TCOM707 Dec 2007 Metol

METOL
METOL
MARS-EARTH Terahertz Optical Link
1
TCOM 707 Mark Norton
METOL
Discussion Items
MARS Background
Key Program Concerns
METOL Organization
2
METOL
METOL Concept Diagram
Communications is a key
challenge for in situ
exploration
Earth-Mars link is 108
times further than a GEO
comsat link
Telecommunications relay
orbiters offer high-rate,
energy-efficient links for
Mars exploration
1.
Enabling and enhancing
support for surface science
operations
2. Robust capture of critical 3
TCOM 707 event communications
METOL
Top Level Conceptual
Communication Architecture ~2030
Martian Lunar Local

Local Network Network
Martian Lunar
Trunk Trunk
L1/L2
Individual
Spacecraft
Connections
Earth
Local Network
Space Communication Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) 4
METOL
MARS Exploration History
1960 Two Soviet flyby attempts
1962 Two more Soviet flyby attempts
1964 Mariner 3
1965 Mariner 4 (first flyby images)
1969 Mariners 6 and 7
1971 Mariners 8 and 9
1971 Kosmos 419, Mars 2 & 3
1973 Mars 4, 5, 6 & 7 (first landers)
1975 Viking 1, 1976 Viking 2
1988 Phobos 1 and 2
1992 Mars Observer
1996 Mars 96
1997 Mars Pathfinder, Mars Global Surveyor
1998 Nozomi
1999 Climate Orbiter, Polar Lander and
Deep Space 2 Water Mark Identified?
2001 Mars Odyssey
2003 Mars Express
2004 Mars Exploration Rovers
5
METOL New Era of MARS Exploration
2003 Mars Express

2004 Mars Exploration Rovers
2005 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
2007 Pheonix Lander
2009 MARS Science Laboratory
2011 THOR
6
MARS Reconnaissance Orbiter
METOL Current MARS Communications Capability
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/spotlight/20061117.html
10x times data rate of prior missions
Reached Mars in March 2006
First relay test Nov 2006
Omni-directional coverage of
surface assets via UHF antenna.
X-band (8.41GHz) 100W for high rate
mission data relays back to Earth.
Limited by 50MHz spectrum
allocation
Ka Band (32GHz) 35 W
Demonstration
Link to Deep Space Networks
Goldstone, California
Madrid, Spain
Canberra Australia
Decoder limits data rates to 1.6
Mbps for Turbo codes and 3 Mbps
for convolutional code.
500 kbps at maximum range (2.67
AU) to a 34m station using Turbo 1/3
encoding
7
MARS Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO)
METOL
Spacecraft Example
2180Kg Mass
- 3m aperture
- Dual feed Horns
-5.35 2.53 m solar panels provide
Radiation hardened 133MHz 9.5 m photovoltaic cell collection area.
Computer - 2,000 W of power at 32 Volts 8
120Gb Data Storage
METOL
Improved data rates required
for high resolution science
MRO high-resolution camera will image < 0.1% of the
planet after 1 Mars year
Limited by MRO link back to Earth:
~2.2 Mbps at closest range
0.3 Mbps at max range (2.7 AU).
Data return from outer planets has the potential to be
improved by an orders of magnitude or better.
Cohokia Panorama image, acquired by the Spirit Pancam instrument (588 Mbit compressed data volume)
9
Space Optical Communications Accomplishments
METOL
1980 AFTS (Airborne Flight Test System) 1 Gbps link from aircraft
1990 RME (Relay Mirror Experiment) Precision Pointing
1992 GOPEX (Galileo Optical Experiment) Uplink from Earth to deep Space
1995 LCE (Laser Communications Experiment), Bidirectional GEO link
2001 GEO LITE
Geosynchronous Lightweight Technology Experiment Satellite
Fiber-based architecture with remote optics
Developed by Lincoln Labs/TRW for DOD
2001 SILEX (Semiconductor Intersatellite Link Experiment)
LEO to GEO, GEO to Ground
2002-2006
MTO (MARS Telecom Orbiter)
Developed by Lincoln Labs/JPL
Design Only
2003-2016
TSAT DOD (Transformational Satellite)
Solid State lasers with 1-to-10-watt amplifiers, reprogrammable routers
10
METOL MARS Telecomm Orbiter (MTO)
Proposed MARS Communications Capability
Demonstrate optical
communications from Mars to
Earth
Measure and characterize the
system performance over a
variety of conditions
1.06 micron laser, 30Mbps
Palomar receiver terminal
Project terminated in Feb 2006
11
METOL MARS Telecomm Orbiter (MTO)
Proposed MARS Communications Capability
12
METOL
METOL Design Drivers
Primary
Orbit(s) = Multiple SATs for 365 coverage
Ground vs Space Terminal Architecture
10 Gbps Component performance
Secondary
Large Optics
Pointing and steering
Mars to Earth Laser
Laser Power decay
Relay after 5 years
Rad Hard Optical Components
Direct detection
13
METOL
METOL Organization
Mark Introduction
System
Eric System Requirements
Engineering
Steve Wait/Charlene Mars/Earth Orbit Scenarios Orbits
Luke Telescopes/Tracking
Spacecraft
Jaime Data Storage/Stabilization
Rushi Laser Tx.
Tunde Solar Power
Dana Receiver/Modulation
Wassim Filters
Gerald Mars Direct to Earth Downlink Earth Comm
Steve Schaefer Space2Earth Relay Optical
Geoff Space2Earth Relay RF
Wrap up
14
METOL
References
High Capacity Communications from Martian Distances:Part 1 Spacecraft Link Design Analysis
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/39774/1/06-2070.pdf
An Initial Analysis of Cost for Laser Communications and Optical Intersatellite Links, Brian S. Freeman,
PE, Tecolote Research, Inc.
Communication Architecture and Technologies for missions to Moon, Mars, and Beyond, Apan R. Kulkarni,
Avinash Dharne, Daniele Mortari, 1st Space Exploration Conference: Continuing the Voyage of Discovery, 30
January - February 2005.
The NASA Space Communications Data Networking Architecture; David J. Israel, Adrian J. Hooke, Kenneth
Freeman, J. Rush; http://www.nas.nasa.gov/News/Techreports/2006/PDF/nas-06-014.pdf
Mars laser communication demonstration: what it would have been A. Biswas, D. Boroson, B. Edwards,
Proc. SPIE Vol. 6105, 610502, Free-Space Laser Communication Technologies XVIII; G. Stephen Mecherle; Ed,
Feb 2006.
MLCD: overview of NASA's Mars laser communications demonstration system, Don M. Boroson, Abhijit
Biswas, Bernard L. Edwards Publication: Proc. SPIE Vol. 5338, p. 16-28, Free-Space Laser Communication
Technologies XVI; G. S. Mecherle, Cynthia Y. Young, John S. Stryjewski; Eds, June 2004.
Overview of high-rate deep-space laser communications options, Don M. Boroson, Roy S. Bondurant, Joseph
J. Scozzafava, Proc. SPIE Vol. 5338, p. 37-49, Free-Space Laser Communication Technologies XVI; G. S.
Mecherle, Cynthia Y. Young, John S. Stryjewski; Eds. Jun 2004
NASA remote sensing plans for Mars exploration, Robert A. Fogel, Michael A. Meyer, J. Douglas McCuistion,
Stephen Saunders, Proc. SPIE Vol. 5978, 59780B, Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites IX; Roland
Meynart, Steven P. Neeck, Haruhisa Shimoda; Oct 2005
Lasercom is Here, William Scott, Aviation Week& Space Technology;Nov. 20, 2006
Interplanetary communications problem presentation, Australian Centre for Space Photonics, Andrew
McGrath, Anglo-Australian Observatory, http://www.aao.gov.au/lasers
15
METOL
Discussion Items
Requirements Matrix
Key Link Budget Parameters
Constellation and Availability
16
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Requirements Matrix
Derived Requirements
Extremely long and variable propagation delays
(~5.5-21 minute one way light time)
Planetary distance and rate effect on the signal strength
Power, mass, size, and cost constraints for communication
hardware and protocol design
17
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Key Parameters
METOL Challenges
Inflexible Link Parameters

