Satellite Communication Lecture 4 Issues in Space Segment

Satellite Communication Lecture 4 Issues in Space Segment and Satellite Implementation http://web.uettaxila.edu.pk/CMS/teSCms/

Overview Issues in Satellite Communication Satellite Selection and System Implementation Communications Payload Configurations Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design Digital Onboard Processing Repeater Repeater Power and Bandwidth Additional Payload Issues Contingency Planning Risks in Satellite Operation Space Development: Estimating Lead Time Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy

Issues in Satellite Communication Satellite communications has brought with it a number of issues that must be addressed before an application can be implemented. Satellite capacity is only available if the right satellites are placed in service and cover the region of interest. Considering the complexity of a satellite and its supporting network, applications can be expensive to install and manage. If the issues are addressed correctly, the economic and functional needs of the application will be satisfied.

Issues in Satellite Communication In addition to frequency band and bandwidths, such factors as orbit selection, satellite communications payload design, and the network topology have a direct bearing on the attractiveness of service offerings. The satellite operator must make the decision whether to launch a satellite with one frequency band or to combine payloads for multiplefrequency operation (called a hybrid satellite). The reliability and flexibility of satellite applications cannot be assured without thorough analysis and proper implementation.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation Many of the issues that must be considered by the operators of terrestrial telephone, television, and cellular networks must also be faced by providers of satellite applications. What is different is the need to split the application between space and ground segments. The most basic type of space segment, employs one or more GEO satellites and a tracking, telemetry, and command (TT&C) ground station. Ground segment can contain a large number of Earth stations, the specific number and size depends on the application and business. For example, there would be as few as 10 Earth stations in a backbone high-speed data network.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Space Segment) There are more than 50 commercial satellite operators in 25 different countries; however, the industry is dominated by six companies who provide most of the global transponder supply. Capacity can be offered on a wholesale basis, which means that complete transponders or major portions (even the entire operating satellite, in some cases) are marketed and sold at a negotiated price. We also review the current state of the art in bus design (Launch Vehicle/Rocket) as it has a bearing on payload power and flexibility.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Space Segment) To create the space segment, the satellite operator contracts with one of the approximately 12 spacecraft manufacturers in the world for many of the elements needed for implementation. Historically, most operators took responsibility for putting the satellite into operation, including the purchase and insurance of the launch itself. More recently, some contracts have required inorbit delivery of the satellite, which reduces the technical demand and some of risk on the satellite purchaser.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Space Segment) However, satellite buyers still need a competent staff to monitor the construction of the satellites and ground facilities, and to resolve interface and specification issues. This can be accomplished with consultants, the quality of which depends more on the experience of individuals than on the cost or size of the consulting organization. The experienced spacecraft consultants include Telesat Canada, The Aerospace Corporation, and SES Global. Individuals, such as retirees from spacecraft manufacturers, can provide excellent assistance at much lower cost. However, they can be difficult to find.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Space Segment) The capacity demands of cable TV and DTH systems are pushing us toward operating multiple satellites in and around the same orbit position. Successful satellite TV operators like SES and PanAmSat have been doing this for some time, developing and improving the required orbit determination and control strategies. This considers accurately determining the range of the satellite, since we are talking about separating satellites by tenths of degrees instead of multiple degrees. A few of the smaller operators of domestic satellites like Telenor, Thaicom, and NHK double the capacity of an orbit slot by operating two smaller satellites rather than launching a single satellite with the

