SMALL GEO FOR S - EMITS Invitation To Tender Systememits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/1-5359-Appendix-4-Small-GEO-security-mission-definition... · Most links need to be secured, but only

Version Date

Doc. Ref. : TEC-ETC/2006.104

V1.0 22/01/07

Page 1

SMALL GEO FOR SECURITY

DEFINITION STUDY

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 2

- Page intentionally left blank -

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 3

SUMMARY

This document reports the major findings of an ESA internal study for the definition of a Small GEO mission in support of EU security operations. The reference timeframe for the mission is 2011.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 4

DOCUMENT CHANGE LOG

Issue/

Revision Date Modification Nb

Modified pages Observations

0.3 15 Dec 06 First Draft 1.0 22 Jan 07 First Issue

Authors

F. Zeppenfeldt

N. Burke

O. del Rio

R. Rinaldo

E. Casini

N. Alagha

K. Eckstein

TEN-TSM

ESYS (UK)

TEC-ETC

TEC-ETC

TEC-ETC

TEC-ETC

TEC-ETC

Mission

Mission

Mission/System

System

System

System/Payload

Security

A. Murrell

B.M. Folio

P. Angeletti

A. Martín Polegre

J.M. Perdigues

Z. Sodnik

S. D’Addio

TEC-ETP

TEC-ETP

TEC-ETP

TEC-EEA

TEC-MMO

TEC-MMO

TEC-ETP

Payload

Payload

Payload

Antenna

ODR

ODR

Review satcom assets

Verified by:

R. De Gaudenzi TEC-ET C. Mangenot TEC-EEA

F. Coromina TEC-ETP X. Lobao TEN-TP

A. Ginesi TEC-ETC E. Marelli TEN-W

B. Furch TEC-MMO

Approved by:

C. Elia TEN-TP

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................8

2 SECURITY SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................................................8

2.1 SCENARIO 1: HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS................... 9 2.1.1 Communications needs .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 SCENARIO 2: COASTLINE CONTROL ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.2.1 Communications needs .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3 CAPABILITY GAPS ON SATCOM INFRASTRUCURE............................................................................... 12

4 SATELLITE MISSION DEFINITION........................................................................................................... 13

4.1 MISSION OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 4.2 MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 14

4.2.1 Service Requirements....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Architectural Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.3 Infrastructure Requirements............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.4 Radio Requirements........................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 4.2.5 Performance Requirements............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.6 Security Requirements ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.7 Operational Requirements ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18

5 SATELLITE MISSION ANALYSIS................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 SYSTEM DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 System architecture .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.2 Frequency allocation........................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 5.1.3 Channelization ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1.4 Power Flux Density limits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 5.1.5 Physical layer characterization and assumptions ............................................................................................................................................... 26 5.1.6 System design options ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 PAYLOAD DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Payload architecture ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 5.2.2 Mass and Power Budget.................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 5.2.3 Inter Payload Operational Flexibility .............................................................................................................................................................. 45

5.3 GROUND SEGMENT DEFINITION............................................................................................................................. 45 5.3.1 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 6

5.3.2 European Gateway ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 5.3.3 Deployable Theatre HUBs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 47 5.3.4 European Data Relay Stations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.3.5 Satellite Terminals .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.3.6 UAVs........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.3.7 Land Mobile Satellite Terminal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.3.8 User Optical Terminal.................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

5.4 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 53 5.4.1 Capacity assessment ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 53 5.4.2 Security assessment.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

5.5 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION .............................................................................................................................. 62 5.5.1 System ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 62 5.5.2 Space segment ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 5.5.3 Ground Segment ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 67

6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................ 69

7 ANNEX 1: REVIEW OF SPACE AND SECURITY RELATED INITIATIVES .......................................... 70

7.1 EU COUNCIL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 70 7.1.1 Document “Generic Space Needs Requirements” ............................................................................................................................................. 70 7.1.2 HEADLINE GOAL 2010....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 7.1.3 ESDP presidency report.................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 7.1.4 ESDP and SPACE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 7.1.5 SPASEC report ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 80

7.2 EUROPEAN COMISSION ................................................................................................................................................. 86 7.2.1 EC PASR: ASTRO+ study results ............................................................................................................................................................. 86 7.2.2 EC PASR: SENTRE study results ............................................................................................................................................................. 91

7.3 ESA............................................................................................................................................................................................ 94 7.3.1 Summary of ESA Wisemen report ................................................................................................................................................................. 94

8 ANNEX 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING AND PLANNED SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

CAPABILITIES.......................................................................................................................................................... 98

8.1 COMMERCIAL ON A GLOBAL SCALE........................................................................................................................ 98 8.2 EUROPEAN MILITARY..................................................................................................................................................... 98

8.2.1 Current and planned European satellite military systems.................................................................................................................................. 98 8.3 US MILITARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 101

8.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................101 8.3.2 Wideband Communications ..........................................................................................................................................................................103 8.3.3 Protected Communications.............................................................................................................................................................................106 8.3.4 Narrowband Communications.......................................................................................................................................................................107

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 7

8.3.5 Integrated concept ..........................................................................................................................................................................................107

ANNEX 3: GEO OPTICAL TERMINAL ...............................................................................................................109

8.4 OPTICAL LINK SCENARIO ........................................................................................................................................... 109 8.5 GENERIC OPTICAL TERMINAL BLOCK DIAGRAM........................................................................................... 111 8.6 OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 113 8.7 OPTICAL ACCESS SCHEMES ........................................................................................................................................ 115 8.8 OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFF ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION............................... 116 8.9 OPTICAL TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................................................................. 118

9 LIST OF ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................................121

10 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS........................................................................................................................125

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 8

1 INTRODUCTION

The ESA ARTES-11 programme represents an opportunity for a small GEO mission. In 2007 ESA will start the small GEO mission Phase A studies. The reference timeframe for the small GEO mission is 2011.

This document presents the major findings of an ESA internal study for the definition of an example small GEO mission dedicated to EU security operations.

The document is organized as follows. First the security scenarios and communications requirements are described. Then the satellite mission requirements are defined. Then follows the mission analysis that includes the system definition, payload definition, system performance analysis and introduced technological innovation. The document includes at the end three annexes with a review of space and security related initiatives, a review of existing and planned satellite communications capabilities and the technological choices for the optical terminal.

2 SECURITY SCENARIOS

The EU is currently undertaking a wide range of civilian and military operations over three continents, and further operations are under active preparation (see Sect. 7.1.3 in Annex 1). EU security operations can be classified in two categories: EU internal and EU external operations. Examples of external operations are crisis management operations to solve regional conflicts, prevention of an attack involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the field of CBRN, peace support operations abroad, anti-terrorism, control of WMD proliferation, control of international treaty enforcement and protection of EU citizens and interests in foreign countries. Internal operations are control of borders and coastlines, fight against organized crimes, surveillance of criminals on probation, ensuring security of all modes of transport, ensuring the security and availability of critical infrastructures and services. In addition, there is a set of crosscutting operations including management of natural, technological or epidemiological crisis, stabilization and reconstruction of third countries, sometimes in a non-permissive environment, and humanitarian assistance. The EU Council has stressed the importance of space based assets (TC, EO, SIGINT, Early Warning, PNT) in support of these operations (see Sect. 7.1 in Annex 1).

Depending on the area of activity, users can be classified into the following security domains (see Sect. 7.1.5 in Annex 1):

- Law enforcement: customs, policing and justice.

- Civil protection and search and rescue: medical services, fire service, humanitarian aid, civil protection and other emergency teams.

- Services: ensuring security and availability of transport services (road, rail, aviation, maritime), distributed networks (energy, water, food, information and communications networks, economic networks) and protecting the critical infrastructure itself (including space systems).

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 9

- Political and Military: decision making authorities (national and EU bodies), intelligence community, headquarters (including civil and military planners), forces (including rapid reaction battlegroups), other international organizations such as UN or NATO).

In the remaining of this section, we illustrate in more detail a few security scenarios emphasizing the players involved and the communications needs.

2.1 SCENARIO 1: HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

OPERATIONS

This scenario addresses crisis management operations (civilian, military and mixed) in a regional conflict, both during the crisis prevention phase together with the planning and conduct of crisis management phases, including early warning, preparedness, and response. Tasks performed include humanitarian assistance and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks or tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

In Figure 1 we illustrate an imaginary, but realistic mission including humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping operations. In this scenario we assume a regional conflict that has pushed thousands of people away from their homes. Refugee camps have been setup and a virtual border has been established to guarantee security to refugees. The forced border is surveyed by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Actors involved in the field include military forces (e.g. EU or NATO forces) and humanitarian assistance organizations (e.g. UN, Red Cross, NGOs). Actors involved in Europe include headquarters and intelligence community. The area covered in this scenario is in the order of 1500 km x 3000 km.

Figure 1: Humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping operations

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 10

2.1.1 Communications needs

In this section we analyze in more detail the Information Exchange Requirements (IER) between the different actors in the field and in Europe. The data rates provided have been estimated for the mid term (around 2011).

Broadband communications links

- UAV to/from UAV control station (100 Mbps of sensor data, 1 Mbps telecommand) with few UAVs present in the field (2 or 3), secured links needed;

- UAV control station to field headquarter in theatre (2 Mbps, still images), secured links needed;

- EO satellite flying over theatre to EU acquisition station (600 Mbps of sensor data), no security needed;

- EU intelligence headquarter to field headquarter (2 Mbps, still images), secured links needed;

- UAV to EU intelligence headquarter (36 MHz of signal intelligence);

- EU headquarter to/from field headquarter (10 Mbps), secured links needed;

- Field headquarter to/from battlegroups (10 Mbps)

o Database exchanges, web-based applications, secured links needed;

o Command and control applications, secured links needed, and protected against spoofing and jamming;

- Field headquarter to/from field vehicles (5/1 Mbps)

o Still images, database exchanges, messages), secured links needed;


- Battlegroup 1 to/from battlegroup 2 in mesh connectivity (5 Mbps)

o Database exchanges, web-based applications), secured links needed;


- NGOs to/from NGO headquarters (384 kbps, B-GAN like), no security needed;

- NGO to/from field headquarter (2 Mbps), no security needed;

- Forward observation teams to field headquarter (512 kbps, messages, still images), secured link with low probability of detection and interception;

Most links need to be secured, but only traffic that is critical for operations like C2 traffic, will require protection against jamming. Other applications related to imagery, database, information exchange have lower availability requirements and could tolerate some level of jamming.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 11

Additional communications needs

- Blue Force Tracking (BFT) system (commercially available in L-band);

- Information Dissemination Service (EU headquarter to theatre broadcast, 60-70 Mbps, common operation picture and news dissemination):

- Welfare communications (troops calling, emailing, sending letters home)

In terms of links activity, a distinction shall be made between routine traffic and an emergency situation where all links are stressed. In most crisis management scenarios, operations are jointly undertaken among multiple nations. This implies in many situations replication of units and communications links. Last, it shall be stressed that several crises take place concurrently world-wide (74 crises in 2005) and increasing in number in the last years.

2.2 SCENARIO 2: COASTLINE CONTROL

The cross border control and border surveillance scenario includes tasks dealing with illegal immigration, organized crime, trafficking of humans/drugs , illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons as well as goods of proliferation concern (e.g. WMD), and other things have created a real need for greater multi-agency cooperation and efficient use of technology to combat today’s set of threats.

In Figure 2 we show a coastline monitoring scenario. Large human concentrations embark into long and dangerous journeys in the sea with the objective to illegally get access into Europe. Deployed teams in the field monitor the sea and control illegal immigration. In Europe, FRONTEX, various nations headquarters, the GMES maritime service and the EU intelligence headquarters are involved. The geographical coverage for this scenario is organised in 4 zones of about 400 km each along the coastlines (see figure below).

Figure 2: Coastline control scenario

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 12

2.2.1 Communications needs

In this section we analyze in more detail the Information Exchange Requirements (IER) between the different actors in the field and in Europe. The data rates provided have been estimated for the mid term (around 2011).

The main data flows in this scenario are:

- 5 UAVs in simultaneous operation over the region, with UAV reachback to image analyst in deployed FRONTEX headquarter at 100 Mbps;

- EO satellite flying over theatre to EU acquisition station (600 Mbps of sensor data), no security needed;

- Still imagery download to vessels at 2 Mbps from deployed headquarter;

- Imagery from EU intelligence headquarter and GMES Maritime Security Services at 2 Mbps to deployed headquarter;

- EU headquarter to/from deployed headquarter (2 Mbps);

No specific need for military grade security is required in this scenario, i.e. no anti jamming required, only security.

3 CAPABILITY GAPS ON SATCOM INFRASTRUCURE

The communications needs as described in the previous section could be summarized as follows:

- Worldwide coverage (crises worldwide and concurrently);

- High to very high data rate links for both fixed and mobile services (e.g. UAVs) between field of operations and Europe;

- Secured connectivity needed with some degree of protection against jamming. Strong protection against jamming mainly needed for tactical links;

- Users and systems interoperability (to avoid duplication of links);

- Multimedia services (increased capacity needs) and traditional services;

- Rapid deployment of communication infrastructure and networks setup (ad-hoc);

Annex 2 reports a summary of the existing and planned satellite communications infrastructure for both civilian and military systems. In Annex 1, Sect. 7.3 the findings of the ESA Working Group on Space and European security have been reported. The group has highlighted a number of shortcomings on the existing infrastructure:

- Commercial operators may not guarantee the FSS security to the level required and the risk exists of a lack of capacity or coverage for the crisis zone.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 13

- Concerning MSS, in addition to problems of security and capacity, some operators may disappear, and some systems are controlled by countries which are not necessarily friendly.

- The DRS (Artemis) is very limited and is approaching end of life.

- Access cannot be guaranteed to commercial satellites in general, and to national military satellites for nations other than the owner nation.

In the short term (to 2010) the group has recommended the definition of a telecommunications capability with existing elements, combining utilization of national missions and procurement of commercial capacity, so as to provide fixed, broadcast, mobile and data relay satellite services (FSS, BSS, MSS, DRS) dedicated to human security users or shared on a multi-purpose platform. This telecommunication capability should be associated to a service provision entity. In the medium term (2010-2015) the aim should be to start the deployment of a dedicated system of satellites dedicated to support EU security operations, as part of an integrated system for providing contextual information (based on GMES) and navigation and positioning (based on Galileo). The proposed small GEO mission in the next section represents a first system component towards the medium term dedicated global satcom infrastructure in support of EU security operations.

4 SATELLITE MISSION DEFINITION

4.1 MISSION OVERVIEW

The objective of the mission is to provide communication services for professional users supporting security scenarios, and provide data relay services from other satellites. The professional users supporting security scenarios can be civil protection, border control, humanitarian aid and friendly forces.

The overall mission is composed of two main areas:

A broadband data communications mission that allows users to communicate via mobile (aeronautical, maritime, land vehicle) or fixed terminals with each other or with gateways providing access. The communications mission also supports the communication with user terminals mounted on UAVs using RF communications.

A data relay mission, which is relaying data from LEO satellites or UAVs using optical communications.

The mission under study is considered to be a small geostationary communications satellite with RF and optical communications. It is assumed that the mission under investigation can be part of a larger system which provides the services listed above on a global basis.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 14

4.2 MISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.2.1 Service Requirements

End-user services

Broadband communications mission:

The system shall support IP services (e.g. web, email, VoIP, file transfer, streaming) and transparent transport of legacy layer 2 networks (e.g. Frame Relay, Ethernet, GSM, TETRA).

It shall be possible to prioritise and pre-empt every service on the basis of priority, security scenario, nation and individual users. With the IP communication service, it shall be possible to prioritise and pre-empt individual IP flows.

Users are free to choose cryptographic methods fulfilling their national and/or organisational requirements.

Data relay mission:

The system shall be able to relay sensor data coming from EO LEO satellites down to Europe.

Data shall be relayed every orbital period as security applications require quasi real-time data acquisition.

Several hundreds of gigabits of information (e.g. 700 Gbits) shall be downloaded per orbital period per EO satellite.

Relaying data from several EO LEO satellites shall be supported (e.g. GMES sentinels).

The system shall be able to telecommand EO LEO satellites from Europe.

It shall be possible to relay sensor data coming from UAVs beyond line-of-sight down to Europe or theatre of operations.

It shall be possible to telecommand UAVs beyond line-of-sight from Europe or theatre of operations.

Services in the satellite domain

The broadband communications mission shall provide the following type of services:

a. Transparent communications between small and medium-sized terminals and gateways Fixed terminals (15 Mbps forward, 5 Mbps return) Mobile (vehicular, maritime, aeronautical) terminals (up to 5 Mbps forward, 1 Mbps

return) b. Direct transparent communications (mesh) between medium-sized terminals (5 Mbps uplink and

downlink) c. Transparent communications between UAVs and medium-sized terminals and gateways (up to

150 Mbps forward, 1 Mbps return); d. Broadcasting services (60 Mbps to theatre).

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 15

The data relay mission shall provide the following services:

a. Bidirectional communications with optical terminals on other non-geostationary satellites (e.g. LEO EO satellites) up to 1.2 Gbps return and 1 Mbps forward. One-way communications may also be implemented in case the telecommand link is not needed.

b. Bidirectional communications with UAVs with optical links up to 1.2 Gbps forward, and 1 Mbps return.

c. Bidirectional communications with (compatible) optical terminals on other geostationary satellites up to 2 Gbps (optional).

d. Bidirectional communications with optical ground stations up to 1 Gbps forward and 500 Mbps return (optional).

e. Connectivity using RF communications with a ground station for services a, b and c. (i.e. the feeder link).

4.2.2 Architectural Requirements

This mission shall represent a first component of global system with global coverage.

The broadband communications mission shall be transparent.

The data relay mission shall be regenerative.

4.2.3 Infrastructure Requirements

4.2.3.1 Satellite

The satellite shall be located in an orbital slot centred around Europe.

The mission shall be implemented in a small GEO platform (1.6 x 2 m Earth panel).

The envelope for the payload is 300 kg and 3 kW DC power.

4.2.3.2 Gateway

The communications mission shall support several permanent national gateways (8m) located over EU25 which provide connectivity to terrestrial networks.

The communication mission shall support several deployable mini-gateways in theatre (2.4m and 4m, Tx/Rx: 50/50 Mbps).

The data relay mission shall support several permanent gateways (4m) located over EU25 that time share the optical data relay link.

4.2.3.3 User Terminal

The following user terminals shall be supported by the communications mission:

Small (0.75 m) and medium-sized (1.2 m) fixed terminals with Tx/Rx data rates: 5/15 Mbps. These terminals shall be easily transportable and deployable.

Land-vehicle terminals (60cm x 60cm x 30cm) with Tx/Rx data rates: 1/5 Mbps.

Aeronautical (UAV) terminals (80 cm) with Tx/Rx data rates: up to 150 Mbps/1 Mbps. The forward link to the terminal shall be used for telecommand purposes.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 16

The following user terminals shall be supported by the optical data relay mission:

Optical aeronautical (UAV) terminal with Tx/Rx data rates: up to 1.2 Gbps/1 Mbps. The forward link to the terminal shall be used for telecommand purposes.

On-board terminal (LEO satellite) with Tx/Rx data rates: up to 1.2 Gbps/1 Mbps. The forward link to the terminal shall be used for telecommand purposes.

4.2.4 Radio Requirements

The system shall be able to operate in both civilian and military frequency bands.

4.2.5 Performance Requirements

4.2.5.1 Coverage Requirements

The coverage requirements for the communications mission shall be:

The geographical coverage shall be the complete view of the Earth (one third of the globe).

The mission shall be able to support simultaneously five theatres of operations within the geographical coverage.

Each theatre of operations shall have a diameter of at least 1000 km and up to 4000 km on ground.

The mission shall have a permanent coverage over the EU25 countries.

The coverage requirements for the optical data relay mission are:

The mission shall cover the complete view of the Earth (one third of the globe) as well as the LEO orbits around the Earth.

The mission shall cover the GEO orbit (optional)

The feeder link shall be established within the EU-25 countries.

4.2.5.2 Capacity Requirements

The capacity requirements for the communications mission shall be:

- A nominal uplink and downlink capacity per theatre of operations of 125 Mbps and a peak capacity of 500 Mbps. This capacity shall be bidirectional (up and downlink).

- A nominal downlink capacity over EU25 of 500 Mbps and a peak capacity of 1 Gbps.

- A nominal uplink capacity over EU25 of 250 Mbps and a peak capacity of 500 Mbps.

- The total system downlink capacity shall range between 1 and 2 Gbps depending on the configuration of the system and user terminals.

The capacity requirements for data relay mission shall be:

- A nominal data relay capacity of 600 Mbps and a peak capacity of 1.2 Gbps.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 17

4.2.5.3 Connectivity Requirements

The communications mission shall allow:

Connectivity between EU25 coverage and theatres with a bandwidth granularity of a few MHz.

Intra-theatre connectivity with a bandwidth granularity of a few MHz.

The data relay mission shall allow:

Connectivity between the optical link and the EU25 coverage.

4.2.5.4 Flexibility of Capacity Assignment

The system shall be able to double the nominal capacity on each coverage area as specified in 4.2.5.2.

It shall be possible to segregate physical and logical resources per specific security scenario, nation, security level.

The coverage areas specified in 4.2.5.1 can overlap geographically (e.g. a theatre could be over Europe, or several theatres could be geographically contiguous).

4.2.5.5 Availability of Service

The link availability shall be better than 99% over the full coverage region (100 %) for all small terminals (0.75 m) and small mini-gateways (2.4 m).

The link availability shall be better than 99.5% over the full coverage region (100 %) for all medium size terminals (1.2 m) and medium mini-gateways (4 m).

The link availability shall be better than 99.9% on the EU25 feeder links (4 m and 8 m gateways).

It shall be noted that typical link availability figures assumed by current broadband satellite systems amount to 99.5%-99.7% over 90% of the satellite coverage. In the present system, there is a strong uncertainty over the area, which shall be covered by satellite spot beams. Given the large variability of the propagation conditions depending on the geographical region, it is considered acceptable if typical requirements for broadband systems are met by medium size terminals with no restriction on the illuminated area. Smaller terminals (0.75 m) can achieve the same target, except in heavy fading equatorial areas.

4.2.6 Security Requirements

All communication links shall be secured.

The mission shall not be protected against nuclear explosions or EMP. Communication links demanding such high degrees of availability shall rely on other existing infrastructure specific to this purpose (see Annex 2).

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 18

The mission shall not be protected against jamming. However, the system shall be designed to minimise jamming opportunities. Communication links demanding a very high degree of protection against jamming shall rely on other existing infrastructure specific to this purpose (see Annex 2).

The mission shall be protected against jamming and spoofing on the TT&C links.

4.2.7 Operational Requirements

The mission shall have a lifetime of at least 15 years

5 SATELLITE MISSION ANALYSIS

5.1 SYSTEM DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS

5.1.1 System architecture

The overall system architecture is illustrated in the figure below. The system is composed of 5 theatre spot beams of 1200 Km diameter in Ka-band. Each of these spot beams can be steered independently over the whole field of view of the satellite. There is a fixed European shaped beam covering EU25 countries in Ka-band. In addition, there is a spot beam of 520 Km diameter in Q/V-band. Finally, there is a steerable optical terminal that can be pointed freely towards the Earth surface as well as low altitude Earth orbits.

The Q/V-band spot beam can be steered over Europe and offers very high downlink capacity (above 1 Gbps) with low power consumption on-board the satellite. It is nominally used as a telemetry link to relay data arriving from the optical terminal on-board the GEO satellite (e.g. optical ISL from an EO LEO satellite) down to Europe. Alternatively, it can also be used to relay data coming from the theatre spots. The Q/V-band spot beam can be time-shared by a number of acquisition stations by re-pointing each time the steerable Q/V-band spot beam.