Range Varies from ~100-375 Gm (above)
Range Rate varies from 5-64 km/s (above)
Flexible Link Parameters
Transmit Power (Laser) and Detector Quantum Efficiency
Tx and Rx Aperture Sizing and Efficiency
Transmit Frequency and Receiver Noise Bandwidth
18
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL Transmit Power and Detector
Quantum Efficiency
Transmitter Power
100 W is the System Design
(diminishing returns above 400 W)
More power = shorter lifetime
Quantum Efficiency (Detector)
% of received photons that
produce an electron-hole pair
0.9 is System Design
Using Pin Diode
19
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Tx and Rx Aperture Sizing
The larger the aperture,

the more received light
Optical filters are
mandatory to remove
unwanted signals
There is more to be
gained by increasing the
Tx aperture.
Tx Aperture = 2.25 m
Rx Aperture = 5.0 m
20
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Efficiency of Tx and Rx Optics
Optical Efficiency
Industry peak is
currently ~ 0.9
0.9 assumed for both
Tx and Rx antennas
The link is non-
coherent
21
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Frequency and Noise Bandwidth
The Highest Transmit

Frequency is Desired
Power requirement drove
the laser selection and
frequency (1.07 um)
System Noise Bandwidth
Select narrowest allowable
filter (Frequency & Doppler)
~10 GHz wide
22
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
Key Parameter Summary
Issues to Focus on for the Next Generation

Develop high power ultraviolet lasers (1-400 nm)
Both higher power and transmit frequency
Modulation techniques and increased on/off rates
Better Filtering Techniques
Reduce noise bandwidth
Reduce solar/galactic/atmospheric/etc effects
Pointing/Tracking Control System
Position recognition, pointing stability and accuracy,
with orbit determination for a pointing planning
23
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
METOL Constellation and Availability
Vehicles and Deployment Strategy
Phase 1
Initial Link between Mars Sat(#1,#2) and Earth Sat(#1,#2)
>75 % availability, actually 93.8% = (1-45/(365+365))
Per ~2 yr orbit cycle (LOS)
Allows for maintenance, repair for up to 18.3% of the time
3 Ground Sites per Earth GEO for site diversity
Phase 2
Relay sat (#1,#2)
>> 75% availability (no LOS issues)
Relieves pointing and stability requirement
Phase 3
Additional Earth Sat (# 3)
Approaches 100% availability
24
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL General System Layout
METOL
Notional Primary Link Diagram(s)
5 W 1.54 micron Laser
1 - 10 Gbps
100 W 1.07 micron Laser
1 - 10 Gbps
RF Back-up
5W 26 GHz
100 Mbps (RF)
X-ba
: nd: u
al E v e n t M onitor UHF p to
Critic (28 G 4 Mb
1 - 16 kbps b/2 h
rs)
ps
Small Lander UHF:

128 kbps (150 Mb in 20 minutes)
25
TCOM 707 Eric Lyles
METOL
METOL
Orbits
Charlene Chen/Steven Wait
26
TCOM 707
METOL
Mars/Earth Orbits
Mars Relay Satellite Element
Options of Mars Orbit Architecture
Two HEO Orbital plans
Halo Lagrange Point Orbit
Mars to Earth Trunk Line
Options of Mars Relay Sat. Link to Earth Relay Sat.
Direct transmit from Mars Relay Earth Relay Sat.
Additional Heliocentric Orbit Relay Sat. above Sun
Additional Heliocentric Orbit Relay Sat. leads/lags Earth by X
Earth Relay Satellite Element
Options of Earth Relay Sat. Receiving/Transmitting
Earth GEO Constellations (ex. TDRS)
Two HEO Orbital plans
Halo Lagrange Point Orbit
27
TCOM 707 Steven Wait
METOL
Orbits
28
METOL
Orbits
Sizing
As shown in the previous slide the Sun is colossal in
size when compared to either Mars or the Earth
Mars versus Earth orbits
Earth orbits the Sun once every 365 day however;
Mars orbits the Sun once every 687 days. This leads
us to some obvious problems as shown in the next
slide
Distances
Sun to Earth ~ 1 Astronomical Unit (AU) (93 million
miles on average)
Sun to Mars ~ 1.5AU
29
METOL
Orbits
30
Mars to Earth Direct Transmit
METOL
Sun Blockage:
Assuming a 10 degree envelope about the sun (+/- 5 degrees )
Estimate 45 days outage, which will require a huge memory back up
31
METOL
Orbits
Options for Mars spacecraft.

HEO
This orbit allows for greater coverage of the
surface of Mars.
Can be added to for greater view time
Allows for polar regional access
GEO
Limits our geographical area of interest
No polar access
32
METOL
Orbits
Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)

ground track 33
METOL
Orbits
Options for Earth spacecraft.

HEO
Not always in view of earth terminals
GEO
Already established network
Steve will explain his choice later in the

brief.
34
METOL
Orbits
Relay (path options)

Above the Sun
Synchronous orbit with earth around the sun
NO relay
There will be an outage in communications however we are
still within requirements as defined per :
TCOM707_project.doc
Over time we propose using a relay that would give the user
100.0 percent availability
35
METOL
36
TCOM 707 Charlene Chen
METOL
Mars HEO Orbital Plans

Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) architecture is
entirely feasible and capable of monitoring a
desired area for long period of time (north pole/
south pole).
HEO Provide more stable aiming/ pointing

capacity from Mars Relay infrastructure such
Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), Mars
Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), Mars ground
terminals and rovers.
37
One HEO vs. Two HEO Orbit Plants
METOL
One HEO Orbit:

Advantages:
Cost less
Disadvantages:
No back up
Less real-time coverage
Two HEO Orbits:

Advantages:
Better real-time service coverage
Redundancy increase performances
Possible of Multi-transmit link which may
increase data rate.
Disadvantages:
More Expensive
More complex design
38
METOL
Mars Two HEO Orbital Plants
Animation
39
METOL
40
METOL
Two or more GEO