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) Implementation of the Earth station network can follow a wide variety of paths. One approach is to purchase the network as a turn-key package from a manufacturer such as ViaSat (Carlsbad, California), Hughes Network Systems (Germantown, Maryland), Alcatel (Paris, France), or NEC (Yokohama, Japan). This gives good assurance that the network will work as a whole since a common technical architecture will probably be followed.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) There are systems integration specialists in the field, including L3 Communications STS, Globecomm Systems, Inc. (both of Hauppauge, New York), IDB Systems (Dallas, Texas), and ND SatCom (Friedrichshafen, Germany), which manufacture and purchase the elements from a variety of manufacturers and perform all of the installation and integration work, again on a package basis. The application developer may take on a significant portion of implementation responsibility, depending on its technical strengths and resources.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) Another strategy for the buyer is to form a strategic partnership with one or more suppliers, who collectively take on technical responsibility as well as some of the financial risk in exchange for a share of revenue or a guarantee of future sales. Some of the smaller and very capable satellite communications specialists, such as Shiron Satellite Communications (http://www.shiron.com) and EMS Technologies, Inc. (Norcross, Georgia), can provide a targeted solution.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) The operations and maintenance phase, of the application falls heavily on the service provider and in many cases the user as well. The service may be delivered and managed through a large hub or gateway Earth station. This facility should be supported by competent technical staff on a 24-hour per day, 7-day per week basis (called 24–7)— either on site or remotely from an NOC. Such a facility might be operated by the integrator or supplier and shared by several users or groups of users.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) This is a common practice in VSAT networks and cable TV up-linking. Inexpensive user terminals, whether receiveonly or transmit and receive, are designed for unattended operation and would be controlled from the hub. The systems integrator can operate portions or the entire network, including maintenance and repair of equipment. A properly written contract or Service Level Agreement (SLA) with a competent supplier often gives functional advantages for the buyer, such as backup services and protection from technical obsolescence.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) A basic issue on the space segment side is the degree to which the satellite design should be tailored to the application. Historically, C- and Ku-band satellites in the FSS are designed for maximum flexibility so that a variety of customer’s needs can be met. A typical FSS transponder may support any one of the following: an analog TV channel, 4 to 10 digital TV channels, a single 60-Mbps data signal such as would come from a wideband TDMA network, or an interactive data network of 2,000 VSATs. The satellite operator may have little direct involvement in these applications. Alternatively, they may invest in these facilities to provide value-added services.

Satellite Selection and System Implementation (Earth Station) The choice of level of integration of the ground and space segment activities is a strategic decision of the satellite operator and application developer. There are some operators who have launched spacecraft with no specific thought as to how their space segment services will function with the ground segment of prospective users. In contrast, other operators simulate their hypothetical communication network performance at every step from when the concept is defined, to factory tests, to in-orbit operation. These results is fed back into the design of critical elements of the satellite and ground user equipment.

Communications Payload Configurations Communications payloads are increasing in capability and power, and are getting more complex as time passes. Examples include the newer DTH missions, which are designed to maintain maximum EIRP and digital throughput for up to 32 high-power transponders in the downlink. Likewise, state-of-the-art MSS satellites have large, deployable antennas to allow portable terminals and handheld phones to operate directly over the satellite path. Onboard digital processors are likewise included as a means to improve the capacity and flexibility of the network, a capability commonly used in multi-beam Ka-band satellites.

Communications Payload Configurations

Communications Payload Configurations Suppose that the operator wants to be able to address the widest range of applications and has consequently decided to implement both C- and Kuband. With today’s range of spacecraft designs, one can launch independent C- and Ku-band satellites. This was done in the first generation of the Ku-band SBS and C-band Galaxy systems in the United States. Each satellite design can be optimized for its particular service. The alternative is to build a larger spacecraft that can carry both payloads at the same time.

Communications Payload Configurations The first such hybrids were purchased in the early 1980s by INTELSAT (Intelsat V), Telesat Canada (Anik B), and Southern Pacific Railway (Spacenet). The hybrid satellites launched by INTELSAT also permit cross-band operation, with the uplink Earth station at one band (e.g., Ku-band) and the downlink at the other (C-band). A third overall design issue deals with the coverage footprint, which has a direct bearing on the design of the spacecraft antenna system. The two basic alternatives are to either create a single footprint that covers the selected service area or to divide the coverage up into regions that each gets its own spot beam. These two approaches have significant differences in terms of capacity, operational flexibility, and technical complexity.

Single-Frequency-Band Payload The single-frequency payload represents the most focused approach to satellite design. The concept was first introduced by Early Bird (Intelsat I) in 1965 and advanced in 1975 by the 24-transponder Satcom spacecraft built by RCA Astrospace (now absorbed into Lockheed Martin). Beyond 2000, single-band payloads have become targeted toward specific applications in TV and mobile communications. The TV marketplace is dominated by cable TV and DTH, where the quantity of available TV channels at the same orbit position becomes important.

