TITLE: SATELLITE COMMUNCIATIONS OVERVIEW

MODULE: MSc SATELLITE MOBILE COMMUNCATIONS MBSTCM-N MSc

STUDENT: 12028225. John Bofarull Guix jbb025@my.londonmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com


TIME AVAILABLE: 4 WEEKS
DELIVERY DATE: December 10
th
2012

CONTENTS

Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Key Enabler
3. Satellites Industry
4. Subsystems
5. Services
6. System Examples
Skybridge
VSAT design parameters
GOCE
COSPAS-SARSAT
Orbcomm
SAR scenario
7. Where are the birds
8. Regulators
9. Strategic Sector that includes Big Brother
10. Direct Competition or Synergy
11. Frequency Bands
12. Conclusion
Comments
References
Annexes



ABSTRACT

Modern Satellite Communications are evolving from analog to digital,
increasing spectral and power efficiency, lowering orbits to reduce to
microseconds path delay, also increasing positioning accuracy, offering
improved SMS, secure business links, early missile launch detection, targets
tracking, emergency signaling, video-telephony and internet over satellites
among many other offered services. This sector has all the tools to rival the
ground wireless telephone and wireless internet broadband offered by GSM,
GPRS/EDGE, 3G and 4G operators, yet the broadband over satellite market
penetration is really slow at best.
A minor sector compared in workforce size to traditional ground operators,
delivering high-end products and services to the Military, the Satellite
Communications industry would be a clear alternative to offer real competition
that would ultimately benefit the end wireless subscribers that we all know
phone bills are like car gas bills, approx 2/3
rd
of the bills go on taxes, salaries
to people who really have little or nothing to do with your mobile phone calls.
Optical fiber mass deployment could have started years ago, but now it is
rolling out at double, to satisfy increasing demand for broadband, and at the
same time is a safeguard to ground operators to saturate the market demand
and prevent an alternative technology like internet access over satellite to
achieve a significant market share.

In this case study I have searched for the current parts of the working satellite
systems. I also looked for working satellite systems that somehow could
evolve to rival ground wireless operators.

Instead of diving in a specific satellite system as study case, that would be
limited by patents and proprietary details, I start drawing the attention of the
reader to a slightly modified 3 segments satellite communications sector
where end subscribers enjoy more attention than they currently have. In point
6, I have chosen a few systems as examples: Skybridge, VSAT generic
parameters, GOCE, COSPAS-SARSAT, ORBCOM and a generic SAR system.
Sampling their main parameters helps to understand current status of working
systems. Prior to mentioning those examples I have shortly looked for Satellite
Communications Industry companies and products, in point 2. And because
despite relative small industry sector size (relative to giant ground
wired/wireless operators), satellite communications are key enablers to global
wireless networks, I looked for details about current situation of one of the
obvious business expansion routes of the sector that is offering internet over
satellite networks with broadband equal or better than ground wireless
operators at competitive fares. Just as reference I found where to look for
when seeking satellite orientation details, in point 7. I have briefly gathered
some satellite communications regulatory parameters in point 8 and sketched
frequency bands in point 11. It cannot be a satellite communications overview
study case without mentioning Echelon, point 9. In most of businesses, frontal
clashes end up causing loss, so I checked for satellite ground wireless
business synergies, finding how every one finds convenient to enjoy satellite
coverage for different purposes cellular operators need satellite services
perhaps more than they would like to. There are lots of details that have been
left in the draft folder, but I have tried to include as many as possible as
annexes to gain overall sector knowledge. I have added some additional
comments right before the annexes pointed from main text with bracketed
reference[ABC]. If the reader is going through the electronic version of this
document you can readily follow the embedded web links. If you want an
electronic copy of this document, just ask me for a copy;
jbb0025@my.londonmet.ac.uk or jgb2012@sky.com .

SYNCOM 1963, world's 1
st
GEO communications satellite.
1/4
th
of 290 civilian application satellites have been manufactured
by BOEING that owns the largest satellites manufacturing factory
in El Segundo, CA.

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 1 / 8


1. INTRODUCTION back to contents

Satellite Communications currently have the following 3 segments: 1.- Space 2.- Ground and 3.- Control. When I think of
the Control segment I cannot avoid seeing it like the service elevator I used in Torrespaa in one of my service visits bringing
in VH602 amplifiers, when some one hanged a 'faulty elevator' note on the main elevator that directly reaches transmitters
level. 7 floors between transmitters level and highest service lift level. So it took me double effort to finish installation. The
service lift was of capital importance when the tower was being built, but it was seldom used once the main lift was
operational.
The Satellites Communications industry is attempting to go from the scenario on the left, (from referenced literature) to the
scenario on the right (I have replaced the control segment with USERS):

Such scenario modification is my attempt to highlight the importance that end subscribers must gain if Satellite
Communications are going to get any internet-over-satellite significant market share in densely populated areas already
deeply penetrated by current ground wireless 3G/4G and wired broadband access.
Satellite communications are key part of the nuclear deterrent that in worst case would spot early ICBM launching, allowing
retaliation, securing mutual destruction. Because of the military importance of Satellite Communications, the control segment
is factually a doubled network, with the control segment holding right to eavesdrop and veto what we the civilians would call
the main network. Satellite Communications controllers have their own Satellite Communications channels the same way they
have their own airports, and seaports bases. The military do not have real interest in allowing mass satellite communications
developing, at least not in the same way that GSM started, for instance. They already allowed ARPANET to mutate to the
Internet, why should they allow another spin-off that would only benefit civilians with real competition among operators? The
traditional ground TV broadcast sector has also suffered from such regulatory attitude. TV broadcasters used enough
spectrum potential to offer same or even more broadband capacity compared to ground wireless communications, but ground
broadcast industry never realized, to see military mobile communications technological spin-offs take the stage, along with
most TV broadcasting spectrum eventually (DVB-T/2 switch over) GSM, 3G have centralized product development
investments, there are many trendy mobile phone handsets, with tablet and laptops incorporating wireless modems, but
satellite mobile equipment still needs a small cumbersome dish, or foldable cucumber-like antennas.

Fierce enough is the competition among ground wireless and wired broadband operators so they remotely consider allowing
yet another technology on what they consider their backyard; the cellular market in densely populated areas. Fierce but
wolves team up when intruder arrives. Certainly there is increasing synergy, like DVB hybrid networks, and assisted GPS (A-
GPS from Spirent), and some dual satellite mobile equipment able to directly route traffic to ground wireless base stations in
case of no coverage or better broadband service on the ground than over satellite. But one thing is to use the GPS to relay
back position, saving base stations to do so, and the other one is to give up revenue.

Satellite Communications are best or only choice at sea, in deserted/mountainous areas (oil rigs), and some rural and remote
environments where it is too expensive to bring the copper pair to subscribers or there is poor or no ground wireless
coverage.

The term 'Satellite Communications' here refers to any wireless technology usage on satellite embarked platforms, broad
sense including agreed full duplex channels for a video conference for instance, down to the eavesdropping of mobile phone
base stations and SIGINT, telemetry, sensors data relay, broadband networking and imagery for instance.




2. KEY ENABLER back to contents

Satellite communications started as an exclusively military tool, expanding to mass analog TV/radio broadcasting and long
distance analog telephony, in a similar essential way that Arpanet became the early model to develop the Internet. Digital
communications offer essential advantages compared to analog, among the most important ones; Back Off margins
reductions because platforms can be operated on saturations, versatility to process data through software not hardware only,
and the ability to reconfigure such processing without having to hardware recalibration/upgrading/replacing. The basic
satellite communications ground terminal chain is: Transducer, ADC/DAC, Codec, Energy dispersal (the well known
sawtooth signal for analog TV, or array line-writing row-reading in digital), Outer Coding, Convolutional Coding, Inner
Coding, Waveform/Pulse Shaping (Mapping), Filtering, (IF or direct Modulation [Annex29]) Power Amplification,
Combining and Antenna Matching. Example of main communication chain parameters for INTELSAT/EUTELSAT TDMA in
[Annex28]. Modulation can take place as on baseband production of for instance the COFDM carriers and then modulating the
whole block to the nominal RF carrier on the allocated channel, or a QPSK signal can be directly locate the constellation points
within the RF channel. Specific coding parameters related to Satellite Communications included in [Annex27].
Some of the solutions that the Satellite Industry supplies to the military are: Secure Military Communications
(enabling/disabling channels of any kind with robust coding and cryptography, to manned or unmanned platforms (UAirV,
UMaritimeV UGroundV, in short UXV), any coding, any modulation, at any time, under any weather), SIGINT, tracking,
passive and active microwave radar and equivalent optical LIDAR, and targeting.

Satellite communications relatively recent improvements offer navigation improvement and broadband access to maritime
and air traffic, highlighting the limited accuracy of traditional navigation systems like inertial (example Vectornav, yet needs
calibration and the device is far more expensive that a cellular like device), LORAN (US federal LORAN switched off StarNews
December 2012) and TACAN (intro and main drawback concisely explained here), compared to GPS. Don't ask me about
GLONASS (GlobalSecurity intro) or Galileo (700kg/satellite, expected operative 12 years, 1.42/1.355kW(eclipse) orbit altitude
23,222km, i=56,GSA doesn't give many details, and forecast report) because I guess that if the market success they forecast
to achieve does not happen they can always try impose fines one competitors who have honestly won customers trust, for
more details on such dictatorial tics have look to outrageous recent fine on Microsoft.
The Satellite communications industry (SIA, links) is evolving on 2 directions; 1
st
taking warfare to scenarios and offering
possibilities only dreamt of 60 years ago. Nothing will ever replace the foot soldier taking control of a perimeter, but infrared
24/7 all-weather real time control of areas ranging from small battlefields to entire cities, including ground penetrating radar,
and LF channels to underwater systems, such technologies make a difference between victory or defeat. Such relatively new
technologies have allowed to further reduce needed percentage of troops committed to 'the front line' [JKG book]. Air fire
power is the successor to ground artillery and full control of air surveillance denying the enemy such capacity may render
entire armies and navies defenseless. 2
nd
, additionally there is partial success in a steady penetration of civilian security
applications and internet access over satellite. Satellite communications are;
a success at almost monopolizing sea, desert, mountain communications, or wherever the twisted pair is too expensive to
reach, or nearest ground base station too far to offer coverage,
quite a success on law enforcement support. Intelligence agencies have gone from 'how do I get intel?' to
'How do I process the incoming raw data onto intel?', the gaps have been covered, sometimes painfully noting that there
will always be need for the ground platoon ready to pull in, and the attentive eye monitoring computers that cannot
possibly make some decisions, not until they may be considered human, that knowing humans it will never happen.
Limited success in supplying global wireless mobile equipment to businesses, yet the ground mobile operators cannot
afford giving a single inch of market ground.