Advantages:
Easier to tracking and pointing
Reduces Pointing loss
Shorter distance less path loss
41
METOL
Animation
42
METOL
Mars to Earth Trunk Line
43
METOL
Mars-Earth Relays
Eclipse Issue:
Sun blockage is an issue that can not avoid when
direct link from Mars Relays to Earth Relays.
44
METOL
Mars-Earth Relays
Assuming a 10 degree envelope about the sun (+/- 5 degrees )

Estimate 45 days outage, which will require a huge memory back up
Mars Properties:
Planet Diameter: 6785 Km (4,217 miles)
Minimum Distance from Sun: 205 million km (128 million miles)
Maximum Distance from Sun: 249 million kim (155 million miles)
45
Mars-Earth Relays
METOL
Additional Heliocentric Orbit Relay Sat. Leads/Lag Earth by X

Purpose: to by pass Suns blockage and to minimize dead time.
46
METOL
Mars-Earth Relays
Advantages:
Enable Mars-Earth transmitting without Sun Blockage.
Can dramatically decrease the back up memory storage need on
the satellites
Help Laser pointing/steering
Compensate Laser power decay
Reduces design Tx/Rx antenna aperture due to the path loss
Disadvantages:
Cost more for extra relay satellite both for equipment and launch
expensive.
Difficult to maintain at a certain speed and orbit.
Signal switching or amplifying generates delay and may reduces
signal quality and increase data error.
47
METOL
Earth/Mars Orbit Scenarios
Recommendations:
Two or more HEO at Mars
One or two relays between Earth & Mars
Two or more GEO at Earth
48
METOL
References
Hemmati, H. Free-Space Optical Communications at JPL/NASA.
Rush, John. NASA Space Communication & Navigation Architecture, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.15 May 2006.
Space Communication Architecture Working Group (SCAWG), NASA Space
Communication and Navigation Architecture Recommendations for 2005-2030., 15
May 2006.
Tapan R. Kulkarni, Avinash Dharne, Daniele Mortari, Communication Architecture
and Technologies for missions to Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Texas A & M University.
Feb. 2005.
49
TCOM 707
METOL
Intro
Optical Telescope and

Tracking
Mars to Earth Optical Link
50
TCOM 707 LUCAS SMITH
METOL
Basic Requirements
International Consortium of space agencies (NASA, ESA, ISRO, JAXA,

and CNSA)
Design, construction, flight, and operations of two or more spacecraft in
orbit around Mars, and a receiving system in the vicinity of the Earth
Achieve capacity in largest separation between Mars and Earth
Mars orbiter will service vehicles on in orbit around Mars up to 5,000
km
Line-of-sight link for 75% of time over 10 years (10 year life-time)
25% outage due to objects (sun, moon, etc.) blocking line-of-sight
Peak rate of 10 Gbps at least 50% of the time
Average overall data rate of 100 Mbps
Storage on both Mars and Earth link to recover from outages
51
METOL
Basic Requirements Cont..
52
METOL
Starting Point
Mars to Earth GEO Optical Link
365,048,000 km
280 THz (1.07 micrometer) 280 THz (1.07 micrometer)

500 cm diam. Rx antenna;
225 cm Tx antenna;
50% efficient
50% efficient
Noise bandwidth 10 GHz
100W output power
53
METOL
Link Parameters
Optical ISL specification: transmit side Feasible?

Antenna (mirror) diameter 225 cm
Assume efficiency = 50%
Transmit power = 100 W Peak Power
Wavelength 1.07 m ( 280 THz)
Antenna gain
Gt = (D/)2 0.5 = ( 2.25/1.07 10-6)2 0.5
= 4.36 1013 136.4 dB
Gr = (D/)2 0.5 = ( 5/1.07 10-6)2 0.5
= 1.07 1014 140.3 dB
54
METOL
Antenna Size
2-5m Optical Antenna ?
Large Optical Telescopes Huge!
Hubble ~ 250 cm curved mirror

Total craft weighs 11,025 kg (long, 1999)
Assuming 50% reflector weight and inverse square
relationship to size
225cm weight = 11025kg *.5 = 5512kg
500cm weight = 11025kg (.5)/(2.5m2 /5m2) = 22050kg
Huge Weight adds massive cost & complexity
No available launch vehicle
Large Optical Telescopes
55
METOL
Antenna Size Cont..
2-5m Optical Antenna ?

Large Optical Telescopes
Can design similar telescope using many flat antenna elements (Angle,
1999; NASA, 2006)
James Webb Telescope will have 650cm diameter reflector, which weighs 750kg,
and is made up of many very thin flat mirrors (wave front continually calibrated).
Impractical on earth because of weight of structure to hold mirrors stable &
gravitational irregularities, make calibrating wave front extremely difficult
In Space, 0 gravity makes it much less demanding
225cm weight = 750kg/(6.5m2 /2.5m2) = 110kg Weight Now
500cm weight = 750kg/(6.5m /5.0m ) = 443kg
2 2
Possible!
Membrane Antennas
Extension of multiple flat antennas concept, just using stretched membrane
reflectors rather then a glass derivative
250 cm membrane reflector weight in space 10kg (Angle, 1999)
100 cm aperture < 10kg
However membranes easily deformed by static & magnetic fields
Probably where future is going, but not ready yet
Design & Launch?

56
METOL
Flat Mirror Segments
Flat Mirror Assembly
(NASA, 2006)
57
METOL
Membrane Mirrors
Membrane Mirror Assembly
(Wikipedia, 2006)
(Stamper, 2002)
58
METOL
Antenna Design And Launch
2-5m Design & Launch?

James Web Space Telescope Comparison
Design
Launch in 2011
Designed for mainly infrared wavelengths down to .6 microns
Large flat mirror segments with wave front sensor adjustments
Large complexity due to wide range of wavelengths under study
Must be extremely well polished for visible light
Must be supper cooled for infrared light
Launch
Launched to L2 Lagrange point on commercial Ariane 5 launcher. (NASA, 2006)
Whole Telescope Assembly can be collapsed to fit within 4.5 meters
If they can launch 6.5 meter antenna to L2 (Exeter,2006) seems very feasible to
launch 2.5 meter antenna to mars
5 meter antenna could be put in orbit near earth or at L1 Lagrange point
Costs?
59
METOL
Antenna Cost
2-5m Cost?
James Web Space Telescope Comparison
Their Cost
Planed cost of 3.5 Billion, grown to 4.5 Billion (Young, 2006)
Large part of initial cost & overrun due to developing non existent technologies
Our Costs
Cost for 5m around earth probably less then half ~ 1.5Billion
Developed Technology & lessons learned $3 Billion
Smaller
Not as far to go
Cost for 2.5m probably about same (if going to mars) ~1.5 Billion
Estimate of 3.0 Billion
Use
Needed for manned mission to mars, due to high data rate requirements (Young,
2006)
Cost of sending man to mars likely to top $700 Billion (Grabbe, 1999 ; Ahmed,
2004)
3/700 = .4% of cost
Could Probably be
Justified!
60
METOL
Wave Front Calibration
Wave front calibration

Electro Positioners
Detector
Control Module
Known Source
Wave front detector
Detect Known Source (star, beacon, etc. . )

Detect Incident Wave Front
Recalibrate Wave Front
61
METOL
James Webb Space Telescope
James Webb Space Telescope

(NASA, 2006)
(NASA, 2006)
Ariane 5
62
100W
METOL
Path Loss
Optical ISL spec.: transmit side (contd.)