Theatre Ka-band spots can be combined together to form larger theatre regions. The system allows intra-spot as well as inter-spot connectivity to allow the formation of larger theatre regions while still keeping the same connectivity flexibility. In addition, all theatre spots have connectivity with the European Ka-band regional coverage.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 19

Figure 3: Overall system architecture

5.1.2 Frequency allocation

The selected frequency bands for the communications mission over the EU25 coverage as well as the theatre spots are illustrated in Figure 4 below. To ensure maximum operational flexibility, the system and payload make use of the Ka-band spectrum allocated for both military and civilian applications. In order to maximise the available spectrum, both circular polarisations are used for both Up and Downlinks, however each coverage beam operates on a single (orthogonal) polarisation for Up and Downlink.

Each theatre spot can be allocated up to 500 MHz bandwidth. It should be noted that due to the limited bandwidth available (500 MHz), not all the Theatre beam traffic can be simultaneously supported in the Civilian bands (19.7 to 20.2 GHz) unless there is co-polar frequency reuse between some theatre beams.

The European coverage can be allocated up to 1 GHz bandwidth.

In the European spot beam, to be used as a feeder link for the data relay mission, Q/V-band has been selected as baseline. The selected downlink and uplink frequency bands are 40.5 - 41.0 GHz and 47.5 - 47.6 GHz respectively. The uplink is only used for telecommand and may not be used in certain data relay scenarios. The utilization of Q/V-band instead of Ka-band, offers less co-ordination and interference problems today, and does not require frequency co-ordination with the feeder link of the broadband communications mission. A more detailed analysis of this trade-off can be found in Sect. 5.1.4.

EO LEO satellite

Small GEOsatellite

EU25Ka-band

EU spotQ-band

OperationalTheatreKa-band

OpticalISL

OperationalTheatre

Steerable SpotsKa-band

OperationalTheatreKa-band

Land VehiclesUAVs

DeployableMini HUB

DeployableSat Terminals

Theatre TerminalCharacteristics

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 20

Figure 4: Ka-band frequency allocation

5.1.3 Channelization

The nominal connectivity requirements between the Theatre beams and the European Regional beam are defined in Table 1 below. Note that data received by the optical terminal is to be down-linked to Europe via the Q-Band data relay beam. Whilst not a specific requirement, it may also be beneficial to include the capability to downlink data from the Theatre beams to Europe via the Q/V-Band data relay beam in addition to the European Regional Beam. There is also the requirement to provide a “Return path” from Europe to the Optical Terminal via an uplink in the Q-Band Data Relay beam.

THEATRES

EU25

THEATRES

EU25

19.7 GHz 20.2 GHz 21.2 GHz

RHCP

LHCP

Ka-band downlink

EU25

THEATRES

EU25

THEATRES

29.5 GHz 30.0 GHz 31.0 GHz

Ka-band uplink

RHCP

LHCP

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 21

Downlink

Uplink S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 EU Total UL without UAVs

Total UL with

UAVs

S1 [40-75] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

35 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

125 MHz

125 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

S2 [0-35] MHz

[40-75] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

35 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

125 MHz

125 MHz

+12x25 MHz

S3 [0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[40-75] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

35 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

125 MHz

125 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

S4 [0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[40-75] MHz

[0-35] MHz

35 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

125 MHz

125 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

S5 [0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[0-35] MHz

[40-75] MHz

35 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

125 MHz

125 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

EU

50 MHz

(including UAV ctl)

50 MHz

(including UAV ctl)

50 MHz

(including UAV ctl)

50 MHz

(including UAV ctl)

50 MHz

(including UAV ctl)

- 250 MHz 250 MHz

Total DL

125 MHz 125 MHz 125 MHz 125 MHz 125 MHz

175 MHz

+ 12x25 MHz

- -

Table 1: Connectivity requirements

Notes to Table 1:

S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 are the steerable spots dedicated to theatre coverage. EU is the Europe regional shaped beam.

Values in brackets shall be configurable in steps of 1 MHz provided that the total sum in the uplink and downlink does not exceed the total values provided in the table.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 22

Values in blue correspond to UAVs. The 12 x 25 MHz channels can be switched individually either to the EU regional shaped beam in Ka-band or the EU steerable sport beam in Q/V-band.

Within one steerable spot beam over one theatre, [40-75] MHz consisting of:

• 15 MHz from HUB to Satellite Terminals

• 15 MHz from Satellite Terminals to HUB

• 10 MHz from Satellite Terminals to Satellite Terminals

• 15 MHz from HUB to Mobile Satellite Terminals

• 15 MHz from Mobile Satellite Terminals to HUB

Between two steerable spot beams over two theatres, [0-35] MHz consisting of:

• 15 MHz from Satellite Terminals to HUB

• 15 MHz from Mobile Satellite Terminals to HUB

From Europe down to any steerable spot beam over one theatre, 50 MHz consisting of:

• 25 MHz to HUB

• [20-25] MHz to Satellite Terminals

• [0-5] MHz from Europe down to the theatre for the UAVs control (if present in the theatre)

From any steerable spot beam over one theatre down to Europe, 35 + Nx25 MHz consisting of:

• 25 MHz from the HUB

• 10 MHz from the Satellite terminals

• Nx25 MHz from the UAVs (with a maximum of 12 active UAVs in the system)

5.1.4 Power Flux Density limits

Section 5.1.2 reports the proposed frequency allocation selected for the current mission.

According to the table in Sect. 4, art 5 of ITU Radio Regulation [4], only fixed and mobile satellite services are allocated to the bandwidths 20.2-21.2 GHz and 30-31 GHz and both are considered primary service. From a preliminary survey of the ITU publications and recommendations, no specific EIRP limitation are defined for protecting other (terrestrial) services from any satellite services operating in such bands.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 23

The bands 19.7-20.2 GHz and 29.5-30 GHz as well as the Q and V band ( 40.5-41 ; 47.5-47.6 GHz) are allocated to high-density applications in the fixed-satellite service (see art 5.547 of ITU Radio Reg.). No specific EIRP limitations applies besides the one reported in Table 21-4, art. 21 of the same ITU Radio Regulation [4].

Hence the proposed system is compared against such EIRP limitation and the power flux density reported on the mentioned article. When the desired bandwidth is not specifically addressed in the ITU table, the EIRP limitation or power flux density regarding the service allocated to the closest bandwidth is considered.

UPLINK:

The equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) transmitted in any direction towards the horizon by an earth station shall not exceed the following limits:

64 dBW in 1 MHz bandwidth for 0ϑ ≤ o

64 + 3 ϑ⋅ dBW in 1 MHz bandwidth for 0 5ϑ< ≤o o ,

where ϑ is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed from the centre of radiation of the antenna of the earth station and measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative below it. For angles of elevation of the horizon greater than 5° there shall be no restriction as to the equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) transmitted by an earth station towards the horizon.

The European Hub transmits a maximum EIRP density of 65 dBW/MHz towards the direction of maximum antenna gain, hence in any other directions the radiated power is reduced by the reduced antenna gain and falls within the limits specified above.

The Theatre Hub transmits a maximum EIRP density of 55 dBW/MHz towards the direction of maximum antenna gain, hence in any other direction the radiated power is within the limit specified above.

Any fixed satellite terminal transmits a maximum EIRP of 51 dBW, but the transmission bandwidth is variable to counteract the possible channel fade in the uplink. The worst case considers a bandwidth of 172 kHz corresponding to 128 kbaud when a filter shaping of roll off factor 0.35 is considered. In this case the maximum EIRP density is 58 dBW/MHz hence compliant with the limits set above.

The fixed stations considered so far assume to point their antenna toward the GEO orbit where the spacecraft is located. Therefore the power radiated towards the horizontal plane is due to spurious antenna pattern. This considerations does not apply to mobile terminals.

Beside the considered ITU Radio Regulation, the ITU-R S.524 recommendation on the maximum permissible level of off-axis EIRP density from earth stations in geostationary-satellite orbit networks operating in the fixed-satellite service transmitting in the 6 GHz, 13 GHz, 14 GHz and 30 GHz frequency bands shall also be considered. Table 2 reports the off-axis EIRP recommendation for the 30 GHz band

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 24

with the exception that for any direction in the region outside 3° of the GSO, the above levels may be exceeded by no more than 3 dB.

Angle off-axis Maximum EIRP per 40 kHz

2° ≤ ϕ ≤ 7° (19 – 25 log ϕ) dB(W/40 kHz)

7° < ϕ ≤ 9.2° –2 dB(W/40 kHz)

9.2° < ϕ ≤ 48° (22 – 25 log ϕ) dB(W/40 kHz)

48° < ϕ ≤ 180° –10 dB(W/40 kHz).

Table 2: Maximum permissible level of off-axis EIRP density.

It shall be noted that these limits apply to the commercial services operating on the above frequency bands and particularly in the band 27.5 -30 GHz. The uplink band selected in this project is 29.5-31 GHz and the off-axis EIRP of the selected terminals will be compared against such limits even though they concern only the bandwidth 29.5-30 GHz.

In order to evaluate the off-axis EIRP, the station antenna radiation diagram is needed. A first approximation of the pattern for a circular reflector antenna with uniform illumination [5] is

2

2 12 ( )( ) (2 ) , 2 sin( )J u aG a uu

ϑ π π ϑλ

⋅⎛ ⎞= ⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠

where ϑ is angle where the directivity of the antenna is evaluated, λ is the wavelength, and a is the antenna radius. 1( )J x is the Bessel function of first kind and first order. Such approximation does not

include rim and struts scattering and blockage effect and it is pessimistic as far as side lobe level estimation is concerned since it does not include the edge tapering effect.

The European Hub has an antenna diameter of 8.1 meter and transmits a maximum EIRP density of 65 dBw/MHz in the frequency band 29.5-30.5 GHz. Its EIRP profile is compared against the ITU limit in Figure 5-a showing that it is well below the limit.

The Theatre Hub has an antenna diameter of 2.4 meter and transmits a maximum EIRP density of 55 dBw/MHz in the frequency band 29.5-31 GHz. Its EIRP profile is compared against the ITU limit in Figure 5-b showing that it is well below the limit.

The ST has a very small antenna aperture with 75 cm diameter and a transmitted maximum EIRP 51 dBW in the frequency band 29.5-31 GHz. When comparing its EIRP pattern against the ITU recommendation, these are exceeded for not more than a few dBs in the range of 3-6 deg off- axis, therefore a more accurate investigation of the off-axis EIRP shall be performed. On the other hand, if the ST characteristics change, in particular if a larger antenna is selected (e.g. 1.2m), the ST off-axis EIRP is reduced becoming compliant with the ITU recommendation.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 25

As far as the mobile terminal and the UAV terminal are concerned, the circular reflector pattern approximation cannot be applied any more but their actual radiation diagrams are to be considered. These were not available at the moment of the preparation of this report.

A final remark is that the WRC-07 will consider proposals for putting regulatory limits on the unwanted emission from active services in various bands and in particular unwanted emission limits are proposed for FSS in 30-31 GHz into the band 31.-3-31.5 GHz. A decision on the introduction of these limits will be taken at the end of 2007 at WRC-07.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

EIR

P d

ensi

ty [d

BW

/MH

z]

off-axis angle

Antenna Pattern EIRP limit

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

EIR

P d

ensi

ty [d

BW

/MH

z]

off-axis angle

Antenna Pattern EIRP limit

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Hubs EIRP density versus ITU limitation

DOWNLINK

The limits for power flux density are described in ITU Radio Regulation, Table 21-4, art 21.16 and reported in Table 3. Only the frequency band of 40.5-41 GHz is specifically concerned by such regulation but for sake of completeness, the same limit will be also applied to the other bands.

Frequency band Service* Limit in dB(W/m2) for angles

of arrival (δ) above the horizontal plane Reference bandwidth

0°-5° 5°-15° 15°-25° 25°-90°

40.5-42 GHz

Fixed-satellite (geostationary-satellite

orbit) Broadcasting-satellite (geostationary-satellite

orbit)

–120 -120 + (δ-5) -110 + 0.5*(δ-15) –105 1 MHz

Table 3: Power flux density limitations.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 26

EU regional Coverage beam:

The maximum power flux density is obtained in the south east part of the beam, where the distance earth-to-spacecraft is the smallest. The elevation angle in this case is around 50 deg and the EIRP density of this transponder equals 22 dBW/MHz. In this case the power flux density equals -140 dBW/MHz, that is well below the limit specified above. For any other direction of arrival, the radiated power is attenuated by off-axis antenna gain and certainly well below the radiated power limits.

Theatre Spot beam:

The theatre spot beams are steerable and highly directive. The worst case scenario is a spot beam located in the equatorial region so to be in the location which is the closest to the spacecraft. In this case the powerflux density, assuming a transponder EIRP density of 35 dBw/MHz equals -127 dBW/MHz and therefore within the limit of the table above.

Data relay spot beam:

Eventually the Q-band link is evaluated, with the same assumption as the theatre spot beam even though the data relay is luckily located in a European region. The EIRP density of the transponder is 34 dBW/MHz and the maximum power flux density is -128 dBW/MHz.

5.1.5 Physical layer characterization and assumptions

Different are the physical layer characteristics of the various links among the considered scenarios. In the following the physical layer characteristics and performance for each link are summarized.

The Data Relay link is used to transfer data from the on-board optical terminal to the Network Control Centre by means of two RF links in Q-Band (return and forward link) adopting SCC Turbo Coding and a set of PSK and APSK modulations as proposed by ESA for telemetry applications [6]. The link requirements have been already described in Sect. 4.2.1. The baseline configuration assumes two transponders operating in single carrier mode at the rate of 160 Mbaud (200 MHz). Performance results for SCCC and different modulation schemes in presence of a Non-linear channel are presented in Table 6.

For the broadband interactive missions the DVB-S2 standard has been assumed as baseline for the forward links, while the DVB-RCS standard [2] has been assumed for the Return link. Due to the highly flexible processor (see Sect. 5.2.1.2.2), many different configurations and interconnections are achievable. Hence the transponders are assumed to be operated in a multicarrier mode and the performance of the physical layer extracted from [3]. The Multiport Amplifiers are assumed to work at OBO =3.5 dB and the DVB-S2 physical layer performance when assuming such operating conditions are reported in Table 5. The flexi-TWTAs for the European beam are also operated with 4 carriers per tube and the performance of the DVB-S2 physical layer can be extracted from the same Table 5. The typical receiver loss for the carrier recovery and timing circuits are also extracted from [3].

The STs are assumed to have Dynamic Rate Adaptation capability to cope with very strong channel attenuation, when the available code rates are not sufficient to close the link. Baud rate of every ST

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 27

terminal ranges from a minimum of 128 kbaud to a maximum 4.096 Mbaud. Performance of DVB-RCS physical layer are reported in Table 4.

For the links with the mobile terminals (both UAV and land mobile) the assumption is to consider also a DVB-RCS scheme on the return link (terminal -> gateway) and possibly exploiting the terminal dynamic rate capability to cope with the impairments caused by the mobile channel.

Table nomenclature explanation:

The effective efficiency include efficiency loss due to framing header, the extra bandwidth required for the shaping filter (roll-off = 0.25 for the forward link) and for the minimum spacing between adjacent modulated carriers (110%). The non linear degradation column reports the extra power needed to achieve on a non-linear channel the same performance of those achievable in a linear channel. The OBO reports the operating of each MODCODs. The demodulation losses column accounts for extra losses of the receiver when considering hardware implementation and the degradation due to the synchronization algorithms.

Modulation coding rate spectral

efficiency

effective efficiency

[bit/s/Hz]

Ideal

Eb/No

NL

degradation

OBO Demod

Losses

effective

Es/No

QPSK 1/3 0.67 0.342076196 0.45 0.1 3.5 1.5 5.55

QPSK 2/5 0.80 0.461339429 1.45 0.1 3.5 1.5 6.55

QPSK 1/2 1.00 0.552903867 2.9 0.1 3.5 1.5 8

QPSK 2/3 1.33 0.692879529 4.85 0.1 3.5 1.5 9.95

QPSK 3/4 1.50 0.833202547 6.05 0.1 3.5 1.5 11.15

QPSK 4/5 1.60 0.924418319 6.95 0.1 3.5 1.5 12.05

QPSK 6/7 1.71 1.043687671 7.90 0.1 3.5 1.5 13

Table 4: DVB-RCS performance for MPEG 2 packet (188byte), Multicarrier operations

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 28

Modulation coding rate spectral

efficiency

effective efficiency

[bit/s/Hz]

Ideal

Es/No

NL

degradation

OBO Demod

Losses

effective

Es/No

QPSK 0.25 0.49 0.342076196 -2.35 0.1 3.5 0.7 1.95

QPSK 0.3333333 0.66 0.461339429 -1.24 0.1 3.5 0.7 3.06

QPSK 0.4 0.79 0.552903867 -0.3 0.1 3.5 0.7 4

QPSK 0.5 0.99 0.692879529 1 0.1 3.5 0.7 5.3

QPSK 0.6 1.19 0.833202547 2.23 0.1 3.5 0.7 6.53

QPSK 0.6666667 1.32 0.924418319 3.1 0.1 3.5 0.7 7.4

QPSK 0.75 1.49 1.043687671 4.03 0.1 3.5 0.7 8.33

QPSK 0.8 1.59 1.113849479 4.68 0.1 3.5 0.7 8.98

QPSK 0.8333333 1.65 1.15595454 5.18 0.1 3.5 0.7 9.48

8PSK 0.6 1.78 1.24596604 5.5 0.5 3.5 1.0 10.5

8PSK 0.6666667 1.98 1.386252614 6.62 0.5 3.5 1.0 11.62

8PSK 0.75 2.22 1.554604194 7.91 0.5 3.5 1.0 12.91

8PSK 0.8333333 2.48 1.736964999 9.35 0.5 3.5 1.0 14.35

16APSK 0.6666667 2.64 1.843850564 8.97 1.0 3.5 1.5 14.97

16APSK 0.75 2.96 2.06777451 10.21 1.0 3.5 1.5 16.21

16APSK 0.8 3.16 2.207718239 11.03 1.0 3.5 1.5 17.03

16APSK 0.8333333 3.3 2.305674159 11.61 1.0 3.5 1.5 17.61

16APSK 0.8888889 3.52 2.459617054 12.89 1.0 3.5 1.5 18.89

16APSK 0.9 3.56 2.487610151 13.13 1.0 3.5 1.5 19.13

32APSK 0.75 3.703295 2.589 12.73 2.0 3.5 1.5 19.73

32APSK 0.8 3.951571 2.763 13.64 2.0 3.5 1.5 20.64

32APSK 0.8333 4.11954 2.881 14.28 2.0 3.5 1.5 21.28

32APSK 0.88889 4.397854 3.076 15.69 2.0 3.5 1.5 22.69

32APSK 0.9 4.453027 3.114 16.05 2.0 3.5 1.5 23.05

Table 5: DVB-S2 performance for multi-carrier per transponder, no pre-distortion algorithm, Roll

Off 0.25. OBO is fixed to 3.5 dB as per MPA specifications

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 29

ACM

format

Modulatio

n

Information

Block Size

Encoded

Block

Size

spectral

efficiency

(Bits/Symbol)

Ideal

Es/No

NL

degradation

OBO Demod

Losses

effective

Es/No

1 QPSK 5758 8640 0.71 -1.96 0.2 0.35 0.7 -0.71

2 QPSK 6958 10440 0.86 -0.89 0.2 0.35 0.7 0.36

3 QPSK 8398 12600 1.04 0.22 0.2 0.35 0.7 1.47

4 QPSK 9838 14760 1.21 1.21 0.2 0.35 0.7 2.46

5 QPSK 11278 16920 1.39 2.11 0.2 0.35 0.7 3.36

6 QPSK 13198 19800 1.63 3.21 0.2 0.35 0.7 4.46

7 8PSK 11278 16920 1.39 2.11 0.4 0.35 1.0 3.86

8 8PSK 13198 19800 1.63 3.21 0.4 0.35 1.0 4.96

9 8PSK 14878 22320 1.84 4.10 0.4 0.35 1.0 5.85

10 8PSK 17038 25560 2.10 5.18 0.4 0.35 1.0 6.93

11 8PSK 19198 28800 2.37 6.20 0.4 0.35 1.0 7.95

12 8PSK 21358 32040 2.64 7.18 0.4 0.35 1.0 8.93

13 16APSK 19198 28800 2.37 6.20 1.5 1.0 1.5 10.2

14 16APSK 21358 32040 2.64 7.18 1.5 1.0 1.5 11.18

15 16APSK 23518 35280 2.90 8.12 1.5 1.0 1.5 12.12

16 16APSK 25918 38880 3.20 9.13 1.5 1.0 1.5 13.13

17 16APSK 28318 42480 3.50 10.12 1.5 1.0 1.5 14.12

18 32APSK 25918 38880 3.20 9.13 2.0 1.0 1.5 13.63

19 32APSK 25318 42480 3.13 10.12 2.0 2.5 1.5 16.12

20 32APSK 30958 46440 3.82 11.19 2.0 2.5 1.5 17.19

21 32APSK 33358 50040 4.12 12.14 2.0 2.5 1.5 18.14

22 32APSK 35998 54000 4.44 13.17 2.0 2.5 1.5 19.17

Table 6: SCCC performance for single carrier per transponder, Static predistortion algorithm

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 30

5.1.6 System design options

Q-band has been considered as baseline for the RF feeder link of the data relay mission, and Ka-band as a fall-back solution. Pros and cons of the two options have been assessed in terms of link performances and payload power requirements. In both cases, due to the unpredictability of the ground station location and the need for high directivity, a steerable spot beam has been selected to dynamically cover the selected stations.

In both Q and Ka-band cases, 2 TWTAs with saturation power of 25W have been assumed. The same reflector antenna size of 0.7m has been considered. A ground station antenna diameter of 4m has been taken into account. Although it is understood that larger gateways are used in Ka-band for specific systems, the present assumption is intended to cover a wide range of applications (earth-observation, data relay,..), and assuming that already existing national gateways may be utilized to this purpose.

Regarding the air interface, the DVB-S2 standard with utilization of ACM has been considered. Although a requirement on the link minimum communication rate is given, ACM has been selected in order to maximize throughput under non fading conditions. The physical layer performances follow the assumptions presented in Sect. 5.1.5.

In terms of link budget, both solutions can provide the same required minimum bit rate of 600 Mbit/sec with 2 downlink carriers at 160 Mbaud/s. This is achieved in fading conditions, with attenuation values corresponding to a link availability of 99.5%, i.e. 13 dB and 7 dB, respectively at 40GHz and 20 GHz. However, the peak bit rate achievable in clear sky conditions, therefore in most of the cases, is higher in Q band, due to the higher directivity achievable with the same antenna reflector size. In Ka-band the highest link throughput is 1.1 Gbit./sec, versus the 1.4 Gbit/sec achieved thanks to Q band utilization. It may be worth noting that the selected number of carriers allows for single carrier TWTA operation. The relatively high baud rate assumed per carrier has been chosen in order to provide the required minimum bit rate.

It should also be considered that, when Ka-band is selected, frequency coordination with the feeder link of the broadband communication mission shall be carried out. On the contrary, utilization of Q-band allows for independent designs of the communication and data relay feeder links. Moreover, due to its lower utilization, not much co-ordination problems exist today, and the band has less interference problems.