A couple of specific recent updates that highlight above mentioned Satellite Communications 1
st
trend:
1.- On November 12
th
2012 US Navy Admiral Joe Sestak, online NBC News interview, mentioned that US president B Obama
had just been appointed a new 4 start general to space command. While I did not find the name of the promoted general,
I found November 2011 US Senate nominations page 148 space command nominee declarations that show US military
trend to bring more satellite communications availability to the front line soldier, and put to keep pace with satellite
communications developments like M code enabled GPS receivers (M code successor to P(Y) code, sent in L1 L2 GPS
downlink signals, link to GPS details in Services) that are already available but Army procurement seemed at the time of
declaration, not having made such terminals available as widely as expected.
2.- On November 20
th
2012 the IET Savoy in London hosted a Sonar display update including presentations from Atlas, BAE
(SSPARS, PARCS, GEODSS), Thales (EUTELSAT), and Ultra (TECB). With an increasing amount of Navies embarking more
and more sensors, as well as higher and faster data processing capacity required, with smaller, quieter, and more
numerous threats at sea and from air to spot, track and be able to destroy, the volume of information is increasing, thus
satellite surveillance, tracking, communications, and targeting is more strategic than ever.
I mention the quiet service because Satellite communications offer sea platforms communication services 'as if' they were on
the ground, lifting traditional sea embarked communications limitations where every embarked pound must be of use or
thrown overboard. Air power and Submarines keep sea trade safe, therefore supplying secure communications to those
working on the edge of technological demands, makes sure that whatever happens in between will be somehow under
control.

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 2 / 8

Submarine acoustic arrays have increased from hundreds (elements) per vessel to thousands. There is so much
information that early operators listening only is no longer working on regular basis. Despite higher processing power on
board, there is also need to keep backhauls for additional processing support in order to process incoming data on time to
make the right decisions. The UK and the US are heavily relying upon satellites to support armed forces. But under budget
constraints, less efficient tools face removal from active duty, for example, the outstanding Nimrods that stopped service
because despite their usefulness, satellite surveillance covers far more area at less cost.
As Mr Sestak pointed out, maritime warfare trends depart from Red October like hunting and it is evolving towards scattered
sensors picking up signals and relaying SIGINT back to C4 nodes. Satellites are the eyes and ears, and despite as expensive
as they are, no modern armed forces consider possible long term successful defence or abroad operations without controlling
satellite communications.
Electromagnetic spectrum is considered by governments a strategic asset, the perfect excuse to grant themselves exclusive
control over it and outrageously bill any civilian attempting to use with ludicrous purposes. Any ham radio enthusiast knows
that the higher the rod the more signals (as well as interference and noise) will be picked, if front end sensitive enough
among other requirements. But for the same reason, satellite communications are inherently superior in area coverage to any
other means of ground wireless communications. Improving spatial resolution if close enough, the shortened delay from GEO
to LEO allows real time monitoring of all sorts of wireless communications, from car engines ignition, heat from combustion
motors, underground water and gas pipes, buried metal structures, to and any kind of mobile base station signals, spinning
HDD, RAM traffic, CRT or LCD or liquid display charging. Such extensive monitoring is being performed by ground base
stations

In 2009 the Satellite Industry generated $261.61 Billion. Satellite communications involved a 4% of the world overall yearly
worldwide communications figure. Apparently a minor component in money volume, compared to the overall
telecommunications industry moving trillions of dollars yearly, the satellite communications sector is a key enabler (like optic
fiber manufacturing, UHF broadcast transmitters manufacturing and ground mobile base stations manufacturing, these
enablers are small in specific departmental, company size or money volume for themselves but their products move those
trillions). My reasoning to argue whether satellite communications has the potential to one day achieve more mobile users
than for instance current 'ground' mobile communications goes as follows:
Because satellites monitor mobile communications and wireless signaling in a broader sense and the majority of
countries with large volumes of wireless traffic share control of the main data monitoring pools where all wireless
communications security screening takes place through multi-disciplinary and international teams, every involved
government wants satellites to carry on and develop accordingly to protect their interests.
You get what you give: Such global communications control effort rewards contributors with satellite feeds, among
other benefits. It is rather expensive, but power corrupts, and power over communications is top currency among
governments.
Governments keep monopoly over majority of control segments: Power corrupts. If something can happen and
you let enough time to happen it inevitably and eventually happens. [EC] economic control requires communications
control, satellites pick almost everything that goes wireless. So if controllers keep tampering economic circuits by
deliberately keeping growing inflation, investing as much as possible on grounding communications, inflating prices with
always growing taxes, there is no foreseeable way to remove such yoke.
Therefore, satellites and satellite communications, like air carriers at sea, like air squadrons, like the nuclear deterrent
(ICBM bases, and mobile units, submarines), and other cornerstone factors that strengthen governments, are of
paramount importance (to those governments), are strategic assets. Such assets are key to survival, a must-
investment for those who have margin to invest. Then you have those who think they have margin to invest on such
expensive technologies, but they don't really have the money to invest, incurring debts that drag entire countries to
bankruptcy and factual economical slavery to foreign actors.

Satellite embarked platforms have limited physical capacity compared to the operational capacity of wired local exchange
stations, compared to mobile operators MSC and compared in general to busy data centers with their spacious buildings that
in many cases didn't cost a penny to recently privatized operators. How many KWh of electrical power does a data centre
with 1000 server blades need to satisfy a big city internet demand on peak hour? What fraction of that electrical power
consumption goes to keeping those servers within room operating temperature and humidity working conditions? It's, at least
initially, less expensive for computing power to be kept on the ground that in outer space, temperature wider span alone out
there readily kills the majority of standard ground working electronics. The Tons of racking steel and copper wiring alone
make it impossible for satellites to embark the same systems, at least as we currently know them. Satellite points of view are
achieved at far higher cost than erecting ground base stations. Launching prices have been reduced, satellite sizes have
also evolved to accommodate requirements, ranging from fist like cubes, to sizes of double decker buses (body only, without
panels), and then we have the International Space Station. However, despite ground base stations cheaper installation costs
compared to launching rockets, again compared against ground base stations, incur regular costs like significant payment to
private properties to use such roofs, the electrical bill, regular monitoring on site and other factors where satellite platform are
more efficient than ground stations.
Ground mobile operators need far more base stations than satellites needed by satellite communications operators to cover
same area. Currently satellites are 1
st
choice in remote areas where traffic is low and where other access technologies
installation is too expensive compared to hanging a satellite dish or not even that, just purchasing a mobile phone like
modem.

So, it makes sense that best option is to keep power hungry circuits, circuit/packet switching and processing equipment on
the ground, where it all is right now, and only embark enough transponding capacity to be able to pick up any wireless signal,
and as many wireless signals as they may be produced within the specific areas to service.
Although satellite communications are of capital importance to the military, something else is whether a predominantly
military controlled sector may eventually gain a significant market share (without eavesdropping, or convincing the end
customers to pay 2/3
rd
overhead on top of the service) in for instance ground wireless mobile communications in densely
populated areas generating regular huge volumes of traffic. One thing is to be able to tell when a computer HDDs start
spinning, or sample wireless waves generated by base stations to/from mobile equipment, things that satellite
communications can do, and as a matter of fact regularly do (read about Echelon for further reference), the other thing, is to
be able to offer a reliable service under heavy traffic pressure, with high availability no matter the amount of users
simultaneously attempting to access such service.

Satellite communications succeed over ground communications where other means of communications would be too
expensive for the simple fact that wireless channels save operators trench digging and cabling operations that cost most
of times same or higher order of magnitude that everything else in the project balance sheet. Aircrafts and maritime
traffic control, as well as spectrum usage control is easier the higher the antennas used. In underdeveloped areas or
fractured territories where small countries find it difficult to agree upon common infrastructure (Africa), communications
satellites offer the meeting point that could bring to end armed conflicts, and eventually help 3
rd
world development. There
are efforts on this direction, but ground wireless operators seem to always get ahead with petty cozy 'socialists-like-it' small
scale projects that saturate the investing possibilities of already reluctant clients, not leaving much room for an alternative
access technology like satellite communications.
As mobile communications antenna riggers well know, the higher the mast the more radio signals and noise picked up. So,
initially GEO and then 2 to 3 orders of magnitude closer orbit satellites (MEO /LEO) offer the perfect base station masts, may
be expensive, but the basic cell area is enhanced from perhaps 10miC with masts on the ground, to 3000kmC or more
(SKYBRIDGE). As former antenna rigger myself, you can't avoid thinking that you don't have to climb towers to hang
radiating systems any more. From pulleys, having to manually heave parts, and long shifts hanging on towers, to launching
rockets? if I had the choice to me it would be clear. If back to 90s a single satellite was able to offer 120,000 telephony
channels, a network of modern low orbit chains with real time hand-over may be even a cheaper alternative to mobile phone
operator offered cost/MBps most of them refusing to give up the annoying monthly download allowance limit on end user
TV+telephone+broadband monthly bills.
However, to the question: Could a combined GEO/MEO/LEO satellite communications network on its own satisfy
the current and future COMPLETE demand of broadband communications traffic? My answer is no wired access
(POT pair, ISDN, ADSL, fiber to nearest street cabinet or to homes) is wining the broadband offer in high density population
areas. They already succeeded at lobbying governments to partly pay the deployment bill of the networks they operate with
public money. Even if an affordable network of satellites could be deployed tomorrow, offering ultrafast broadband at lower
price than that offered by BT Infinity, the market inertia has been already been pushed towards increasing optical fiber
market penetration. Satellite communications may satisfy particular needs from some global corporations and transport
networks (FedEx, DHL, Post Office, railway/bus networks) or individuals and communities like farmers and fishermen. Markets
like diversity, but as useful as satellite communications are to oil riggers, ships and aircrafts, making the market shift would
happen at a too high cost.
If ground wireless operators were sloppy on service, offering poor coverage, using obsolete or faulty technologies, such
shortages would have been a factor to help in an alternative as satellite communications to take a significant market share.
But ground wireless operators are quite the opposite, they and keep their main effort at making sure they control the best
tools, keep their coverage maximized, and keep enough unused overhead traffic capacity to satisfy traffic peaks [ML][JQ].

Possible breach: GNSS is already embedded in the majority of cars and mobile phones. I will detail later on.