EIRP = Pt + Gt = 20.0 + 136.4 = 156.4 dBW
Path loss = (4R/)2
= (4 365,048,000,000/ 1.07 10-6)2
=1.83 1037 372.6 dB
Design for
This is average distance Worst
Avg 329,120,000km = 371.8 db

Min 104,720,000km = 361.8 db
63
METOL
EIRP & Receive Power
Optical ISL: receive side

Received power = EIRP Lp + GR
= 156.4 372.6 + 140.3
= -75.9 dBW
Receiver noise power calculation cannot

use the kTB procedure as for a microwave
link due to quantum effects starting to
dominate
64
METOL
Receiver Noise
Laser detectors suffer from a variety of

noise sources
Cathode shot noise
Dark current
Johnson noise Generally folded into cathode shot noise
Thermal noise: the kTB of radio systems
S/N = (is)2/((iN1)2 + (iN2)2)

Signal Shot noise Jonson current
current current
65
METOL
Receiver Noise Cont
An effective system temperature of an

optical front end is given by
Ts.eff = (h f)/(eta k)
h = Plancks constant (6.63 10-34 Js)
f = frequency
eta = quantum efficiency (assume 0.5 = 50%)
k = Boltzmanns constant (1.38 10-23 JK-1)
66
METOL
Noise Power
For the 1.07 m (280 THz) ISL example,

Ts.eff = (6.6310-342801012)/
(0.51.3810-23)
= 26,904 = 26,904 K
For the 10GHz bandwidth ISL example,
the noise power = 1.3810-23 26,904 10
109
= 3.7 10-9
-84.3 dBW 67
Mars-Earth Terahertz Optical Communications
METOL
Link
Mars to Earth GEO Optical Link
10 GHz Bandwidth
365,048,000 km
Path loss = 372.6 dB
280 THz 280 THz

Antenna gain: 136.4 dB Antenna gain: 140.3 dB
EIRP: 156.4 dBW Rx Noise power: -84.3 dBW
Pr: -75.9 dBW
C/N = 8.4 dB
Not Quite Sufficient
68
METOL
C/N Improvements
Very Challenging
We need more C/N (8.4dB at Worst Dist)

Rx Sensitivity = 10db C/N
Filter Losses = -3db
Pointing losses = -3db
Misc Losses = -2db
Total C/N needed = 18db C/N
Need 10dB more
Increase Efficiency of Antenna- 90% (Answers,2006) + 7 db Gain (3.5 each end)
Reduced Rate (5 Gbits at max distances) + 3 db Gain
Increase size of mars antenna to 6.25 m + 9 db
100W upped to 300 W +4.7db
Increase Sensitivity of Receiver +?
Better Filters to Reduce Noise Bandwidth +?
Other Options?
69
METOL
Link Summary
Can get close to 5 Gbits/Sec at max distance

Using 90% efficiency Optical Antenna
Other options may improve further
Can get close full 10 Gbits/Sec at min distance
Other Options
Add Relays to decrease distance & outage periods
Other Challenges
70
METOL
Beam Width
Beam Width = 1.2/D radians

= (1.2 1.07 10-6)/(2.25)
= 0.00000057 radians
= 0.0000326o
At 365,048,000 km, physical width of the 3
dB beam is (365,048,000,000
0.00000057) = 208,000 m
For 500cm Antenna = 94,000m
71
METOL Beam Width Comparison
365,048,000 km
100cm
6,378.1 km
.00000057rad
208 km Earth
.0000009rad
94 km
3500 km
Mars 200cm
Arc diameter at earth = 365,048,000 0.00000057 = 208,000 m (208 km)

Earth radius = 6,378.1 km (or about 2/100 of the Earth)
Arc diameter at mars = 365,048,000 0.00000025 = 94,000 m (94 km)
Mars radius = 3500 km (or about 2/100 of the Mars)
But Planets Doesnt Stay Stationary
72
METOL Planet Motion
Planets Worst Case Scenario
Earth
1.38AU x 2 /695Days
.5Km/sec =21Km/sec
Max 1.0AU
.25Km/sec
1AU x 2 /365Days
= 29Km/sec Mars
Max 1.38AU
Sun
29Km/sec+.5km/sec + 21Km/sec +.25km/sec = 50.75km/sec

208km/50.75km/sec = 4.09 sec before mars tx off 3dB beam
94km/50.75km/sec = 1.85 sec before earth rx off 3dB beam
Assumes from surface of both planets

Need to account for satellite motion as well
73
METOL Mars Satellite
HEO Mars Satellite

25000km
HEO orbit
9000km
1000km
Mars
T2 = (42a3)/
T2(max) = 4 2(29500km)3 /3.98 105km3/s2 = 50463 sec
Angular Speed = 2/50463 = 1.24-4 rad/s
Speed = 1.24-4 rad/s 29500km = 3.67km/sec
T2(min) = 4 2(5500km)3 /3.98 105km3/s2 = 4062 sec
Angular Speed = 2/4062 = .0015 rad/s Use Max
Speed = .0015 rad/s 4500km = 6.75km/sec
74
METOL Earth Satellite
HEO Earth Satellite

35000km
HEO orbit
13500km
1000km
Earth
T2 = (42a3)/
T2(max) = 4 2(41750km)3 /3.98 105km3/s2 = 84900 sec
Angular Speed = 2/84900 = 7.4-5 rad/s
T2(min) = 4 2(7750km)3 /3.98 105km3/s2 = 6795 sec
Angular Speed = 2/6795 = 9.2-4 rad/s Use Max
75
METOL Worst Case Scenario
Orbiting Transmitters Worst Case Scenario
Earth 7.2Km/s
1.38AU x 2 /695Days
=21Km/s
6.75Km/s
Max 1.0AU
1AU x 2 /365Days
= 29Km/s
Mars
Max 1.38AU
Sun
29Km/s + 21Km/s+ 7.2km/s + 6.75km/s = 64km/s

208km/64km/s = 3.25 sec before tx off 3dB beam
94km/64km/s = 1.47 sec before rx off 3dB beam
How to Track?
Satellites in orbit add to complexity, but planetary

motion is driving contributor.
76
METOL
Doppler Shift
First A Word Doppler Shift
64km/s max relative motion

V = F(doppler) /2
F = V 2/ = 64000m/s 2/1.07 10-6
=1.19 1011
120 Ghz Max Doppler Shift!!
Increases Width of filter (240 GHz)
Increases Noise Bandwidth
1.3810-23 26,904 (10 109 +240 109 )
-70.1 dBW or + 14.6dB noise power
77
METOL
Doppler Shift Cont
Doppler Shift and Tracking

Considerations
Move to GEO Earth Sat = -3.5km/s
= -7Ghz shift
Move Receiver to Ground = -7km/s