An additional trade off has been carried out concerning the feeder link of the broadband communication mission. Due to the need of transmitting information from the theatres of operation to several ground stations sparse over the EU25 region, a single regional coverage has been selected. An alternative approach would have been to consider a multibeam satellite coverage. However, despite the higher achievable directivity, this solution would have required significant additional payload complexity in order to ensure a full flexibility in carrier to beam allocation.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 31

5.2 PAYLOAD DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS

5.2.1 Payload architecture

5.2.1.1 Overall architecture

The main mission requirements are summarised in Table 7 below:

Theatre beams European Regional

Beam

European Data Relay

Coverage 5 Steerable Spot beams

(1200 km diameter)

1 Shaped beam

(EU 25)

1 Steerable Spot beam

(520 km diameter)

Frequency band Ka-band Ka-band Q/V-band

Number of links 5 4 2

Bandwidth per link 125 MHz 125 MHz 200 MHz

EIRP spectral density 35 dBW/MHz 22 dBW/MHz 34 dBW/MHz

Table 7: Summary main mission requirements

The principal downlink performance parameters for the payload have been derived from the above requirements and are summarised in Table 8 below along with the apportionment between repeater and antenna system.


Beam

European Data

Relay

Frequency band Ka-band Ka-band Q-band

EIRP 56 dBW 43 dBW 57 dBW

Antenna EOC Gain 36.4 dBi 34 dBi 47.3 dBi

Tx power per link 19.6 dBW 9.0 dBW 9.7 dBW


Table 8: Payload Performance Requirement and Apportionment for Downlink

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 32

The analysis of the above requirements, together with the frequency plan and system channelization reported in Sects. 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 respectively has resulted in the payload architecture shown in Figure 6 below. The chosen approach offers a high degree of flexibility to respond to a wide range of mission requirements, specifically :

Bandwidth: Can be flexibly allocated to each Uplink/Downlink connectivity via a transparent On Board Processor (OBP).

Power: Can be flexibly allocated between the different Ka-Band beams by the use of a Multi Port Amplifier (MPA) configuration for the five Theatre Spot-beams and in-orbit adjustable (“flexible”) TWTAs for the European Regional Beam.

Coverage : Can be adapted to support a number of separate ‘events’ anywhere over the visible Earth’s surface, or aggregated to form ‘shaped’ regions by the use of five circular steerable spot beams in Ka-Band.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 33

Figure 6: Proposed payload architecture for the mission

A/D MCDX

SW

ITC

HIN

G

MCMX D/A

EuropeanCoverage

Steerable Spots

A/D MCDX MCMX D/A

8x8

INET

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

TRANSPARENT OBP

A/D MCDX MCMX D/A

8x8 MPA OMT

OMT

OMT

OMT

OMT

S1-Rx

S2-Rx

S3-Rx

S4-Rx

S5-Rx

S1-Rx

S5-Rx

OMTMCMX D/A

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

EC-Tx

EC-Tx

OMT

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

Red

unda

ncy

Rin

g

MOD

MOD

Optical Telescope

Q-BandCombined Flex TWTAs

8x8

ON

ET

SQ-RxSQ-Rx DEM

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 34

5.2.1.2 Payload Design Description

5.2.1.2.1 Antenna System

The key requirements and design parameters for the Antenna system are summarised in Table 9 below.

Performance Requirements Design Parameters

Frequency

(GHz)

Diameter

of

footprint

(km)

Edge of

Cover

Gain

(dBi) Number

Beam-width

(deg)

Antenna

type

Aperture

Diameter

(m)

Peak Gain

(dBi)

Theatre Beams 20 1214 36.4 5-off 1.9 Single offset

0.6 40.4

European Regional beam

20 EU 25 34.0 1-off N/A Single offset

(shaped) 1.5 N/A

European Data Relay beam

40 520 47.3 1-off 0.8 Single offset

0.7 47.8

Table 9: Antenna Requirements and Design Parameters

An illustration of the antenna accommodation onboard the satellite platform is shown below in Figure 7.

Ka-Band Theatre steerable antennasQ-/V-Band steerable down/Up Link

Ka-Band European Shaped Beam AntennaOptical terminal

Ka-Band Theatre steerable antennasQ-/V-Band steerable down/Up Link

Ka-Band European Shaped Beam AntennaOptical terminal

Figure 7: Antenna and Optical Terminal Accommodation

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 35

5.2.1.2.2 Ka-Band Repeater

The key elements of the Ka-Band repeater are described below: Refer to Figure 6.

RF front-end

Each antenna provides simultaneous Up and Downlink coverage, each on a single hand of circular polarisation. As the Up and Downlink beams are orthogonally polarised, the antenna feed chain incorporates an OMT, the output port of which interfaces to the repeater input section. Broadband filtering is provided on the repeater input port to reject out of band noise prior to application to an LNA.

For the LNAs, a 8:6 redundancy scheme is assumed. The LNAs are followed by agile frequency converters, which convert (in two stages) each block of 500 MHz uplink spectrum from 30 GHz to a frequency close to baseband frequency required for the digital processing stage.

Digital Processor

Introducing a transparent digital on-board processor (OBP) in the payload allows high potential for bringing into the system flexibility in channelisation, frequency conversion and routing. Digital on-board processing offers further possibilities to seamless integrate other payload functionalities, such as Automatic Level Control (ALC) or transponder gain control on a per-channel base, broadcasting/multicasting based on single channel copies, inactive channels squelching to reduce power robbing due to interference or jamming, in-band TT&C channel extraction and generation, etc.

A conceptual block diagram is shown in Figure 8. The processor central functions include: filtering received up link beam signals, performing proper frequency conversion, distributing the resulting signal to one or more downlink beams and frequency re-multiplexing streams directed to the same beams.

The available band per processor port is segmented into narrower channels of variable bandwidth accommodating different capacity and connectivity requirements. To achieve the variable bandwidth channelisation the input signal is divided into a relatively large number of contiguous sub-channels (refer to Figure 9) that constitute the minimum quanta of routable bandwidth (narrower FDMA communication channels can share a common sub-channel but will experience same routing and frequency conversion).

The main characteristics of the proposed OBP are the capability to process up to 500 MHz per port with a bandwidth granularity of 1 MHz.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 36

SWIT

CH

ING

AIF

AIF

D/A

D/AMCMX

MCMX

AAF

AAF A/D

A/D MCDX

MCDX

AAF - Anti-Aliasing FilterA/D - Analog-to-Digital ConverterMCDX - Multi-Carrier DemultipleXerMCMX - Multi-Carrier MultipleXerD/A - Digital to Analog ConverterAIF - Anti-Image Filter

Input Ports Digital Domain Output Ports

Figure 8 - OBP Conceptual Block Diagram

500 MHz

Sub-Channel

Granularity

Wideband Channel Filterfrom Contiguous Sub-Channels

Figure 9 - Contiguous Channelisation

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 37

The complexity of the transparent processor architecture (200W of power consumption) has been assessed based on the following technology assumptions:

• analogue to digital conversion at a sampling rate larger than 1 Gsample/s (compatible with real sampling of 500 MHz signals per port),

• deep sub-micron ASICs implementation of multi-carrier demultiplexing, switching/routing and multi-carrier multiplexing,

• digital to analogue conversion at a rate larger than 1 Gsample/s (matching the A/D sampling rate).

The transparent OBP can also be exploited routing part of the traffic coming from the Ka-band up-link section to the Q-band downlink.

RF output sections

After the OBP, the signals are up-converted to 20 GHz (in two stages) prior to the final amplification stage:

For the Theatre Spot-beams, amplification is provided by an 8x8 Multi Port Amplifier (MPA) comprised of 200 W saturated power TWTs, within a 10:8 redundancy scheme. The MPA provides the ability to flexibly allocate RF power to each downlink beam by spreading the transmitted power over several amplifiers (in this case eight TWTAs are active for a maximum of five links). Adjusting the relative drive level of each downlink signal alters the proportion of the total RF power available to each downlink link. Multi carrier operation in this MPA requires an Output back Off of approximately 3.5 dB.

For the European Regional beam, a scheme with combined flexible TWTAs (of 100 W saturated power each) is provided allowing flexibility to adjust the total transmitted RF power.

After the power amplification section, broadband output filtering is performed before to interfacing to the OMT in the antenna feed.

5.2.1.2.3 Description of payload block diagram related to the data relay mission

The Key elements of the data relay repeater are described below. Refer to Figure 6 above.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 38

RF front-end

As for the Ka-Band system, the Q-Band data relay antenna provides congruent Up and Downlink coverage on opposite circular polarisations. As such, the uplink repeater/antenna interface is at the output port of an OMT which forms part of the antenna feed system. Firstly, broadband input filtering is included into the input path to reduce out of band noise, after which the input signal is applied to an LNA. The output of the LNA is applied to (dual-stage) down-converter which produces an output at ‘near-baseband’ for application to a Demodulator. The Q-Band link is intended to be highly asymmetric as the uplink (return signal) is only to be used for issuing commands to the Optical data source (GEO or LEO satellite, or Optical UAV). The digital data stream from the Demodulator is applied directly to the optical terminal. The Demodulator and Optical terminal are described in more detail below.

Optical Terminal

The existing European technologies (8XXnm and 1064nm) can fulfil the mission and the scenario requirements set forth in Sect. 4.2.1. The 1550nm technology could be of interest in case higher data rates become mandatory.

The optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite will serve multiple end-users (i.e. LEO satellites, UAVs, aircrafts, etc.). A sequential access scheme has been selected as baseline as already provides substantial re-use capability for the SGEO mission.

A digital interface with the Q-band payload has been selected, as it is currently the most preferred interface for developed optical terminals.

The data rate of the O-ISL will be selected according to the maximum data rate available on the Q-band feeder link (e.g. due to weather conditions). The Q-band feeder link has been dimensioned to be compatible with the data rates of the O-ISL. In case of optimal conditions, both the O-ISL (i.e. user link) and the Q-band downlink (i.e. feeder link) will operate at the same maximum data rate (i.e. up to 1.2 Gbps). As no mass memory is foreseen on-board the SGEO, the data rate of the O-ISL has to be accordingly adapted. For that purpose it is proposed to include information about the quality of the feeder link in the return link data stream (i.e. feeder uplink). This control signalling information will adapt the optimal Q-band data rate according to the circumstances, and also, the effective data rate of the O-ISL (i.e. the O-ISL will still operate at the same data rate, but the ground segment optical terminal (i.e. user optical terminal) will reduce the number of channels used; the remaining capacity of the O-ISL would simply be filled with an internal random data stream for performance evaluation purposes).

As we can see in Figure 7, the optical terminal has been accommodated on the Earth facing panel with a nadir semi-cone angle of >11° (compatible with LEO/UAV/airplane/aircraft/ground-GEO link scenarios). In addition, the SGEO terminal has +/-90° equatorial visibility (compatible with a GEO-GEO link scenario). Some limitations concerning the azimuth angle might exist on one of the East/West sides due to a possible Ka-band antenna obstruction.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 39

In Annex 3 a detailed analysis of the optical terminal on-board the SGEO is presented. First, the annex presents the state-of-the-art of current O-ISL (Optical Inter-Satellite Link) developments, and gives an overview of various optical link scenarios, which potentially could be envisaged within the present Small GEO mission. The essential functional blocks of the optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite are then described. At present, different optical technologies for the optical communication transmitter and receiver parts are being (have been) developed under European National and ESA programmes. These technological alternatives have been considered for each of the optical link scenarios and conclusions for each case have been derived. Finally, the performance, envelope and interface specifications of the optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite are summarized.

On-Board Digital Modulator

The data transfer from the optical data relay to ground is carried out via a Q-band downlink. The air interface for this link is based on serially concatenated convolution turbo coding and with variable coding rate and PSK and APSK modulations. The proposed air interface supports changes of modulation and coding rate without a need to interrupt the data transmission (variable coding and modulation). There is also provision for commanding the modulation and coding rate by use of a signalling field on the uplink.

A general functional block diagram of the modulator is illustrated in Figure 10. The input data stream is provided from the optical terminal. The following set of functionality is envisaged for the on-board modulator:

• Transfer Frame data interfacing (buffering and mode adaptation) to match the data rate and data frame format between the optical terminal and the on-board modulator.

• Forward error coding according to Serially Concatenated Convolutional (Turbo) Coding SCCC scheme. The encoder consists of two identical convolutional encoders, interleaver as well as puncturing units for coding rate adjustment.

• A pragmatic approach is considered to map encoded bits into modulation symbols. A properly designed row-column interleaver is used to carry out this task.

• In addition to the modulation symbols, a physical frame also include frame marker (used for start of frame detection and carrier synchronisation) as well as frame descriptor (to identify the modulation and coding used in each frame). The option of insertion of pilot symbols among modulation symbols is also considered.

• Subsequent to physical layer frame construction, the baseband signal filtering and quadrature modulation and digital to analogue conversion are carried out.

The design and implementation of a prototype high data rate modulator has been carried out under MHOMS project. Implementation results indicate that the current ASIC technologies such as ATMEL 0.35µm can accommodate the modulator operating at baud rates up to 200 MBaud. The use

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 40

parallel structures of critical DSP blocks, such as the shaping filter and the interpolation modules is essential for such implementation. The chosen parallelism needs a maximum 150 MHz clock rate, used only for an extremely limited section at the last output multiplexing elements, in order to build the output data flow, while the main parts run at no more than 75 MHz.

PuncturingCC 2

PL Pseudo-Randomiser

CC 1 & Puncturing

(fixed rate)

Input Interface

ACM Command

Bit to Constellation

Mapping

Interleaver

Data Frames Pseudo-Randomiser

Attached SYNC Marker

PL Signalling Insertion

SRRC Filtering and

Quadrature Modulator

Slicer

Pilot Insertion

ACM Mode Adaptation

PL Framing

Row/Column Interleaver

ACM CommandSCCC Encoding

Figure 10: Functional Diagram of On-board modulator

On-Board Digital Demodulator

The on-board demodulator is a digital signal processor with a near baseband modulated signal as the input and a sequence of decoded information bit at the output. The decoder data stream from the on-board digital demodulator is applied directly to the optical terminal

The air interface considered for the uplink is based on SCCC turbo coding and QPSK/8PSK modulation. The link occupies less than 2 MHz bandwidth and carries 1 Mbits/sec information. Compared to alternative air-interface solutions such as DVB-S and DVB-S2, the SCCC turbo coding scheme along with the proposed frame structure allows for a simple and flexible implementation of the on-board demodulator with a robust performance. In particular the proposed air interface provides proper means of physical layer and data link layer synchronisation (distributed pilot symbols, frame markers and Attached SYNC markers).

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 41

Figure 11 illustrates the functional diagram of the on-board digital demodulator. The input samples are provided by ADC taking samples of near baseband input signal (real sampling). The conversion of real sampling to complex in-phase and Quadrature components takes place at the front end of the digital demodulator. Due to relatively low symbol rate (1 MBaud), the carrier frequency and phase tracking require proper use of known symbols (distributed pilots as well as frame markers). Results of previous studies and prototype development such as MHOMS project are considered as baseline synchronisation and decoding techniques for the on-board demodulator.

Figure 11: Functional Diagrams of On-board demodulator

RF output section

The digital output stream from the Optical terminal is firstly applied to the inputs of two separate Modulators, one for each 200 MHz data link. After the modulator, the signals are up-converted (in two stages) to the 40 GHz downlink frequency. It should be noted that traffic from the Ka-band uplinks may be routed to Q-band downlink via switches on the Modulator outputs should this be desirable. Two Q-band TWTAs (each with 25W saturated power each) amplify the RF signals. The two downlink signals are then combined and filtered via a diplexer before being applied to the Q-Band OMT input port.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 42

The following table summarises the main assumptions considered for both the Ka and Q-Band TWTAs. The RF power values and the sizing of the TWTs saturated power have been derived from link budget analysis for all the links which are part of this mission.


beam

European Data Relay

Frequency band Ka-band Ka-band Q-band

TWTAs configuration 8x8 MPA 2 Flexible TWTAs 2 TWTAs


TWT saturated power 200 W 100 W 25 W

Number of Links/TWT 5 4 1

OBO (dB) 3.5 dB 3 dB (+ 3 dB flex.) 1 dB

TWTAs efficiency at working OBO

40% 38% 33%

Number of active TWTAs

8 2 2

Redundancy scheme 10:8 3:2 3:2

Table 10: TWTA Sizing Assumptions

5.2.2 Mass and Power Budget

For the purposes of sizing the mission requirements and identifying the preliminary Payload design, the assumed maximum platform power capability is 3 kW, and the maximum payload mass is less than 300 kg.

5.2.2.1 Power Consumption Budget

Table 11 provides a summary of the DC Power Consumption Budget for the payload.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 43

Sub system Power consumption (W)

for Ka band

Power consumption (W)

for Q band

Total Power

consumption (W)

Receivers & frequency conversion section

142 48 190

OBP 200 - 200

HPAs 1942 113 2055

Mod / Demod - 100

Optical terminal - 159

Antenna sub-system - - 30

Total 2319 167 2734

Total with margin

(10%)

3007

Table 11: Payload Power Consumption Budget

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 44

5.2.2.2 Mass Budget

Table 12 below provides a summary of the estimated mass budget for the payload whilst Table 13 gives a breakdown for the Antenna Sub-system.

Sub system

Ka band

(kg)

Q band

(kg)

Total

(kg)

Receivers & frequency converters 35 13 48

OBP 20 - 20

HPAs 56 9 65

Repeater harness 22 9 31

Mod / Demod - 20

Optical terminal - 45

Antenna sub-system 46

Total 133 31 275

Total with margin (10%) 303

Table 12: Payload Mass Budget

Sub system Mass (kg)

5 steerable antennas for the theatre beams (Ka-band)

15

1 antenna for the European shaped beam (Ka-band)

7

1 steerable antenna for Q-band 4

Pointing mechanisms 8

Feeds 12

Total for the antennas 46

Table 13 Antenna Sub-System Mass Budget

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 45

5.2.3 Inter Payload Operational Flexibility

A additional degree of flexibility has been incorporated into the payload design by utilising Flexible TWTs into the Ka-Band European Regional Beam downlink. The TWTs are sized for nominal operation at 3 dB ‘Flexi-setting’. If the data relay portion of the mission were not in operation, the flexi tubes could operate at increased power, thereby improving link margin or increasing throughput.

Also incorporated into the design, is the ability to route a portion of the Ka-Band traffic via the Q-Band downlink beam when the data relay portion of the mission is not in operation. The Ka-Band links could then operate with increased throughput/margin when under in clear-skies conditions versus their nominal operation due to the increase EIRP spectral density of the Q-Band system.

5.3 GROUND SEGMENT DEFINITION

5.3.1 Overview

The ground segment consists of the following systems:

• European Gateways: one gateway per country or region with connectivity to the main infrastructure terrestrial networks. The European gateways will also provide access to satellite terminals in each theatre.

• Theatre Deployable Hubs: Deployable facilities in theatres to provide broadband access to user terminals in each theatre as well coordination of traffic between two satellite terminals (e.g. mesh overlay network).

• European Data Relay Station: Transmits and receive data in Q/V band. The up and downlink data rates are highly asymmetric where the uplink is mainly used for command and control of the optical terminals (GEO, LEO or UAV)

• Satellite Terminals: Capable of establishing ad hoc network to provide coverage to an area, capable of establishing a connection with terrestrial networks. In addition to connectivity to the European gateway and deployable theatre hubs, satellite terminals also support meshed networks.

• Mobile Satellite Terminals: Provide connectivity on the plane, ships or train as well as vehicles in each theatre.

• On Board UAV terminal providing optical links. Direct connection to GEO via an optical link as well as RF link..

Requirements applicable to subsystems in different ground segments are described in Section 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 46

5.3.2 European Gateway

A summary of parameters and specifications associated with the European gateway is provided in Table 14.

Category Parameter Specification

Antenna Size 8.0 meters

G/T 38.0 dB/K

Total EIRP 82.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth 250 MHz

Proposed Air Interface Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC), DVB-S2

Both forward and return link

Max. Data Rate 50 Mbits/sec Forward link

30 Mbits/sec Return link

Min/Max Symbol Rate 10 Mbaud – 16 Mbaud

Coding and Modulation As per DVB-S2 Standard

QPSK, 8PSK, 16APSK

Link to Theatre Hubs

(RF only)

Payload Traffic Format Generic Stream

Proposed Air Interface DVB-S2

Number of Carriers 12

Max Data Rate 60 Mbits/s

Symbol rate 21 Mbaud

Link from UAV (RF

Link only)


Air Interface Forward link: DVB-S2 with ACM capability, single carrier

Return Link: DVB-RCS with DRA and uplink power control, MF-

TDMA

Link to Satellite

Terminals

Data Rate: 26 Mbits/sec forward link

Min: 160 kbit/sec, Max: 5 Mbit/sec return link

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 47


Number of carriers forward link: 1

return link: Configurable. Max: 35 (0.256 Mbaud/s) Min: 4 (2.046

Mbaud/s) Dynamic bandwidth allocation in carrier groups of

different baud rates.

Air Interface Forward Link: DVB-S2 (spreading)

Return Link: DVB-RCS overlay MF-TDMA

Data rate Forward link: 4 Mbit/sec

Return link: 1.5 Mbit/sec

Link to Mobile

Satellite Terminals


Return link: Configurable

Table 14: Specifications of European Gateway

5.3.3 Deployable Theatre HUBs



G/T 28.0 dB/K

Total EIRP 72.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth 125 + 4x 75 MHz

Proposed Air Interface Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC), DVB-S2

Max. Data Rate Tx: 30 Mbits/sec

Rx: 50 Mbits/sec

Symbol Rate 10-16 Mbaud

Coding and Modulation As per DVB-S2 Standard

Tx: QPSK, 8PSK

Rx: 8PSK, 16APSK

Theatre Hub to

European Gateway


Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 48


Air Interface Forward link: DVB-S2 with ACM capability, single carrier

Return Link: DVB-RCS

Data Rate: Forward link : 26 Mbits/sec

Return Link: 15 Mbit/sec capacity of MF-TDMA multiple access

Link to Satellite

Terminals


return link: Configurable

Air Interface Forward Link: DVB-S2, (spreading)

Return Link: DVB-RCS overlay MF-TDMA

Max Data rate Forward link:4 Mbit/sec

Return link: 8 Mbit/sec

Link to Mobile

Satellite Terminals


return link: Configurable

Table 15: Specifications of Deployable Theatre Hub

5.3.4 European Data Relay Stations


Frequency Band Q/V Band

Antenna Size 4 meters

G/T 36.0 dB/K

Total EIRP 55.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth 401 MHz

Proposed Air Interface SCPC (as per ESA proposal for CCSDS Orange Book)


Max. Data Rate 600 Mbit/sec per Carrier

Symbol Rate 160 Mbaud

Downlink

Coding and Modulation SCCC Turbo Code

QPSK, 8PSK, 16APSK, 32 APSK

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 49


Proposed Air Interface SCPC (as per ESA proposal for CCSDS Orange Book)


Max. Data Rate 1 Mbits/sec

Symbol Rate 1 Mbaud

Uplink

Coding and Modulation SCCC Turbo Code , QPSK, r=1/2

Table 16: Specifications of Data Relay Station

5.3.5 Satellite Terminals


Frequency Band Ka Band


G/T 16.0 dB/K

Total EIRP 51.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth Configurable; Max 5 MHz

Proposed Air Interface DVB-RCS (ST to gateway)

Data Rate 160 kbit/s to 5 MBit/s

Symbol Rate Configurable; Min: 0.256 Mbaud/s, Max: 4.096 Mbaud/s

ST to EU Gateway

and Theatre Hub

Coding and Modulation Configurable as per DVB-RCS air interface

Proposed Air Interface DVB-RCS with Mesh overlay

Signalling and capacity assignment managed by Hub Theatre


Max. Data Rate 70 kbits/s to 1.4 Mbits/s

Symbol Rate Configurable ; Min: 0.128 Mbaud/s, Max: 0.512 Mbaud/s

ST to ST

Coding and Modulation Configurable as per DVB-RCS air interface

Table 17: Specifications of Satellite Terminal

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 50

5.3.6 UAVs



G/T 17.8 dB/K

Total EIRP 68.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth Tx: 25 MHz Rx:1 MHz

Proposed Air Interface SCPC, DVB-S2

Max. Data Rate 60 Mbit/sec

Symbol Rate 21 Mbaud

Tx

Modulation 8PSK, 16APSK

Proposed Air Interface SCPC , DVB-S2

Max. Data Rate 2.3 Mbits/sec

Symbol Rate 1 Mbaud

Rx

Coding and Modulation 8PSK

Table 18: Specifications of UAV RF Links

5.3.7 Land Mobile Satellite Terminal


Antenna Size 0.18 m2 (aperture)

G/T 11.0 dB/K

Total EIRP 46.0 dBW

RF Section

Characteristics

Total Bandwidth Tx: 15 MHz, Rx: 15 MHz

Proposed Air Interface DVB-RCS (+spreading)

Max. Data Rate 1.5 Mbit/sec

Symbol Rate Configurable ; Min: 64 Kbaud/s, Max: 2.048 Mbaud/s

Tx

Coding and Modulation As per DVB-RCS, QPSK

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 51


Proposed Air Interface DVB-S2

Max. Data Rate 4 Mbits/sec

Rx

Coding and Modulation DVB-S2, QPSK

Table 19: Specifications of land Mobile Satellite terminals

5.3.8 User Optical Terminal

For the optical data relay (ODR) scenario, the ground segment refers to the optical counter terminal on board a LEO satellite, UAV, airplane/aircraft, counter GEO satellite or a ground-based station (i.e. user optical terminal). For the sake of simplicity all these terminals will be named as ground segment optical terminal.