I have also read about trials to embed nano-manufactured GPS+GSM systems in shoes, clothes, gadgets even trials in human
bodies. What is going to be next? mass smart watermarking by smearing clothes and food with mild radioactive short life
isotopes traceable from satellites) so we show up as fluorescent dots of interest on display? The satellite communications
sector is undergoing optimization; do more for mess. However, Asian dragons along with European+Russian copy machine
minded engineering sectors, heavily funded by their respective governments, they do not think it twice when it comes to cut
costs regarding developing their own satellite capabilities.
Ground wireless communications is a cut-throat industry that generates huge revenues. It is difficult to penetrate markets
where current operators have reached full coverage, with satisfactory levels of service. Mobile communications keep releasing
technology upgrades. They are constantly evolving to improve offered services and bandwidth, despite many agree that
current ground wired and wireless mobile communications are too expensive. Rewording, in ground mobile communications
substantial chunks of end user bills don't really go to maintaining/improving the network, or enhancing terminals, but to
operators revenue that ends up as taxes the operators pay to regulators arguing spectrum high demand justifies high
regulatory costs shaped as spectrum licensing, monitoring costs and products compatibility acceptance tests. Some see
outrageously priced licensing as the reason why regulators slow down technological evolution that from the point of view of
the majority, need not be so quick because of the costs that would incur, money that has to be kept in operators' accounts
for bankers to make their benefits, bankers that turn out to be the owners of the operators.

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 3 / 8

3. SATELLITES INDUSTRY back to contents

The satellites business, and particularly satellite communications equipment supply is an 80% USA business. US Satellite
manufacturing staff quality rating is well ahead of EU+Russia counterpart, despite Europe+Russia has same order of
magnitude of staff dedicated to Satellites businesses. The EU+Russia lobby is beefing up their respective Satellite related
industries, many times building facilities, buying really expensive tools and creating jobs filled by staff who need at best more
training to catch up with US counterparts. In 2010 the US satellite industry made 70% of the overall market and Satellite TV
was 80% employing over 243,000 , but there has been a 7.5% staff reduction in some areas.
Among the three Satellite industry groups; 1. manufacture 2. launch and 3. services. The manufacturing satellites work
force heads count remained virtually constant, and the sector is reporting increased benefits, so technological improvements
are allowing a reduction required work force that is more optimization than sector shrinking. It's business after all. Whatever
technological improvement is not invested on creating more jobs that might turn up meaningless, but it is translated into
more benefit with same amount of people on payroll. The satellite industry is slowly winning market ground, not losing it.
With roughly similar amount of heads in workforce Satellite communications industry makes more money, which is
characteristic to increasing efficiency. Satellite Industry has specialized financing companies like Near Earth.

Some key players are: Boeing, Northrop Grumman, CAST, EADS-Astrium, IAI, ISRO, ISS-Reshetnev, Lockheed Martin,
Mitsubishi, Orbital, SS/L, Surrey, Thales Alenia. Satellites related Industry comprises specialized companies in the following
technologies: Antennas, Modems, RF parts, OMT/LNB/LNA/LNC, Network Management, Software, Ku band
systems, C band systems, X band systems, Ka band systems.

Some SATCOM-II US government project related companies: AEP Networks, C-COM, CACI, Eutelsat America, GlobalSat
LLC, Helius, IMC, Intelsat, (Satellite Ventures SkyTerra )LightSquared, MotoSAT, SES Americom, Thuraya, XTAR LLC.
Let's now have a look to Satellite sub-systems following the segments mentioned in the introduction. The overall cost figure
of merit Cost/pixel embarked systems is being reduced (similar to cost/(in^2 SiO) for waffles to produce chips) which is
good.


4._SUBSYSTEMS back to contents

Satellite communications are basically transponding platforms; transparent (repeaters, or in TDMA-only mode, not far from
basic RF hot-bridges) or with Time Space switching and processing capabilities (TS network configurations from telephony
exchange stations) including BER improvement down to bit/symbols recovery. The payload [Annex8/9] is embarked on
launching vehicles, once deployed these platforms orbit around the Earth (read annexes for mechanics equations to remain
orbiting), along with lower g[kg*m/s^2], vacuum, and harder operational conditions than on Earth. On the spin stabilized
satellite example, there is a section of the main cylinder that keeps spinning to help the satellite stay on orbit.


4.1.- Space segment:

All support sub-systems comprised by frame, power supply (may include nuclear power cell), batteries,
thrusters, solar panels, navigation and telemetry (interfacing with control on Earth), attitude control (on board yaw,
pitch, roll control), temperature control (may include split cooling configuration with liquid Mercury as coolant, I include in
[Annex20] a table of possible cooling liquids showing operational temperature ranges. Basic reliability rates table in
[Annex26]. Some 90s communication satellites with onboard processing capabilities table [Annex26.2].


All these subsystems support the communications payload; the transponder. Besides vacuum, space radiation
exposure), and solar wind (Sun photons behave like wind on solar panels, slightly pushing GEO satellites away [Annex42])
among any other outer space factor, from the electronics point of view, operational temperature ranges are of capital
importance, the starting point to choose components to build a working prototype. Following real temperature operational
ranges required for different subsystems:
min[C] max[C]
Electronic equipment and battery temperature ranges mentioned on the left
apply on stand-by mode only. When operating, both ranges narrow down to
[+10,+45]C and [0,+10]C respectively. See how spin stabilized and 3
axes stabilized satellites look like in the [Annex8,9]. Satellites are evolving
to either larger sizes to accommodate data processing capability, and to
smaller sizes, some of them the size of a fist cube. I have read about letter
stamp size like that would barely pick up signals and send them back to
Earth. Satellites are refining beam shaping, increasing the amount of beams,
sometimes no longer needing to deploy a parabolic reflector or any reflector
at all. Main characteristics of FSAT, LEO N, LEO SAT1 (=Teledesic), MEO
J/K/V and NGSO-KX satellite systems in
Antennnas -150 +80
Electronic equipment -30 +50
Solar panels power generator -160 +55
Battery -30 +25
Propellant Reservoir +10 +55
on-board thrusters or
pyrotechnic unit
-170 +55

[annex10]. Payload main characteristics include: Satellite
mass (primary design parameter to decide as earlier as
possible during the design process), Primary power [W], RF
power [W], eclipse operational, and operational time
span or design life. Make sure the client signs down
agreeing on anything proposed or there is no point about
moving a single finger until budget secured in the shape of
Memorandums of Understanding, Contractual clauses and all
the legal paperwork that must precede any engineering
effort of this caliber. Also in the annexes satellite specific
payload main characteristics (SBS(F3), ANIK-C,
SATECOM-V, ARABSAT, TELECOM-I, EUTELSAT-
I/I(ECS/)II/V/VII) [Annex11].
Let's focus on the transponder configuration, for instance
that from a Koreasat transponder block diagram
satellite [Annex12], South Korea indeed. Transponders are
either 'transparent' (repeater or bent-pipe), or with:
'switchboard' functions, Time Space exchange
demodulating and modulating signals
decoding and coding
Bit level recovery capacity, cleaning the signal and
showing very low equivalent Noise Figures, without
having to leave unused large Back Off margins to
prevent intermodulation products


Anik-E main body tear down (TELESAT)



Yet a couple more transponders: 1. Morelos payload block diagram [Annex13] satellite communications subsystem
(Hughes Space and Communications group) and 2. bent-pipe ANIK-E (TELESAT Canada) transponder [Annex14] in the
annexes so we can compare different lay outs for same functionality.
The antenna arrays may have horns aiming directly on Earth, without reflector, synthesizing beams with Radar processing
techniques. I have found an INTELSAT antennas subsystem [Annex15] with reflectors for LNB and PA arrays 90, there
are better ways to avoid coupling. The schematic just under top right corner 1.0mC 14-11GHz reflector side view is the RF
splitter-combiner available on board to route received signals down on earth again. Such RF commuters are mainly
mechanical devices and it takes seconds for the array to re-arrange paths. All the contrary to modern solid state switch-over
routing that VLSI implemented, they only work on low voltage, low power signals, allowing high data processing rates, leaving
RF muscle to embedded-on-chassis RF systems.


4.2.- Hubs, Ground Stations


On the left, Example of generic large Ground
station lay out, with 3 antennas, from ITU
handbook for satellite communications. Up,
Menwith Hill satellite hub. Radomes have to
stand bad weather, and at the same time they have
to be 'transparent' throughout the radio band of
use. According to an internet web site this ground
station is used by Echelon. But to be honest,
nowadays, if the customer pays for the service and
data provided, as long as it is legal, does it really
matter? Also in the annexes, 1.- general Earth
station (segment 2) block diagram [Annex16],
and 2.- Earth station Intelsat types A, B, D, F1,
F2 AND F3 parameters [Annex17]. Major satellite
hubs may be merged with optical fiber nodes,
wired telephony/broadband exchange large stations

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 4 / 8

and ground microwave link stations to save costs. Such stations may require electrical High Voltage to Low Voltage
conditioning (that includes a bulky and expensive transformer among other parts), if the nearest electrical power line only
happens to be HV. Some of these stations include doubled power lines, and one autonomous on-site that is tested regularly,
like I have tested telephone exchange station batteries acid levels tests among many different regular procedures. Common
AC/DC Power supply distribution block diagram [Annex18].

4.3.- Hubs, Control: MAC

The main parameters that control stations monitor are: Antenna Command status, Receivers status, Transmitters status,
Power status, Building Integrity, with test points on RF, IF and BB. Control stations must keep printed record of monitoring.
ITU requires the MAC functionalities the same way that a chip designer configures a microprocessor pin-out configuration to
satisfy desired functionality, see ITU basic MAC segment requirements [Annex23] in annexes, with in some stations a
single operator being able to look up any of monitored parameters on a pilot cockpit-like monitoring desk.

4.4.- Mobile/Fixed Subscriber Equipment

Satellite Mobile/Fixed subscriber equipment systems range from fixed/embarked/handheld/embedded beacons that either
relay back regular information like sea conditions, weather parameters, or they receive only SMS like commands, to control
machinery, or half/full duplex data transmission to accommodating one way HDTV or/and broadband internet. Some
equipment; Iridium 9501 pager, 9575, IsatPhone, FleetBroadband500, Simplex, GSP-1700, Thuraya's products, DM7020 HD,
Amiko, Comag HD25HDTV, ComagSL40HD, SK80FRHD kit, Satwest for aircrafts, AFF/SpiderS3 /SkyNodeS200, BGAN; Hughes
HNS9202 Thrane Explorer700. Comment on Iridium 9575 Extreme sat phone total recall [ID].

