AIAA NetCentric Operations Program Committee Meeting: May 9, 2005 1 NASA NetCentric Operations Deployment Perspective: Aeronautics and Space Exploration

1AIAA NetCentric Operations Program

Committee Meeting: May 9, 2005

NASA NetCentric Operations

Deployment Perspective:Aeronautics and Space

ExplorationWill Ivancic

[email protected]

216-433-3494



NASA - Aeronautics

NASA Request for Comments onGlobal Air Space System Requirements



NASA’s Collaborative Effort

• Airspace Systems Program – Enable major increases in the capacity and mobility of the air transportation

system. – The Advanced CNS Architectures and Systems Technologies Project

(ACAST) Project • Developing technologies intended to improve the performance of the CNS

infrastructure• Aviation Safety Program (AvSP)

– Secure Aircraft System for Information Flow (SASIF) project• Established 2004. • Concerned with hardening the radio data links and network communications,

mainly directed at hostile act intervention and protection • Acccess5

– National project to introduce High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) in the National Airspace System (NAS)

– NASA, Industry, DoD and FAA



Current View of the Global Airspace System

• Current Global and National Airspace System– Stove-piped communication systems– Disjoint set of networks

• Currently not globally network centric– Evolved over time with limited concern for network security

• Security by obscurity• Closed systems• Insufficient bandwidth to support security measures

– Safe and Secure• Air Traffic Control methods have evolved in reaction to changes in technology,

capacity and use• Current methods are reaching limit of scalability

• FAA - Bringing Safety to America’s Skies– Mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. – Responsible National Airspace System, not funded to address global issues.

• Movement toward Network Centric Operations– Cross-network security– Authentication, Authorization, Accounting and Encryption– Required changes in Policy!



Motivation for Request for Comment

• Systems and solutions being proposed for National System only– Global Security issues being ignored or at least not emphasized.

• Divided and conquer design approach being performed prior to understanding of global issues

– Global system has not been a requirement (An important issue when considering security implications)

• It takes more effort to design and build an incorrect solution than to build a correct solution

– The incorrect solution is very complex albeit perhaps not as complex as the correct solution

– Once built, one either has to fix the incorrect solution OR…– Scrap the incorrect solution and start over.

• Ultimately Who Pays?– Airlines and stock holders– End users via a combination of taxes and airfare



System Reliability ?• Air-ground ATS application are low bandwidth voice or data

application with stringent requirements in terms QoS (low latency for voice & CPDLC) and higher availability (99.999% availability.)– Tuesday, September 14, 2004: Failure to purge the radio

communication system at the Los Angeles Enroute Air Traffic Control Center in Palmdale caused Tuesday's nearly four-hour communication breakdown with hundreds of airplanes throughout Southern California, according to a preliminary investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration.

• October 27, 2003 Sweeping fires across southern California prompted major delays in US air traffic for the second straight day on Monday, as carriers canceled hundreds of flights after the evacuation of an air traffic control center.

What is next – natural or otherwise?



Network Design Triangle

Policy

ArchitectureProtocols

Security

$$$ Cost $$$

Mobility Scalability

Maturity

BandwidthQoS

SYZYGY Engineering

© 2004 Syzygy Engineering – Will Ivancic



How Can We Obtain Input and Participation?

• Ask and keep asking!– U.S. Department of Commerce published an RFC (Request for Comments)

on IPv6 January 21, 2004 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2004/IPv6RFCFinal.htm

– NASA Network Research Group borrowed the idea• http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic/RFI/rfi.html• Additional solicitation and advertisement

– 6sense newsletter

– Ipv6 Forum

– Pilots Association

– Automotive Manufacturers

• Approximately 13 responses to date (tax day 2005)• Mix of boilerplate capabilities to actual point-by-point critique• Attempting to send letter of response directly to national and international

airlines – still working issue as of May 2, 2005



Hoping for Multi-Disciplinary Response

• Industries, Academia and Government Agencies throughout the world– Hoping to get some response from telecommunication and

electronic appliance industry

• Challenge– Organization needs to be aware RFC

• Most do not watch for Federal Solicitation• Finding and getting the right person(s) to respond is difficult• Response must be valued added to the organization

• Disappointments to date– No response from airlines, electronics industry,

telecommunication industry or automotive industry



Letter to Airlines – Why it is worth while to respond

• Application of commercial off the shelf technologies and techniques – Potential to make network centric operations economically and

technically realizable throughout the Global Airspace System

• Network Centric Operations– Enhance system capacity

– Enhance system throughput

– Providing airlines with new revenue generating services• Entertainment services, Internet access, directed advertising

– Improve Operations • Engine and aircraft monitoring, security, electronic flight bag, baggage

handling, flight safety, and passenger scheduling and rescheduling

• Desire for Airlines to address Return On Investment.