The main functional parts of this optical terminal are very similar to the ones of the optical terminal on-board SGEO (as described in Annex 3). The different technological possibilities have been presented and discussed in detail in Annex 3. Assessment of possible optical access schemes of the ground segment optical terminals is also described in Annex 3.

Although the described bidirectional links are mostly asymmetric (except the GEO-GEO), some European manufacturers propose to implement fully symmetric bidirectional links, in view of future data rate upgrades, to better adapt to different scenarios/markets, and also, to drastically reduce design, development, qualification, integration and testing costs of two different optical terminals. Other European manufacturers, however, still prefer to tailor each particular optical terminal, given the asymmetric characteristics of most ODR scenarios. In this way, it is possible to achieve some mass and power consumption savings and also some reduction of the overall terminal complexity.

5.3.8.1 Optical terminal specifications

Table 20 to Table 22 list the performance specifications, the envelope specifications (mass, volume and power consumption) and the interface specifications (with the ground segment RF/digital payload) of the ground segment optical terminal.

As explained in 5.2.1.2.3, the effective data rate of the O-ISL will be adapted according to the feeder link quality information provided in the return link data stream. As the ground segment RF/digital payload is provided with some on-board mass memory (e.g. mass memory on-board an UAV), the contention issue will be solved at the ground segment site, by adjusting the number of channels being utilized (see Table 22).

Table 21 gives some envelope specifications for LEO and GEO counter terminals. Maximum data rates are considered to estimate these values. Target values for UAV/ airplane / aircraft optical counter

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 52

terminals are included as reference. However, it should be noted that these numbers strongly depend on accommodation constraints for each particular platform.

Type of user link Transmitter Receiver

LEO-GEO 75-1200Mbps 1-2Mbps

UAV-GEO 75-1200Mbps 1-2Mbps

Airplane / aircraft - GEO 75-1200Mbps 1-2Mbps

GEO-GEO 75-1200Mbps 75-1200Mbps

Ground-GEO NA 75-1200Mbps

Table 20. Performance specifications of the ground segment optical terminal

Type of user link Mass Volume Power

consumption

LEO-GEO (symmetric) <50 kg

< 550 x 660 x 900 mm3 (released position)

< 150W (average during

communications), <175W (peak

during acquisition)

LEO-GEO (asymmetric) <40 kg



communications)

GEO-GEO <50 kg



communications), <175W (peak

during acquisition)

UAV-GEO

Airplane / aircraft - GEO

Ground-GEO

<65 kg


<250W

Table 21. Envelope specifications of the ground segment optical terminal

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 53

Forward (from ground segment RF modulator to optical communication transmitter)

Interface type Digital

Up to 15 large channels Number of channels

1 aggregated channel

large channel

75Mbps

Data rate per channel aggregated channel

4*1Mbps

3*2Mbps

4*5Mbps

2*10Mbps

1*25Mbps

--------------------------

75Mbps

Return(from optical communication receiver to ground segment RF demodulator)


Number of channels Up to 2 Up to 1

Data rate per channel 1Mbps 2Mbps

Table 22. Interface specifications between the ground segment optical terminal and the ground

segment RF/digital payload

5.4 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

5.4.1 Capacity assessment

Based on the payload architecture outlined in Sect. 5.2.1, an analysis and assessment of system performance has been carried out. To this purpose, an example system scenario has been defined assuming a given bandwidth repartition among different type of links. However, given the system high flexibility and re-configurability (see Sects. 5.1 and 5.2), the proposed system scenario shall be considered just as a study case to show capabilities and performances of the system/payload design.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 54

Example Broadband Communications Mission

Let’s assume 5 simultaneously active theatre spots with 125 MHz total downlink gross bandwidth per spot partitioned in the following way:

• Hub theatre-> Satellite Terminals (ST) : 15 MHz (net) • Hub theatre-> Mobile ST (MST): 15 MHz (net) • ST-> Hub Theatre: 15 MHz (net) • Mobile ST-> Hub Theatre: 15 MHz (net) • ST-> ST: 15 MHz (net) • Europe GW-> Hub theatre: 20 MHz (net) • Europe GW-> ST: 10 MHz (net)

A frequency spacing factor equal to 1.1 has been considered. As it can be seen by the above bandwidth repartition, each theatre spot receives information, which has been uplinked from the theatre spot itself (two-way communication Hub Theatre-ST, Hub Theatre-MST and ST-ST), from the European coverage (two-way communication European GW-Hub Theatre, European GW-ST) and (optionally) from other spots. In addition to interactive applications, communication links from the Hub Theatre and from European GWs to the fixed and mobile STs in the theatre can be used for information broadcasting purposes.

Given the above bandwidth allocation, the following bandwidth segments, which are uplinked from the 5 theatre spots, are transparently downlinked to Europe:

• Hub theatre -> Europe GWs: 20 MHz * 5 theaters = 100 MHz (net) • ST -> Europe GWs: 10 MHz * 5 theaters = 50 MHz (net)

In addition to the traffic from STs located on the theatre spots, the information collected from UAVs flying on the theatre areas of operation shall be considered. In this specific scenario study case, let’s assume the presence of up to 12 UAVs, uplinking a net bandwidth of 25 MHz each. Adding all contributions, and assuming a frequency spacing factor of 1.11, the total gross bandwidth downlinked to Europe results 500 MHz.

Example Data Relay Mission

A regenerative data relay link is considered, with an optical uplink from a LEO EO satellite to the small GEO satellite and an RF downlink to relay the information to an European Data Relay station. The net bandwidth required is 400 MHz, which is allocated in Q-band.

Ground segment characteristics

The ground segment characteristics are reported in detail in Sect. 5.3. The specific terminals that have been considered in this capacity assessment exercise are briefly summarised in the Table below:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 55

Antenna size Total EIRP G/T

Satellite

Terminal (ST) 0.75 m 51 dBW 16 dB/K

Mobile Satellite

Terminal

(MST)

0.18 m2

Aperture

46 dBW 11 dB/K

UAV 0.8 m 68 dBW 17.8 dB/K

European GW 8.0 m 82 dBW 38 dB/K

Theatre Mini-

Hub 2.4 m 72 dBW 28 dB/K

European Data

Relay Station 4 m

(Q-band)

55 dBw

(Telecommand)

36 dB/K

Table 23: Ground segment characteristics

It shall be noted that the total available EIRP in the Theatre Mini Hub and in the European GW, is shared among the different simultaneously active links. On the contrary, it is assumed that one type of link at a time is sustained by the STs.

Link performances

Table 24 summarizes the performances in terms of throughput and availability achieved for the different types of links. The physical layer performances reported in Sect. 5.1.5 have been assumed. The EIRP and satellite antenna performances as from Table 23 have been considered.

Allocated BW

per spot Availability Link

Throughput Theatre Spot

capacity Air Interface

UAV-> Europe GW (RF)

25 MHz per UAV

99.95% 60 Mbps Up to 12*60 = 720 Mbps

TDM Single carrier Rs= 20 Mbaud

Hub Theatre-> ST

15 MHz 99%, 99.5% over non-equatorial regions

23 Mbps (EOB) 26 Mbps (Average)

About 26 Mbit/sec

TDM Single carrier, DVB-S2 Rs= 12 Mbaud

Hub Theatre-> MST

15 MHz 99%, 99.5% over non-equatorial regions assuming user cooperation under fading

About 4 Mbps (no shadowing) Minimum bit rate under fading: 1.6 Mbps

About 4 Mbps (no shadowing)

TDM Single Carrier Rs= 4 Mbaud

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 56

Allocated BW

per spot Availability Link

Throughput Theatre Spot

capacity Air Interface

ST-> Hub Theatre

15 MHz 99%, 99.5% over non-equatorial regions

Up to 5 Mbps 160 kbps minimum bit rate

About 15 Mbps

Multi-carrier DVB-RCS with DRA Rsmin=0.256 Mbaud Rsmax=4.096 Mbaud

MST -> Hub Theatre

15 MHz 99%, 99.5% over non-equatorial regions assuming user cooperation under fading

About 1.5 Mbps (no shadowing) Minimum bit rate under fading: about 40 kbps

About 8 Mbps (no shadowing)

Multi-carrier DVB-RCS with DRA Rsmin=0.064 Mbaud Rsmax=2.048 Mbaud

Europe GW -> ST

10 MHz 99.9% feeder, 99% theatre (99.5% over non-equatorial regions)

23 Mbps (EOB) About 26 Mbps (average)

About 18 Mbps

TDM Single carrier Rs= 8.5 Mbaud

ST -> ST 15 MHz 98% Up to 1.4 Mbps Minimum bit rate: 70 kbps

About 18 Mbps

Multi-carrier DVB-RCS with DRA and PC Rsmin=0.128 Mbaud Rsmax=0.512 Mbau

Europe GW-> Hub Theatre

20 MHz 99.9% feeder, 99.5% theatre

50 Mbps 50 Mbps TDM Single carrier Rs= 16 Mbaud

Hub Theatre-> Europe GW

20 MHz 99% theatre (99.5% over non-equatorial regions), 99.9% feeder

30 Mbps 30 Mbps TDM Single carrier Rs= 16 Mbaud

ST ->Europe GW

10 MHz 99% theatre (99.5% over non-equatorial regions), 99.9% feeder

Up to 5 Mbps Minimum bit rate: 160 kbps

About 11 Mbps

Multi-carrier DVB-RCS with DRA and PC Rsmin=0.256 Mbaud Rsmax=2.046 Mbaud

Table 24: Link throughput performances

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 57

It shall be noted that availability results are strongly dependent on the geographical region where the theatre spot is located. In particular, an increased availability can be achieved over non-equatorial regions. In equatorial regions, which can suffer from particularly severe fading conditions, the usage of medium-sized terminals (1.2 m) and mini-gateways (4 m) is recommended to achieve the desired availability of 99.5%. An increased availability (99.9%) has been achieved in the European feeder link.

Adaptive Coding and Modulation (ACM) and Adaptive Coding (AC) are assumed to be utilized respectively in the forward (DVB-S2) and return (DVB-RCS) links between fixed stations. In addition, Dynamic Rate Adaptation (DRA) is used on the return link. Therefore, the achieved link throughput is time and space variant. In the above table, the performance figures related to the theatre spot capacity shall be considered as a spatial and temporal average over the coverage region and over a long term timeframe. In particular, the link budget has been performed for a location in the beam coverage, corresponding to the medium value of the satellite antenna pattern gain function, which has been assumed to follow a quadratic law. In addition to AC and DRA, which are used to mitigate propagation variability, uplink power control is used on the uplink in order to equalize the input power density.

As far as the mobile link is concerned, it is noted that the required link availability (the same as for fixed stations) can be achieved only assuming some user cooperation, i.e. Line of Sight (LOS) transmission. The utilization of Ka-band, which makes fading and shadowing particularly severe, and the limited available satellite EIRP, due to the bandwidth sharing among a number of different links, makes service provision to mobile terminals rather challenging. However, the link can still be closed in fading conditions (99%/99.5% availability) assuming a reduction in the bit rate down to 1.6 Mbps (forward link) and 46 kbps (return link), in addition to user cooperation. In clear sky conditions, the link can withstand a much larger shadowing margin, up to 10 dBs in both forward and return links, even assuming feeder link undergoing a fading conditions. In the return link, DRA is assumed to achieve up to 1.4 Mbps uplink rate for a ST in LOS. In the forward link, a slow ACM loop is assumed to compensate for atmospheric fading propagation attenuation only, i.e. not the fast fading process due to mobility effects, allowing up to 5 Mbps.

Figure 12 shows the repartition of the total achieved downlink capacity in each theatre spot (about 150 Mbps) among the different links, following the assumed 125 MHz total downlink gross bandwidth allocation.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 58

26

15

15

918

50

18HUB TH -> STHUB TH -> MSTST -> HUB THMST -> HUB THST -> STEU -> HUB THEU -> ST

Figure 12: Spot theatre capacity repartition (values in Mbps)

Similarly, Figure 13 shows the repartition of the total achieved downlink capacity (about 900 Mbps) over the European coverage. It is apparent that the major contribution comes from the UAVs data relay, while the return link from the Hub Theatres and the STs in the theatre spots is limited to about 200 Mbps.

150

55

720

HUB TH -> EUST -> EUUAV -> EU

Figure 13: European coverage capacity repartition (values in Mbps)

Figure 14 shows the total number of simultaneously active satellite terminals that can supported in the 5 theatre spots. The diagram shows that the aggregated number of interactive terminals, which can be supported over the coverage, reaches about 800 units. It is worth mentioning that an unlimited number of receive-only terminals can be supported. This figure has been derived assuming the above capacity figures and a satellite capacity utilization factor of 0.9. As far as user traffic profile is concerned, we have assumed that user terminals request for interactive services on average a bit rate of 500 kbps and 150 kbps on the forward and return link respectively. For ST to ST communications, an average bit rate of 300 kbps has been assumed. The above rates shall be understood as guaranteed rates in clear sky conditions. Depending on the terminals activity factor, the actual number of terminals that can be supported in the

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 59

system may be proportionally increased, e.g. in a system scenario where terminals are only active 20% of the time, we can support 5 times more terminals.

162

234270

135

EU-STHUB TH - STST-STHUB TH -MST

Figure 14: Total number of active satellite terminals in the 5 theatre spots

Finally, the following Figure 15 shows the total achieved system capacity of 3 Gbps, as it is distributed between optical data relay and communication mission and between theatre spots and European coverage.

755

805

1200TOTAL DL THs

TOTAL DL EU-25

OPTICAL DATARELAY

Figure 15: Total system capacity repartition (values in Mbps)

5.4.2 Security assessment

The assessment is performed for with respect to the three standard security objectives confidentiality, integrity and availability. In addition to that, the RF-specific security aspect of detectability of RF communications is addressed in the final subsection.

5.4.2.1 Confidentiality

Given the mission’s payload concept of transparent onboard processing, users of any category are free to choose cryptographic methods fulfilling their national and/or organisational requirements. Terminal manufacturers may opt to implement internationally accepted encryption algorithms at the link layer to

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 60

provide a baseline protection. Confidentiality protection can be further enhanced to provide traffic flow confidentiality through reducing the observability of the communication as discussed later on in the subsection on detectability.

Beyond securing user traffic, the confidentiality objective also applies to platform and payload telecommand and telemetry messages, which if transmitted in clear text could possibly reveal users’ operational intentions, considering for example an antenna re-pointing command. Therefore, the mission’s telecommand and telemetry subsystems will have to include a confidentiality protection which is acceptable to the accreditation authorities of the targeted user communities.

5.4.2.2 Integrity

The integrity security objective, defined in [15] as “Guarding against improper information modification or destruction, and includes ensuring information non-repudiation and authenticity… [44 U.S.C., Sec. 3542]” will be ensured for user traffic through similar cryptographic measures like the confidentiality objective in the previous subsection.

Achieving integrity of telecommand messages, to prevent third parties from exerting control over the mission using forged or replayed telecommands, is addressed in the following subsection on availability, as such attacks would typically result in non-availability of the mission’s resources to the legitimate users.

5.4.2.3 Availability

When analysing availability, typically a large variety of threat sources must be taken into account. Environmental conditions such as rain or lightning strikes, human error and hardware or software failures are often addressed in safety or reliability analyses, whereas a security analysis focuses on the presence of a deliberate, human attacker equipped with varying skill/budget levels.

The two main availability threats currently perceived for this mission are takeover attempts (“satellite hijacking”) by third parties through forged telecommands and jamming.

Takeover attempts will have to be addressed by cryptographically authenticating telecommands and encrypting critical telemetry messages whose content could aid the attacker. Like the telecommand confidentiality protection discussed in the first subsection, cryptographic algorithms and implementations will have to be chosen to satisfy the accreditation authorities of the targeted user communities. This applies to both platform and payload telecommand and telemetry, as malicious reconfiguration of both the satellite itself or the telecommunication payload will lead to a loss of availability.

With respect to jamming, the capabilities of an attacker should be grouped into different categories, taking into account the differences in funding and technology available to a particular attacker. [16] introduces the following differentiation:

• Strategic jammer: Operates 20m or larger antennas and highly customized amplifiers, targets the satellite’s receiving antenna on a side lobe and can thus be located many thousands of kilometres away from the theatre.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 61

• Tactical jammer: Operates a custom-built mobile equipment in the same uplink coverage area as the original transmitter. Investment costs are between $30.000 and $1.000.000 depending on antenna diameter, output power, bandwidth etc.

• Nuisance jammer: Operates at similar power levels as regular user terminals, very mobile, hard to detect and costs around $1.000

This mission does not provide protection against strategic jammers, which would require a phased array antenna capable of nulling the direction of the strategic jammer.

For user traffic in Ka-band, the naturally narrow beams offer a basic protection against tactical and nuisance jammers in that they have to operate in the same, small uplink coverage area as the legitimate terminal. Also, this mission has the flexibility to use both civilian and military Ka-bands, and it is assumed that a nuisance jammer would have more difficulty/expenses in obtaining equipment for the military Ka-band. Downlink jamming is not further considered at this point as jamming the user terminal would require high-power equipment and relatively close proximity, both raising the chances of detection for the attacker.

The digital transparent processing performed by the mission offers three further factors which could possibly counter a nuisance jammer and to a lesser degree a tactical jammer: Firstly, the digital processor with small granularity on channel bandwidth (1 MHz) could be used for some notch filtering capability to eliminate the interference. Secondly, dynamic reconfiguration of amplifiers allows for concentration of power in one theatre at the expense of the others to “overpower” a low-medium powered jammer attacking the downlink. Thirdly, the dynamic reconfiguration of channel assignments allows for e.g. reassignment of uplink channel frequencies without changing downlink channel frequencies to counter jamming experienced on a certain uplink frequency.

Within a certain bandwidth limit, the digital processing system is indifferent to various modulation/coding schemes used to increase jamming resistance, e.g. frequency hopping or direct sequence spread spectrum techniques. These could be used (temporarily) at the expense of lower data transmission rates to achieve a higher protection against jamming, even in the absence of a nulling antenna.1

In contrast to user traffic, telecommand traffic is protected by a low sensitivity level of the satellite receiver. The attacker would require at least a 8m antenna. For telemetry, in case a ground station would be jammed, another ground station could take over the receiving duties since telemetry is broadcast all over Europe.

1 [17] has shown that in specific U.S. Army scenario a “COTS” jammer equipped with 76 dBW sending power can be tolerated when operating 70 dBW user terminals with orthogonal frequency hopping in a 200 MHz Ka-band channel with 50 dBW satellite EIRP.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 62

5.4.2.4 Detectability

Users requiring low probability of detection (LPD) or low probability of interception (LPI) will benefit, like in the case of the jamming threat, from the high directivity of the Ka-band electromagnetic radiation. Beyond this natural advantage, spread-spectrum techniques could be (temporarily) employed to further reduce observability, at the expense of lower data rates and limited by the available bandwidth.

5.4.2.5 Conclusion

In summary, confidentiality and integrity requirements for the anticipated missions can be met either by adding respective functionality to user terminals or by users providing separate “end-to-end” cryptographic equipment. With regards to link availability, the system offers protection against a range of jamming sources, although it is not fully protected against the most severe sources of jamming such as strategic jammers. Moreover, the level of availability protection can be dynamically raised at the expense of available communication bandwidth through the use of spread-spectrum based modems depending on mission requirements.

5.5 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

This section summarises the components at system, space and ground segment levels from the proposed baseline solution that introduce some degree of technological innovation. In all cases, the techniques and technologies introduced are well within the 2010 horizon.

5.5.1 System

The mobile broadband (broadcast and interactive) communication link between the theatre hub and the Mobile Terminals in Ka-band shall be considered as an innovative technology, as it has not been experimented yet. The DVB-S2 standard is being modified within the DVB-RCS standardization group in order to be utilized in this type of application.

The high speed (>1 Gbps) link for the feeder link data relay mission is also to be demonstrated. Although prototypes do exist, an on-board space qualified de/modulator for this mission shall be developed.

In order to have ST-ST connectivity, without introducing extra complexity due to on-board regeneration, low cost multi carrier demodulators shall be implemented.

5.5.2 Space segment

Some of the equipment used in the proposed payload need development and space qualification before flight units can be made available for delivery on the 2010 horizon. For these equipment, the following sections describe :

The advantages introduced by the new equipment/technology on this mission and the system level impact associated to the use of off-the-shelf alternatives.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 63

The development plan for the new equipment/technology (cost and schedule).

5.5.2.1 Transparent On-Board Processor: 500 MHz Bandwidth Per Port

The implementation of the proposed wideband transparent processor is based on an architectural solution exhibiting efficiency and effectiveness as well as on the use of state of the art electronics including high-speed analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters, multi-million-gates ASICs and high speed interconnections working at multi-gigabits-per-second.

Digital processing telecom payloads have been studied, prototyped and successfully flown with the ESA support since the late ‘80s (e.g. Skyplex, WorldStar, MT-SAT, AMERHIS, Syracuse 3, Inmarsat 4, Skynet 5, etc.) and current European developments for broadband transparent OBPs constitute a sound heritage for the definition of the baseline processor architecture and algorithms.

The OBP baseline solution relies on a 500 MHz per port capability in line with the on-going Deep-Sub-micron Initiative (DSMI) undertaken by ESA to develop high-speed low-power DACs and ADCs.

It shall be noted that with a full European solution based on already existing technology the OBP power consumption would increase of about 50%.

A possible back-up solution would be to reduce the bandwidth per port to 125/250 MHz, thus mitigating the risks for the OBP. The impact on the mission would be to limit the complete flexibility of the system (e.g. less UAVs per link, lower data rate for each UAV).

5.5.2.2 200 W 1.5 GHz BW Ka-band LTWTAs

In Ka-band, the current capability of off-the-shelf Space qualified TWTAs covers up to 130 W saturated output power. Current development activities are addressing the power range 130 to 200 watts. At 20 GHz, a 200 W TWT breadboard has already been developed by Thalès Electron Devices, (initially with CNES funding and then self-funded by Thalès). An Engineering Model of the EPC has also been developed by TESAT. An EQM of a radiation cooled Ka band TWTA in the 200W range could be available by the middle of 2008. The estimated cost of this development would be approximately 3 M€ .