SOME BUILDING BLOCKS: I have gathered some satellite communications system building blocks that (some of them)
have gone from hardware only to software designs. Here I would have liked to develop a SIMULINK model and I would have
found out how well a bistatic radar with DVB-T/T2 transmitters illuminating and satellites detecting would work, that was the
initial proposal for case study [RAD]. But that would be a more an at least 6 months project than a 4 weeks case study. Some
of the compiled blocks in annexes 19,20, and 22

5.- SERVICES back to contents

Here I am going to briefly comment some of the services that communication satellites currently offer. Mobile Satellite
Technologies started offering telemetry (Sputnik transmitted a single tone that through calculated Doppler deviation was
supposed to aid Soviet Submarines navigation. It did so but only for few months as gravity brought it down sooner than
expected, probably residual atmosphere had not been taken into account. GOCE [Annex3] shows design improvement on this
regard. Sputnik didn't have fins behaving as short wings to take advantage of such drag [Annex43]. Some satellites have
gotten closer to Earth surface in order to:

1.- Reduced delay: Signals from/to a satellite at 35700km above surface experience at 1.9GHz(m) a delay of 0.238sec
(including delay trip up+ delay trip down). FSL = sq(/(4tR))= -189.07dB. If the orbit gets closer, let's say 1500km
above Earth surface, then FSL is reduced to -161.5dB, a message up and down only takes 10s. We go from annoying
audio echoing to being able to keep pace with TTL gates pumping current or shutting down transistors on electronic
boards, and now same embarked receiver is receiving ~1000 times higher signal levels on both ground and embarked
RF front ends! the only thing is that satellite chains are necessary with SLI (microwave or/and optical SLI a couple
block diagrams in annexes) with real time hand-shake and hand-off to keep coverage on stationary subscribers.
2.- Increased spatial accuracy: as it is shown in the NOAA SAR scenario [Annex26.2], LEO can sweep strips of ground
that all together configure accurate maps.

Digital TV: One of the problems with analog wireless communications requiring high power amplification is that they require
large TWT Back Off margins to avoid excessive RF intermodulation while digital transponders conveniently work on
saturation, getting the most out of the up sent radio power. On the ground DVB-T/T2 Single Frequency Networks
uses GPS to sync transmitters in SFN mode to transmit OFDM symbols at exactly the same time. Because transmitters
are scattered in a way that the delay from any transmitter to any receiver is no longer than a predefined Guard
Interval, a known fraction of the OFDM symbol length, it produces coherent reception (constructive symbol
reception) where receivers deliberately ignore whatever happens on the symbol tails GI. The Vertical Horizontal
polarizations isolation and frequency minimum spacing are design parameters that have become less stringent
when working with digital wireless channels. There are still intermodulation limitations within digital modulations, but the
equivalent coding gain, along with regenerative capability, including capacity to change data rates, also being able
to switch frequency and time channels, render analog wireless channels less efficient compared to digital wireless.
Something else is that for instance some satellite and ground microwave FM links, in the past widely used in ground and
satellite communications will be around until amortization of the investment is accomplished, probably choosing COFDM
technology to upgrade the ground microwave link. I recall jamming 1/5
th
of an 8MHz UHF DVB-T channel back in 1999,
or overlapping an analog PAL signal exactly on same DVB-T signal UHF channel, PAL carrier peak ~11dB above flat,
noise-like DVB-T signal within same UHF channel, and both analog PAL and the DVB-T were both perfectly received, not
even switching hierarchy, an option that allows DVB-T signal under heavy impairment to trade off data compression|,
reducing signal quality BER+, reducing the amount of used carriers to only those still being received. DVB-T was so
robust that it has allowed room to DVB-T2, again trading off initial data robustness for more broadband available within
same UHF channel bandwidth DVB-S2 transmission block diagram [Annex36]. Comment on Multiple access
efficiency [TDMA].

Interactive services: DVB-RCC (DVB-S with Cable TV network interaction as return channel to collect subscriber uplink
queries), DVB-RCG, DVB-RCGPRS (same but uplinking through GSM and GPRS respectively), DVB-RCS/RCS2 (2 way satellite).
In April 2008, ICO along with Lucent-Alcatel and Expway launched 1
st
DVB-SH satellite, ICO G1. And EUTELSAT W2A
carries Solaris Mobile, communications payload DVB-SH, S band for Europe.

Ground emergency wireless system GWEN: Ground Wave Emergency Network 150 and 175MHz replaced by satellite
communications in 1999. GWEN was designed to survive and continue operation after nuclear attack.

Satellite Optical communications: I haven't found much, probably because there is where the money is hidden. Superior
beam narrowness and much higher frequencies and therefore available bandwidth get Optical ahead of radio in areas
like telemetry, and ranging, or even communications where Path Attenuation and worst case fading are not excessive,
ruining the availability. There have to be enough photons returning to the satellite or getting to the bi-static optical
receiver in order to be detected. Optical Surveillance Space Technologies, AMOS (technical papers available online).

GPS, Galileo GLONASS and Beidou (GEO, in 2003
China also invested directly on Galileo, and I have read
about their balloon communications satellite.

I reproduce GSA forecasts because not even
themselves (GSA) think they may one day overtake
wireless communications in market volume. GPS
deployment for civilians was a change in habits, for
instance for vehicle drivers, fleet controllers and
ground surveying. Having an Ordnance local chart
handy is always useful, but with GPS, the traditional
triangulation with optical devices to take accurate
positioning measurements has been relegated to
measuring short distances like building construction
and urban

compliance double checking. In the majority of situations there is no more need to interrogate drivers or pilots if the
vehicle GPS and a telemetry channel reporting location on real time. Initially, US DoD implemented a deliberate
interference that increased uncertainty to 300ft balls approx, but civvies found ways round like scattering static stations
that would report their exact location to be used by Differential GPS receivers. Mentioning GPS is just one of many
quantum leaps that satellite communications mean to human kind.

Some Specific products: Example of what Satellite communications companies offer: Internet over Satellite from for
instance Hughes Networks; Transportable TCS-Swiftlink, (transportable may be embarked but not hand held) L3-GCS
Panther X-band VSAT, Cheetah GD SATCOM Warrior Terminals. DataPath: On-the-move; GSA Satellite Services-II
(SATCOM-II) contract for US government V-SAT (broadband, high availability and back-up, GVF Global V-SAT Forum)
offering same IT capabilities as wired connections like P2P mesh connections (SCPC), and offering enough reliability
to secure contractor demands like Continuity of Operations (COOP), that is minimum thresholds on reliability and
availability. Government contracts impose terms like IDIQ; Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity. Rewording whoever
awarded these kind of contracts have to be ready to stand long term demand, and be able to deliver 'any' quantity. Any
one knows that sooner or later the engineering department will have to find ways round to such demands, but on the
other hand, high expectations allow for high prices to be asked to clients. Cannot be that expensive if Amateur radio gets
the hang of it with OSCAR satellites.
There are 3 satellite major operators offering global mobile communications service: Inmarsat (3xGEO alt 22,000mi),
Iridium (66xLEO alt 485mi)[Annex37] and Globalstar. Then as example of regional operators offering 'regional' mobile
communications throughout the Americas: LightSquared, TerreStar (Hughes) DBSD. (the use of the word 'regional' is in my
opinion a bit bit awkward here as they refer to an area from Anchorage to the Patagonia prairies. Personal Communications
(PCS) over satellite: GMPCDS.

ICO (Intermediate Circular Orbit), now Pendrell (Reters July 2011l) and Terrestar S band, orbital slot 111 W Genus-1
blackberry like mobile phone hand set combining AT&T and satellite coverage, North America only) deploying MSS
(Mobile Satellite Service) networks related to ATC (Ancillary Terrestrial Components) 2.2GHz. It is called satellite mobile
coverage with ancillary terrestrial component (coverage).

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 5 / 8
INMARSAT: F1 went global (TMcNet 2009) completing broadband deployment through repositioning programme without
service brown/black-outs, 2009; I4 Americas (98W), I4 EMEA (25E) ASIA-PAC(143.5E) . I found the Inmarsat online
ship contact webpage.

BGAN: Broadband Global Area Network. Voice, M2M, XpressLink (monthly fee, chosen by for instance FrontLine,
maritime oil crude transport company, solution combines L-band and Ku V-SAT, upgrade possible to 50Mbps Ka
GlobalExpress), and GMDSS: Global Maritime Distress and Safety System


6.- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS EXAMPLES back to contents

6.1.- SKYBRIDGE: 80 satellites (72N 72S) in Walker configuration 80/20/15 (meaning 15 satellites/plane and
next satellite on sky is 67 vertical 15 horizontal apart) offering variable 60Mbps bandwidth to covered areas on fixed
Earth grid 3000kmC/cell. Ground receivers need dishes between 0.3 and 1mC.

that is scanned by a network of advanced LEO satellites with onboard demod/mod regeneration capacity (no bent-pipe
repeater, therefore not subject to BO margins to avoid IP) and Inter Satellite Link communications to hand over open
channels seamlessly in same way that ground wireless stations hand off moving users changing cells. Here the base stations
are the moving parts while the subscribers are relatively steady from the satellites points of view.

Tx EIRP[dBW] C[dBW]
Service Link forward
satellite user
21 dBW over 22.6MHz 6.4
Service Link, return
satellite to gateway
7.9 dBW over 2.93MHz -7.1
Infrastructure Link
satellite to gateway
21.4dBW over 22.6MHz 6.4

6.2.- VSAT EQUIPMENT DESIGN START PARAMETERS

Uplink Space Downlink
Frequency 14.5GHz Satellite Location 70E frequency 12GHz
EIRP 55dB elevation 5 Fade margin 5dB
Fade margin 6dB G/T 0dB/K C/No 69dBHz
C/No 70dBHz EIRP 20Dbw G/T_vsat 20dB/K
Access TDMA C/N_IP 70dB C 1.5m
Modulation QPSK transponder transparent Eb/No (BER<1E-7) 6.5dB

VSAT antennas have large side lobes compared to large dishes. A Ku 14/11 configuration means uplink 14GHz
downlink 11GHz. And Ka 30/20 means 30GHz uplink, 20GHz downlink. More V-SAT details in the annexes.

6.3.- GOCE: [Annex3] is a modern LEO example, equipped with ion thruster. It also has fins to generate some lift
and counter residual atmosphere drag, photos in annexes section

6.4.- COSPAS-SARSAT: distress locator service detecting beacons transmitting [406.0 406.1]MHz, (121.5/243 MHz
stopped in 2009, 406MHz band allows sending short messages). Ship beacons are EPIRB, aircraft beacons are ELT
and personal locators are PLB. LEOSAR and GEOSAR are combined. Distress alerts are relayed back to LEOLUT and
GEOLUT ground 20 fixed stations scattered throughout the world.

6.5.- ORBCOMM (1993) satellite system [Annex24], from Orbital, Orbcom scenario depicted in the annexes.