Airline Distribution

• Air Canada • Airborne Express • AirTran Holdings, Inc• Alaska Air Group Inc• AMR Corp• Continental Airlines Inc• Delta Air Lines Inc• Fedex Corp• Northwest Airlines Corp• Ryanair Holdings PLC• Southwest Airlines Inc• British Airways PLC• AIR France-KLM• United Airlines • United Parcel Service Inc• China Eastern Airlines Corporation

Ltd• China Southern Airlines Company

• Deutsche Lufthansa AG• British Airways• Air New Zealand Limited• JALways Co. Ltd.• Indian Airlines• Qantas Airways Ltd.• Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd.• Malaysia Airline System Berhad• Phuket Airlines Co., Ltd.• Egyptair• Israir Airlines and Tourism Ltd.• El Al Israel Airlines Ltd.• Kuwait Airways• Pakistan International Airlines• Saudi Arabian Airlines• Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane• Scandinavian Airlines System



Global Airspace System Requirements1. Must be value added

– Cannot add cost without a return on investment that meets or exceeds those costs.2. Must be capable of seamless global operation.3. Must be capable of operating independently of available communications link. Must support

critical Air Traffic Management (ATM) functions over low-bandwidth links with required performance.

4. Must use same security mechanisms for Air Mobile and Ground Infrastructure (surface, terminal, en router, oceanic and space)

– Critical ATM messages must be authenticated.– Must be capable of encryption when deemed necessary– Security mechanisms must be usable globally

• Must not violate International Traffic in Arms Regulations5. Must operate across networks owned and operated by various entities

– Must be able to share network infrastructure6. Must make maximum use of standard commercial technologies (i.e. core networking hardware

and protocols) 7. Must enable sharing of information with proper security, authentication, and authorization

– Situational Awareness– Passenger Lists– Aircraft Maintenance

8. Same network must accommodate both commercial, military and general aviation.



Design Concepts

• Must be IPv6 based.• Must be capable of a prioritized mixing of traffic over a single RF

link (e.g. ATM, maintenance, onboard security, weather and entertainment).

• Must utilize IPsec-based security with Security Associations (SAs) bound to permanent host identities (e.g. certificates) and not ephemeral host locators (e.g. IP addresses).

• Must be capable of accommodating mobile networks.• Must be capable of multicasting• Must be scalable to tens of thousands of aircraft



Consensus

• IPv6 is *the* way to go, virtually everyone agrees.• There seems to be consensus that links should be shared, and

the system should be provider-independent, and this makes QoS a requirement.

• There is a need for some type of mobile networking (mobile-IP, NEMO, ad hoc)– Placement of home agent (location manager) for mobile-IP or

NEMO is being addressed, but needs further study.• Everyone agrees that some work is still to be done cleaning up

IPsec multicast, envisioning the certificate architecture, and figuring out how exactly to do QoS.



Value Added

• Lower Telecommunication Costs of IP-based networks as compared to dedicated point-to-point links

• Competition among information providers• Economies of scale• Lower development costs for new applications and

maintenance due to standardization of interfaces



Link Independence

• Most important considerations for this is not technical, but related to cost, safely, and politics

• Facilitates globalization and supports positive ROI • Requires change in policy • Change in use of spectrum

– World Radio Conference to allow use of other frequencies for air traffic control messages

• Air Traffic Controller is now networked.

These are some very different modes of operation from what the aeronautics community is comfortable with.



Security Mechanisms

• Encryption mechanisms should be limited to those that are free of ITAR restrictions

• Other counties also have regulations restricting the exportation of cryptography technology– These regulations may limit the ability to realize cost and schedule

advantages that could be gained by using a single set of proven security infrastructure software throughout the world.

• Multicast and current IPSec implementations do not necessarily work well together.

• Support for IPSec-base security with Security Associations bound to permanent host (multicast group) identities (e.g. certificates) – Location, control, and responsiveness of the authentication

authority servers is critical.



Significant Comments

• IPv6 improves interoperability between Civilian, Military and Homeland Security portions of the GAN

• Any future GAN will need to exceed the current network capacity, and reduce operational cost while meeting system safety and passenger needs in order to justify its cost.

• “So far” no significant advantage has been identified to providing IP over narrow-band aeronautical links.

• Message delivery costs were a contributing factor to the FAA’s decision to terminate CPDLC operations at the Miami ARTCC.

• Need assurances that mixing ATM messages with general Internet traffic on public networks does not introduce unacceptable hazards.