The back-up solution would be to use existing 130 W saturated power TWTs in Ka-band instead of the envisaged 200 W saturated. The impact would be a decrease in the EIRP density, i.e. a decrease either of the capacity or of the availability. Instead, the impact could be a reduction from five theatre links to four theatre links.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 64

5.5.2.3 Flexible TWTAs in Ka-band

For the flexible TWTA, the technique is to modify the bias of the TWT (anode voltage), which allows varying the saturated output power of the TWTA with only a minor power efficiency degradation

An EQM of a flexible TWTA with 120 W max. power and 3 to 4 dB of flexible saturation power control capability is currently under development by TESAT and THALES in the scope of the HYLAS programme. This EQM is expected to be available by middle 2007.

Another Ka band flex TWTA is currently under development at EM level by TESAT/THALES using a TWT with better optimized design for flex operation, with associated improved efficiency vs. RF saturation power setting. An EQM of this unit could be available by middle 2008 if the corresponding qualification activity is started ( cost estimate around 1 M€).

5.5.2.4 Ka-band MPA (Multi Port Amplifier )

The advantage brought by a MPA is mainly the flexibility in power allocation to the beams.

A 4x4 MPA in Ka-band was studied and developed (at EM level) by AAS Toulouse, with ETCA (EPC), THALES (TWT) and TILAB ( Butler Matrices) as part of an ARTES-5 activity with ESA. This MPA development included the optimisation of the EPC design to achieve very stable helix voltage for good phase tracking between TWTAs and associated good RF isolation between MPA ports. The results of this activity showed excellent performance and the feasibility of using the MPA architecture for future missions.

In order to build an 8x8 MPA, the next step is to combine two 4x4 matrices and 90º couplers, with minimum risk on schedule

It should be noted that the maximum power that can be handled at beam port level (due to multipaction) needs to be carefully assessed during the development phase. This power handling capability will establish the limit on the achievable flexibility in terms of RF power and bandwidth that can be assigned to any beam.

Considering this RF power limitation, a possible alternative would be the use of two separated 4x4 MPAs instead of an 8x8 MPA, with lower development risk.

Another aspect to be considered is the achievement of good RF isolation between beam ports through temperature range and ageing of the TWTAs. The implementation of on board self-compensation of TWTA’s phase tracking errors should be evaluated and implemented. A related ARTES 5 activity is planned to start by second half of 2007.

An 8x8 or 4x4 MPA compatible with a flight objective in 2010 could be available with an additional investment of 2 M€.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 65

5.5.2.5 Q/V-band technologies

In Q-band (40 GHz), a 25-30W breadboard of a TWT has already been developed by THALES in collaboration with CNES. An EQM could be available mid to end 2008. However, there is no activity in the current ARTES-5 work plan. The cost of developing an EQM of such a Q-band TWT is estimated around 3 M€.

For the other active and passive Q/V-band equipments, the required technologies are already available from within Europe. There is however, a need for development activity to qualify the specific Equipment designs. This is considered to be a low development risk and compatible with the 2010/2011 horizon.

If Q-Band technologies were thought to be unavailable within the project timescales, the Data Relay link could also be realised using parts of the Ka-Band spectrum. A frequency allocation (separate to that used by the main payload) is made in the ITU Radio Regulations for ‘Feeder Links’ operating in the Ka-Band. This would result in minor changes to the predicted Mass and Power Budgets.

5.5.2.6 High Data Rate on-Board Modulator

The deployment of the high bit rate modulator that can support information bit rates as high as 600 Mbits/sec is an innovative step that will offer considerable saving in payload mass and required DC power. The SCCC Turbo code is properly designed to allow for parallelization of the encoder and interleaver. This is essential for a high data rate link such as the one envisaged for Q/V band data relay link in this mission. The design of such modulator can benefit from the results and experience of prototype modulator design under ESA MHOMS project. The cost of development of such on-board modulator is expected to be around 1 M€.

As a fall back solution in the case of delay or unavailability of the high data rate modulator the use of standard on-board TT&C equipment could be considered. The achievable data rate for such equipment is significantly lower than that considered as the baseline for this mission. In order to maintain the same throughput, a larger number of on-board modulators should be considered which has impact on mass and DC power consumption. An alternative approach could be the use data compression techniques. However, the processing power required on-board for such task can be prevent its use.

5.5.2.7 Optical Terminal

The following developments are proposed in order to support the optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite. Note that some related developments are already on going in the frame of the ALPHASAT Technology Development Payloads. The list is sorted according to the highest priority:

• Efficient high-power (10 W) optical amplifier at 1064nm: 1 MEuro, 18 months.

• Lightweight optical structures (telescope, coarse pointing mechanism, overall mechanical structure): 3 MEuro, 24months.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 66

• Development of WDM technologies to achieve data rates up to 1.2 Gbps if 8XX nm technology is selected: 0.5 MEuro, 12 months.

5.5.2.8 Space Segment Technological Innovation Summary

Table 25 below summarises the main payload technology developments required for the mission. Included in the table the estimated costs of the envisaged development programme, as well as the fall-back solution (and associated impact to the mission) should the chosen technology not be ready within the project timescales.

Baseline Non recurring cost Back-up solution Impact

OBP with 500 MHz per port

8-10 M€ OBP with 125/250 MHz per port

Reduced Connectivity Flexibility, e.g. restricted frequency bands or numbers of UAVs per theatre.

200 W Ka-band LTWTAs

3 M€ 130 W Ka-band LTWTAs

Either decreased EIRP density (i.e. either decreased capacity or availability)

Or reduction of the number of theatre links

Flexible 100 W

Ka-band TWTAs

1 M€ Use devices currently under development for HYLAS mission or existing fixed gain TWTs .

Small reduction in efficiency (slight reduction in total capacity). Reduced flexibility in payload operational scenarios.

Ka-band 8x8 MPA 3 M€ Two Ka-band 4x4 MPAs

Reduced flexibility in power allocation to the beams

Q-band TWTA 3 M€ Ka-band TWTA Frequency co-ordination in Ka-Band feeder link spectrum.

High Data Rate on-board Modulator

1 M€ Standard on-board TT&C equipment

Lower achievable data rate. Higher mass and power consumption.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 67

Baseline Non recurring cost Back-up solution Impact

Efficient high-power (10Watts) optical amplifier at 1064nm

1 M€ 5W optical amplifier at 1064nm under national development

Reduced link margin. Beacon acquisition scheme might be needed.

Lightweight optical structures

3 M€ Use devices currently under development for ESA’s ALPHASAT mission or French MoD LOLA programme

Mass and power consumption increase of the optical terminal (10% margin considered in the budgets) or small data rate reduction of the ODR link

WDM technologies at 8XX nm

1 M€ Use of dichroic filters for simple wavelength multiplexing / demultiplexing

Reduction of data rate for the ODR link

Table 25: Key Space Technology Development Summary

5.5.3 Ground Segment

This section provides technological innovations foreseen in the design and deployments of user terminals in the ground segment. The ground segment definitions and requirements as described in Sect. 5.3, is based on innovative technological advancement in several areas as described in the following subsections:

User Optical Terminals

The following developments are proposed in order to support the ground segment optical terminal (on board a LEO satellite, UAV, airplane/aircraft, counter GEO satellite or a ground-based station). Some of these developments are also applicable to the SGEO optical terminal. The list is sorted according to the highest priority:

• Vibration compensation module for robust optical communications from aerial platforms: 1.5 MEur, 24 months.

• Efficient high-power (10 W) optical amplifier at 1064nm: 1 MEuro, 18 months. Required also for the SGEO optical terminal (see Sect. 5.5.2.8).

• High-power high-bandwidth lasers at 8XXnm (for data rates >600 Mbps, average optical power>250 mW): 1.5 MEuro, 24 months.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 68

• High bandwidth fine pointing mirror mechanism: 0.75 MEuro, 24 months.

• Lightweight optical structures (telescope, coarse pointing mechanism, overall mechanical structure, integrated optical bench): 3MEuro, 24months. Partly required also for the SGEO optical terminal (see Sect. 5.5.2.8).

• Development of WDM technologies at 8XX nm: 0.5MEuro, 12 month. Required also for the SGEO optical terminal (see Sect. 5.5.2.8).

Ka-band UAV and Land Mobile Antennas

The antennas onboard UAVs and those installed on moving land vehicles must have the capability to steer their beam, both in azimuth and in elevation, in order to keep pointing at the satellite.

Current user terminal antennas for moving vehicles incorporate scanning concepts that make use of full mechanical steering or hybrid mechanical scanning in azimuth and electronic steering in elevation. In addition, they mainly work in the Ku-band and in the receive mode.

In order to improve on scanning agility (or even to enable multiple beams from one single terminal), and to further reduce the volume of these terminals, fully electronic steering in 2D is required. This is especially important on UAVs, where aerodynamics place major restrictions on the shape of the antenna. Concepts such as conformal array antennas for UAVs, and distributed arrays for land vehicles, can be envisaged.

In addition, the following developments should be required:

Development Estimated

non-recurring cost

Qualification of current demonstrators of active receive Ku-band antennas

600 K€

Upgrade of fully active terminal antennas from Ku-band to Ka-band 500 K€

Evolution from dual-linear polarisation capability to full polarisation agility, possibly also including circular polarisation capability

500 K€

Evolution from of receive-only mode to combined transmit/receive mode

1.5 M€

Table 26: Ground Antenna Technology Development Summary

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 69

6 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed small GEO mission represents the first component of a global system with at least 3 satellites dedicated to support EU security operations, as described in the report from the ESA WG on Space and European Security.

The mission provides fixed, broadcast, mobile and data relay satellite services into five theatre of operations. The system can simultaneously support data relay from 12 UAVs (at 60 Mbps each) and 1 EO LEO satellite (at 1.2 Gbps) towards Europe, and broadband interactive communications from five theatres of operation with a nominal capacity of 150 Mbps per theatre which represents more than 150 terminals simultaneously active on each theatre (both fixed and mobile).

The payload design offers unlimited flexibility in terms of coverage, bandwidth and power allocation. The five theatre spots can be steered independently over the satellite field of view (1/3 globe) allowing overlapping between them and the EU coverage region. The system allocates a nominal bandwidth of 125 MHz per theatre with a peak bandwidth allocation up to 500 MHz. In terms of power, the five theatre spots completely share the on-board power by means of a multi-port amplifier thus allowing any distribution of power between spots. In addition, unused power by the optical data relay mission could be reallocated to the European coverage increasing the downlink capacity over Europe (e.g. higher number of UAVs supported).

The proposed system introduces some level of technological innovation that maximised the efficiency of the small GEO mission. The proposed innovative technologies match well under the 2011 timeframe.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 70

7 ANNEX 1: REVIEW OF SPACE AND SECURITY RELATED INITIATIVES

This Annex provides an inventory of activities which are undertaken by the various players in the field of Space and Security.

For clarity, the activities have been categorized in activities of the EU Council, the European Commission and various internal ESA activities.

7.1 EU COUNCIL

7.1.1 Document “Generic Space Needs Requirements”

7.1.1.1 Aims

This document was prepared by the EU Military Council, as a step in the road map towards the ESDP. It is one of two, the other concerning ‘specific space system requirements drawn from RC05’, classified CONFIDENTIAL. This latter document could contain much useful, more detailed, information. It presents a compendium of generic space system needs for ESDP military operations. It is aimed to allow the Commission and Member States to identify possible multiple-use capabilities inherent in civilian systems under development.

7.1.1.2 Method

The document was produced by updating the previous EUMS document “Space System Needs for Military Operations” (793/03 dated 27 May 2003).

7.1.1.3 Main messages

The document starts by summarising

• the types of EU Crisis Management Operations: • Humanitarian and rescue tasks • Peacekeeping tasks • Tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking

• the threats as identified in the European Security Strategy: • Terrorism • Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction • Regional conflicts • State failure • Organised crime

• The commitments of the MS under HLG2010 (see 7.1.2):

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 71

o Respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty of the EU

o To act before a crisis occurs o To conduct concurrent operations at different levels of engagement

• Respond as a stand alone force or as part of a larger force

• Deploy force packages at high readiness

The EU Military Staff will perform:

• Early warning • Situation assessment • Strategic planning for missions and tasks

The report stresses that space based assets can provide data, information and services free from any sovereignty and legal constraints. The report includes support to the whole military task, especially the support to strategic/political decision making. It deals with:

• Communications • Earth Observation (EO) • Signals Intelligence • Early Warning • Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT)

The report also mentions space surveillance “in order to stress the need for protection of the systems” (i.e. space surveillance in this context means the ability to monitor space based assets so that they can be protected).

Of these, EO receives most discussion in terms of number of words (4 pages out of the 10 devoted to discussing to above list).

The report identifies the need for harmonisation of standards in order to assist integration of new space systems with existing military systems.

7.1.1.4 Relevance to satellite communications

The report identifies 3 areas of CIS connectivity to be considered:

• At the political/military level down to the OHQ • Between the OHQ/EU Ops Centre and its subordinate HQs and • To the local theatre CIS (tactical level)

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 72

(The report does not give any definitions of the terms OHQ or EU Ops Centre: they seem to be used synonymously. It is assumed OHQ stands for operational HQ. It seems to be used to refer to the HQ in Europe, rather than a deployed HQ in Theatre, but this is not altogether clear.)

The first priority is for basic IERs at strategic level between the OHQ and its deployed subordinate HQs to be supported by EU military satellite links, with Member States own national systems, and commercial services preferably with military encryption, as back-up.

Use of SATCOM should also be considered at the operational and tactical level, used in conjunction with local Theatre CIS infrastructure. In particular for networking to the individual soldier (observers, special forces etc), the report says ‘there is a need for directly accessible satcom.’

The services which can be provided are:

• Very high data rate communications (bi-directional to multidirectional including videoconferencing) and datacast, between strategic fixed users and theatre deployed users (decision and operations management centres, headquarters, harbours, airfields, ISTAR information systems, logistic nodes etc)

• High to very high data rate interconnections between space-based, aerial, maritime and ground sensors, platforms and assets, including ISTAR information systems (data relay mission service);

• Low to medium data rate communications between mobile terminals (handheld, ground vehicle mounted, aerial platforms and weapons of all kinds) and between mobile terminals and fixed terminals

• Multimedia services for operational and domestic services (audio and videoconferences, satellite imagery data transmissions…)

• Traditional services (fax, telephony…)

• Netted and point-to-point over the horizon secure voice and data services between strategic and fixed users, deployed theatre users and mobile users.

It is noted that it is desirable to protect communications against jamming and spoofing.

7.1.1.5 Relevance to scenarios/missions

The report gives no detailed scenario information, beyond the very general types of mission.

The report uses the term ‘Early Warning’ several times but with two meanings: first in the general sense of providing early warning of incipient crises, second in the specific sense of early warning of missile launch,

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 73

a concept generally associated with Missile Defence at the Strategic level, eg the firing of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads at a deployed force, or at the European mainland. This scenario would represent a considerable extension of the term ‘security’, and would be a demanding one for communication systems.

7.1.1.6 Relevance to Information Exchange Requirements

There is no detailed discussion of IERs. The report makes no direct link between satellite communications and the other space functions (EO, SIGINT etc). However, it can reasonably be inferred that the extensive requirements discussed for EO and SIGINT data, may themselves generate significant IERs for passing intelligence products, and for data relay.

7.1.2 HEADLINE GOAL 2010

7.1.2.1 Aims/scope

In Headline Goal 2010 Member States have decided to commit themselves to be able by 2010 to respond with rapid and decisive action applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the Treaty on the European Union. This includes humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. As indicated by the European Security Strategy this might also include joint disarmament operations, the support for third countries in combating terrorism and security sector reform. The EU must be able to act before a crisis occurs and preventive engagement can avoid that a situation deteriorates. The EU must retain the ability to conduct concurrent operations thus sustaining several operations simultaneously at different levels of engagement.

7.1.2.2 Method

Not known


Salient points are:

• Response based on the high readiness, rapid reaction Battlegroup concept • Timescale for operations: On decision making, the ambition of the EU is to be able to take the

decision to launch an operation within 5 days of the approval of the Crisis Management Concept by the Council. The ambition is that the forces start implementing their mission on the ground, no later than 10 days after the EU decision to launch the operation.

• Significant milestones: o the complete development by 2007 of rapidly deployable battlegroups including the

identification of appropriate strategic lift, sustainability and debarkation assets; o the availability of an aircraft carrier with its associated air wing and escort by 2008;

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 74

o to improve the performance of all levels of EU operations by developing appropriate compatibility and network linkage of all communications equipment and assets both terrestrial and space based by 2010

• Headline Goal 2010 will generate the necessary analysis, adaptation and development of scenarios in view of the development of new Headline Goal Catalogues as required by the EU Capability Development Mechanism2 (including a clear categorisation of capabilities to tasks), incorporation of rapid response capability3 and further improvement of C2 capabilities on operations.

• Importance of EU/UN and EU/NATO collaboration


The work of the Space Based Assets Project Group will contribute to the development of an EU space policy by 2006.

To improve the performance of all levels of EU operations by developing appropriate compatibility and network linkage of all communications equipment and assets both terrestrial and space based by 2010;

7.1.2.5 Relevance to scenarios/missions and user needs

Rapid reaction Battlegroup concept

7.1.2.6 Relevance to communication requirements

Work of the ISTAR Information Exchange framework Project Group will contribute to the development of an EU information-sharing policy and associated framework for implementation by 2010, with an interim architecture by 2006;

7.1.3 ESDP presidency report

7.1.3.1 Aims/scope

Reports progress in the ESDP.

7.1.3.2 Method

n/a


The report observes that “the EU is now undertaking a wide range of civilian and military missions, on three continents, with tasks ranging from peacekeeping and monitoring implementation of a peace process to advice and assistance in military, police, border monitoring and rule of law sectors. Further missions are under active preparation.”

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 75

The following missions are described.

Mission Name Location Description

ALTHEA (Military) Bosnia and Herzegovina

Provide deterrence, reassurance and a safe and secure environment

Provide assistance to the fight against organised crime and capacity building for local authorities and law enforcement agencies, and support to the Mission Implementation Plan of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) as well as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Establishing sustainable policing arrangements under Bosnian ownership, through monitoring

mentoring and inspecting.

The EU Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,(EUPOL

PROXIMA)

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

monitoring and mentoring of police on priority issues including

Border Police, Public Peace and Order and Accountability and the fight against corruption and

Organised Crime

The EU Police Mission in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa)

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

to monitor, mentor and advise on the setting up and initial running of the Integrated

Police Unit in Kinshasa.

The ESDP mission to DRC, EUSEC/RD Congo,

DRC To provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the DRC

EU Integrated Rule of Law

mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX).

Iraq Training Iraqi officials and Law professionals

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 76


Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM)

Indonesia monitoring mission to monitor the compliance of the parties to their commitments under the peace agreement between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) (eg the decommissioning and destruction of GAM weapons and the relocation of non-organic units

of the Indonesian security forces)

Border Assistance Mission at Rafah

(EU BAM Rafah)

Palestinian Territories

EUBAM Rafah will actively monitor, verify and evaluate Palestinian performance; build up Palestinian capacity in all aspects of border management at Rafah; and contribute to liaison between the Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian authorities on management of the Rafah Border-crossing. EU BAM Rafah will liaise with EUPOL COPPS as regards the role and presence of Palestinian civil police at the Rafah crossing-point and the support provided by the Palestinian civil police to the security of EU BAM Rafah and its personnel.

EU Police Mission for the

Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)

Palestinian territories

to support the Palestinian Authority in establishing sustainable and effective policing arrangements.

EU Rule of Law Mission in Georgia (EUJUST THEMIS)

Georgia to assist the Georgian authorities with implementation of the Criminal Justice Reform Action Plan and to ensure continuity with further support provided through European Community programmes.

to reinforce the EUSR for the Southern Caucasus with a team to provide support and advice on the reform of the Georgian Border Guard, mentoring of the Guard Force in the field and continued assessment of the Georgian border situation.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 77


Supporting action to the African Union mission (AMIS

II)

Darfur, Sudan Support to AMIS’s civilian policing capacity, through support to the AMIS II chain of command, pre-deployment training and training courses for trainers.

Also, military assistance to AMIS in terms of planning and management support, funding, and logistics. This includes provision of: equipment and assets, planning and technical assistance to all AMIS II levels of command, additional military observers, training for African troops and observers forming part of AMIS II enhancement, and strategic and tactical air transport.

EU Border assistance Mission

BAM

Moldova/Ukraine co-operating closely with the Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities in order to contribute to the fight against weapons trafficking, smuggling, organised crime and corruption.

Table 27: EU Civilian and Military Missions

Progress with Development of European military capabilities is discussed. This includes work towards meeting the requirements set out under the Headline Goal 2010 (see 7.1.2). It says work is continuing to finalise the Requirements Catalogue 05. This identifies the military capabilities and force requirements needed for the EU to fulfil the tasks stemming from the Treaty of the European Union (Art. 17.2) and the European Security Strategy and for the objectives set out in the Headline Goal 2010. The report indicates that this catalogue contains planning assumptions and scenarios, and that Operational Analysis of these scenarios has been conducted. It puts renewed emphasis on rapidly deployable, highly interoperable armed forces that can be sustained as necessary over long periods on operations through rotation of forces and provision of the requisite enabling, support and logistic elements. The Catalogue takes account of the EU's ambition to be able to run concurrent operations thus sustaining several operations simultaneously at different levels of engagement.

As part of the Requirements Catalogue 05, a list of reference units was developed, reflecting the military units or assets necessary to deliver the capabilities. They form part of the supplement to the Requirements Catalogue 05.

The report notes that ‘from January 2007, the EU will have the full operational capability to undertake two battlegroup size operations of rapid response, including the ability to launch two such operations nearly simultaneously.’ Operational HQs (OHQs) for the various Battlegroup packages have been identified.

The EU Satellite Centre (SATCEN) continued to work in support of ESDP related activities, in particular for EU missions to Aceh (AMM), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ALTHEA), Sudan/Darfur (support to AMIS

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 78

II), Georgia (EUJUST-THEMIS) and the Palestinian Territories (EUCOPPS); for EUMS and SITCEN counter-proliferation and contingency planning; and for EU exercises MILEX 05 and CME 06.

Progress was also made on new rapidly-deployable civilian capabilities. A concept for setting up and deploying Civilian Response Teams (CRTs) was agreed, with the initial goal, for the end of 2006, of a CRT pool of up to 100 experts. New doctrine for the rapid deployment of police, including robust capabilities such as Integrated Police Units and Formed Police Units has also been developed.


There is no specific reference in the report to satellite communications. However, the report notes that “with the finalisation of the Requirements Catalogue 05 it will now be possible to extract and refine the actual ESDP requirements for space-based capabilities”.


It seems from the description in the report that much work has been done in the area of mission and scenario analysis, in the context of Requirements Catalogue 05. This will be essential source material.

The same applies to the work reported on Battlegroup deployments.

The civil EU initiatives (mainly around support in the area of policing and the rule of law) are tangible examples of this sort of scenario.

The report refers to the terms of reference and methodology for a study of the Maritime Dimension of ESDP in the context of Headline Goal 2010 being agreed and states that this should provide the basis for a thorough examination of present and future EU maritime missions, requirements and capabilities. Any work which has been conducted could provide an input on maritime scenarios to our study.