6.6.- SAR example: NOAA One of the problems early mono-static RADAR systems had and some around still suffer
from related clutter, is that targets and terrain may shadow other targets. Sometimes a known target might be
disregarded because the illumination from a particular side returns a poor cross section therefore the operator would
ignore it. Synthetic Aperture Radar aims at reconstructing targets by coherently adding different signals from different
angles that come from same target. Even then there may be shadow areas left behind, but LEO SAR satellites sweep
Earth surface and each strip is scanned from different angles, allowing partial or total reconstruction of terrain
surface. NOAA is a SAR system belonging to the Canadian Space agency [Annex26.3].






7. WHERE ARE THE BIRDS back to contents

US Space Objects Registry, CelestTrack, LyngSat, Orbitssera. I have found 3 different formats: NASA TLE, OLE and AMSAT.
I include copy of explanation TLE and explanation for Keplerian elements orbit object coding in the annexes section just in
case it may be a good start point to write a program that reads such data. Americom satellites position.

NASA TLE: Two Line Element (TLE) orbit element descriptor protocol was developed by NASA, and the One Line Element
(OLE) belongs to the US Navy.


8. REGULATORS back to contents

It is not whether satellites have enough power to reach any spot on Earth but to make sure they do not fry things and
people. Exposure to non-ionizing radiation longer than certain safety spans may be dangerous to body tissues. Maximum RF
Transmission levels: CCIR rec 524. I haven't found yet same limitations for open air optical beams except civilian
authorities banning the use of hand held laser pointers on the vicinity of airports to prevent reported temporary blindness of
pilots on few cases, as if some people had nothing better to do than aiming at aircrafts with off-the-shelf hand held laser
pointers, I searched and it is true that some people living nearby airports where fined on this regard.

The referenced Handbook has at the end an extensive list of ITU regulations on Satellite Communications, the ones more
often used; Antenna Pattern of Earth Stations CCIR recs. 465 and 580, Maximum Transmission levels CCIR
rec.358,
Orbital position station keeping and antenna pointing requirements tolerances (for Geostationary), Radio
Regulations article 29, Permissive levels of interference from other networks CCIR recs.466/867/523/483.

I also found link budget calculations guidelines, so the regulator makes it clear how link budgets have to be done. For
instance that Noise power (in Satellite Communications) from interference cannot be larger than 20% overall noise power.
Regenerative transponders, and uncorrelated noise, allow BER_total ~ BER_uplink + BER_downlink.

In the UK, OFCOM has recently accomplished the analog to digital TV transition (now DVB-T/T2, phased switch-over) but
while satellite broadcast is widely used in the UK, internet access over satellite is not seen as a preferred option, as the report
shows. In previous OFCOM report after a lengthy evaluation of a bulky prototype head end (kind of, grab that LNB that is
supposed to be attached to huge reflector and put it) on tripod aiming at a satellite from inside a comfortable room, I quote '
.. research has to be done here ..' meaning that OFCOM has to do some (more) research (regarding internet access over
satellite). In between lines I also read invisible ink; we (OFCOM) are going to do it but we are busy some where else right
now.

I put it this way to highlight how little interest Europe has to divert investment, time and research away from wired and
ground wireless access networks. My reasoning is; we are NATO members, but instead of trusting US satellites we try to wire
as much as possible, and we do not let internet over satellite US products in our markets, but we export as many BMW and
Audi cars as we can to the US.

In the OFCOM report there is also an odd reference to problems caused by rain attenuation, again, my guess the OFCOM
manager gave this project to some one who gave it to some one else in ARQIVA, who ended up ringing the University of
Plymouth, who in turn found a 1
st
year student to undertake the mundane laboring of research who didn't even bother
justifying the presented text.

So, as useful as it may be, just out of a nationwide analog-to-digital TV broadcasting technology transition, with DAB not
quite achieving the market share that it was initially expected, and the ongoing crisis, the UK government sees wiring the
nation for broadband access along with 4G and 5G with clear priority ahead of anything else.

Another above 10GHz sample report I have chosen, OFCOM March 2007, points on the same direction; 1.5mC dish. Even
back to 2007, with ADSL already everywhere, do you know of anyone who'd have had the mood and time to have a 1.5mC
dish installed on his/her roof? Because I don't.

I have taken some notes from the referenced Handbook regarding how regulators want Satellite
Communications Link Budgets carried out, see [Annex34]. Relations between C/N C/N0 C/T and Eb/No in [Annex35].

INTELSAT and EUTELSAT required BER for Satellite Internet Broadband and Satellite SMS services for businesses
[Annex35.2].



John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 6 / 8


9. STRATEGIC SECTOR THAT INCLUDES BIG BROTHER back to contents

Communications interception (eavesdropping, interfering, denying service, supplanting) is one of the most basic types of
communications, widely exploited in spectrum warfare, yet some of these areas are proving to be of capital importance in
preventing crime, even when not exactly lawfully performed by law enforcement.

The evolution of Echelon is closely related to Satellite Communications development. WWII accelerated the increasing
importance of controlling the electromagnetic spectrum, as well as rocketry development, technology that has eventually
taken over conventional artillery and is the only current type of vehicle able to motion in outer space where there is no
Oxygen for conventional Turbo Jet engines. As historic sample of such spectrum surveillance evolution, it is well known the
WWII Royal Navy Telconia success severing North Atlantic underwater wired communications between Germany and the US
during WWII forcing all real time communications traffic go wireless so that the allied forces could monitor any real time
message crossing the Atlantic.

There is a large amount of online misleading references regarding Echelon. As far as I understood, Echelon is a joint control
segment, mainly military, for all wireless communications monitoring; it is one of the interfaces (for wireless data acquisition)
that feeds joint data processing pools that grounds all radar, base station, and satellite signals, sharing the primary source
(Radar primary), to prevent surprise aggressions that might end up in WWIII.

No government capable of launching satellites will at least consciously, allow a lucrative and strategic sector to become a
potential threat because civilian greed has left 'the door wide open' to attacks like cyber attacks, intrusive surveillance,
foreign radar illumination, unauthorized radio signals collection and a long collection of threats that ends up with
hostile aircraft intrusion and enemy missile attack with any harmful war head you may think of. Such threats usually
referred as Nuclear Bio Chemical attacks [XBV] may wipe out entire cities, when 80 years ago during WWI hundreds of
artillery units had to pound for hours or days narrow strips of front lone before attempting to advance a few yards.


10. FREQUENCY BANDS back to contents

Satellite communications frequencies and power levels are heavily regulated because like for ground TV/radio broadcasting
stations, it is not whether satellites may or may not pick up signals of standard equipment within coverage area, but to make
sure that satellite downlinks do not interfere ground equipment keeping power levels within safe levels to population.
From the time I worked with TV (ground) transmitters, ground antennas sooner or later generate shadow areas, or Earth
curvature, weather, interferences and other factor weaken further than expected transmitted signals. Satellites overcome
many of these problems because they have direct LOS, and the majority of the signal paths are straight lines across free
space, much of it vacuum, depending on elevation, except when near horizon, low elevation links, or noise/interferences
nearby either sides of the link.

In [Annex30]: WARC92, main frequency band limits for Satellite to sea, Satellite to air and Satellite to ground wireless traffic.
The most popular Satellite Communications band per launch in 2012 was the Ku band. From the ITU handbook, a bit more
detailed in [Annex30.1].

Low frequencies usually reach further than higher frequencies to the point that 50kHz may penetrate sea town to 200m.
What's far more difficult is to generate underwater electromagnetic signals that reach further than a few hundred meters due
to low impedance. Water offers far better acoustic transmission properties, better than air, and in fact there are acoustic
systems that are capable of low data rate transmission and reception over hundreds of nautical miles, using repeaters.

Of capital importance is compliance with spectral masks, like required by ETSI302307 (download is free, just register)
amplitude and group delay masks [Annex31]. Band C is mostly used for Earth stations to Satellites uplinks.















11. CONCLUSIONS back to contents

I chose a sector overview to rather dive into a specific system or technology because I wanted to assess the possibility of the
satellite communications reaching internet access market shares similar to current wireless and wired operators. I also wanted
to learn about working satellite communication systems, main parameters only. If in essence only, it resembles the early
times of wired telephony when many different local operators would develop businesses for later on requiring robust
nationwide communications backbones to support core traffic.

Conclusion 1, Software radio is the way: Software radio is a concept coming from military platforms, that with smart
enough processors and code along with right RF headers, a single platform can virtually use any coding, modulation or
frequency channel. Again I am oversimplifying but the developments that initially helped to embark a single platform on
military aircrafts, a data processing platform that allows pilots to interface with any kind of wireless standard around, that
flexibility has ended up in mobile phones that can use GSM, GPRS, EDGE, 3G and 4G, all in the size of a pocket gadget. If the
platform is smart enough, as National Instruments, Software is the instrument.

Conclusion 2, rivals and partners at the same time: Ground operators see satellite communications useful from a
service point of view but as a rival that may end up sizing market share.

Conclusion 3, market saturation: Deploying an alternative access technology where 3G already being upgraded to 4G,
where tablets are being kicked in like Japanese underground users are pushed in wagons on peak hour, where many
subscribers already have 2 mobile phones, or expeditionary marketing effort called 3D trying to make us watch TV with
coloured paper clown goggles arguing that they have captured 3D on a plane. Saturated markets are prone to dishonest
practices like regulators fining foreign products with most absurd excuses, that regretfully regulators have the tools to turn
into laws and fines.
Market drag: The European government has correctly spotted great potential on satellite communications, but the US
satellite industry is already exploiting such potential (as sample, SKYBRIDGE). Then if something as common as a well
accepted computer operative system, a consumer product from Microsoft, suffers a millionaire fine at hands of European
authorities just because the program does not ask whether users want to use Internet Explorer from Microsoft or they want
to install another Internet browser, then it is difficult to think how any working US satellite system will secure long market
share without suffering puppet proxy attacks from local competitors, additional unexpected costs, patents piracy, and
dishonest fines from Spanish inquisition minded regulators. My father went to sell heavy clay processing machines to former
Soviet Union clients. He came back saying that the budget had to be doubled, initial amount to design, produce, supply, and
install products, and the other half to bribe and secure contacts, delivery, and to make it safe for things and people to go as
planned and end up wherever expected [OG].
Iridium initial bankruptcy, yet the excellence of provided service that allowed 2
nd
chance, is evidence that there is demand for
such service. Europeans use puppet regulators, kind of Spanish inquisition, American Iridium competitors went for a financial
torpedo in the shape of tampering human resources basics that let in incompetent managers who were granted far too much
power that ended up crashing the budget. That delayed deployment/operation but it eventually took off.
If the people on the street could walk in shops and purchase hand held satellite equipment that could challenge current
ground wireless offer at a competitive price, ground wireless operators would overnight slash prices arguing something as odd
that rare earths prices have dropped suddenly, and that would force the newcomer to either reduce prices to stay competitive
reducing initial benefit so necessary for any product launch.
So regulators and operators defend their respective markets in their zones of influence, but satellite communications make
the world really small from data sharing point of view.