• Scalability is an absolute requirement for a global solution



Further Studies and Investigation

• QoS related to mixing ATM traffic with other information• Much research is needed regarding network mobility• Networking ATM traffic for use over multiple links and service

providers• Mobile-IP, NEMO and Ad Hoc networking

– Route Optimization• Placement of Location Manager (Home Agent) • Ping-pong routing

– QoS and delay issues– Multi-homing (use of best available link)– To load balance or not to load balance?– Make before break or not?

• Application of Ad Hoc type networking for Oceanic to extend networks (MANETs or Mobile-IPv6)



Conclusions

• Input to date has been limited, but useful. Hopefully, more will come.

• Provided a sanity-check of our requirements and design concepts

• Highlighting a few research directions that still need work.

We are still interested in

here from you.

Pass this message on!



Space Exploration

Space Communication Architecture

Supporting Exploration and Science

Note: The following is work in progress.



Space Communication and Navigation Architecture

• Enabling NASA’s Exploration and Science Programs• Executed Between 2001 and 2030• Focus on decreasing cost of Space Operations• Identifying critical technologies• Recommendations for:

– Concept of Operations– Candidate Architectures– Technology Insertions– Design Options– Acquisition and sustainment approaches



Current Status of Space Communication Architecture

• Very high-level architecture design phase– Where are we going?– When are we going?– What will we be doing when we get there?

• Orbits• Physical Layer (ISO Layer 1)

– Frequency Plans (First level requirement for interoperability)– Data Rates – Modulations and Coding Schemes (To Be Studied)

• Data Link Layer and Above (Layers 2 – 7)– TBD

• Hardware for Communications– Current focus is on Antenna Systems and laser communications

• Figures of Merit• High Level (Order of Magnitude) Cost Estimates



Top Level Architecture

• Components– Earth

• “Possible” use of DoD Global Information Grid although no current plans to tie into GIG

– Moon– Mars– Deep Space

• Key Technologies– Interplanetary laser communications– New standard protocols– Advanced low-power avionics



Technology Considerations



Satellite Operations Shared Ground Antennas and Space Relay



Space Network Architecture for 2010 & 2015

2010 – White Nodes2015 – Red Nodes

Development of TDRS-K and L are not yet approved.

The exact capabilities and locations of future generations of TDRS spacecraft are still being

determined.



Space Network – 2010 Capabilities



Deep Space Network in 2010

NASA is considering implementing a 12m antenna array designed to grow at least up to 400 antennas. This would provide an aperture equal to a 240m antenna or 120 times the capability of the current 70m X-band antenna.



Projected Growth in DSN Downlink Requirements



Top Level Solar SystemSpace Communication Architecture



Lunar Access Surface Module

• Initial operating capability 2015, but no later than 2020

• Technology freeze 6 years before first use for subsystems, 9 years before first use for systems of systems technologies

• Communications Requirements– Provide the crew interface to monitor & command onboard

systems and trajectory for TBD nominal and contingency operations.

– Provide voice, video and data communications with Earth

(Daily ops and planning, science, PMC, PFC, PAO events, vehicle systems status and navigational state telemetry, etc.)



Example Lunar Trade Architecture

MOONMOON

407 km

Continue Missions

Expended

CEV Reused?

EARTHEARTH

Direct EntryWater Landing

Earth Departure Stages Expended

Service Module Expended

For Internal NASA Use Only --- Predecisional

Low Lunar Orbit

LS

AM

ED

S

LS

AM

CE

V E

DS

CE

V

Range of Candidate Requirements Suggested by this “Scenario”

• Continuous coverage/comm in LEO, rendezvous (Safety)• Continuous coverage/comm during Lunar insertion (Safety)• HDTV during docking, other (PR; education)• Multiple simultaneous comm links during rendezvous (Safety)• Multiple simultaneous links during launch -- LEO already in orbit + launch vehicle• Latency -- crew voice; range safety



Example Service and Data Rate Scenario for Lunar Communication (Work in progress)

User Channel Content Latency # of Channels Channel Rate Total Rate

Operational

BaseSpeech NRT 2 10 kbps 20 kbps

Engineering NRT 1 100 kbps 100 kbps

Astronauts

Speech NRT 4 10 kbps 40 kbps

Helmet camera NRT 4 100 kbps 400 kbps


Human Transports

Video NRT 2 1.5 Mbps 3 Mbps


Robotic RoversVideo NRT 8 1.5 Mbps 12 Mbps


Science OrbitersQuick Look NRT 4 1 Mbps 4 Mbps


High R

ate

Base HDTV 1 day 1 20 Mbps 20 Mbps

Human Transports

HDTV (PIO) NRT 2 20 Mbps 40 Mbps

Hyperspectral Imaging 1 day 1 150 Mbps 150 Mbps

Robotic RoversSurface Radar 1 day 1 100 Mbps 100 Mbps


Science OrbitersOrbiting Radar 1 day 2 100 Mbps 200 Mbps


Total 980 Mbps



Architecture Class: Elliptical Orbit Constellation

Characteristics:Placing the apoapsis beneath the South Pole increases the viewing, or dwell time, above that region. Phasing the spacecraft can ensure 2 of 3 (for example) satellites are within view of the pole