= -14Ghz shift
Modulate Laser to account for shift or

Have tunable filter
78
METOL
Tracking Options
Need better then 5.7 10-7 rad

accuracy
Generally need 1/10th of 3db beam
Need to Acquire then Track
Tracking Options
Laser Beacon
Star Tracking
Earth-Image IR Tracking
79
METOL Laser Beacon
Laser Beacon
Low Bandwidth
Earth High Power Optical Beacon
Max 1.0AU
Mars
Max 1.38AU
Sun
++Simple on Mars end to implement

+Beacon can be used to transmit low data rate info & commands
-- Earth Rx must now transmit as well (probably on different smaller
aperture antenna)
Example?
80
METOL
Laser Beacon Schematic
(Lee, 2001)
Laser Beacon received

Use Beacon movement to determine point ahead
Use accelerometer to account for Txs movement
81
METOL
Laser Beacon Issues
Acquisition
Earth Rx Beacon covers all possible satellite around mars
positions (assume we have accurate orbit info on mars)
Mars Tx fixes & tracks on Beacon (defocus beam to pick up
beacon or scan till find it)
Mars Tx starts transmitting
Earth Rx fixes & tracks Mars transmission to minimize C/N
Done for all systems
Tracking
Mars uses Beacon to figure out where to point ahead on
transmission to hit Earth Rx.
Issues
1kw Beacon power required from earth at 2.5 AU (Hemmati,
2005)
1kW Power is an issue!

82
METOL
Star Tracking
Tracking Options
Laser Beacon
Star Tracking
83
METOL Star Tracking
Star Tracking Tracking

Distant Stars
Earth
Max 1.0AU
Mars
Max 1.38AU
Sun
+No beacon required

- More complicated than beacon
- Need very accurate ephemeris & clock (Boone, 2005)
++Rx can be anywhere as long as you have ephemeris
+Only real option beyond 40AU(Boone, 2005)
++ Tracking never interrupted by Sun
84
METOL
Star Tracking
Acquisition
Mars Tx has ephemeris data of earth & earth Rx.
Acquires & Tracks distant stars that are ~stationary
relative to earth and the Tx.
Uses star position & own ephemeris data to determine
where self is
Can determine direction of Rx
Tracking
Keep tracking star(s) (never have interruption from sun)
Issues
More complex system
Requires extremely accurate ephemeris and clock
85
METOL
Earth Image IR Tracking
Tracking Options
Laser Beacon
Star Tracking
86
METOL Earth Image IR Tracking
Earth
Pick up earth against 4k background
270K temp
Max 1.0AU
Mars
Max 1.38AU
Sun
++Simplest on Both Ends to implement (much easier then laser beacon)

Works well at low earth/sun angles (Hemmati, 2005)
++Continues to work at 100s nrad accuracy out to 40AU (Hemmati,
2005)
-- Rx assumed to be on earth
- May need extra small reflector to track earth Example?
87
METOL
Acquisition
Mars Tx has idea of where earth is, and finds object with 270K
temperature.
Optical Tracking of earth possible as well, but at low sun/earth
angles, earth is not visible
Rx position on earth known, beam is directed there.
Tracking
Mars Tx uses Earth IR reception to figure out where to point
ahead on transmission to hit Earth Rx.
Issues
Assumes Rx is on earth However we saw that most of motion/
pointing issues come from planetary motion, not satellite.
But we will probably need an additional reflector/receiver to be
able to track the earth while our main beam is pointed elsewhere.
This means you need accurate ephemeris data on satellite
88
METOL
Conclusions
Tracking Conclusions
Appears we have two options if working space to space

Beacon
Would work from Earth to Mars BUT
1kW power prohibitive at receiving sat
Earth-Image tracking
Highest Pointing accuracy
Works very well if Rx is on earth, not so much if in orbit
Need extra small telescope to track earth
Star Tracking
Most complex
Most reliable
Rx Position independent
89
METOL
Conclusions
Tracking Conclusions
Considerations
All forms of tracking appear to require some knowledge of orbits of earth,
mars, tx, & rx.
All seems to be close to meeting the 5.7 10-8 rad accuracy
Hard to get exact accuracy numbers
Others Doing Currently Doing It
MTO using 5 meter antenna on earth tracking sat at mars
Hubble currently has 4.0 10-8 rad accuracy (HubbleSite, 2006)
So tracking is possible
Choice?
Would appear that Earth-Image tracking would work best from Mars
distance, but if the receiver is not on the earth we already need most of
the components of the star tracking star tracking design, which appears
to be the most reliable & Rx independent form of tracking we can get.
Since we have such high accuracy requirements we could use Earth
Image & Star Tracking as back up systems for each other.
Have Low Data Rate RF link for backup
Hubble Can Do it! So Can We
90
References
METOL
Wilson, Keith & Enoch, Michael Optical Communications for Deep Space Missions IEEE
Communications, August 2000
Unlisted Communicating Across the Solar System IEEE Aerospace & Electroning systems
Magazine, Jubilee Issue October 2000
Lee, Shinhak & Ortiz, Gerry & Alexander, James & Portillo Angel & Jeppesen Christian
Accelerometer-Assisted Tracking and Pointing for Deep Space Optical Communications IEEE
2001
Boone, Bradley Optical Communications Development for Spacecraft Applications: Recent
Progress at JHU/APL IEEAC paper # 1191 Version 2, Jan 2005
Stamper, Brian & Angel, Roger & Burge, James & Woolf, Neville Flat Membrane Mirrors for
Space Telescopes IEEE 2002?
Angle, J.R.P & Burge, J.H & Woolf, N.J Extreamly Large Space Telescopes and Interferometers
made with flat primary mirrors Gossamer Optics Workshop
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/meetings/ulsoc/papers/angel.pdf April, 1999
Long, Chris Hubble Questions, NASA http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/399.html 1999
NASA James Webb Telescope http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/facts.html 2006
Lee, Shinhak & Ortiz, Gerry & Alexander, James & Portillo, Angel & Jeppesen, Christian
Accelerometer-Assisted Tracking and Pointing for Deep Space Optical Communications
91
References (2)
METOL
Hemmati, H. & Chen, Y. & Lee, S. & Ortiz G.G. Earth-Image Tracking in the IR For Deep Space
Optical Communications IEEE. 2005
Wikipedia, Membrane Mirrors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_mirror , 2006
Arianespace, Ariane 5, http://www.arianespace.com/site/launcher/future_sub_index.html , 2006
Exeter University James Webb Space Telescope Orbit, http://newton.ex.ac.uk/features/l2.html 2006
Young, Kelly , Costs cuts likely to dim space telescopes vision New Scientist Space
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn7908 2006
Grabbe, Crockett On to Mars? Iowa University
http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/writing/ontomars/ontomars.html 1999
Ahmed, Ashfaq Putting man on Mars is fine, what about earth?Gulf News,
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/04/01/17/108220.html 2004
Answers, Mirror: Definition, http://www.answers.com/topic/mirror 2006
HubbleSite, Hubble Quick Facts,
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/facts_.and._figures/quick_facts/quick_facts_3.shtmlv , 2006
92
METOL
Satellite Stabilization and Data