Conclusion 4, satellites make good wireless base stations. Despite previous conclusions, technically speaking,
communications satellites are far better wireless base stations than radiating systems on ground masts; larger coverage
areas, see-it-all within cell (rays no longer cross several buildings, and metal structures that suddenly reduce signal levels).
Launching is expensive, but ground wireless operators also need far many more base stations to cover equivalent area. More
base stations means more power consumption, more regular maintenance, more to be spent on towers, and backhauls.
The safety zone of a radiating system is a rectangular shape right in front of the radiating system that must be kept clear to
avoid tissue damage due to high electric field [V/m] levels. Home equipment would require dishes to focus beam on satellite,
but LEO chains may even be close enough pick up signals like ground base stations do, after all 1/r^2 means same
attenuation takes place for 1
st
10km than for next 100km. Transmitting mobile equipment may need more power, but not
much more than many would expect. I have not had time to compare link budgets, but now there is almost always clear path
between mobile equipment and satellite base stations, so fading is probably far less than mobiles seeking nearest 3G base
stations for soft hand-overs across buildings, power lines, vehicles and motors generating noise, and many other relatively
close antennas interfering at random. On the ground sooner or later signal rays keep crossing each other, when connecting to
satellites, all antennas aim up.




John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 7 / 8


Conclusion 5, budget constraints favour satellite superiority: Satellite communications improvements have led to cost
cuts like the scrapping of the outstanding RAF Nimrod, the delay in producing UK advanced air carriers, or the gradual
reduction of VHF and lower radio bands like in 2006 regional Spanish authorities made a beach party and a political major
achievement out of the 'dismantling' of Radio Liberty station [RL].

The star of last mile wired internet access, the undisputed winner technology despite the coupling problems that arise when
too much current pumped in and out of such 'short' local loops, is the ADSL [DSL]. But with up to 140,000basic wireless
channels/satellite wireless, back in the 90s, circuits per satellite with satellite chains offering round the clock coverage, with
lower orbits that allow shorter latency than many busy internet servers, with satellite-to-satellite channels that can
dynamically route traffic to any hub on Earth is difficult to see any other impediment than the current operators that use
regulators and governments like puppets.

Conclusion 6, superiority in modern warfare depends upon satellite services availability: Product example BAE
Dagger (Janes). The Military are gradually approaching broadband access to the front line with programs that are expensive,
and from the soldier point of view, the only true validation would be surviving combat, but mass commitment of any resource
to front line is a disastrous strategy with such lethal weaponry around.

Conclusion 7, Technological synergies generates business opportunities: Satellite communications may greatly
benefit from broadly developing dual systems with satellite downlink data downloads and return channels with far less
traffic over wired or ground wireless operators.

Robust encryption and base stations within LOS of subscribers are two points preventing subscribers from eavesdropping
other subscribers, or detecting traffic presence alone, a system limitation that along with power level limitations and
omnidirectional antennas has kept WiFi as close range access technology only. Because in satellite systems all subscriber
antennas have to point upwards, the man-in-the-middle problem disappears, a security problem, here and there occasionally
reported, not only in ground wireless communications, but also in wired telephony. Satellite base stations for mass internet
access would be inherently more secure, potentially allowing far faster and easier IP address traceability.

OPEN LINES

I chose and overview to gain understanding of the sector. Diving into specifics would be a project, like the project module in
the MSc. Because this is not a project I close this case study with some open lines:

Open line 1, comparing ground wireless link budgets to satellite link budgets: It would help to compare different
satellite-fixed ground equipment, satellite-mobile ground equipment to 3G equivalent link budgets and from there to generate
a list minimum requirements like power antenna directivity, available data rate and basic BER for different coding and
modulation schemes.

Open line 2, GPS service upgrade potential, sending and receiving free SMS over software upgraded GPS
equipment: GPS is the most extended navigation system on Earth. It is the only product and service from the satellite
communications industry that enjoys comparable levels of popularity to trendy mobile phones, tablets and laptops with
wireless WiFi/GSM/GPRS/EDGE/3G/4G/WiMAX capabilities.

It would be interesting to see if upgrading/reprogramming current GPS receivers, standard 64kbps channels can be
downloaded and used as 1 way downlink channel. While GPS tutorials correctly allocate 1 segment to users, many experts
consider that satellite network control (MAC) must remain completely sizing one of the segments, for security purposes.
SKYBRIDGE is already offering internet access over satellite but it is a stranger in Europe. However, GPS has already
scattered millions of terminals worldwide, and the P(Y) code (P code is 10.25MHz 267 days long PRN code and Y is P
encrypted) is being 'upgraded'. GPS receivers could be software upgraded a bit further, adding a couple additional downlink
carriers that GPS receivers would be able to use to receive downlink internet traffic. Selling another set top box or another
mobile phone that can access the internet over satellite would be far more complicated and costly from the marketing point
of view (the market is already saturated), than somehow upgrading firmware and applications in already existing GPS
receivers, to for instance download internet through GPS positioning channels, while queries uplink could be down through
ground wireless operators. The terminals already have the hardware capability, the processor is fast enough and the
ADC/DAC, filtering and other functions are software based while on same frequency channels. May be more memory would
be required, may be the whole architecture would require additional buses to be included, but the RF processing capacity is
already on the hands of the end customer.








COMMENTS back to contents

[DSL] ISDN has advantages over ADSL, more robust to coupling, but the operators are the ones to prevent subscribers
enjoying 2 pairs when they could do with 1 pair only. ADSL already exploits the asymmetry of internet traffic, allocating far
less available bandwidth to uplink than downlink. DVB-T has an upgrade that also uses wired and wireless secure channels to
uplink queries of online shopping of items that have been purchased while browsing product details downloaded through TV
channels. ADSL routers need distance to nearest exchange station to be less than approximately 3mi (wired length, not
straight line distance) or any other short distance on same order of magnitude, to avoid COFDM carriers of one subscriber
excessively overlapping other COFDM ending up in BER degradation due to Inter-Symbol Interference. Subscriber pairs must
be so tightly packed in trunks, that excessive coupling is unavoidable above certain transmission reception levels. Operators
do not want subscribers to watch TV over the internet without paying the cost of pumping current to keep data streaming on
continuous mode. There is a huge gap of electrical consumption in the local exchange stations whether exclusive analog
telephony traffic is supported, very low consumption, or when the majority of routers keep streaming round the clock,
demanding exclusive circuits (back to circuit focused access thinking, when it was abandoned years ago to think ATM and
packet switching arguing it is more efficient from the operator point of view, but subscribers like dedicated circuits).

[EC] I still haven't found any evidence that proves that secret services (any) are impervious to temptations like using
communications for free, or a bit further down the line, injecting fake currency through privileged control on data storage and
communications. Communication controllers may not tamper democratic election processes, or that they may not cause
trouble to foreign companies in competition against their national ones, or influence bidders to large contracts. The ultimate
and only effective regulation against any abuse is the market itself. Governments are economical intruders from the business
efficiency point of view (Milton Freeman, Nobel price definition of government regulations) that for the sake of the common
greater goood, health&safety, security, spectrum compatibility and so on. But governments, not tax paying businesses and
citizens, turn out to be the financial 'black holes' that are dragging down an economy that is producing more millionaires than
ever. This is not a crisis caused by plagues on crops, bad weather ruining sea trade, bubonic epidemic, or war between
nations for resources, border lines or religion. This is the wealthy of all over the world agreeing to exert control over
everything worth being controlled, for the sake of avoiding another world wide war.
20% VAT on food, 1 out of 5 goes to Brussels where it disappears, perhaps in the Hadron Collider, or in Galileo satellites
redundant to perfectly working GPS, or in the huge EU government building that the vast majority of Europeans will never
see, or in a stealth UAV I just read about, a continental Europe only project that has excluded the UK as far as I know. This is
money that is kept away from developments like internet over satellite communications.
'Banks don't like governments that do not pay back their debt', is different than 'banks don't like governments that do not
have money to pay back their debt'. An example of first type was Joseph Stalin, who after the Soviet revolution attracted
massive investment into URSS, just to cancel incurred debts short afterwards. Banks don't like governments spending what
they don't have. But Banks want governments to spend what they have. Banks only lend amounts similar to available
borrower assets, this way they make sure that if investment goes wrong they can recover lending by sizing loan compromised
assets. Markets don't like either government quangos using public money to gain market share against private companies that
only through hard work achieve their well deserved market share. But there is no free market without free communications.

[ID] May 2012, production restarted. quoting from Explorerweb April 2012, 'mechanical problem .. external antenna can lead
to reduced performance'. from Global Maritime Networks April 2012, either the terminal doesnt recognize there is an external
antenna plugged or there is an impedance mismatch that wastes power. I say this because if coax open then it may radiate
90 instead of fire end like only seeking satellites, heating the head of the speaker, if not increasing SAR (Specific Absorption
Rate ICNIRP and for instance Nardas ) to unhealthy levels why didnt they otherwise send the replacement only without
asking customers to send back the whole terminal?
Ironic, the most skilled people in the world designing space crafts with amazing station-keeping accuracy, advanced rocketry,
and the best of the best, and the business gets a hit because of a damn as cheap as peanuts antenna connector.

[JQ] When someone working for Mr Gates (Microsoft) drafted a plan to massively increase wireless broadband access
through satellite coverage using Russian launching capacity, it is urban legend that the next thing that happened was Mr
Gates received a phone call from then US president Mr Clinton inviting him for golf, and next thing we the tax payers knew on
the News it was that such Microsoft outstanding plan was delayed, and left on a shelf to catch dust at best.

[JKEG] History of Warfare, John Kegan: Following trend started during WWI when around 90% troops were committed
to front line engagements, suffering massacre after massacre, scarring entire nations, and yielding little results at high price.
Aircraft reconnaissance, the precursor of air and space surveillance started as needed means to gain advantage without
having to bury thousands of souls per hour just to advance a few yards. WWII showed an initial German commitment of 60%
only, something that initially surprised the allied forces, specially the French who had strongly advocated commitment as
many resources to front line as possible. Ironically the same dense forests that Erwin Rommel used to cut French supplies
rolling through gaps on French lines, it was the same place where the Wehrmach attempted last limited offensive, that was
desperately planned under the risky assumption that bad weather would prevent allied aircraft to tell what they were up to.