The report lists a number of Exercises already carried out or that were planned for 2006:

• MILEX 05 ( 22 November to 1 December 2005). The exercise focused on key military aspects and marked the first occasion on which an EU Operation Headquarters (OHQ) was fully activated as part of an EU exercise. It concentrated on the interaction between an EU Operation HQ in France and an EU Force Headquarters in Germany in the context of an autonomous EU-led UN authorized military operation.

• Crisis management exercise in 2006 (CME 06), to be held in the period 25 September to 6 October 2006. The aim of CME 06 is to exercise and evaluate a range of EU crisis management structures, new concepts, and to validate the EU decision making process, with a view to improving the EU capacity to manage crises requiring Rapid Response with civilian and military instruments. CME 06 will exercise, inter alia, cooperation with the UN in crisis management.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 79

• EU Exercise Study EVAC 06 to be held in April 2006. The aim of EVAC 06 is to consider aspects related to the planning and conduct of an EU evacuation operation using military means, and the necessary co-ordination modalities with the consular authorities.

These could be followed up for useful information.


The apparently extensive mission and scenario analysis work, and EDA C3 studies, could contain information about IERs.

The Communication Staff who are participating in the activities listed (ALTHEA etc) may be able to provide IER information.

IER data may be available from the EU Exercises.

7.1.4 ESDP and SPACE

7.1.4.1 Aims/scope

From the inception of the ESDP, it has been recognised that Space technologies have a key role to play. In 2003/4, the EU Council developed a Space Policy, as a guideline for the co-ordination of all actions in the field of the use of Space assets for ESDP purposes

7.1.4.2 Method

Not known


The Policy identifies the following as the key benefits of space technologies:

• Satellite imagery to provide information for early warning

• To contribute to operational capabilities and readiness, (imagery, communications, positioning and timing)

The policy identifies the need for nations to share access to their existing space assets and space derived data and services, and for future programmes to embody security requirements form the outset, to maximise the possibilities of dual use. Nevertheless, the policy recommends that European space should remain primarily driven by civil requirements.

The paper recommends that, based on agreed operational needs, the following actions could be undertaken:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 80

• In the short term, arrangements allowing the EU to have access to some Member states' owned military assets or data originated by them, as well as to civilian assets with dual-use capabilities, would constitute a first step towards providing the EU with space capacities to support ESDP.

• In the medium term, Member States should aim at complementing this pool of capacities through voluntary contributions or other proposals in terms of partnership, exchange of capacities or sharing of data.

• In the longer term, the requirements for space capabilities needed for security and defence as well as for other purposes should be developed and agreed upon, and drive future programmes that may be the subject of multilateral co-operative projects supported or possibly managed by the EDA on behalf of Member States.

It may be necessary for the EU to have permanent access to certain space assets. Also, agreement and enforcement of common standards will be necessary to ensure interoperability between diverse systems.


The report states: ‘A communication satellite designed to bridge the "digital divide" could easily support operational traffic, encrypted off-line, without any modification. with a capacity of 600 Mb/s, where military requirements for operational data transmission are less than 4 Mb/s.’

7.1.5 SPASEC report

7.1.5.1 Aims/scope

In June 2004 the Space and Security Panel of Experts (SPASEC) was convened by the EC. The primary mission of the Panel of Experts was to provide the Commission with a Report on the security issues raised in the White Paper on European Space Policy. This technical work would, in particular, appraise capabilities identified by operational groups and users, define synergies, and make proposals for inclusion in the European Space Programme. The report covers the preliminary assessment of those issues as a contribution to the future European space programme which was to be established early in 2005.

7.1.5.2 Method

The panel considered issues relating to both civil and military security, response to terrorism, natural disasters, especially those which occur rapidly such as earthquakes and tsunamis, industrial accidents and shared threats to be within scope of its work. A number of user needs were identified together with a set of requirements to meet them. Existing systems were then considered to identify the gaps between perceived requirements and current capability. The identified needs and requirements form a comprehensive list of possible needs and requirements in this field. Ground based alternatives were not systematically explored and no priorities were determined or agreed among the experts. Further discussion and decision-making among member states was judged to be needed to determine which actually qualify as agreed needs or requirements.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 81


The report made the following salient points:

• The boundary between ‘civil’ and ‘military’ security has become increasingly blurred. • Hitherto, European space efforts have been directed at the civil and commercial domains. Whilst

the civil and commercial domains should still be the priority, there should be more engagement with Europe’s security authorities

The Experts identified a set of User Needs:

The primary user needs identified by the panel10 in support of security policies are:

• N1: Improved performance data acquisition with: o world-wide coverage o high image quality, including high to very high (one meter or better) spatial resolution

electro-optical and radar imagery where appropriate o all weather night and day observations o adequate acquisition and frequent revisit times

• N2: Improved collection of critical data: o population (location of people, health statistics, poverty index) o infrastructure (road, rail, hospitals) o resources (oil, water, food) o geography (maps)

• N3: Improved production of information and response to user’ needs: o integration of data from different sources, images combined with GIS-generated

background data o rapid data interpretation and integration, as well as visualisation of the information o off-the-shelf applications to meet users’ priority needs o further analysis of users’ needs

• N4: Improved access to critical data: o better interface between users and data providers o improved access to existing database

• N5: Improved dissemination of critical and security information services to diverse user communities:

o Secure communications networks o More data exchange programmes

• N6: Improved interoperability of systems used by various organisations and rescue services in different countries and adequate communication tools.

They mapped these against space services:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 82

Table 28: Mapping of user needs against space services


The report identifies that secure communications services are needed for a range of applications. These services are required to support the evolving “network enabled capability” (NEC) that some member states are developing as well as the more general institutional communications networks required by the transport, policing and information gathering communities. In order to meet these requirements, these systems must ensure:

• a very high level of secure connectivity, an appropriate number of highly responsive and reconfigurable links, connecting headquarters (crisis management centres, police HQ, ISTAR & C2), sensors and the forces deployed in operational areas anywhere in the world (including maritime areas) and ad-hoc operations management centres in Europe

• interoperability with member states, user communities and defence NATO systems • high data rate communications (bi-directional and multidirectional including videoconferencing)

and datacast, between fixed users (decision and operations management centres, headquarters, harbours, airfields, information systems, logistics)

• high to very high data rate interconnections between space-based, aerial, maritime and terrestrial sensors, platforms and assets and monitoring “existing communication” networks and instrumentation, including information systems and early warning systems; apt and robust communications to relay information from early warning centre to population at risk is also critical

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 83

• low to medium data rate communications between mobile terminals (handheld, ground vehicle mounted, aerial platforms) and between mobile and fixed terminals

• Wide band air to ground communications for which it is clear that operational users need such services on a highly reliable basis but with real cost effective solutions that are affordable to a wide range of user categories. The user ground segment must ensure high reliability and availability with terrestrial telecommunication infrastructure.

The lack of very high data / high data rate mobile telecommunications is noted to be a capability gap which is shared by both ‘security/defence’ and ‘non-security’ related communities.

All the systems (ground-based, maritime, airborne, space based) contributing to situational awareness for crisis management or disaster relief operations need to be programmed and to transmit their data in the shortest time. Up to now, the efficiency of all these systems, in particular current Earth Observation satellite systems, has been limited by the lack of globally available very high data rate mobile communications systems. Satellites in geostationary orbit or highly elliptical orbits with very high data rate telecommunications capabilities with geomobile (ground-based, maritime, airborne) and low earth orbit satellites must overcome this capability gap. These satellites, known as data relay satellite system, are needed but development and commissioning of such systems is too costly to be borne by each single user. This is an enabling infrastructure capability to support security/defence related activities, in particular in the fields of transportation security, crisis management and disaster relief operations, but also to facilitate new services (e.g. entertainment services aboard aircrafts).

In their conclusions, the Experts observe that the EU and ESA have been aware for some time of the relevance of telecommunications for security and risk management, and some projects have been financed in order to establish better co-ordination among national initiatives in different emergencies. It seems therefore appropriate that a similar initiative should originate in the field of institutional and emergency telecommunications. Co-ordination among national initiatives in this area appears urgent. Attention should be focused on:

• Network and service interoperability • End-to-end satellite telecommunications systems • Convergence and integration of satellite telecommunications with other space applications

domains

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 84

Relevance to scenarios/missions and user needs

Table 29: Communities of Interest

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 85

The panel established an initial grouping as a working model which includes the following communities of activities:

• Services: this includes security aspects of Transport (road, rail, aviation, maritime, inland navigation) inter alia facilitating affordable real time communication on position information and securing the navigation and positioning systems themselves, Energy (surveillance of production and distribution of energy), Environment (including natural disasters and industrial accidents, terrorist attacks e.g. dirty bomb) and Telecommunications (all forms of critical infrastructure).

• Civil protection and search and rescue operations: including tasks within the borders or territorial waters of Europe for management of natural and technological risks and disasters.

• Policing and intelligence: the shifting pattern of co-operation between agencies both in internal and external related tasks creates new needs and requirements for which space services can provide added value, including early warning, situation awareness, and critical event monitoring.

• Cross border control and border surveillance: illegal immigration, organised crime, trafficking of humans/drugs , illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons as well as goods of proliferation concern (e.g. WMD), and other things have created a real need for greater multi-agency cooperation and efficient use of technology to combat today’s set of threats.

• Crisis management teams: civilian, military and mixed crisis management operations, both during the crisis prevention phase together with the planning and conduct of crisis management phases, including early warning, preparedness, and response.

• Humanitarian aid and international co-operation: covering both civil and military involvement in specific operations.

Appendix A of the report contains a mapping of user needs to ‘security scenarios’, e.g.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 86

.

Table 30: Space System Needs and Scenarios Matrix

7.2 EUROPEAN COMISSION

7.2.1 EC PASR: ASTRO+ study results

7.2.1.1 Aims/scope

ASTRO+ stands for ‘Advanced Space Technologies to suppoRt security Operations’. ASTRO+ is part of the European Commission’s Preparatory Action on Security Research (PASR), which itself is part of the 7th European framework programme (FP7). ASTRO+ aimed to show EU Stakeholders the immediate benefits of space, as a complementary tool, for security. The study was conducted by a consortium of 22

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 87

partners, coordinated by EADS Astrium, drawn from public authorities, industry, universities, institutions and think-tanks from 9 European countries.

The programme was carried out from January to March 2006, and included an ‘experiment’ (or demonstration?) conducted in Poland in February 2006, with 200 decision makers in Zegrze in Poland & 350 in Toulouse.

7.2.1.2 Method

The study was based on a scenario covering the 4 phases of a complex crisis: Strategic surveillance, Mission planning, Crisis management, Post crisis & reconstruction. This was based on the civilian ‘Petersberg’ tasks.

ASTRO+ involved all actors relevant to this scenario including:

• Rescue forces (Civil Protection …) • Peace keeping forces (Military forces, Military police…) • Council of Europe, United Nations, European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) • Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)

The study examined the integrated use of space technologies – Earth Observation (EO), Telecommunication (TC) and Navigation (NAV). By setting this within the context of the above scenario, a definition of new space technologies relevant to user needs in security missions was derived.


The main conclusions from the study were, in outline:

• The programme served to bring together the large and diverse range of actors, and thereby to provide a much better appreciation of the user context and constraints in terms of current equipment, training etc

• The programme provided an understanding of what is achievable now, in 5 years time, and beyond

• The need to customize the technology to meet the specific user needs • Use of space technologies can provide people operating in the field with enhanced and up-to-date

understanding of the wider, strategic situation which may result in better decisions. • Use of space technologies to provide better information, and to communicate that information,

improves understanding of the situation between field teams, which may lead to much more effective ‘horizontal’ coordination between different teams and increased efficiency of the whole international effort

• Use of EO data greatly improves situational awareness, especially the provision of updated maps, which in turn leads to better allocation of resources

• A Units ability to locate itself and other units greatly improves coordination • Satellite communications facilitates the use of advanced information systems • Use of satellite technology allows an Operational Centre remote from the disaster area to provide

expert advice, and, through better situational awareness, to make better strategic decisions

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 88

The study recommended, jointly with the SeNTRE study, further demonstrations in the next FP7 programme, including demonstration of the coordinated use of:

• Space and airborne monitoring capabilities • Field deployable communication capabilities • Integration of navigation techniques in support of logistics and forces management • Possible demonstrator of an integrated rapidly deployable humanitarian crisis Management

System


The demonstration included a Secure telecom network deployed to enable end-users in-the-field, at situation and operational centres to access the EO, NAV and TC services. There was a ‘civil’ (=non-secure) TC architecture and a ‘highly secure’ architecture, see Figure 19 and Figure 20 respectively.

Figure 16: ASTRO+ civil demonstration architecture

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 89

Figure 17: ASTRO+ secured demonstration architecture

The main thrusts of the work were to investigate:

• Interoperability between different communities of end users exploiting the same system infrastructure

• Interoperability between end users exploiting the same telecom applications: collaborative work, conferencing, VPN, across heterogeneous segments of a same systems

• end-to-end security to protect data transmitted by users, whatever be the application or the equipment used.

The main TC functions supported were:

• Video conferencing, including sharing of data and whiteboard • Media Back Link – live video streaming from field locations • WIFI capability surrounding mobile satellite communication terminal • Integrated ruggedized PC Tablets for extensive use by in-field teams • Internet access to World Wide Web • Fully managed voice / media services with a broadcast overlay • connection with PSTN or GSM users

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 90


The particular scenario chosen concerned a dam being cracked by an earthquake, and a consequent need to evacuate civilians from the threatened area. The following table itemises the breakdown of functions carried out by the various actors in the different phases of the scenario:

Strategic

Surveillance

Mission

Planning

Crisis

Management

Post Crisis

Peacekeeping Forces

Intelligence

Detection and reconnaissance

Tactical Identification;

Deployment Preparation

Peace Enforcement

Population Evacuation

Civil Protection Conflict Damage Evaluation

First Aid and Rescue Preparation

First Rescue

Food Aid UN Organisation, NGOs

Food Autonomy Evaluation

Food Aid Transport Preparation

Food Aid to Refugees

Food Aid & Training Programme

Medical Aid NGOs

Disease Spread Evaluation

Medical Aid Transport Preparation

Medical Aid to Refugees

Law Enforcement Forces

Peace Keeping

Population Protection

Law Enforcement

Table 31: ASTRO+ selected scenario description


The main information flows which were supported are described as being from ‘On-field users’ (= Users in the field) to ‘operational users’ (= users in the Operational HQ).

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 91

Field user Operational user

Position

Message Interchange

Emergency Message

Map indicating damaged areas

EO imagery

Field Unit Admin Service

Field Unit Tracking Service

Controlling and Monitoring Field Units

Geofencing Services:•Route finding•Corridor Monitoring•Area Monitoring

GEO Data Repository

Figure 18: ASTRO+ information flows for selected scenario

7.2.2 EC PASR: SENTRE study results

7.2.2.1 Aims/scope

The report is an executive summary of the final report on the SeNTRE study carried out by the SeNTRE Consortium. This study developed a Strategy for Security Research for the European Commission, Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry.

7.2.2.2 Method

The Executive Summary says nothing about the methods adopted.


The Executive Summary presents findings in two parts.

Part 1 offers reflections on the support initiatives etc which are required if the Strategy is to be successful. There is nothing of direct relevance to our study.

Part 2 outlines a Security Strategy Research Plan. Particularly relevant aspects are the following recommendations:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 92

• Development of a set of scenarios and a typology for classification of threats (vignettes), allowing a comprehensive analysis of security missions. The mission classification is presented in the D2.1 (Ref 1) report. (threats and mission classification)

• Development of a methodology to investigate systematically each of the ten security missions (with related security functions) and the capability needs and related technologies which could meet those needs. (methodology)

• Development of a database to present the work undertaken in a comprehensive way. This database was created to allow cross-analysis between missions, capabilities and technologies. The database is a key tool for analysis and systematic overview. It is reported in D1.2 (Ref 2) document and made available for the Commission internal work. (database of missions, capabilities and technologies)

The result of the capability driven investigation using this methodology is reported extensively in Chapter 3 of the Strategic Research Plan (D6.2). Summary statements have been developed–one for each mission area – in which the priorities for development of different technologies and technology demonstrations at short/medium and long term time perspectives are presented. (capability driven priorities for

development of technologies for security applications)

Requirements clearly are dependent on the predicted intensity-level of possible catastrophes, and SeNTRE focussed on more canonical needs below the level of high-intensity crises. Requirements will also depend on the level of integration, and in a long-term perspective the impact of different levels of integration and different levels of crisis should to be considered. Important trade-offs will exist between short term or mid-term solutions at the expense of intermediate approaches. (requirements evolution, ability to upgrade)

SeNTRE strongly benefited from the involvement of Users to qualify the needs. A fundamental SeNTRE output has been the genesis of a network of experts and users who can identify both key issues and potential solutions. The importance of sustaining and deepening this network is stressed. (User involvement)

As already mentioned, the SeNTRE study has elaborated a set of scenarios and a typology for the classification of threats (vignettes), This list is certainly not exhaustive. The future development and ongoing review of flexible scenarios, adapted to new threats and taking into account new technological opportunities is considered necessary for fully developed research strategy.


A separate, RESTRICTED, document2 summarises the results of a Technology Workshop which addressed the subject of Space technologies for security. It gives a fairly top level breakdown of the technologies recommended by the partners in satellite communications (and also SATNAV and surveillance).

2 Technology Workshops report : D5.1; SeNTRE-PGR-ASD-COMM-0007-01_01, 17 January 2006

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 93


SeNTRE has based its work around 10 ‘missions’:

1. Critical Infrastructures Protection 2. Border and coastline surveillance and control 3. Protection of Transportation 4. Protection of distributed networks 5. Population protection (including law enforcement) 6. Non proliferation of WMD and verification 7. Support to EU External Relations 8. CBRNE 9. Crisis management 10. Economic and Monetary protection

In the executive summary, an itemisation is given for each mission under the headings Capability Needs, Key Missions identified and Technical Areas.

In a separate document dated February 20053 on the SeNTRE website, the following list of scenarios is given:

1. HL 1 Cyber and HPM Terrorist Attack on a large Urban and Financial Centre (TNO)

2. HL 2 Disruption of Governance/Three versions (IABG)

3. HL 3 Securing Energy Supply (FRS)

4. HL 4 Nuclear Attack on Major European Capital (FOI/new)

5. TR 1 Attack on Harbour with Radiological Weapon (TNO/revised)

6. TR 2 Conventional Attack on Frankfurt International Airport (FRS)

7. TR 3 Bio-Attack on a Major Airport (FOI)

8. SU 1 Simultaneous Conventional Attack on Oil Tankers (QQ/new version)

9. SU 2 Disruption of System of Pipelines (IABG)

10. SU 3 Rebuilding of EU Oil Supply (FRS)

11. SE 1 Emplacement of new terrorist network in Europe (missing)

12. SE 2 Bio-Attack on Major Event outside EU (FOI)

3 Survey of proposed scenarios/vignettes – February 14, 2005

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 94

13. Boost 1 Danger of CBRN Attack due to Failed State Actors and Proliferation (TNO)

14 Boost 2 Control by aggressive Non-State Actors or Coercion by aggressive Successor Regime in Syria (IPSC)

15. Boost 3 Increased Risk or Threat Disruption, Destruction and Killing in Syria (IPSC)

16. Boost 4 Civil War Monitoring and Prevention in Albania (FRS)

17. Boost 5 Civil War Monitoring and Prevention in EU Neighbouring Country (FRS/new)

18. Org. Crime 1

Theft of Fissile/Nuclear Weapon (FOI/new)

(19.) HL Attack by RF with Enhanced Conventional Means against Luthuania (IPSC/omitted)

Table 32: SENTRE example security scenarios

These lists provide a clue to the information requirements relevant to each mission, though at a very high and abstract level.

7.3 ESA

7.3.1 Summary of ESA Wisemen report

7.3.1.1 Aims/scope

This Working Group was set up by the ESA Director General ‘to identify the contribution that space technology could make to the implementation of a European security policy in the domain of external interventions. The basic assumption is that the space capability that Europe has developed over the last decades, essentially for civilian use, could meet certain needs stemming from the emergence of such a European security policy.’

The ESA Working Group restricted its scope to the needs encountered in European external interventions, in particular the “Petersberg tasks” approved by the European Council. These tasks were set out in the Petersberg Declaration adopted at the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union (WEU) in June 1992 and comprise:

• humanitarian and rescue tasks; • peace-keeping tasks; • tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 95

7.3.1.2 Method

The WG started with a review of the history of the ESDP, with its focus on developing rapid reaction capabilities for crisis intervention (e.g. civilian response teams); the Petersberg tasks, and the process which has been established for an EU lead approach to crisis intervention, ie:

• The pledge by member States to make available 60,000 troops, followed by an initiative to develop ‘battle groups for rapid deployment’.

• Parallel developments in civil support for ‘non-military crisis management’ in the areas of police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection

• All this culminating on December 12, 2003, when the European Council approved the establishment of an autonomous Defence Agency and a military-civil planning cell, and also approved a European Security Strategy (ESS) (‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’)

The ESS identifies as key threats to Europe:

• terrorism, • the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, • regional conflicts, • failing states • organised crime.

The WG reviewed the report written for Javier Solana ‘A Human Security Doctrine for Europe’ (‘The Barcelona Report’ ), which places Human rights at the centre of the EU’s approach to security. This proposed that the EU should establish a Human Security Response Force, composed of both military and civilians, which could start as a small force but could easily be scaled up on the basis of experience

The WG then proceeded by the following steps

• to identify some of the informational weaknesses – in terms of telecommunications, positioning, imagery, intelligence – experienced in previous external interventions by European forces, whether operating on their own or within the framework of NATO. This was done by sending a questionnaire to a number of experienced individuals with first hand experience. From this analysis, a summary of the needs and informational deficiencies experienced in these interventions was derived, linked to the equipment available.

• to assess of the services that space assets could provide to remedy the deficiencies identified above. This part of the work was carried out drawing on ESA’s technical expertise.

• To outline the programmatic action that could be taken to remedy identified European weaknesses.


The WG notes the differences between ‘traditional’ military operations, and crisis intervention, with the latter requiring a multi-national force, with many actors, military and civil, governmental and non-

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 96

governmental. There will also be no ‘front line’ in the traditional sense, and there will be a need to cooperate closely with the host nation.

The report identifies as key deficiencies, which can be overcome by space technologies:

• An assured operational space-based telecommunication capability (see 7.3.1.4) • Contextual information (mapping and imagery, weather forecasting, signals intelligence): GMES is

identified as a key gap filler • Tracking, Positioning, Navigation, Search and Rescue: GNSS (EGNOS, Galileo) is identified as

key here.


The report identifies that the absence of adequate telecommunications as a key deficiency. The report identifies the following requirements:

• Wide bandwidth, and a secure connection between Europe and operational headquarters wherever in the world.

• The ability to quickly deploy a regional communication infrastructure, invulnerable to damage to local infrastructure, for secure fixed and mobile communications within the crisis zone, with easy-to-use terminals.

• Broadband secure communication to transmit contextual information from satellite or in-situ, including airborne and UAV systems.

In terms of space services, the WG identifies that the user needs could be met as follows:

• Fixed Satellite Services (FSS): o Telecommunication links allowing connections between fixed terminals in different

network locations as well as with deployed terminals. • Mobile Satellite Services (MSS):

o Telecommunication links for mobile users, notably aeronautical, maritime and terrestrial, for ubiquitous communications capability on the move.

• Data Relay Services (DRS): o High data rate communication between observation systems (space, airborne, including

UAV, or other) and processing centres to improve the overall response time of the system.

A broadcast service, mainly dedicated to voice and data could easily be added to serve the needs of addressing the population and improving communications between the intervening entity and the population, especially when that population is widely scattered.

The report identities the current and planned satcom systems, but notes the key problems that

• These systems have not been designed to form an interoperable system of systems

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 97

• Access cannot be guaranteed to commercial satellites in general, and to national military satellites for nations other than the owner nation.