Storage for the Mars Satellite
93
TCOM 707 Jaime Galliante
METOL
Objectives
Use Satellite Stabilization techniques to

mitigate vibration effects and maintain
pointing accuracy.
Store data collected from research
vehicles on Mars orbit and surface for
transmission to Earth.
94
METOL
Satellite Stabilization
Satellite stabilization and accurate pointing are essential
for maintaining a good communications link.
However, vibrations due to satellite subsystems and
other sources, are the major source of pointing error.
These vibrations cause the transmit beam to move away from
the center of the receivers antenna, resulting in an increase in
BER of the communications link.
Without compensating for it, or isolating it, the optical
communications terminal cannot achieve accurate and stable
links.
95
METOL
Example of vibration effects for a OOK modulation
intersatellite link system with optical preamplifiers.
BER vs Ratio of the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of the vibration
intensity to the laser beamwidth [7]
96
METOL
In order to maintain a good and stable link quality, the
Mars Satellite must be very steady and accurate.
To achieve this, we need to be able to:
Stabilize the Satellite.
Detect how much the Satellite has moved, and in what direction.
Determine the location of the receiving Earth Satellite AND of the
transmitting Mars Satellite.
Maintain the Mars Satellite at the desired location.
97
METOL
How do we stabilize the Spacecraft?
We can mitigate the vibration effects and stabilize the satellite by
using Active Isolation techniques such as:
Spin Stabilization
Three-axis Stabilization
98
METOL
Spin Stabilization Three-Axis Stabilization
MRO [13]
TIROS I [12]
The entire spacecraft rotates around its own Satellites have small spinning wheels on each
vertical axis. axis, called Reaction Wheels, that rotate to keep
Advantage: A very simple way to keep the the satellite in the desired orientation.
spacecraft pointed in a certain direction. Advantage: Solar panels can be kept facing the
Disadvantage: Satellite cannot use large solar Sun; optical instruments and antennas can point at
arrays; The instruments or antennas must desired targets without having to perform despin
perform despin maneuvers so that they point maneuvers.
at their desired targets. Disadvantage: More expensive and complex.
Three-Axis Stabilization is the best choice to meet our Power, Pointing, and Tracking
Requirements. 99
METOL
How do we detect Satellite movements?

Inertial sensors such as Gyroscopes can be used.
Gyroscopes are like motion detectors. They can sense the
Satellite movements and send information back to a computer
about its exact position.
With moment-to-moment updates from the Gyroscopes, the
computer always knows how far the Satellite has moved and can
use this information to slow down or speed up the spinning of the
Reaction Wheels.
100
METOL
How do we determine the location of both the Earth and
the Mars Satellites?
Star and/or Earth-Image Tracking systems are the best choice
(previous briefings).
101
METOL
How do we hold the Mars Satellite at the desired
location?
- Precision instruments such as the Fine Guidance
Sensors can be used.
- Fine Guidance Sensors provides a high degree of
pointing stability and accuracy, and can detect very small
changes in the position of the satellite.
- Uses the Star Tracker to find stars and lock the satellite
into position. The constant sensor measurements keep
the satellite pointed in the right direction.
- The Hubble Space Telescope uses these sensors to
provide a pointing accuracy of 0.01 arcsec (4.85 10-8
rad) with no more than 0.007 arcsec of deviation over
long periods of time.
Fine Guidance Sensor [11]
102
METOL
With these four systems working together, we can
minimize the vibrations and stabilize the Satellite to
achieve and maintain the required pointing accuracy to
have successful communications between Satellites.
103
METOL
Data Storage
Objective is to have enough memory to store data while
communications between the Mars Satellite and the
Earth Satellite are lost.
Requirement 1: Estimated 45 days of lost
communications due to Sun Blockage.
Requirement 2: Average 1% of down time per year (due
to eclipse and others), with 6 Hours to be the longest
gap the system has to recover with no loss of data.
Data rate from Mars research vehicles to Mars Satellite
Max 1 Gbps
Average 100 Mbps
Data rate from Mars Satellite to Earth Satellite:
Max 10 Gbps for at least 50% of time
Overall average 100 Mbps
104
METOL
Data Storage
Memory to store 45 days worth of data:

Using 10 Gbps peak data rate:
10 Gbps x 3,888,000 sec = 38,880,000 Gb (4,860,000 GB or 4,860
TB) of memory needed.
Memory to store at least 6 Hours worth of data:
Using 10 Gbps peak data rate:
10 Gbps x 21600 sec = 216,000 Gb (27,000 GB or 27 TB) of
memory needed.
How much memory we can realistically put in the satellite
will depend on its resources (space, power, etc.)
105
METOL
Possible Equipment
97SD3232 1-Gb SDRAM Memory Chip
Radiation hardened against natural space radiation
3.3 V Power Supply
Size: 2.5 x 2.5 x 0.281 in
Speeds up to 100 MHz
Temperature: -55 to 125 deg C
Power Down and Clock Suspend Modes
97SD3248 1.5-Gb SDRAM Memory Chip
Radiation hardened against natural space radiation
3.3 V Power Supply
Size: 2.5 x 2.5 x 0.398 in
Speeds up to 100 MHz
Temperature: -55 to 125 deg C
Power Down and Clock Suspend Modes
106
METOL
References
[1] Multi-Gigabit Data-Rate Optical Communication Depicting LEO-to-GEO and GEO-to-Ground Links by H.
Hemmati, M. Wright, B. Sanii, N. Page, G. G. Ortiz, A. Biswas and K. Wilson. Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology
[2] Pointing and Tracking Subsystem Design for Optical Communications Link between The International
Space Station and Ground by Shinhak Lee, James W. Alexander, and Muthu Jeganathan. Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
[3] Technology Maturation for Multi-Gigabit/sec Optical Communications Transceiver for Earth Science by
Gerry G. Ortiz, Shinhak Lee and Hamid Hemmati. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology
[4] Satellite Attitude Control and Power Tracking with Energy/Momentum Wheels by Panagiotis Tsiotras,
Haijun Shen, and Chris Hall. Georgia Institute of Technology, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
[5] Atmosphere Tolerant Acquisition, Tracking and Pointing Subsystem by Shinhak Lee and Gerardo G.
Ortiz. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
[6] The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Mission by M. D. (Dan) Johnston, James E. Graf, Richard W. Zurek,
Howard J. Eisen, and Benhan Jai. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
[7] Laser Space Communications by David G. Aviv. Artech House, Inc. Norword, MA. 2006. Pg 35-39
[8] http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/STABILIZATION/DI172.htm
[9] http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_guide_sensors.html
[10] http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_guide_control.html
[11] Hubble Facts, http://hubble.nasa.gov/a_pdf/news/facts/FS11.pdf
[12] TIROS I: http://www.wirtzfeld.be/hetwonderlijkeweer/naarhet.htm
[13] MRO: http://www.digitaltechnews.com/news/2005/08/nasas_mars_miss.html
[14] http://www.maxwell.com/microelectronics/products/_components/memory/97SD3232/description.html
[15] http://www.maxwell.com/microelectronics/products/_components/memory/97SD3248/description.html
107
METOL
Laser Requirements
Peak rate of 10 Gbps at least 50% of the

time.
Average overall data rate of 100 Mbps.
108
TCOM 707 Hrushikesh.Bhome
METOL Possible Solutions
Using RF Communications
OR
Using Free Space Optical