John Bofarull Guix 12028225 jbb0025@my.londmet.ac.uk jgb2012@sky.com 8 / 8


[ML] Military are capacitive, there must be a reason to change or improve something, and even when the need for
improvement is clear, they let the system endure to see if they can do without, examples the 1
st
US Marine Division and 3
rd

US Infantry Division reports highlighted in Mr Langley's UK Army report mentions the limitations of then LOS wireless
communication systems and the need for more reliable and capable systems.
Civilian business cannot afford such approach, even when we the civvies do everything right, there are many market factors
to take into account, back-off margins are of capital importance.

[RL] dismantling by demolition, with explosives, to bring down the towers, such is the obtuse attitude of some authorities
lobbied by communications operators that want to keep exclusive control over the spectrum through their regulating puppets.
Some time ago I worked erecting antennas and fitting radiating systems for mobile communications operators and, it is only
my opinion but the aberration of blowing up such equipment with explosives should be considered a crime, let alone that the
parts could be used and relocated, but they decided to sell it all as scrap metal.

[OG] The ineptitude of the masses, is the title of a book written by Ortega Gasset: You may have best product, cheapest,
affordable, something no one in common sense would refuse. No matter how good your product and services are, with nosy
regulators acting as puppets of those producing less efficient more expensive products, the German shepherd guardian will
make sure that your product doesn't get in. Not because sooner or later some one in the mass controlled by the guardian
may point out that your product is better and that they want to try it. Because they are no free to choose, they gave up their
freedom to carry arms, they gave up the tools that may prevent abuse, and with that they gave away their freedom of choice
when buying products.

[RAD] IET MIMO Radar tutorial, WiMAX Signal Ambiguity Function Analysis for Passive Radar Application (Qing Wang,
Yilong Lu, Chunping Hou), Ship Detection with DVB-T Software Defined Passive Radar (ACapria, MConti, DPet, MMartorella,
FBerizzi, ..)

[TDMA] comparisons in the ITU handbook show that TDMA remains on the top when large amounts of satellite accesses
required, compared to FDMA. With increasing DSP onboard capacity, frequency multiplexing within used band FDMA is not as
efficient as using a single carrier spanning the whole available BW, and then use TDMA among users sharing same uplink
carrier. Obviously TDMA superior means it, until a given band capacity is reached, then FDMA is unavoidable, but basically
breaking down spectrum less than in analog communications pays off from the spectrum efficiency point of view.

[TN] In Erlangs, as per 'Tons' of transported information, VHF FM and UHF TV transmitters had more BW and shoved more
data per hour, even one way only, analog, many times recorded contents only, than early mobile communications.

[XBV] besides the blast and mechanical destruction, radioactive, ionizing radiation of tissues takes effect, and/or
contamination with hazardous chemical and/or biological agents. Sounds bad, it potentially is, and if keeping satellite
communications underdeveloped means securing this corner, then so be it, so seem to pray all security agencies, so far so
good.













REFERENCES

SOME WEB LINKS, if you need any internet link not included in this short list just ask me by email (footer) and I
will send you electronic copy of the main document that includes all links.

Satellite Industry Association www.sia.org
European Satellite Association www.esoa.net
Satellite Glossary and resource for Satcoms www.prmt.com
SatMagazine www.satmagazine.com
SatNews www.satnews.com
Directory of FSS&DBS communications satellites www.lyngsat.com
Satellite operating frequencies and applications www.canadaconnects.ca/broadband/main/1113/
www.2e1x1.com >> www.3dafsc.com
1K1QFK: VLF bands www.vlf.it/frequency/bands.html
Douglas: HF measurements www.emcesd.com
HF propagation models www.its.bldrdoc.gov/elbert/hf.html
HF noise www.mrec.org/pubs/HighFrequencyNoise_InformationPage_05.pdf
advantages of HF www.codan.com.au/HFRadio/WhyHF/tabit/305/
Sat PR News http://www.satprnews.com/
GizmoWatch: 20 Modern Engineering marvels, 3/20 Satellite related.


LITERATURE

Ka band satellite communications: High Impact Technology what .. Gerard Blodkdijk
Information and Communications for Development 2012: Maximizing Mobile www.worldbank.org/ict/2012
Satellite Communication Systems, 5
th
ed Maral Bousquet [B]
Satellite Communications, isbn: 978-0-470-71458-4 Freeman [Fr]
Pan-STARRS Imaging Array System NKaiser WBrugett JMorgan
Satellite Technology and Services, October 2011 presentation Sia 101
Principles of Modern Radar V Dismount Detection WMelvin, JScheer Zuebeyde Guerbuez
Satellite Communication Systems, 2
nd
ed McMillan isbn: 0333-74722-4 M Richharia
Handbook on Satellite Communications, JWiley 3
rd
ed, isbn: 0-471-22189-9 ITU
Satellite Communications, 4
th
ed, isbn:0-07-146298-8 DRoddy
Satellite Communications Systems, 3
rd
, IEE, isbn: 0-85296-899 BG Evans

















ANNEXES



1.- Countries with launching capability
Some National Autonomous Satellite Operators
Some UK satellite technology know-how transfers
2.- Communications Satellites brief time line
3.- GOCE
4.- IRIDIUM System main parameters
5.- Example of EIRP and G/T minimum requirements for Intelsat VII
6.- Outer Space recent imagery: Titan moon from Huygens, BBC
7.- Satellite Industry global activity 2009
8.- Spin stabilized satellite example
9.- 3 axes stabilized satellite example
10.- FSAT, LEO N, LEO SAT1 (=Teledesic), MEO J/K/V and NGSO-KX satellite systems main parameters
11.- Satellite specific payload main characteristics
12.- KOREASAT transponder block diagram
13.- MORELOS payload block diagram
14.- bent-pipe ANIK-E (Telesat Canada) transponder
15.- INTELSAT (1982) antennas subsystem
16.- General Earth station block diagram (segment 2)
17.- Earth station Intelsat types A, B, D, F1, F2 AND F3 parameters
18.- Common AC/DC Power supply distribution block diagram
19,21,22- some building blocks, Tone range measurement block diagram
20.- Split cooling basic diagram and heat transport liquid temperature range
23.- ITU basic MAC segment requirements
24.- ORBCOMM, SMS texting over satellite system
25.- CERISE once deployed, the rod among other functions helps keep attitude.
26.- Real availabilities and used MTTFs
26.2.- Some 90s satellites with onboard processing capabilities
26.3.- SAR NOAA
27.- Coding parameters (Forward Error Correction) for INTELSAT, EUTELSAT, TVSAT, INMARSAT
28.- Main transmission parameters for INTELSAT/EUTELSAT TDMA
29.- Types of Modulations used in Satellite Communications
30.- WARC92, maritime, Aeronautical and ground mobile downlink and uplink frequency bands:
30.1.- Most used Satellite Communications Frequency bands
31. ETSI302307 amplitude and group delay masks
32.- Teledesic
33.- SKYBRIDGE
34.- ITU Satellite Communications link budget, some notes from GSS Communications Handbook
35.- Relations between C/N C/N0 C/T and Eb/No (ITU Handbook for Satellite Communications)
35.2.- INTELSAT and EUTELSAT required BER for Satellite Internet Broadband and Satellite SMS businesses
36.- DVB-S2 exciter block diagram
37.- IRIDIUM Scenario, orbit planes, satellite station-keeping accuracy details
38.- Some notes about Basic Satellite Mechanics
39.- Solid propellant thrusters mounted on satellites
40.- Liquid propellants table
41.- Launch vehicles table
42.- Solar wind basics
43.- Atmosphere drag below 800kn altitude basics
___________________________________________________________________________________________________













1.- Countries with Launching Capability [2]: back to contents
Russia (1957) RKA Baikonur, US (1958) NASA Houston, France (1965), Japan (1970) JAXA, China (1970), UK (1971)
UK Space agency HQ Swindon, ESA EU(1979, Paris, Noordwijk NL, Frascati, Darmstadt, Madrid. Kourou, French
Guayanne), ISRO India Space agency (1980), Israel (1988) Israel Space agency, Iran (2005) Iranian space agency.
(Same acronym for International Space Agency)

Some National Autonomous Satellite Operators: AUSSAT Australia, NAHUELSAT Argentina, SBTS Brazil, TELESAT
Canada, SRW, CHINASAT 1, ASIASAT China, TELECOM France, INSAT India, KOPERNIKUS Germany, INSAT India,
PALAPA Indonesia, ITALSAT Italy, N-STAR Japan, KOREASAT, (South) Korea, HISPASAT Spain, SATCOM(RCA) COMSTAR
(AT&T) WESTAR(Western Union) SBS, GSTAR(GTE) .. USA, MOLNYA STATSIONAR LOUTCH Russia. There are many
more broadcasters and wired/wireless operators that have their own hubs

UK satellite technology know-how transfers (Surrey Satellite SSTL); Pakistan 1985-98 BADR-1, South Africa 1989-
91 UoSAT-3/4/5, South Korea 1990-94 KITSat-1/2, Portugal 1993-94 PoSAT-1, Chile 1997-97 FASat-Alfa/Bravo, Thailand
1995-98, Merlion payload, Malaysia 1996-98 TiungSAT-1, China 1998-99 TSINGHUA-1.

2.- IEEE Spectrum Aug2011, communications satellites brief time line back to contents


3.- GOCE: Metro, February 2009: Example very Low Earth Orbit Satellite: GOCE. A Similar photo available from BAE website





4.- Iridium System main parameters:














5.- Example of EIRP and G/T minimum requirements for Intelsat VII




6.- Outer Space recent imagery: Titan moon from Huygens,
BBC

7.- Satellite Industry global activity 2009, from GVF
Space report 2010. Downloaded document read.











8.- spin stabilized satellite example 9.- 3 axes stabilized satellite example




10.- FSAT, LEO N, LEO SAT1 (=Teledesic), MEO J/K/V and NGSO-KX satellite systems main parameters.













11.- Satellite specific payload main characteristics



12.- Koreasat transponder block diagram














13.- Morelos payload block diagram













14.- bent-pipe ANIK-E (Telesat Canada) transponder

15.- INTELSAT (1982) antennas subsystem




16.- General Earth station block diagram (segment 2)

17.- Earth station Intelsat types A, B, D, F1, F2 AND F3 parameters





18.- Common AC/DC Power supply distribution block diagram
Routinely checking batteries acid pH is part of maintenance.