Single-Frequency-Band Payload Majority of the cable TV satellites for the United States, including some of the Galaxy and AMC series, are single-frequency designs, optimized to the requirements of the cable TV networks. From a technical prospective, the transponder gain and power is made to match the Earth stations used to uplink and receive the signals. What is more important to this class of customer is that the capacity must be there when needed. Because nearly all U.S. families receive satellitedelivered programming, the cable TV networks put a very high value on the reliability of getting the capacity to orbit and operating once it gets there.

Single-Frequency-Band Payload The satellite operators that address cable markets therefore need excellent plans for launch and on-orbit backup. In brief, experience has shown that the best way to do this is to construct a series of identical satellites and launch them according to a well-orchestrated plan. This must consider how the capacity is sold to the cable programmers as well as the strategy for replacing existing satellites that reach end of life. Matters are more complicated when an operator wishes to replace individual C- and Ku-band satellites with a dual-frequency hybrid satellite.

Single-Frequency-Band Payload A second area of the TV market where single-band satellites are preferred is in DTH. Spacecraft for SES-Astra, DIRECTV, and EchoStar/DISH are single-band designs tailored to the specific requirements of their respective DTH networks. This considers the quantity of transponders, the size of the receiving antenna (and therefore the satellite EIRP), the signal format (which determines the transponder bandwidth, channel capacity, and quality), and the coverage area. Taken together, these factors have enormous leverage on the economics and attractiveness of the service, second only to the programming. The delivery of the signal to millions of small dishes demands the highest EIRP that is feasible with the current state of the art technology.

Multiple-Frequency-Band Hybrid Payloads Hybrid satellites were first introduced by INTELSAT at C- and Ku-bands with the launch of Intelsat V. A third L-band payload was added to Intelsat V-A for use by Inmarsat. The first domestic hybrid, Anik B, was operated by Telesat Canada in the late 1970s; and two American companies—Sprint Communications and American Satellite Corporation (both merged into GTE and the satellites subsequently sold to Americom)—were also early adopters. The idea behind the use of the hybrid was to address both the C- and Ku-band marketplaces at a reduced cost per transponder. During the 1990s, satellite operators pursued much larger spacecraft platforms like the 8-kW Lockheed Martin A2100, the Boeing 601-HP, and the Astrium Eurostar.

Multiple-Frequency-Band Hybrid Payloads Even higher powers are provided by the Boeing 702 and Loral 1300S series, which reach 15 to 20 kW of prime power. This class of vehicle can support almost 100 transponders, allowing a full DBS repeater to be combined with the high end of C-band services. A criticism leveled at the 15 kW and greater design is that the operator may be putting too many eggs in one basket. However, the other side of the coin is that these designs simplify operation (only one spacecraft need be operated at the orbit position) and significantly reduce the cost per transponder.

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas The coverage pattern of the satellite determines the addressable market and the flexibility of extending services. The traditional and most successful approach to date is the shaped area-coverage beam that serves a country or region of a hemisphere. This type of antenna pattern permits one signal to be delivered across the entire footprint from a bent-pipe transponder. While versatile, this approach limits the overall satellite throughput bandwidth as well as the effective spacecraft antenna gain (and hence EIRP) at the boundary. The opposite principle of frequency reuse through multiple spot beams is gaining favor for high EIRP MSS satellites like Thuraya and Inmarsat 4; in addition, systems that employ Ka-band to provide broadband Internet access likewise use the multiple spot beam approach.

Large Capacity LEO Spacecrafts

Large Capacity LEO Spacecrafts

Large Capacity LEO Spacecrafts

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas For a constant transponder output power, the EIRP varies inversely with the beam area. Stated another way, for a given spacecraft antenna configuration, the product of gain (as a ratio) and area is a constant. We can estimate the gain of any particular area of coverage using the following relationship: G 27,000/φ2 where G is the gain as a ratio, and φ is the average diameter of a circular coverage area, measured from GEO in degrees. Measuring coverage in degrees comes about because the full Earth extends across approximately 17 as viewed from GEO, resulting in a minimum gain at beam edge of 27,000 / 172 93.4 or (10 log 93.4 ) 19.7 dBi.

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas An illustration of how the gain and area are related for two differing coverage areas: the country of Colombia and the continent of South America is shown. The Colombian market would be served with a national beam that is directed exclusively toward this country, delivering high gain and no direct frequency reuse.