Communications
109
METOL
RF Communications Optical Communication

RF downlink bit rate capability is Requires high receiver sensitivity
at the receiver terminal.
roughly a linear function of the
High pointing accuracy at the
(mass) x (prime power) product.
spacecraft terminal (approaching
At high bit rates RF antennas and even well below 1 rad).
become too large. Optical communication systems
have advantages over RF
Proven and More reliable
systems that include a wider
technology. bandwidth, larger capacity, lower
Readily available equipment. power consumption, and more
compact equipment .
110
METOL
RF System Performance Constraint
111
Optical Communications Development for Spacecraft Applications: Recent Progress at JHU/APL by Bradley G.
TCOM 707 Hrushikesh.Bhome Boone
METOL
Optical System Performance Constraint
112
Optical Communications Development for Spacecraft Applications: Recent Progress at JHU/APL by Bradley G.
TCOM 707 Hrushikesh.Bhome Boone
METOL
Satellite Optical Communications
Telescope
TRANSMITTER
Point-Ahead Gimbal
Mirror
Fast Steering
Mirror
ACQUISITION
ACQ & TRACK DETECTOR
CONTROLLER
TRACKING
DETECTOR
COMM
RECEIVER
113
TCOM 707 Hrushikesh.Bhome http://www.aero.org/conferences/mrqw/2005-papers/IV-3%20Scarpulla.ppt.
METOL
Satellite Laser Communications
Laser Comm Transmitter

e.g. Mach-Zehnder
Laser Diode
Power Diode-pumped
Master External Amplifier
Oscillator Modulator Fiber Amplifier
Signal
In
Telescope
114
http://www.aero.org/conferences/mrqw/2005-papers/IV-3%20Scarpulla.ppt.
METOL The Primary Functions of Laser Terminal
To efficiently generate optical power that

can have data modulated onto it.
Transmit optical power through efficient
optics, despite platform vibrations,
motions, and distortions.
Emphasis on reduced mass and power
consumption.
115
METOL
The space borne terminal to consist of a single receive-transmit

telescope where receive/transmit isolation is obtained by proper
filtering.
Transmit arm originates at the laser transmitter and extends to the
telescope.
Receive arm includes data reception, acquisition and tracking that
originates at the telescope and terminates at the focal plane
detectors.
The two arms overlap each other to ensure proper pointing of
transmit beam.
The transmitter based on a flexible master-oscillator, power-amplifier
(MOPA) design (at 1070nm).
116
METOL
The term master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) refers to a

configuration consisting of a Master Laser and an amplifier to boost
the output power.
The MOPA transmitter architecture is modular, allowing for a more
flexible choice of waveforms and independent design and
optimization of the laser, modulator, and power amplifier.
The master laser selected is a fiber distributed feedback (DFB) laser,
consisting of DFB fiber Bragg gating (FBG) written into Ytterbium
doped fiber, pumped by a 980nm laser diode.
The modulator selected is a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM),
allowing high rate, high performance communications.
Cascade of two MZMs in series provides -40 dB extinction ratio for
generating large constellation M-PPM waveforms without penalty.
117
METOL
COTS Laser Specifications
Center Wavelength 1070-1090nm
Key Features
Spectral Width 0.1 0.3nm
15 - 100W output power
Output Power 15 100W
Polarization Random
Optical Output Collimeter Diffraction limited output.
Output Beam Quality M2 < 1.2
Output Beam 5mm Stable output.
Diameter
Output Fiber Type Single Mode
High wall-plug efficiency
Fiber Pigtail Length 5M
Dimensions 19
Single Mode
Power Supply 90 240V;
Requirements 50-60Hz
Courtesy of Koheras Laser Solutions, www.koheras.com Special thanks to Sren Lauridsen
118
METOL
Hypothetical PICTransmitter
Metallization
Grating-assisted
couplers
Power monitors
High-power Photonic crystal
pump lasers right-angle bend
Courtesy of SMU
DFB/EAM OBrien, et al.
laser High-power Courtesy of USC
optical amplifier
Courtesy of Agility, Inc. Electro-absorption
modulator
High-order
Feedback Control microdisk
Electronics filter
Dapkus, et al.
Courtesy of USC
Optical gain material

Transparent material
Isolation region
Monolithic Chip
Absorption region
PIC(Photonic Integrated Circuits )

119
METOL
PIC Transmitter and Antenna
Metallization
Grating-assisted
couplers
Power monitors
High-power Photonic crystal
pump lasers right-angle bend
DFB laser
High-power
optical amplifier
Electro-absorption
modulator
High-order
Feedback Control microdisk
Electronics filter
Chip Output/
Fiber Coupling
Fiber to the
Antenna
3-D phased Diffractive
Steered output Optical
array
beam Element
120
METOL
Nd:Yag Lasers
Nd:Yag Lasers have comparatively smaller spectral
widths.
YAG exhibits high optical transmission, ability to handle
high fluences without damage or significant wavefront
distortion, excellent thermal conductivity, and uniform index
of refraction.
Nd:YAG can operate in cw and short pulsed configuration.
Comparatively low average output power.
121
METOL Laser Life Time
Degradation is faster in the first hundreds hours (infant mortality

regime).
If the laser diode's operating temperature is reduced by about 10
degrees, the lifetime will statistically double.
Assessment Test Programme for the ALADIN Pump Laser Diodes Y. Durand, 2nd ESA_NASA Working Meeting on Optoelectronics.
122
METOL
REFERENCES
1. www.niac.usra.edu
2. R.L. McNutt, A Realistic Interstellar Explorer, Phase I Final Report, NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts, May 1999.
3. http://www.rp-photonics.com/distributed_feedback_lasers.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_Bragg_grating
5. R.A. Wallace, J.A. Ayon, and G.A. Sprague, Interstellar Probe Mission/Design Concept, 2000
IEEE Aerospace Conference, paper no. 53.
6. H. Kogelnik and C. V. Shank, "Coupled wave theory of distributed feedback lasers", J. Appl.
Phys. 43, 2328 (1972) .
7. Comparative Study of Optical and Radio-Frequency Communication Systems for a Deep-Space
Mission by H. Hemmati, K. Wilson, M. K. Sue, L. J. Harcke, M. Wilhelm, C.-C. Chen, J. Lesh,
and Y. Feria.
8. Bradley G. Boone Optical Communications Development for Spacecraft Applications: Recent
Progress at JHU/APL
9. SPIEThe International Society for Optical Engineering Optical communications work best over
relatively short distances in space.
10. http://www.nro.gov/PressReleases/prs rel49.html.
11. http://www.rp-photonics.com/fiber_bragg_gratings.html.
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Bragg_reflector.
13. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center The Mars Laser Communication Dmonstration.
14. J. J. Scozzafava, D. M. Boroson, R. S. Bondurant, The Mars Lasercom Terminal.
15. 2005 Digest of the LEOS Summer Topical Meetings Design for a 5-Watt PPM Transmitter for
the Mars Laser Communications Demonstration.
16. Y. Jeong, J.K. Sahu, D.N. Payne and J. Nilsson Ytterbium-doped large-core fibre laser with 1
kW of continuous-wave output power.
123
METOL
POWER GENERATION AT
MARS
Sun
Earth
Mars
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/20061020_SolarConjunction.jpg
124
TCOM 707
METOL
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this aspect of the project are as follows;
To be able to generate power at the Mars orbit, enough to operate

