Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The first step in designing a satellite network is performance of a satellite link budget analysis. The link budget
will determine what size antennae to use, power amplifier requirements, link availability and bit error rate (BER).
What exactly is a link budget ?. . . a link budget is actually simple addition and subtraction of gains
and losses within an RF link. When these gains and losses of various components are determined and summed,
the result is an estimation of end-to-end system performance in the real world. To arrive at an accurate answer,
factors such as the uplink power amplifier gain and noise factors, transmit antenna gain, slant angles and
corresponding atmospheric loss over distance, satellite transponder noise levels and power gains, receive antenna
and amplifier gains and noise factors, cable losses, adjacent satellite interference levels, and climatic
attenuation factors must considered.
Companies market quite sophisticated link budget calculation programs that contain large databases of
information regarding satellite performance parameters, ground station antenna performance data, and other
information vital to calculation. Typical input Information needed:
Link Budget
Link Budget analysis is an important part of satellite communications to ensure a
feasible and successful implementation of the satellite communication link. Due to
the high cost of both space segment and ground station equipment, it is imperative
that satellite communication links are carefully designed to optimize as well as
safeguard the available resources.
Azimuth and Elevation
The azimuth and elevation angles of an earth station are essential parameters required
to enable the main beam axis of the antenna to be pointed directly towards the satellite in the geostationary (GEO)
orbital arc. It is important for a satellite communication link to achieve high elevation angles for better
performance as it results in less path loss, lower rain attenuation and higher G/T of the earth station. In addition,
higher elevation angles would reduce the possibility of blockage in the line-of-sight between the earth station
antenna and the satellite.
Sun Outage
Sun outage occurs when the earth station, satellite and the sun are aligned. Hence, the sun appears directly behind
the satellite and this would result in an increase of system noise temperature of the receiving earth station. This
happens twice a year during Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, each occasion for a few consecutive days and each
day for a short amount of time. The predicted duration of the outage mainly depends on the frequency of
operation, receiving antenna size, and the location of the earth station.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the New Mexico State University
(NMSU) Center for Space Telemetering and Telecommunication Systems (CSTTS) has undertaken a top-level
analysis of the proposed Ka-Band Direct Data Distribution Concept developed by the NASA Lewis Research
Center. The theme of this concept is to provide direct data downlink from a low earth orbiting (LEO) satellite to
the experimenters via dedicated ground stations.
In this report we analyze the link performance of transmitting data via the direct-to-the-ground concept and
through the Space Network (SN). We also performed orbital simulations of a satellite in the same type of orbit as
proposed for the direct-to-the-ground satellite.
In the analysis, we find that the proposed link to the ground is closed under the specifications given in the
concept. However, we also highlight several missing parameters from the specification provided so that the link
closure issue may not be final. In this configuration, we estimate that the system can have a daily throughput of
59.7 Gbits per day.
In performing the analysis, we have identified several unknowns in the materials provided to NMSU that will
affect the overall link performance and operations concept. These unknowns are:
Number and location of ground terminals
Rain fade margins and link availability requirements
Compatibility with other NASA standards, e.g., CCSDS data formats
Justification for imposing telecommunications standards on the space segment
True receiving antenna size
Tracking requirements
The orbital access of the proposed LEO satellite will be a function of the latitude of the receiving ground station.
For the purposes of this analysis, we have examined four potential ground stations as being representative of the
expected performance. The ground stations are
The specification did not mention a minimum elevation angle to be supported at each ground station. Because of
the transmission frequency of the downlink, we assume a minimum elevation angle of 32 in the analysis. In the
analysis, we found the performance of the three non-Alaska ground stations was similar. The Fairbanks station
gave better contact performance because its far-northern latitude gave many more passes close to its field of
visibility. This is a function of the sun-synchronous orbital inclination. The disadvantage of the Fairbanks station
is the potential need for a larger weather margin than the lower-latitude stations. In the analysis presented here, we
assume a single, mid-latitude ground station is available.
Operating at 20 GHz will produce the possibility of significant rain fades. The expected fade depth and
frequency can be estimated once the ground station location has been specified. For the purposes of this analysis,
we are assuming a nominal 10 dB rain fade margin. Ground station location and system availability requirements
may change this figure significantly. Associated with this is the minimum elevation angle that can be used in the
antenna pointing. This parameter was not specified. Finally, a total daily throughput for the system is not
specified. Typical system analysis has show a capacity of 2-3 Gbits per day is the most required.
The specification provided states in one place that the ground antenna is to be a 1.8-meter dish while in another
place, it is specified as a 3.0-meter dish. Besides the system cost and tracking requirements, this will affect the
G/T performance of the system and the link margin. For the analysis presented here, we assumed the smaller
size dish would be used and that it would have a figure of merit G/T=27.7 dB/K which is similar to that specified
for a similar ACTS terminal.
The expected antenna system for the ground station will typically have a Half Power Beam Width (HPBW) of
under 1 at the Ka-Band operating frequency. To keep the pointing loss negligible, the tracking would need to be
accurate to less than this HPBW. The proposed $100K terminal price does not seem to include the necessary
tracking, for example, a step tracking system. If program tracking is used where the ground antenna is pointed
based on ephemeris data, then a tracking loss term of up to 3 dB should be included in the link budget.
The following table provides a link budget for the Direct Data Distribution Concept. The specifications given in
Table I were used in this analysis. As can be seen in Table II, the link is closed at the specified BER of 10-12.
However, the margin is approximately 4 dB and considering the unknowns in the system, this may not be
sufficient for link closure. In particular, the link budget does not have an entry for implementation loss in the
system. This can typically be expected to be at least 2 dB. This is one have of the available margin.
The orbital analysis shows an expected contact duration of 102.3 minutes per day on the average through a
single TDRS within the SN. Using the proposed data rate of 12.5 Mbps and the average contact time, we
estimate that the system will be able to support a total daily throughput of 76.8 Gbits/day. As with the Direct
Data Distribution Concept, this greatly exceeds the typical need of 2-3 Gbits per day for most mission support
requirements.
Table IV. Space Network Concept Link Budget
Parameter Value
EIRP 36 dBW
G/T 23.94 dB/K
Space Loss 206.7 dB
Bit Rate 71 dBHz
Boltzmann's Constant -228.6 dBW/K-Hz
Scan Loss -2.73 dB
C/No 79.1 dB
Base Eb/No 8.1 dB
Expected Coding Gain 8 dB
Available Eb/No 16.1 dB
-7
Eb/No for BER=10 11.4 dB
Margin 4.7 dB