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas An alternative that is shown in Figure 3.4 subdivides the coverage area many times over using small spot beams. Assuming that each beam is 0.4 in diameter, it will take approximately 38 such spots to provide the full national coverage. The 38 spot beams are arranged in a 7-beam reuse pattern with one-seventh of the allocated spectrum assigned into each spot. Spots that reuse the same piece of spectrum are separated by two adjacent spots that are non-interfering. This need to isolate spots applies to FDMA and TDMA; CDMA offers the possibility of not subdividing the spectrum but rather allowing interference to overlap in adjacent beams.

Shaped Versus Spot Beam Antennas

Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design The repeater is that portion of the communications payload that transfers communication carriers from the uplink antenna to the downlink antenna of the spacecraft. In established C- and Ku-band satellite systems, the repeater is divided into transponders, each of which can transmit a predefined amount of bandwidth and downlink power. It is common practice to call a repeater a transponder and vice versa, although repeater is the more general term. Transponder, on the other hand, more typically refers to one RF channel of transmission, which can be assigned to one customer or group of customers for a common purpose (transmitting a multiplex of TV channels or providing a VSAT network).

Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design We review the traditional type of transponder, called the bent pipe, along with newer concepts employing digital onboard processing (OBP). An OBP repeater may provide a more sophisticated system for routing analog channels (and hence can offer greater flexibility for bent-pipe services) or may demodulate the bit streams onboard for efficient routing, multiplexing, or additional processing. As one moves toward increasing levels of complexity, the satellite becomes more and more a part of an overall network of ground stations and is inseparable from it. This tends to increase performance and effectiveness for a specific network implementation but renders the satellite less flexible in terms of its ability to support different traffic types not considered prior to launch. The development time for an OBP repeater will generally take extra months or years as compared to the bent pipe, introducing the risk that the market for the planned application could be missed.

Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design Each transponder of a bent-pipe repeater receives and retransmits a fixed-bandwidth segment to a common service area. There is a simple mathematical relationship between the number of transponders and the total available bandwidth that is provided by the particular spectrum band. Simply stated, the number of transponders equals the total bandwidth divided by the bandwidth per transponder. There will be 10% to 15% guard band due to filtering at the edges of each transponder. The example of a six-transponder design in Figure 3.7

Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design

Analog (Bent-Pipe) Repeater Design The engineering design of the transponder channel is a high art because a multitude of specifications and manufacturing issues must be considered. Parameters in the link budget like receive G/T, transmit EIRP, transponder bandwidth, and inter-modulation distortion have a direct impact on users. These should be specified for every application. A multitude of others, like gain flatness, delay distortion, and phase noise, are often of less concern to some applications but potentially vital to others. The driver/limiter/amplifier (DLA) in Figure 3.7 provides a degree of control over data transfer by adjusting the input power and possibly correcting some of the nonlinear distortion.

Digital Onboard Processing Repeater The digital OBP repeater is a significant advancement from the analog versions that merely interconnect frequency channels using microwave filters and mechanical switches. At the core of OBP is digital signal processing (DSP), a computational process reduced to solid-state electronics that converts an information signal from one form into another unique form. Historically, the DSP was programmed on a multipurpose digital computer as a way to save the time and energy of doing the transform mathematically with integral calculus. The most well-known DSP process is the fast Fourier transform (FFT). It takes a signal in the time domain (i.e., a waveform) and converts it into a collection of frequencies (i.e., a frequency spectrum). The inverse FFT does just the opposite, transforming a frequency spectrum into a time waveform.

Digital Onboard Processing Repeater When in either digital format, we can multiply, filter, and modulate the signals to produce a variety of alternate signal types. In this manner, a digital processor can perform the same functions in software that would have to be done with physical hardware elements like mixers, filters, and modulators. Modern DSP chips and systems can operate over many megahertz of bandwidth, which is what we need to build an effective digital repeater. To do this, the calculation speed must be in the gigahertz range. More recently, OBP has taken on many other roles where the actual bits on the RF carrier are recovered and reconstructed with minimum error, switched and routed, and re-modulated onto other RF carriers in the downlink. This permits the OBP to act as a conventional packet switch and multiplexer, common to what is employed in land-based data communications networks. The specific configuration of the OBP repeater is created for the expected network environment, including the specific telecommunications applications to be provided to end users.