• Civilian systems are not secure

In the near term (to 2010), the study recommends that architecture studies should be initiated to trade off the implementation of fixed, broadcast, mobile, and data relay satellite services (FSS, BSS, MSS, DRS), dedicated to human security users or shared on a multi-purpose platform. The studies should address space, ground and user segments, and also services. The studies should also address the choice of frequency bands. The final objective could be to satisfy all the user needs by 2015. The number and location of satellites and of the ground segment should be defined and standards should be agreed upon.

Meanwhile, best use should be made of existing fixed and mobile satellite services. In the medium term (2010-2015) the aim should be to start deployment of a dedicated system of satellites dedicated to support of EU crisis intervention, as part of an integrated system for providing contextual information (based on GMES) and navigation and positioning (based on GNSS and Galileo).


There is no detailed reference to scenario and mission details, beyond the general references to broader EU Security assumptions addressed in other documents review here.


The generic types of communications are discussed in the report and have been alluded to in section 7.3.1.4 of this review. It should be ascertained whether any more detailed follow-up studies have been initiated.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 98

8 ANNEX 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING AND PLANNED SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES

8.1 COMMERCIAL ON A GLOBAL SCALE

Commercial mobile communication systems: A number of operational systems are available today providing (quasi)-global or regional coverage. The first category includes Iridium, Globalstar large LEO constellations operating at L and S-band and providing worldwide voice and low-data rate services to dual-mode satellite/GSM hand-held or fixed/maritime terminals. A global system is also provided by Inmarsat through a GEO constellation. The Inmarsat system support different type of services to nomadic, aeronautical, maritime and vehicular terminals. The last I-IV satellites recently launched provide high-speed UMTS services to palmtop/laptop type of terminals.

Regional systems like Thuraya and AceS are based on large GEO satellites operating at L-band illuminating a wide region of the globe. Both are providing 2G voice and low-data rate services to dual-mode satellite/GSM hand-held terminals. Finally the ORBCOMM System is a wide area, packet switched, two-way low-rate data communication system. The system is operating at VHF frequency and provides global coverage through a 30 satellite constellation.

Commercial broadband communication systems:

A number of operational systems are available today providing (quasi)-global or regional coverage. The first category includes global satellite operators that virtually cover the whole Earth with their families of bent-pipe satellites in C and Ku band and shaped beams (SES-Global, Eutelsat, Intelsat, etc.). Different communications scenarios exist (SCPC, TDMA or DAMA access with star or mesh connectivity) based on proprietary solutions (e.g. Hughes, Gilat, Viasat, iDirect) and standard solutions (e.g. DVB-RCS based from EMS, Nera, Newtec, Alcatel).

More recently, a number of regional systems with more advanced platforms have been launched. iPSTAR with coverage in Asia and Anik F2 with coverage in US and CANADA offer broadband services in Ka-band and spot beams.

8.2 EUROPEAN MILITARY

8.2.1 Current and planned European satellite military systems

The ever emerging central network-centric C4ISR strategy is dictating new requirements for the future military satellite systems. The current surge of required capacity and, at the same time, the necessity to respond rapidly and effectively cost is increasing the cooperation between the Ministries of Defense and commercial operators. And, for a long term point of view, the need to improve the effectiveness of operations is increasing the alliance of different forces [18].

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 99

The principal national military programs currently flying and planned for the near future are presented in the following:

8.2.1.1 UK – SKYNET Program

The UK MOD and Paradigm Secure Communications Limited signed in 2003 the €3.6 billion Skynet 5 Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. EADS Astrium is prime contractor to Paradigm for the design and build of the complete Skynet 5 system. Skynet 5 will provide satellite communications services to the Armed Forces from 2005 until at least 2018. The programme provides delivery of information services between the UK Defence Fixed Network and in theatre networks and users.. The Skynet 5 satellites are based on the new high-power E3000 bus of EADS Astrium. The Skynet 5 satellites will carry advanced UHF and SHF communications payloads with 15 active channels providing channel-to-beam flexibility, as well as multiple antennas for global and regional beams [21][22].

8.2.1.2 ITALY – SICRAL Program

The Sicral (Sistema Italiano per Comunicazioni Riservate ed Allarmi) is the first Italian space-based communications system developed in partnership between Alenia Spazio (70%), Fiat Avio (20%) and Telespazio (10%), fully-owned and managed by IT MoD. It provides strategic communications between Italian national authorities and forces deployed overseas. The Sicral satellite communications system consists of the satellite constellation (currently one satellite), the management and control center at Vigna di Valle (Italy), and over 100 users terminals for ground, sea and airborne platforms (fixed, transportable, mobile).

The satellite can work on three frequency bands: EHF, UHF and SHF.The first Sicral satellite was launched on February 7, 2001, now Italy expects to launch the second Sicral satellite, called Sicral 1b, in 2007 and the third one (Sicral 2) in 2010 [23][24][25].

8.2.1.3 FRANCE – SYRACUSE Program

SYRACUSE means “SYsteme de RAdioCommunication Utilisant un SatellitE / Satellite Radiocommunication System”. The French Ministry of Defence found a resourceful solution which is a

common but independent use of a satellite platform for civilian and military purposes. It was developed in national programs under the National Space Centre (CNES) control. These programmes have been called TELECOM 1 and then 2. They are composed of multi-missions satellites based on a technical and financial co-operation between the French MOD and the civilian operator “FRANCE TELECOM“.

The first Syracuse 1 was operational in 1984 with 26 ground stations (after have been deployed Syracuse 1B,1C). As this cooperation proved to be successful it was decided to launch Syracuse 2 program (4 satellites: 2A,2B,2C,2D). However, the current Syracuse III (replacement for Syracuse II network) is a fully military owned satellite system. This military communications program includes two Syracuse III satellites (known as Syracuse 3A and Syracuse 3B) currently operating and supporting 600 communications terminals ranging from man-portable devices to ship-mounted stations. The Syracuse 3C

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 100

satellite has been planned as the third Syracuse III spacecraft that could replace Syracuse 3A before 2018 expanding service life of the program. Thales is the prime contractor, with Alcatel Alenia Space as sub [19] [26].

8.2.1.4 GERMANY – SATCOMBw Program

SATCOMBw is being developed by EADS SPACE Services GmbH commissioned by the German Armed Forces to provide secure and global communications capability. It comprises a fleet of communications satellites and several strategic and tactical ground stations as well as a network control system. The first SATCOMBw satellite is scheduled for launch in 2007 and the initial operational capability for the entire system has been set for 2009. The SATCOMBw terminals will be available for ships, aircraft and ground vehicles as well as fixed and mobile customers. In early July 2006, EADS SPACE Services (74.9%) and ND SatCom (25.1%) established a joint venture, MilSat Services GmbH, to carry out SATCOMBw Stage 2 contract. Stage 2 will see two satellites put into orbit and operating in military frequencies (SHF/UHF). [22].

8.2.1.5 SPAIN – SPAINSAT Program

The Spainsat satellite is the first satellite fully-owned by the Spanish Ministry of Defence. Until now, the Spain MOD has used part of the capacity of Hispasat 1B to provide communication for governmental applications. The Spainsat satellite is the result of the agreement signed in 2001 between the Spanish MOD, HISDESAT and HISPASAT. The industrial organization HISDESAT was set up to acquire and operate the satellite Spainsat in the Spanish government slot at 30°W, and moreover, to provide interim and back-up services with satellite XTAR-EUR, owned by XTAR (joint venture between Loral Space system & communications and HISDESAT) [20]. SPAINSAT carries a total of 8 wide-band, high-power X-band transponders. The satellite also carries a specially designed Ka-band payload uniquely tailored to provide services to the Spanish Ministry of Defense. It carries a number of steerable spot beams that can be positioned anywhere within the satellite's footprint [20][27][28].

8.2.1.6 NATO Program

As the current NATO IV satellites approach the end of their lives, NATO is now calling for a next generation solution to fulfil its ever-increasing milsatcom requirements. To ensure coherence with the changing NATO crisis management role and to provide a fully deployable communications capability in support of such operations, the SATCOM Post-2000 requirement will update both the space and ground segments to form the future NATO system. The Ministries of Defence of France, Italy and the United Kingdom have been jointly selected by NATO to provide its new Satellite Communications capability from 2005 through to 2019. The NATO SATCOM Post-2000 capability requirement for SHF and UHF space segment is to be provided through the existing national programmes – Syracuse III (Alcatel Alenia Space) in France, Sicral (Alcatel Alenia Space) in Italy and Skynet 4/5 (Paradigm Secure Communications) in the UK. [29][30].

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 101

Satellite Prime Co.

Bus Charac. Payload Characteristics Launch Date

SKYNET 5

(5A, 5B, 5C)

EADS

Astrium

Bus: E3000, Launch

Mass: 1600 kg

SHF (- Earth cover,- 4 theatre beam,- 1 regional beam,- 15x40MHz transponders

(160W)); UHF (- Earth Cover,- 9 narrowband channels); EHF (- Earth cover,- 3

theatre beams )

2006 5A,

2007 5B,

2008 5C

SICRAL 1b AAS Launch Mass: 2500 kg,

Payload Mass: 450 kg

SHF (- X-Band,- 4 Transponders (50MHz), tunable over 500MHz BW Europe

Coverage,- 2 TX/RX steerable beams); UHF (- 3 transponders,- 13 channels

available (25KHz for channel),- Global Coverage EHF/UHF interconnection);

EHF/Ka (- 1 Transponder tunable over 500MHz)

2007

SYRACUSE

III (IIIA,

IIIB, IIIC)

AAS N/A SHF (- Steerable Beams: Global Coverage (1/3 Globe),- Region (4000Km), -

Theatre (2000Km),- 1 Metropolitan beam by high gain antenna,- Nine 40 MHz

channels); EHF (-2 steerable spotbeams (600Km),- six 40-MHz channels);

Stentor Antenna: Active Anti-jam antenna

2005 IIIA,

2006 IIIB,

TBD IIIC

SATCOMBw EADS N/A SHF X-Band; UHF; EHF

2006,

2008

XTAR LANT

(SpainSat) SSL BUS SSLoral 1300 SHF (- X-Band 8 transponders 72MHz, 100W per transponder,- 2 Global Beams,-

4 spot beams (3 steerable, 1 fixed),- Overall Bandwidth: 576MHz,- Transponder

Flexibility); EHF Ka-Band

2006

NATO IV

(IVA, IV B)

EADS Launch Mass: 660 kg SHF X-Band (- 4 Channels,- Global Coverage)

UHF (2 Channels,- Global Coverage)

1991 IVA

1993 IVB

Table 33: Major European Military Satellites

8.3 US MILITARY

8.3.1 Introduction

U.S. military satellite communications (or milsatcom) systems are typically categorized as [31] :

wideband protected narrowband

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 102

Wideband systems emphasize high capacity. Protected systems stress anti-jam features, covertness, and nuclear survivability. Narrowband systems emphasize support to users who need voice or low data-rate communications and who also may be mobile or otherwise disadvantaged (because of limited terminal capability, antenna size, environment, etc.). Milsatcom is a system of systems that provides balanced wideband, narrowband, and protected communications capability for a broad range of users across diverse mission areas. For wideband communication needs, the Wideband Gapfiller Satellite program first, and the Advanced Wideband System then, will augment and eventually replace the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS). These satellites will transmit several gigabits of data per second—up to ten times the data flow of the satellites being replaced. Protected communications will be addressed by a global extremely high frequency (EHF) system, composed of the Advanced Extremely High

Frequency System (AEHF) and Advanced Polar System. These systems are expected to provide about ten times the capacity of current protected satellites (the Milstar satellites). Narrowband needs are supported by the UFO (Ultrahigh-frequency Follow-On) constellation, which will be replaced by a component of the Advanced Narrowband System, the MUOS (Multi User Objective System). Capacity gains in these systems will also be matched by improved features, such as multiple high-gain spot beams that are particularly important for small terminal and mobile users. Moreover, in early fiscal year 2002, DOD initiated a Transformational Communications Study to accelerate the delivery of advanced capabilities with state-of-the art technology to the field. The study is examining increased intersystem connectivity via optical crosslinks, greater reliance on ground fiber where possible, and the use of commercial assets as appropriate. From this point of view, is under study the development of the Transformational Satellite Communication System (TSAT). The TSAT is a satellite that will provide unprecedented satellite communication with Internet-like capability which will extend the DoD Global Information Grid (GIG) to deployed users worldwide and deliver an order of magnitude increase in capacity [31].

In many respects, TSAT will be an evolution of both the protected and wideband Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) systems. It will provide data rates historically associated with wideband systems such as the Defence Satellite Communications System (DSCS) and Wideband Gapfiller Satellites (WGS), but with the added security of protected systems such as Milstar and the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) System. [39][40]. In the next figure is presented an overview of the future military U.S. space segment.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 103

Figure 19: Overview Military SATCOMs, [33]

8.3.2 Wideband Communications

8.3.2.1 Wideband Gapfiller Satellites

The Wideband Gapfiller satellites will provide near-term continuation and augmentation of the services currently provided by the Defense Satellite Communications System (DSCS) and the Global Broadcast Service (GBS) Ka services currently provided by GBS payloads on UFO satellites. WGS will provide wideband services for the users with their data rates typically exceeding 64 kbps. WGS will provide services to the U.S. Department of Defence and other Government users.

The WGS space segment will support communication services in two military frequency bands: X-band and Ka-band. The Wideband Gapfiller Satellite payload shall be capable of supporting at least 1.2 Gbps aggregate simplex throughput with a possibility of up to 3.6 Gbps simplex capacity. The Gapfiller satellites will provide a new two-way military Ka-band capability to support the expected military mobile/tactical two-way Ka-band terminal population with greatly increased system capacity in addition to the Ka-band broadcast service. The satellite system is to consist of at least 5 geosynchronous satellites covering services from 65° North latitude to 65° South latitude and for all longitudes accommodated within the field of view of the satellites. Each Gapfiller satellite will have a design life of at least 14 years in geostationary orbit.

The Gapfiller satellites will support a variety of network topologies that include broadcast, hub-spoke, netted, and point-to-point connectivity.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 104

WGS will offer 4.875 GHz of instantaneous switchable bandwidth, since there are 39 channels of 125 MHz each. The system will provide capacity ranging from 1.2 Gbps to more than 3.6 Gbps simplex transmission to tactical users, depending on the mix of ground terminals, data rates and modulation schemes employed. The WGS design includes 19 independent coverage areas that can be used throughout the field of view of each satellite to North and South latitude. This includes eight steerable/shapeable X-band beams formed by separate transmit and receive phased arrays; 10 steerable Ka-band beams served by independently steerable, diplexed gimbaled dish antennas, including three with selectable polarization, and one X-band Earth coverage beam. The enhanced connectivity capabilities of WGS enable any user to talk to any other user with very efficient use of satellite bandwidth. A digital channelizer divides the uplink bandwidth into nearly 1872 independently routable 2.6 MHz subchannels providing any-coverage-to-any-coverage connectivity (including X-to-Ka and Ka-to X cross-strapping) for maximum operational flexibility. Also, the channelizer supports multicast and broadcast services and provides an extremely effective and flexible uplink spectrum monitoring capability for network control [36].

Based on the Boeing 702 bus, the satellite will have a dry mass of more than 3000 kg and will produce more than 11 KW of power at the end of its 14-year design life. [32][39][40].

Figure 20: Simplified block diagram of WGS Satellite Payload, [32]

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 105

The first launch of WGS 1 is planned to be at the begin of 2007 with WGS 2 and 3 approx 1 year after. Furthermore, in addition to WGS 1-3 satellites, two more satellites (WGS-4 and WGS-5) are to be added and these last two satellites are anticipated to be launched in about 2010.

WGS-4 and WGS-5 will be modified to support the needs of Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (AISR) with increases in instantaneous channelized bandwidth. Some of the newer Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) require large bandwidths, and the plan is to add certain modifications to WGS to accommodate these needs. The Air Force and Boeing have been discussing the issues of this project. The new requirement is sometimes termed the UAV Bypass mode[36].

WGS General Characteristics

Primary Function High capacity military communications satellite

Prime Contractor Boeing Satellite Systems

Satellite Bus Boeing 702

Mass ~12,000lbs at launch, ~10,000 lbs on-orbit

Payload Transponded (Digital) and cross-banded X-and Ka-band communications suite

Antennas 8 beam, transmit and receive X-band Phased arrays

10 Ka-band Gimbaled Dish Antennas

1 X-band Earth coverage

Capability 96 125Mhz Channels via digital channelizer

Table 34: WGS General Characteristics

8.3.2.2 Advanced Wideband System

The successor to the Defence Satellite Communications System and the Wideband Gapfiller Satellite program is the Advanced Wideband System. The system’s final configuration has not yet solidified under ongoing milsatcom transformational efforts, but the concept is one of applied technology and engineering that will remove capacity as a constraint on warfare communications. Analyses by the Defence Information Systems Agency and Joint Staff indicate that a global wideband satellite communications capacity in excess of 15 Gbps will be needed by the middle of the next decade. The Advanced Wideband System will take advantage of the commercial and government technology advances of the first half of this decade to meet expected needs. Laser cross-links, space-based data processing and routing systems, and highly agile multibeam/phased-array antennas will most likely be included. A constellation of advanced wideband-capable satellites is planned with a first launch at the end of this decade. [31].

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 106

8.3.3 Protected Communications

8.3.3.1 Advanced EHF

The Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) System is a joint service satellite communications system that provides global, secure, protected, and jam-resistant communications for high-priority military ground, sea, and air assets. The system consists of three satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) that provides 10 to 100 times the capacity of the 1990s-era Milstar satellites. A full constellation of three AEHF and one Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT) (will be introduced in the next section) will provide continuous 24-hour coverage between 65 degrees north and 65 degrees south latitude.

AEHF will provide connectivity across the spectrum of mission areas, including land, air, and naval warfare; special operations; strategic nuclear operations; strategic defence; theatre missile defence; and space operations and intelligence[31][39].

The AEHF system is composed of three segments: space (the satellites), terminals (the users) and ground (mission control and associated communications links). The segments will provide communications in a specified set of data rates from 75 bps to approximately 8 Mbps. The space segment consists of a cross-linked constellation of satellites to provide worldwide coverage. System uplinks and cross-links will operate in the extremely high frequency (EHF) range and downlinks in the super high frequency (SHF) range. On-board signal processing will provide protection and ensure optimum resource utilization and system flexibility among the Armed Forces and other users who operate terminals on land, sea and air. [39][43][46].

Up to six satellites were planned, but in late 2004 it was decided to end the AEHF program after the third satellite in favour of introducing the next generation T-SAT earlier. Problems with the T-SAT program might lead to procurement of two more AEHFs instead

AEHF General Characteristics

Primary Function: Near-worldwide, secure, survivable satellite communications

Contractors: Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (BUS), TRW (Payload)

Satellite Bus: A2100 line

Mass: Approximately 14,500 lbs at launch, 9,000 lbs on-orbit

Payload: Onboard signal processing, crossbanded EHF/SHF communications

Antennas: 2 SHF Downlink Phased Arrays, 2 Crosslinks, 2 Uplink/Downlink Nulling

Antennas, 1 Uplink EHF Phased Array, 6 Uplink/Downlink Gimballed Dish

Antenna, 1 Each Uplink/downlink earth coverage horns

Capability: Data rates from 75 bps to approximately 8 Mbps

Table 35: AEHF General Characteristics

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 107

8.3.4 Narrowband Communications

8.3.4.1 MUOS

The MUOS (Mobile Users Objective System) is a proposed constellation of up to six military narrowband communications GEO satellites (plus one spare). It would be the follow-on to the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Follow-On (UFO) satellite system and would also replace the Navy Fleet Satellite Communications (FltSat) satellites. The system would be designed to expand UHF satellite communications to handheld terminals. The launch is planned for the 2015[31].

MUOS satellites will be fully compatible with the existing UFO system and associated legacy terminals, while dramatically increasing military communications availability by leveraging 3G commercial cellular advancements, which represent significant improvement over previous networking technologies.

Indeed, in early November 2004, Lockheed-Martin at MILCOM 2004 in Monterey, California, announced that the MUOS satellite will integrate third-generation (3G) commercial cellular technology. Therefore, MUOS system will transmit text, voice, video and multimedia combining 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) waveform and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) infrastructure. The 3G cellullar technology will be fully compatible and will support advanced features of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) terminals now under development[47][48][46].

MUOS General Characteristics

Primary Function: Narrowband Communication

Contractors: Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (BUS)

Satellite Bus: A2100 line

Mass (estimated): (at launch): 6000 kg

Orbit Altitude: GEO

Payload: UHF, 3G UMTS WCDMA

Table 36: MUOS General Characteristics

8.3.5 Integrated concept

8.3.5.1 TSAT (Transformational Satellite Communication System)

The Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) is one component of the Global Information Grid (GIG) that will enable transformation to support the war fighting efforts for the United States of America and its allies [31].

TSAT will be integrated as a node within the GIG with its overarching force application capabilities and associated attributes needed to meet future military challenges.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 108

TSAT will be an interoperable, survivable, endurable, and multi-mission platform to support increased wideband tactical, protected tactical, mobile on-the-move tactical, strategic, and relay communications connectivity to DoD and approved non- DoD users. TSAT incorporates laser communications and packet routing/switching protocols to support bandwidth intensive environment capable of meeting Quality of Service (QoS) requirements associated with many critical applications. TSAT design is based on a modular, open architecture that will facilitate the localization of system modifications needed to support future requirements, capabilities, and system growth while still supporting legacy components [41][42].

TSAT General Characteristics Primary Function Space-based component of the GIG, extending its

reach to deployed users

Primary Contractor Boeing Satellite Systems Lockheed Martin Payload Protected High data rate AEHF, K-Band RF, Laser

Payloads Constellation 5 SAT GEO Capacity Order of magnitude above currents program of records

Table 37: TSAT General Characteristics

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 109

ANNEX 3: GEO OPTICAL TERMINAL

8.4 OPTICAL LINK SCENARIO

Free-space optical communications are presently being considered for secure high-capacity crosslinks between UAVs/aircrafts/LEO satellites and GEO satellites for several applications:

• data relay after ARTEMIS operational lifetime

• to support GMES and the Earthwatch programmes

• dual purpose applications.

After SILEX successful demonstration in November 2001 [7], ESA and several European National Agencies have maintained the effort in developing next generation of optical terminals with reduced mass, size and power consumption, and increased data transmission rate. DLR is funding the development of two flight model (FM) optical terminals by TESAT GmbH. One of the terminals was launched by the end of 2006 on the German LEO TerraSAR-X satellite [8]. The second terminal will be placed on the US military satellite named NFIRE to be launched early 2007. Additional developments are on going in the frame of the ALPHASAT Technology Development Payloads. The French MOD (DGA) is presently sponsoring the development of an optical terminal by EADS Astrium (France) to be placed in an aircraft. By the end of 2006, the capability of optical transmission between an aircraft and ARTEMIS was demonstrated in the frame of the LOLA program [9].

In the US, DARPA is investing in free-space optical communications for military applications. The two major investments are the THOR (TeraHertz Operational Reachback) and the ORCLE (Optical & RF Combined Link Experiment) programmes [10]. These two programmes started in 2002 with the objective of assessing and developing technologies for demonstrating a mobile adhoc free-space optical communications network for the military.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 110

Figure 21. Optical Data Relay scenario overview.

