structure.

40
Routing & Network MM
• Considering these issues various routing & MM
techniques are proposed. Main ideas are:
– To handle dynamic topology changes with minimum overhead.
– To prevent an outgoing call from dropping due to link handovers
– To minimize length of the paths in terms of propagation delay
and/or number of satellite hops.
– To prevent congestion of some ISLs, while others are idle (Load
balancing).
– To perform traffic-based routing.
– To provide better integration of satellite networks and terrestrial
networks.
– To perform efficient multicasting over satellites.
“Exploring the Routing Strategies in Next-Generation Satellite Networks”
IEEE Wireless Communications, 2007
41
Thank You
Any questions?