Repeater Power and Bandwidth As satellite applications target more toward end users, the demand increases for smaller ground antennas and, as a consequence, higher satellite power. Satellite operators tend to seek a marketing advantage by having greater EIRP in the newest generation of spacecraft. A key parameter for spacecraft design in this environment is the efficiency of conversion from dc (supplied by the solar panels and batteries) to RF (power amplifier output).

Repeater Power and Bandwidth Traveling-wave tubes (TWTs) tend to have the highest efficiency and are appropriate for broadcasting and digital information distribution. TWTs above 250W have challenged developers because of a lack of adequate on-orbit experience. In comparison, 100W to 200W amplifiers are viewed as dependable, and experience with the generation launched in the 1990s has been very good. Higher power levels are obtained by paralleling pairs of amplifiers. The direction that manufacturers are going now is to integrate a standard TWT with a driver/linearizer that increases gain and cancels a significant amount of nonlinearity. This reduces inter-modulation distortion for multiple carriers and/or sideband re-growth for wideband digital signals

Repeater Power and Bandwidth Solid-state power amplifiers (SSPAs) have become popular for power up to about 50W and may offer longer life because they do not contain a clear-cut wearout mechanism. High-power GaAs FET devices are delicate and must be maintained at a relatively cool temperature over life. SSPAs operate at low voltage and high current and can fail randomly due to design or manufacturing defects (particularly where leads are bonded to substrates). TWTAs have maintained their lead over SSPAs because they function as a generator that can be inherently very efficient because energy of the moving element (the electron beam) can be conserved by recycling (via multiple collectors).

Additional Payload Issues Satellites operating at higher frequencies like Ku- and Kaband might be fitted with one or more transmitting beacons for reception by communication Earth stations. This provides a reference for determining the amount of rain attenuation being experienced on the link. Another use is as an independent control channel for onboard communication functions such as the digital repeater as discussed earlier. The command link from the TT&C Earth station must function at all times, which means that the command receiver must be permanently on and physically connected to appropriate antennas. No switches or other interaction with the communication part of the repeater should be allowed. Command encryption might have to be considered for very secure operation, but this also should not interfere with safe operation in the case of an emergency.

Additional Payload Issues Generally, the uplink coverage footprint should be as nearly identical to the downlink as possible. This allows transmitting Earth stations to be located anywhere in the entire area of coverage. However, there are systems like DTH and MSS with only a few ground transmitters (at the broadcast center or gateway) in the fixed uplink part of the spectrum, so consideration may be given to restricting the uplink coverage area. This provides an improvement in spacecraft G/T and SFD, which in turn can improve link quality and availability.

Contingency Planning Satellite operators and users must engage in contingency planning, which involves making arrangements for backup satellite capacity and succession when operating satellites reach end of life. For operators, this is a matter of maintaining the business in the face of possible launch and inorbit failures. Users of these satellites share that concern and would probably not use a given satellite system if capacity is not available in the event of a failure. Providing the backup and replacement capacity is costly and if done incorrectly, can lead to disastrous results for all parties. For all of these reasons, operators and users can participate in the solution to providing continuity of orbital service.

Risks in Satellite Operation The following slides identify risks that affect the delivery of space segment service to users. Some basic approaches to the resolution of each of these risks are discussed. However, this is not a substitute for a detailed plan that is compiled for the unique circumstances of the particular operator and/or user.

Launch Failure The satellite operator and user must make provision for the distinct possibility that a given launch will not be successful. Spacecraft manufacturers can provide a variety of services to compensate for the probability of approximately 10% that the satellite will not reach its specified orbit and provide service. For example, the contract for the satellite might include a provision for a second spacecraft to be ready for backup launch within a specified period after the failure. The contract might even provide for delivery in orbit by a specified date, which implies that the spacecraft manufacturer will have to go through the (expensive) steps that would otherwise fall upon the operator. In the end, however, the operator pays the costs of covering the risk.

Loss of On-Orbit Lifetime Newcomers to satellite communication may have a somewhat negative view of satellite operations, possibly driven by highly visible launch and on-orbit failures along with the business failure of at least two major LEO satellite systems. The actual experience is that most satellites live out their life expectancies and can be counted upon to provide service for a duration of 10 to 15 years. There are exceptions where some kind of catastrophic failure after launch ended the satellite’s life prematurely, but the percentage of these is in the low single digits.