Architecture Class: L1 and L2 Halo Orbit Constellation

Characteristics:Halo orbits allow for continuous direct communications with the Earth. L1 and L2 are unstable points, and the orbits will require station-keeping maneuvers

L1

L2



Case #

FOM

VisibilityOrbit

StabilityFailure

ToleranceNavigation

UtilityInitial Cost Sustainability

% of Time, 2+ Relays Visible1

% of Polar Cap Area Covered

5 Year Delta V

Requirement (m/s)

With 1 Relay “Loss” : % of

Time with Visible Relay

Max GDOP, 15 Minute Latency

NM$ for NRE & initial

constellation

NM$ for RE replacements over 5

yrs if S/C has 3 yr life

Case 1 Elliptical Orbit: 2 Relays 46 100 0 to 30 73 125 761 313

Case 7 Hybrid Orbit (Polar +Equatorial): 6 Relays

15 100 898 72 2000 1378 863

Case 8 Inclined Circular Orbit: 3 Relays 3 100 81 68 60 903 452

Case 18 L1 Halo: 5 Relays 0 100 375 80 21003 1370 799

Case 24 L2 Halo: 5 Relays 0 100 375 80 21003 1370 799

Case 34 Malapert Lander: Lander = 1 Relay

0 202 0 0 21003 524-1512 157-326

Case 36 Polar Circular Orbit: 3 Relays 2 100 45 67 800 903 452

1All architectures have 1 relay visible 100% of the time, so performance with 2+ visible is reported to enhance the results table2 Malapert has visibility of < 1% with 10 deg elevation angle. This is relaxed to 0 deg elevation angle resulting in 20% viewable polar region.3 GDOP for L1, L2, & Malapert cases was not analyzed – highest score was assigned to show worst performance (but not infinite)

Example Figure of Merit (FOM) Results



Evolving the Lunar Architecture

An initial architecture recommendation is made based on an assumed human base at the South Pole

2 relay satellitesOne inclined elliptical orbit

Advantage: long dwell times over the South Pole

The 2 relays are moved to a circular orbit to support South and North Pole missions

1 relay satellite is added to the constellation 3 totalOne circular polar orbit

Advantage: equal coverage of both poles, simple- minimized number of relays

A second plane of relays is added to increase coverage at the South and North Poles, and provide global coverage

3 relay satellites are added 6 totalTwo polar circular orbits

Advantage: increased coverage at the poles, global coverage achieved

The orbital planes are inclined to support global, far-side, and equatorial missions

Final Configuration:6 relay satellitesTwo inclined circular orbits

Advantage: global coverage, coverage is distributed more evenly than for polar orbits better support to exploration at lower latitudes



Spiral 2 – Lunar Surface Exploration Network

Lander

Surface Terminal

Human on EVA

AutonomousRobot

LunarSBN Relay

Earth

Repeater

TeleoperatedRobot

Rover(1)

(4-6)

Human on EVA

(4-6)Science

Instrument(Multiple)

(1)

Very high rate backbone network to Earth

High rate orbiter access network

Low power, medium rate surface-to-surface network

Low rate, long range links

Legend



Technology Identification and Assessment

Technologies

Architectures

IdentifyingAssessing



Protocol Issues

• Trade-off studies need to be developed– What is the best tool for the particular environment and application

• Link Characteristics– Surface

• Low Delay, Symmetric, 1/R2 where radius is small (power vs bandwidth)• Closely matches characteristics of today’s Internet

– Near Planetary• Moderate Delay, Asymmetric, 1/R2 where radius is becoming a factor (power vs

bandwidth)• Intermittent connectivity

– Interplanetary• Extremely large delay, Highly asymmetric, 1/R2 where radius extremely large

(power vs bandwidth)• Intermittent connectivity• Feedback is an issue• Ongoing research in IRTF Delay Tolerant Networks and previously in IRTF

Interplanetary Internet working groups

Documents

AIAA NetCentric Operations Program Committee Meeting: May 9, 2005 1 NASA NetCentric Operations Deployment Perspective: Aeronautics and Space Exploration