Figure 21 illustrates a potential Optical Data Relay (ODR) mission using a Small GEO satellite. The same SGEO optical terminal would offer flexible connectivity to a number of different ODR link scenarios:

• LEO-GEO

• UAV / airplane / aircraft - GEO

• GEO-GEO

• GEO-ground

The main characteristics of the various links and the mission priority level are specified in Table 38. Direct optical downlink from GEO to ground is considered low priority because for the SGEO mission a Q-band payload is envisaged to implement that functionality.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 111

ODR link scenario Type of link Priority

LEO-GEO bidirectional asymmetric link High

UAV-GEO bidirectional asymmetric link High

airplane / aircraft - GEO bidirectional asymmetric link High

GEO-GEO bidirectional symmetric link Medium

GEO-ground Unidirectional downlink Low

Table 38. Investigated ODR links and priority level as established during the mission definition

stage.

In addition, an ODR mission also offers flexibility concerning the following system aspects:

• Compatibility to a set of optical counter terminals with different data rates.

• Adaptability of the optical user link data rate (in discrete steps) according to Q-band feeder link performances.

• Coverage of multiple optical counter terminals.

• Capability of quasi real-time transmission of telecommand to, for example, LEO satellites and UAVs.

• No frequency regulatory constraints.

• Large available bandwidth due to operation in optical bands.

• Narrow beamwidth of the laser beam offers tight spatial confinement, ideal against interception, eavesdropping and jamming.

8.5 GENERIC OPTICAL TERMINAL BLOCK DIAGRAM

Figure 22 illustrates the ODR architecture configuration, with the SGEO optical terminal and the user optical terminal. For the sake of clarity the digital interfaces with following electrical equipments are also included.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 112

Figure 22. ODR architecture configuration

A generic functional block diagram of an optical terminal is represented in Figure 23. Both the transmitted and the received optical signals share the optical aperture, the coarse pointing assembly and the fine pointing assembly. The transmitted and the received optical paths are split/combined by means of, for example, an optical filter. The transmitted optical signal carries the information provided by the Q-band demodulator. This optical signal is aligned with the received optical path by means of the point ahead assembly. In addition, the point ahead assembly introduces a small angular deviation due to the finite speed of light and the relative movement between the optical terminals. The received optical signal can be further split into different spatial sensors (acquisition and tracking sensors) and the receiver unit. The spatial sensors provide the spatial information of the counter terminal. This information is used by the optical terminal controller to command the coarse/fine pointing assemblies. The receiver unit includes a photodetector to convert the optical signal into an electrical one, which after being demodulated, will be delivered to the Q-band modulator. Additionally, depending on the detection scheme, the receiver unit could also comprise an optical pre-amplifier, or a local oscillator laser with an optical beam combiner to improve the receiver sensitivity.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 113

SGEO Optical terminal

Communication Electronics

Q-band modulator

Q-band demodulator

Digital signalOptical signalMicrowave signal

Coarse Pointing Assembly

Fine Pointing

Assembly

Acquisition Sensor

Tracking Sensor

Point Ahead

AssemblyTelescope

Beacon laser

Transmitter laser unit

(laser, modulator and amplifier)

Receiver unit(pre-amplifier / LO combiner, photodetector)

Optical Terminal Control

Electronics

Figure 23. Functional block diagram of a generic optical terminal

A digital interface with the Q-band payload has been selected, as it is currently the most preferred interface for developed optical terminals. A comparison between a regenerative digital and a transparent analogue optical communication system was investigated in [11]. A transparent analogue optical communication system might be of benefit in systems where the data is provided in analogue form. It avoids the ADC/DAC interfaces, it is fully transparent to the modulation format, but it imposes stringent linearity requirements to the optical devices in the chain. Results of a proof-of-concept demonstrator developed under ESA contract can be found in [12]. [13] presents performances of such a system in the frame of very short-range GEO-GEO links (100 km) and very long-range GEO-GEO links (~ 70000 km) for broadband satellite communications. Substantial mass reductions are expected by employing WDM techniques. However, as nowadays most instrument interfaces are digital, a regenerative high-throughput optical data relay payload has been selected.

8.6 OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Europe has a worldwide leading position in the field of optical communications. The European heritage covers the various optical technologies described in Table 39:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 114

8XXnm wavelength (Company: EADS Astrium (F))

Advantages Drawbacks

• SILEX heritage (TRL 9)

• Simple transmitter/receiver configuration based on IM-DD (intensity modulation/direct detection)

• Low mass and power consumption

• present status of 8XX nm lasers allows direct modulation rates well above ARTEMIS data rates (50 Mbps).

• operation at a wavelength where APD detectors appear to be most sensitive is a benefit

• Less sensitive to propagation through the atmosphere than the other options.

• Limited availability of high-power large direct modulation bandwidth 8XX nm lasers (for data rates at ~Gbps, wavelength multiplexing techniques are necessary (WDM))

1064nm wavelength (Company: TESAT GmbH (D), Contraves Space AG (CH))


• Scheduled launch on TerraSAR-X satellite end 2006 (TRL 8)

• Narrowband highly stable 1064nm laser for transmission, and a receiver scheme based on coherent homodyne detection.

• This receiver concept provides the highest sensitivity.

• High power optical amplifier available.

• Large bandwidth external modulator available (compatible with data rates at ~Gbps using a single optical carrier)

• Beaconless acquisition scheme possible

• Complexity of transmitter and receiver (compared to IM/DD)

• Moderate mass and power consumption (compared to IM/DD)

• Difficult to implement optical carrier multiplexing (WDM)

• Sensitive to propagation through the atmosphere.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 115

1550nm wavelength (Company: Contraves Space AG (CH), EADS Astrium (F), Alcatel Alenia Space (F))


• Simple transmitter/receiver configuration based on IM (intensity modulation) and direct detection or optical pre-amplification.

• The optically pre-amplified receiver concept achieves good sensitivity.

• Heritage of fibre terrestrial communication technology with potential for very high data rates:

o high power optical amplifier

o large bandwidth external modulators compatible with data rates at ~Gbps using a single optical carrier

o Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) enabling ~10 Gbps data transmission in a single terminal

• No European space heritage (TRL 3/4)

• Large beamwidth (due to longer wavelength), reducing antenna gain.

• Low wall-plug efficiency of high power optical amplifiers

• Large mass and power consumption (at present) due to the two abovementioned reasons

• Sensitive to propagation through the atmosphere (in case of optical pre-amplification).

Table 39. Comparison of different optical technologies for free space optical communications.

8.7 OPTICAL ACCESS SCHEMES

The optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite will serve multiple end-users (i.e. LEO satellites, UAVs, aircrafts, etc.). The ODR, in order to properly operate, has to implement an efficient optical access scheme. Table 40 discusses some of the alternatives.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 116

Sequential access


• Simplest access scheme (the SGEO optical terminal is serially shared in the time domain among all the end users)

• Moderate coverage of multiple optical counter terminals is readily feasible (e.g. between 7-10 LEO satellites could be served every LEO orbital period taking into account the performance specifications of the SGEO optical terminal given in Table 41, and typical downlink capacity requirements of Sentinel EO satellites)

• a new pointing /acquisition phase is needed for each access. This time should be minimized (<<1 minute).

Simultaneous access


• It enables simultaneous multiple optical accesses to the SGEO using either a single (preferred) or multiple optical terminals

• Increase of complexity, mass and power consumption of the optical terminal on-board SGEO satellite

Table 40. Comparison of different optical access schemes.

It is concluded that a sequential access scheme already provides substantial re-use capability for the SGEO mission, and hence, it is taken as a baseline. Nevertheless, techniques for simultaneous multiple accesses using a single optical terminal on-board the SGEO satellite should also be investigated.

8.8 OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY TRADE-OFF ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION

The following assumptions have been taken for the link budget calculations and the estimation of the mass and power consumption of the SGEO optical terminal:

• BER optical link < 10-9

• Coding gain included

• Link budget margin > 3 dB (for flight proven systems > 1 dB)

• Mass and power consumption margins: 10%

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 117

The link budget calculations take into account typical values for the different link parameters (e.g. pointing error angle, transmitter/receiver optical loss, receiver sensitivity, coding gain, etc.). Several combinations of transmitted optical power & transmitter/receiver telescope diameter have been calculated that fulfil the specified data rate and BER. For each pair, the mass and power consumption of the terminal has been estimated, and an optimal transmitted optical power & telescope diameter pair that minimizes mass while keeping moderate overall power consumption has been obtained. As an example, Figure 24 shows the case of a LEO-GEO link scenario employing a 1064 nm laser for transmission and a receiver scheme based on coherent homodyne detection. From this graph the mass and power consumption of the SGEO optical terminal are ~50 kg and ~ 145 W respectively, for a transmitter/receiver telescope diameter of 135mm. These results are in very good agreement with values in [14]. For an asymmetric configuration, the telescope diameter of the SGEO optical terminal has been increased up to 250mm.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6558 4823 3663 3226 2860 2290

110 120 130 135 140 150Option (Opt Power (mW), Diameter (mm))

Mas

s (K

g)

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

Pow

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(w)

Total Mass (Kg)

Total Avg Power Consumption (W)

Figure 24. Mass and power consumption of the SGEO optical terminal as a function of

transmitted optical power and transmitter/receiver telescope diameter. Data rate = 1.2Gbps,

BER<10-9, 1064nm wavelength, BPSK with coherent homodyne detection scheme.

The abovementioned methodology has been applied to the various optical link scenarios presented in Table 38. All the different optical technology options listed in Table 39 have been assessed. The following results have been obtained:

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 118

1. For ODR systems based on 8XXnm wavelength, all scenarios are feasible (especially the UAV/airplane/aircraft-GEO and the LEO-GEO link scenarios), provided some kind of coarse WDM is included in the design.

2. ODR systems employing 1064nm wavelength with coherent homodyne detection offer the highest sensitivity. In principle all scenarios are achievable (in particular for the GEO-GEO and the LEO-GEO link scenarios). For the UAV/airplane/aircraft-GEO link scenarios, further investigations are needed in order to estimate the loss penalty introduced by the atmosphere. It is however predicted that the loss penalty due to the WFE degradation on the optical uplink signal will be low.

3. ODR systems based on 1550nm wavelength and IM (intensity modulation) and direct detection or optical pre-amplification are also feasible. The overall mass and power consumption of the SGEO optical terminal are significantly larger than those using 8XXnm or 1064nm technologies. Therefore, this technology has not been further investigated. However, this technology is of interest for higher data rates (e.g. > 2 Gbps), as it will benefit of the heritage of fibre terrestrial communication technology.

As a conclusion, both European technologies (8XXnm and 1064nm) can fulfil the mission and the scenario requirements. 1550nm technology might be of interest in case of higher data rates become mandatory.

8.9 OPTICAL TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS

Table 41-Table 44 summarize the performance specifications of the SGEO optical terminal, the envelope specifications (mass, volume and power consumption), the interface specifications (with the Q-band payload) and the SGEO platform and interface requirements.

The data rate of the O-ISL will be selected according to the maximum data rate available on the Q-band feeder link (e.g. due to weather conditions). The Q-band feeder link has been dimensioned to be compatible with the data rates of the O-ISL. In case of optimal conditions, both the O-ISL (i.e. user link) and the Q-band downlink (i.e. feeder link) will operate at the same maximum data rate (i.e. up to 1.2Gbps). As no mass memory is foreseen on-board the SGEO, the data rate of the O-ISL has to be accordingly adapted. For that purpose it is proposed to include information about the quality of the feeder link in the return link data stream (i.e. feeder uplink). This control signalling information will adapt the optimal Q-band data rate according to the circumstances, and also, the effective data rate of the O-ISL, i.e. the O-ISL will still operate at the same data rate, but the user optical terminal will reduce the number of channels used; the remaining capacity of the O-ISL would simply be filled with an internal random data stream for performance evaluation purposes.

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 119

Type of user link Transmitter Receiver

GEO-LEO 1-2 Mbps 75-1200 Mbps

GEO-UAV 1-2 Mbps 75-1200 Mbps

GEO - Airplane / aircraft 1-2 Mbps 75-1200 Mbps

GEO-GEO 75-1200 Mbps 75-1200 Mbps

GEO-Ground 75-1200 Mbps Not considered

Table 41. Performance specifications of the SGEO optical terminal

Type of user link Mass Volume Power

consumption

GEO-LEO

GEO-UAV

GEO - airplane / aircraft

GEO-GEO

GEO-Ground

< 40-50 kg


< 100-150 W (average during

communications), <150-175 W (peak during acquisition)

Table 42. Envelope specifications of the SGEO optical terminal

Forward (from optical communication receiver to Q-band modulator)


Up to 15 large channels Number of channels

1 aggregated channel

large channel 75 Mbps

Data rate per channel aggregated channel

4*1 Mbps 3*2 Mbps 4*5 Mbps 2*10 Mbps 1*25 Mbps

-------------------------- 75 Mbps

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 120

Return(from Q-band demodulator to optical communication transmitter)


Number of channels Up to 2 Up to 1

Data rate per channel 1 Mbps 2 Mbps

Table 43. Interface specifications between the SGEO optical terminal and the Q-band payload

SGEO platform requirements

SGEO platform pointing accuracy and stability <0.1° (3 sigma)

Microvibration PSD at mounting interface TBD

SGEO platform radiation shielding TBD

SGEO interface requirements

Thermal interfaces TBD

Electrical interfaces TBD

Mechanical interfaces TBD

Table 44. SGEO platform requirements and interface requirements

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 121

9 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACM AdaptiveCoding and Modulation

A/D Analog-Digital

ADC Analogue to Digital Converter

ALC Automatic Level Control

APD Avalanche Photodiode

APSK Amplitude Phase Shift Keying

AWGN Additive White Gaussian Noise

BFT Blue Force Tracking

BPSK Binary Phase Shift Keying

BSS Broadcast Satellite Services

C2 Command and Control

C3 Command and Control Communications

COTS Commercially (available) Off The Shelf

CAmp Channel Amplifier

CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear

CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive

CIS Communications and Information Services

DAC Digital to Analogue Converter

Demod Demodulator

Demux Demultiplexer

DRA Dynamic Rate Adaptation

DRS Data Relay Services

DSP Digital Signal Processor

DVB-RCS Digital Video Broadcasting – Return Channel by Satellite

DVB-S2 Digital Video Broadcasting – Satellite Second Generation

EDA European Defence Agency

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 122

EIRP Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power

EM Engineering Model

EMP Electro-Magnetic Pulse

EO Earth Observation

EOB Edge of Beam

EOC Edge of Coverage

EPC Electronic Power Conditioner

EQM Engineering Qualified Model

ESA European Space Agency

ESDP European Security and Defence Policy

EU European Union

EUMS EU Military Staff

FDMA Frequency Division Multiple Access

FIPS Federal Standard in Information Processing Systems

FSS Fixed Satellite Services

GEO Geostationary Earth Orbit

GIS Geographic Information System

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

GSM Global System for Mobile communications

GSO Geostationary orbit

G/T Gain to noise Temperature ratio

GW Gateway

HPA High Power Amplifier

HQ Head Quarter

IER Information Exchange Requirement

IM-DD Intensity Modulation Direct Detection

IP Internet Protocol

ISL Inter-Satellite Link

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 123

ISTAR Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance

ITU International Telecommunication Union

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LNA Low Noise Amplifier

LOS Line of Sight

LPD Low Probability of Detection

LPI Low Probability of Interception

MoD Ministry of Defence

Mod Modulator

MODCOD Modulation and Coding

MPA Multi Port Amplifier

MPEG Moving Picture Experts Group

MS Member States

MSS Mobile Satellite Services

MST Mobile Satellite Terminal

Mux Multiplexer

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NAV Navigation

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NL Non-Linear

OBO Output Back Off

OBP On Board Processor

ODR Optical Data Relay

OGS Optical Ground Station

OHQ Operational Head Quarter

O-ISL Optical Inter-Satellite Link

OMT Ortho Mode Transducer

PASR Preparatory Action for Security Research

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 124

PC Power Control

PNT Positioning, Navigation and Timing

PSK Phase Shift Keying

QPSK Quadrature Phase Shift Keying

RF Radio Frequency

SCC Serial Concatenated Convolutional

SCCC Serial Concatenated Convolutional Code

SGEO Small GEO

SIGINT Signal Intelligence

SILEX Semiconductor-laser Inter-satellite Link EXperiment

ST Satellite Terminal

TC Telecommunication

TDMA Time Division Multiple Access

TETRA Terrestrial Trunked Radio

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TT&C Telemetry Tracking and Command

Tx Transmit

TWT Traveling Wave Tube

TWTA Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UN United Nations

VoIP Voice over IP

WDM Wavelength Division Multiplexing

WFE Wave Front Error

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 125

10 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

[1] ETSI EN 302 307 v1.1.1 (2005-03) Digital Video Broadcasting; Second Generation Framing Structure, Channel Coding and Modulation Systems for Broadcasting Interactive Services, News Gathering and Other Broadband satellite Applications.

[2] European Telecommunication Standardization Institute (ETSI), Document ETSI EN 301 790 V1.4.1 (2005-09), "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Interaction channel for satellite distribution systems", 2005.

[3] E. Casini, “DVB-S2 Modem Algorithms Design and Performance Over Typical Satellite Channels”, ESA-ESTEC Technical Report EWP 2230.

[4] ITU Radio Regulation, 2004.

[5] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd Edition, Wiley

[6] European Space Agency, “Flexible Near Shannon SCCC Turbo Code for Telemetry Applications” Draft Orange Book, Presented to CCSDS Working Group in Rome- June 2006

[7] T. To1ker Nie1sen and G. Oppenhaeuser, “In Orbit test result of an Operational Optical Intersatellite Link between ARTEMIS and SPOT-4 (SILEX)”, SPIE Vol. 4635, 2002.

[8] R. Lange and B. Smutny, “Optical inter-satellite links based on homodyne BPSK modulation: Heritage, status and outlook”, SPIE Photonics West, 2005.

[9] V. Cazaubiel et al., “Lola: a 40.000 km optical link between an aircraft and a geostationary satellite”, Proceedings 6th International Conference on Space Optics, June 2006.

[10] J.C. Juarez et al., “Free-space optical communications for next-generation military networks”, IEEE Communications magazine, November 2006.

[11] K. Pribil et al., “A Coherent Analog Communication System for Optical Intersatellite Links”, 19th AIAA International Communication Satellite Systems Conference, April 2001.

[12] G. Baister et al., “The ISLFE Terminal Development Project - Results from the Engineering Breadboard Phase”, AIAA 20th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, May 2002.

[13] B. M. Folio and J.M. Perdigués Armengol, “Radio Frequency and Optical Inter Satellite Links Comparison for Future Identified Scenarios”, CNES Workshop on Inter-Satellite Links, 2003.

[14] TESAT GmbH, “TDP#1 1064nm Data Relay System: Executive Summary”, ESTEC Co No 10629.

[15] [FIPS199] FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Feb 2004, available at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips199/FIPS-PUB-199-final.pdf

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 126

[16] [Rand1192] T. Bonds et al., Employing Commercial Satellite Communications: Wideband Investment Options for the Department of Defense, MR-1192-AF, Rand Corporation, 2000, ISBN: 0-8330-2827-8, available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1192/

[17] [Williams98] R. Williams and I. Paul, Potential Uses of the Military Ka-Band for Wideband Milsatcom Systems, IEEE MILCOM proceedings, 1998

[18] SES AMERICOM presentation at the 7th Global MILSATCOM, 7th-9th September 2005

[19] French Minister of Defense presentation at the 7th Global MILSATCOM, 7th-9th September 2005

[20] Spanish MOD presentation at the 7th Global MILSATCOM, 7th-9th September 2005

[21] Skynet V presentation at the Military Satellites IQPC, 15th-16th July 2004

[22] EADS Astrium web site http://www.space.eads.net/

[23] Sicral presentation at the 7th Global MILSATCOM, 7th-9th September 2005

[24] Sicral presentation at the Military Satellites IQPC, 15th-16th July 2004

[25] Alcatel Alenia Space web site www.alcatel.com/space/pdf/telecom/sicral-ing.pdf

[26] Alcatel Alenia Space web sitewww.alcatel.com/space/pdf/telecom/Syracusegb.pdf

[27] XTAR presentation at the 7th Global MILSATCOM, 7th-9th September 2005

[28] XTAR brochures at XTAR web site http://www.xtarllc.com/

[29] NATO web site http://www.nato.int/issues/satcom/index.html

[30] NATO IV at Global Security web site http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nato_4.htm

[31] G. Elfers and S. Miller, “Future U.S. Military Satellite Communication Systems”, www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2002/08.html

[32] Wideband Gapfiller Satellite (WGS), http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/ factsheets/702/wgs/wgs_factsheet.html

[33] M.Cinlemis, “Military Satellite Communication Systems” presentation at Air Force Command, 26 August 2005, proceedings.ndia.org/C488/cinlemis.ppt

[34] M.Bailey, “Navy AEHF and TSAT Communications”, SPAWAR 05, 29 June 2005

[35] Lt.Col. S.Hargis, “Wideband Gapfiller Satellites : Ground System Interoperability”, presentation at GSAW 2005, 1 March 2005 sunset.usc.edu/gsaw/gsaw2005/s4/hargis.pdf

[36] R.Kumar, D. Taggart, AEROSPACE Corp “Wideband Gapfiller Satellite (WGS) System”, MILCOM 2005

[37] R.Axford, ”Advanced Wideband Systems”, presentation at CNS workshop, 1-3 May 2001 spacecom.grc.nasa.gov/icnsconf/docs/2001/CNS01_Session_E6-Axford.pdf

Version Date


V1.0 22/01/07

Page 127

[38] I.Heiwood, FEMME Corp., “A hybrid processed/transponded MILSATCOM waveform and multiple access design concept”, MILCOM 2002

[39] MILSATCOM web site, http://www.losangeles.af.mil/smc/mc/

[40] Global Security web site, http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/

[41] B.Parikh, D.Fritz, “Network Centric operations over transponded SATCOM”, MILCOM 2004

[42] D.Stroud, P.P. Tran, “Enabling Transformation with TSAT”, MILCOM 2004

[43] Notrhop Grumann Corp. web site http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/technology/TechLibrary.html

[44] L.N.Nguyen, G.V. Kinal, I.Heywood, FEMME Corp., “Performance of Hybrid Link Power Control Using Wideband Gapfiller Satellite-Based Automatic Level Control (ALC), and Ground-Based link power control”, MILCOM 2003

[45] I.Heywood, FEMME Corp., “Multi-Carrier network-centric satellite communications modem design”, MILCOM 2002

[46] Locheed Martin web site, http://www.lockheedmartin.com

[47] Capt. D.Porter, “Mobile User Objective System”, presentation AFCEA, 1 November 2005 www.afcea-sd.org/docs/briefs/AFCEA_Nov2005.ppt

[48] Ericsson web site, http://www.ericsson.com/us/government/MUOS_DataSheet_B.pdf

[49] T.M.Nguyen, J.J.Hant, D.Taggart, C.Wang, Aerospace Corp. “A fully-processed payload architecture for a very wideband mobile communications system”, MILCOM 2002

[50] J.Brand, Harris Corp., “On the design of satellite transponder receive chain gain distribution for efficient wideband channel utilization”, MILCOM 2004

[51] J.Brand, Harris Corp., “On the use of the wideband gapfiller satellite at Ka-Band for communications-on-the-move” , MILCOM 2003

[52] J.Brand, Harris Corp., “Practical on-the-move satellite communications for present and future mobile warfighters”, MILCOM 2005

[53] J.Besse, MITRE Corp., L.Gonzales, BAE Sys., R.Condello, U.S. Army, “On the performance of small aperture Ka-Band terminals for use over the wideband Gapfiller satellite”, MILCOM 2000

Documents

SMALL GEO FOR S - EMITS Invitation To Tender Systememits.sso.esa.int/emits-doc/1-5359-Appendix-4-Small-GEO-security-mission-definition... · Most links need to be secured, but only