Loss of On-Orbit Lifetime An important but often overlooked task of the satellite operator is the proper and efficient maintenance of orbit control. Many GEO satellites enter service using a single TT&C Earth station with one antenna. This has adequate ranging accuracy if the satellite is to be controlled to 0.2 on each side of the station-keeping box. As more satellites are added to the same orbit position, improved accuracy becomes a requirement. Improved ranging methods, which may include a second TT&C station, are then needed to provide range data to enhance the orbit determination process. This allows the software to come up with an accurate orbit more quickly. For non-GEO operators there is also the need to maintain multiple satellites and to coordinate the arrangement of multiple orbits to assure continuous service. Non-GEO systems are different in that many of the satellites are not in view of TT&C stations at any given time.

Reduced Technical Capability Any organization that is engaged in a high-technology activity is exposed to the risk that it will not be able to maintain a sufficient level of technical competence. This depends on the people who work for the company and includes their qualifications and level of training. Historically, companies and government agencies have attempted to build competence through in-house education programs and on-the-job training. There has been a trend in recent years to require that new people come to the company already trained, either because they worked for another organization in the same or a similar line of business or because of their individual educational experiences. This reduces the training burden on companies but increases the risk from poaching—the tendency of companies to lure qualified people away from each other with attractive offers of employment.

Loss of Ground Facilities Ground facilities tend to be less reliable than the satellites that they support. Part of the reason is that they are exposed to many environmental risks, such as flood, Earthquake, fire, wind, theft, and civil unrest. The equipment within an Earth station or control center is designed to perform its function for 5 to 10 years, not 15 to 20. In addition, ground facilities are dependent on external support to keep them running. Some of this can be countered through backup means, such as an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), local water storage or supply, and storage of large quantities of supplies and spare equipment. At some point, however, the ground facility will not be able to fulfill its role either as a control point for the satellite or as a communication node.

Harmful Interference Any radio communication service is potentially a victim of harmful radio frequency interference, which can be either accidental or intentional. We are concerned with accidental or intentional disruption of legitimate satellite transmission by another party. By harmful we mean that authorized services are disrupted or rendered unsatisfactory to users. This is different from unacceptable interference, which is a term in frequency coordination to indicate that the calculated interference level is above some detection threshold. The vast majority of harmful interference events are accidental in nature, resulting from an error in operation or an equipment failure of some type. This means that whatever the cause, the interference will be found and corrected as a matter of course because the error or failure produces a direct loss of performance for the unknowing perpetrator.

Sabotage Another source of intentional disruption is the physical type, which we call sabotage. Since the satellite is controlled from the ground, it is conceivable that someone might attempt to vandalize an operating TT&C station. Any high-power Earth station used for TV up-linking might also be used to jam the command frequency or even take control, given the proper command encoding equipment. The newer generation of commercial satellites tends to have secure command systems to make a takeover a very remote possibility. Most Earth stations that are capable of causing sabotage to the satellite are protected with security perimeters. The amount of this type of physical security will depend on the risk. In the United States, it is normal practice to provide security fences, doors, and even guards. Facilities in remote areas might have less physical security, but some minimum amount is still justified.

Available Insurance Coverage We consider some of the more common types of insurance that can be purchased by satellite operators and users: Launch Insurance On-Orbit Life Insurance General Liability Coverage

Launch Insurance A completed but un-launched satellite stands between an 85% and 95% chance on the average of successfully reaching orbit (GEO, MEO, or LEO) and being capable of a planned start of service. Some launch vehicles and supporting services have achieved the higher end of the range, including Arianespace’s Ariane 3 and 4 launch vehicles and McDonnell Douglas’s Delta 2 series. Lockheed Martin’s Titan and Atlas Centaur have nearly as good a record as the leaders. The launch vehicles available from China Great Wall Industry Corporation of the People’s Republic of China are potentially good performers, but the record to date is still advancing from the low end of the scale. And lastly, fully developed Russian launch vehicles like Proton and Zenit are popular in the commercial marketplace.

Launch Insurance Commencing with the initiation of service, satellite operators usually insure their operating satellites against loss of lifetime. The price of this coverage is proportional to the value of the satellite reduced by the number of years already expended in orbit. A direct analogy is the kind of warranty that automobile tire manufacturers provide, which is reduced by either the years remaining or the consumed tread. The cost of life insurance has been in the range of 1.5% to 4% per year. Owners of transponders can also purchase life insurance, or, alternatively, it could be provided as part of the transponder purchase agreement (i.e., similar to the tire warranty). Users who rent their satellite capacity have no direct need to insure the remaining life because they simply do not have to pay if the capacity is not available due to a satellite failure. Their situation could be difficult, however, if they have not made other provisions for replacement service.