19.- some building blocks, Tone range measurement block diagram





20.- some building blocks, Split cooling basic diagram and heat transport liquid temperature range




21.- some building blocks, bent-pipe transponder Input multiplexer














22.- some building blocks, Ku downconverter






23.- ITU basic MAC segment requirements









24.- Orbcomm, SMS texting over satellite system











25.- CERISE once deployed, the
rod among other functions helps
keep attitude.
26.- Real availabilities and used MTTFs









































26.2.- Some 90s satellites with onboard processing capabilities


















26.3 SAR NOAA






























27. Coding parameters (Forward Error Correction) for INTELSAT, EUTELSAT, TVSAT, INMARSAT


28. Main transmission parameters for INTELSAT/EUTELSAT TDMA



29. Types of Modulations used in Satellite Communications



30. WARC92, maritime, Aeronautical and ground mobile downlink and uplink frequency bands:





30.1 Most used Satellite Communications Frequency bands

31. ETSI302307 amplitude and group delay masks





32.- Teledesic, some details: each Teledesic satellite covers 1400kmC/cell being able to offer up to 125000 basic channels
+ 16 Gigalink terminal channels. Each basic channel offers 16kbps. To avoid weather attenuation the minimum elevation is
40. Scenario;


33.- SKYBRIDGE










34.- ITU Satellite Communications link budget, some notes from GSS Communications Handbook

(C/N)_total^(-1)=(C/N)_up^(-1)+ (C/N)_down^(-1)+ (C/N)_IP^(-1)+ (C/N)_interf^(-1)
(N_total=N_up+N_down+N_IP+N_interferences ; IP: Intermodulation Products)

CNR=C/N[dBHz] SNR[dB]= Af CNR ; C/No=Eb/No+10 log(r[bps])

C_up/N_up=EIRP_tx FSL L_mu + (G/T)_rx 10 log(k) 10 log(BW); repeat for the other 3 CNRs; C_down/N_down .. ;
CNR_IP ; CNR_interf, FSL; free space loss, L_mu; worst case conditions, as [Fr] points out, FSL and additional attenuations
being considerated like;
Cross Polar Coupling (should be 25 to 30dB isolation usually), Adjacent Channel Interference, Adjacent Transponder
Interference, and Interferences from terrestrial systems, are not enough to have a link working complying with required
availability BER requirements, it is what [H] calls worst case conditions, and [Fr] calls the fading margin.

Ta : Antenna temperature is the equivalent temperature of a resistor producing same amount of noise. Ta[K]=1/(4*pi)
int(0..2pi,0..pi, G(theta,phi) T(theta,phi)), According to CCIR rec.290.4 Cassiopeia A, Cygnus A, Taurus A are some of the
stars used for calibration. On the other side T_Sun~10,000[K].










35.- Relations between C/N C/N0 C/T and Eb/No (ITU Handbook for Satellite Communications)



35.2.- INTELSAT and EUTELSAT required BER for Satellite Internet Broadband and Satellite SMS services for
businesses










36.- DVB-S2 exciter block diagram










37.- IRIDIUM Scenario



IRIDIUM orbit planes IRIDIUM satellite station-keeping accuracy details












38.- Some notes about Basic Satellite Mechanics: Only in this last point blue font does not mean hyperlink present, but
just equations that one time or another I would have liked to translate to MATLAB code, embedding such code snippets in the
text in order to help automating calculations.

CONSTANTS: 1N=0.2248[ft*lb]=1[kg*m/s]., R_Earth~6700km, f=c, c(vacuum)=3*10^8m/s, Earth Mass
M=5.974*10^24[kg], Universal Gravitational Constant G=6.672*10^-11 [N*m^2/kg^2=m^3/(kg*s^2)],
Keplers constant: =G*M=3.9858*10^14[m^3/s^2] , D[]d[]/dt , V[]d[]/dx* +d[]dy* + d[]/dz*
R_Earth = 6378.14km, (Lecture 2, foil 71 (pg18):True North = MAGNETIC North)
Boltzman constant k= 1.379*10^-23[W/kHz]

LEO: h e[500..1000]km, Te[1.6 .. 1.8]h.
MEO: he[8000..12000]km, T~6h(10000km).
GEO: i=0, e=0, equator plane, h =36870, T=24h. Earth Orbital Period. HEO (Molnya T~11h38min h~39152*500km)

Notation: = r = r ; Vector product with X (no wedge) ; U ; time r r

Intelsat(35,786.43km,~23h56min4sec); ICO (10255km,4.8954h); Skybridge (1469km, 7.1272h); Iridium (780km,7.4624h)

Keplers 3 laws:
- In the Solar system each planet moves in a plane describing an ellipse with the Sun on one Focus
- The vectors from the Sun to the planets sweep equal areas within equal times
- T_1^2/a_1^3=T_2^2/a_2^3= .. constant; Newton amended T^2=(4*pi^2*a^3)/

Newton Motion laws:
- When no F on a system, total momentum is constant; Ep(i)= Em v(i)=0
- F=m*a = m*r
- action reaction

Newton Universal Gravitational law: F=-G*M1*M2/r^2 ; limit to 2 BODIES M1, M2; in free space then:
- from origin point of view; F1=-G*M1*M2/r1^2

, F2=G*M2*M1/r2^2

- from one of the bodies;

() () (

) = r = r ; r=G*(M1+M2)/r^2
- If M1=M>>M2=m satellite and G*M r=-/r^2

To stay on orbit, set v = r (r x v)=r*v + r*v=0 ; (r x v=0)
- r x r=r x (/r^2) ; r x v = -/r^2 x = 0
- (r x v)=0 (r x v)=H constant = angular momentum per mass unit, equivalent to P=m*v
- P points on direction of linear movement, H points out right hand rule perpendicular to circular movement plane
- H = r*v*sin()= r v_v = r^2 v = 2 A ; A= area swept per second
- H including mass; H=r x m*v[N*m*s]

Orbit differential equation:
(u=1/r, u also in some books): r=H^2*u^2 *D2u/dv^2 , solution u= C cos(|-|o)+/H^2

r=p/(1+e*cos(|-|o))

Gravitational Potential: U=-G*M/r=-/r[m/s] ; Attraction force per unit of mass: F/m=VU[m/s^2] ;

F=*m*/r^2=G*M_Earth*m*/r^2 D2r* +* /r^2=0;
Centripetal force: F_in=m*/r^2=G*m1*m2/r^2;
Centrifugal force: F_out=m*v^2
- variation of radial velocity: D2r
- centripetal acceleration: r*(Du)^2

applying: Dr = dr/du*Du, r=1/, Du=e=H/(m*r^2) d2/du2+=*m^2/H^2 , solved r=p/(1+e*cos(u-uo))[m]
[BV] since cos(a)=cos(-a) ; r=p/(1+e*cos(|o)) True Anomaly |o
- p=(H^2/(*m^2)
- e=o*H^2/(*m^2)
u=uo, e=ro*Vo^2/-1. e=0,
eccentricity Vo trajectory
0 sqrt(/ro) circle
<1 <sqrt(2*/ro) ellipse
=1 =sqrt(2*/ro) parabola
>1 >sqrt(2*/ro) hyperbola

ORBIT PERIOD: stable orbit means no radial overall force on satellite F_in=F_out ;
circular orbit: T=2*pi*r/v
eliptic orbit: T=2*pi*r^1.5/^.5

About Ellipses: a^2=b^2+c^2 ; x^2/a^2+y^2/b^2=1 ; e=(a-b)/(a+b) ; Area_Ellipse=pi*a*b ; a=p/(1-e^2) ; b=a*(1-
e^2)
apogee, a*(1+e), perigee a*(1-e), eccentricity e=(a-b)/(a+b)

Satellite energy: ; Eo[J/unit_mass]=Vo^2/2-/r

Satellite velocity: (

[m/s] ; if circular orbit; v=

ORBIT CONSTANTS:
Average Angular Velocity q=sqrt(/a^3)
Mean anomaly [angle] M=q*(t-t_p)
Eccentric anomaly [angle] M=E-e*sin(E)
Radius from orbit centre ro=a-a*e*cos(E)
True Anomaly: |o r0=a*(1-e^2)/(1+e*cos(|o))

SATELLITE COORDINATES ON ORBITAL PLANE: (r_o, |o) (x_0,y_0) at time t
- O: right ascension of the ascending node
- i: inclination
- e: perigee argument
- t_p: perigee time
- e
- a


numbering days 1..365

Right Ascension (RA), Perigee Argument, Orbit Inclination, ascending node (where satellite trajectory crosses equatorial plane
and getting closer to Earth), descending node (equivalent when satellite trajectory crosses equatorial plane and departing
from Earth)

39.- Solid propellant thrusters mounted on satellites

40.- Liquid propellants table









41.- Launch vehicles table




42.- Solar wind basics

photons hit a satellite with energy E[J]=mp * c ; it is called energy of photons impinging the satellite under solar pressure.
; relativistic mass of photons with energy E
Solar pressure P=(mp * c)'/A = 1/A * (E/c)' = u /c ; A[m2] normal incidence

u solar flux radiation [W/m2] can be directly measured. At Earth's orbit u (1 AU)=1360W/m2 P =4.54E-6 [N/m2]
photons are either specularly reflected (Cs), diffusely reflected (Cd), or absorbed (Ca). Cs+Cd+Ca=1
the acceleration caused by solar pressure on satellite m ; ap=P*(1+Cs)*A/m*sq(cos(o)) ; o Sun declination, Cd~0
in N revolutions a circular (e=0) GEO suffers Ae=1.5 * ap/v*At ; At = N*T.

This eccentricity correction is performed adding Av=0.5*v*e*Aw to the Earth triaxiality drift correction (east-west station
keeping) not mentioned here.


43.- Atmosphere drag below 800kn altitude basics

=-0.5 * Cd * A * * v *

D: Drag force
Cd: drag coefficient
A: cross section area
: air density [kg/m^3]
v: satellite velocity vector

From literature, adding drag to starting equations that end up in the basic orbit differential equation (in Annex38), the
ballistic coefficient is defined as B=Cd*A/(2*m) m: satellite mass. Assuming circular orbits, now the differential equation to
solve is r' = -2* B ** sqrt( G * M * r):

Ar=-4 * pi * B * * r^2 ; orbit radius decay per revolution
At=(sqrt(Re+ho)-sqrt(Re+h))/(B*sqrt(G*M)* ) ; time that takes satellite to drop from ho to h (h<ho), Re Earth radius
; average within [ho,h]
=P*M/(R*T) ; P gas pressure, T[K], R=8314.34 J/(kmol *K) universal gas constant, M molecular weight (O2 N2 ..)
within limited altitude range (regime) ~0 * exp(-z/) =Density Scale Height[km]



But to be really accurate on atmosphere drag, additional factors have to be taken into account:
atmosphere expands and contracts following solar cycle
atmosphere latitude variations
atmosphere day-night variations