General Liability Coverage There is a wide variety of other insurance coverage that is valuable to those engaged in the satellite communications field. Some examples include standard workman’s compensation insurance, insurance for loss during transportation of equipment, patent liability coverage, insurance to provide replacement of lost facilities or services, and liability insurance to cover the intentional and unintentional actions of employees and management. There is likely to be a need for insurance against liability for injury or damage that result from a launch failure or the possibility that a satellite may reenter the atmosphere before it reaches its final orbit.

Space Development: Estimating Lead Time Communication spacecraft used in GEO, MEO, and LEO networks require a considerable time for the design and manufacturing cycles. These last from as long as 6 years for a complex new design with an OBP to as little as 12 months for a very mature design with some existing inventory of parts or subsystems. A typical GEO class spacecraft of standard design will be contracted to take about 24 months to deliver to the launch site from the time that the manufacturer is authorized to proceed with construction, and will probably take closer to 36 months. The launch service provider also will require lead time to arrange for construction of the launch vehicle and to reserve the launch site. The resulting waiting time to launch could be as long as 30 months once the order is placed. This means that the developer of a new application or system must allow sufficient lead time.

Space Development: Estimating Lead Time An overall timeline for a typical spacecraft development program is shown in Figure 3.15. This takes the perspective of the satellite operator or developer of an application that is dependent on the availability of a new satellite type. It allows for a pre-contract period of about 6 months to collect business and technical requirements and to prepare technical specifications. The period could be shortened if the requirements are standard and no new development is required, such as for a “plain vanilla” C-band satellite for video distribution. On the other hand, if we are talking about a new concept for which no precursor exists, the pre-contract period could last 1 or 2 years.

Space Development: Estimating Lead Time

Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy Under the assumption that an operator’s satellites will work as planned, one must still plan for replacement of the satellites at end of life. This can be a complex and somewhat uncertain process because of (1) the time needed to design and manufacture the replacement satellite (not to mention the time it takes to figure out what kind of satellite to buy), and (2) the operating lifetime of a particular satellite, which is only known within something on the order of a plus or minus 3 months accuracy.

Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy An example of a replacement strategy for a hypothetical satellite system consisting of three orbit positions is shown in Figure 3.16. As this suggests, the best and simplest approach is to start with the current orbital arrangement and build a series of timelines (arrayed from the top to the bottom of the page). The satellite operator in this example starts in 2004 with three operating satellites: F1 and F2, launched in 1994, and F3, launched in 1997. This particular situation might have come about because F1 and F2 were launched within 6 months of each other to provide a reliable system of two satellites; since both reached orbit successfully, the third satellite, a launch spare, could be delayed until demand materialized. The operator chose to place F3 into service in 1997 as an on-orbit spare and use it for occasional video and other preemptible services. This provides high confidence that at least two satellites will be available. We assume here that the operating lifetime of each satellite is approximately 12 years.

Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy

Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy The satellite operator purchased two replacement spacecraft (F1R and F2R) for delivery and launch in 2005 and 2006. This will ensure continuity of service, provided that both launches are successful and as long as either F1 or F2 exceeds its specified life by at least a year. Figure 3.16 indicates that in 2005, F3 will be taken out of service and drifted over to F2’s orbit position. This will allow F3 to take over for F2 when its lifetime runs out. Next, the replacement for F1, called F1R, will be launched in 2006 so that services can be transferred to it in a timely manner.

Satellite Backup and Replacement Strategy In 2007 F2R will be launched and placed into F3’s old orbit position, which will have been vacant for about a year. This scenario provides high confidence that at least two orbit positions will be maintained during the entire transition. If there had been a launch failure, then F3 would have lasted long enough to permit another spacecraft to be built and launched. Satellites that work but are running out of propellant can be extended in lifetime by switching to inclined-orbit operations. In this mode, a small amount of propellant is reserved to maintain the assigned orbit longitude.

Next Lecture Broadcast and Multicast Links to Multiple Users

Q&A ?