the satellite.
To be able to generate approximately 1.5kw of power through solar

panels.
To use the latest solar technology available for the mission.
To use two Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries as back up for the solar cells.
125
TCOM 707 Babatunde Falade
METOL
Type of Solar Cells
Single Dual Junction: Triple Junction: Improved triple Ultra Triple
Junction :GaAs/ GalnP2/GaAs/Ge GalnP2/GaAs/Ge Junction: GalnP2/ Junction: GalnP2/
Ge GaAs/Ge GaAs/Ge
Power : 28C
(beginning
of life)
Panel Area
241W/m 266W/m 302W/m 330W/m 350W/m
>2.5m
228W/m 252W/m 289W/m 316W/m 330W/m
< 2.5 m
Mass : 1.61Kg/m 1.61Kg/m 1.76Kg/m 1.76Kg/m 1.76Kg/m

3mil Ceria
Doped
coverslide
Magnetic Dipole moment: Standard 0.5Am ; Special 0.0Am ; ( Magnetic Field <3nT at the end of Array Wing)
Reliability Demonstrated 0.9999 for 5Kw Array
Out of all these types Gallium Arsenide on Germanium Solar cells, the Ultra-triple junction
GalnP2/GaAs/Ge will be used.
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/Panel/panels.pdf
126
METOL
Power Flux Density
1352 W/m2 at Earth
Pfd = P /(4R2 )
1352 = Pt / (4 149,598,000,0002 )
Pt (sun) = 3.80 x 1026 W
Pfd (mars) = 3.80 x 1026 W /(4R2 )

Pfd = 3.80 x 1026 W /(4 347,067,000,0002 )
= ~ 250 W/m2
Literature uses ~300 W/m2 at mars
Efficiency = (350w/m) / (1352w/m) = .26

Assume modest improvement to .30
127
Solar Power Budget at Earth
METOL
This calculation is based on Solar Panel Power generation at Mars.

128
METOL
Solar Power Budget at Mars
Power generated at Mars compared to Earth is reduced by a

ratio of ~4.5.
To collect 1.4kw of solar power at Mars, the solar panel size will
be increased by a ratio of 4.5.
At Earth At Mars
Solar Panel Sizes 3.9m 17.67m
Solar Panel 6.9kg 31.09kg

weights
129
METOL
Solar Panel Operation
In the design, the solar panels will be attached to both sides of the
orbiter.
This will enable the orbiter to continuously track the sun, with
8.83 m on both sides of the orbiter. However, if there is any time
when the orbiter turn away from the sun, now this is when the 2
Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries will provide power for the orbiter.
Each of the batteries can provide 50Amps/hours at 32 volts, which

will result in 1.6 kilowatts. However, 40% of this capacity is planned
to be used because as the discharges, its voltage drops.
130
Solar Panel Operation Contd
METOL
However, because of the HEO Orbit employed in the Mars Relay

Satellite, there will be no time when the Orbiter will be short of Solar
Power.
131
METOLTypes of Space Power Generation
There are different ways that power could be generated in space,
the chart below explore some of the possibilities .
132
METOL
Solar Power Justification
From the three power systems option mentioned, Solar power was chosen
for these reason;
Nuclear power has low capacity, its highest capability is 1kw, couple with
fact that its expensive to build, although it can provide long term energy
source.
In the case of Cassini and Ulysses
Second option, Energy storage, is another good source of power, but it is

not feasible for long duration missions.
In the case of Gemini
Finally, Solar is the best option because it has access to unlimited energy
supply through the sun, its cost effective and also the best option for long
duration near-sun mission.
133
METOL Other Solar Energy Generating
Applications
ISS
Skylab
Mir
Mars
Exploration Hubble
Rover
GPS
Mir
134
Finally the orbiter with the solar panel will
METOL
have a design in this form.
135
METOL
References.
NASA/NTSA Symposium- Living and Working in Space: Energy,
November 4 2006.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04758_modest.jpg
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/Panel/panels.pdf
http://64.62.177.174/WebX?293@544.oc1uabRrf41.15@.eeeefb9
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/
20061020_SolarConjunction.jpg
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_electrical.html
136
METOL
Optical Receiver Design

Earth Orbiting Satellite
TCOM 707 Dana DeFrancesco

METOL
Outline
Objectives
Receiver Assumptions
Modulation Schemes & Considerations
Optical Receiver Process
Optical Receiver Description
Optical Receiver Diagrams
References

METOL
Objectives
To design an optical receiver for use in the

Receive optical communications from a Mars
orbiting satellite
Demodulate and prepare data to be
forwarded to Earth or stored on satellite

METOL
Receiver Assumptions
Rx Parameters:
Data Rate: Up to 10 Gbps
Wavelength: 1064 nm
Frequency: 281.95 THz
Modulation Scheme: Pulse Position Modulation
(PPM)
Medium is Space
Atmospheric Propagation impairments do not apply.

METOL
Pulse Position Modulation (PPM)
Modulation Scheme used in Optical Communications

in which bits are transmitted by using time shifted
pulses. Pulses are repeated every T seconds
M = bits per pulse
2M = required time shifts
For Data Rate of 10 Gbps:
Assume 2 bits per pulse, 4 time shifts
T = 0.4 x 10 -9 seconds = 0.2 ns
8PPM T = 0.3 ns
16PPM T = 0.4 ns
256PPM T = 0.8 ns
For higher order PPM, more transmit power is required.
Pulses are closer together in time.

METOL
PPM considerations
Synchronization:
Local clock must be aligned with beginning of each symbol
Differential PPM:
Alleviates synchronization problem
Each pulse position is encoded relative to the previous
pulse
Loss of sync only affects consecutive pulses, not entire
chain
Disadvantages:
Very susceptible to Multipath effects. However, Multipath
effects are not anticipated on this link.

METOL
PPM Considerations (cont)
Coherency:
Difficult to achieve when using a pulse based, non
continuous modulation scheme
Coherent reception is possible, but usually quite
difficult and expensive
Data can be received without knowledge of the phase
of the signal
Optically Coherent vs. Non-coherent
Use a non-coherent envelope detection receiver

METOL
Optical Receiver Process
Antenna receives signal

Signal passes through Optical Bandpass
Filter and is fed to receiver front-end.
Photodetector detects signal
Photocurrent converted to voltage
Signal is demodulated electrically

METOL Optical Receiver Description
Front-end Configuration:
Trans-impedance Amplifier
Compromise between low-noise and wideband needs
Photodetector:
InGaAs PIN Photodetector
Fits Wavelength Requirement
High Efficiency: 70%-90%
Uniform Spectral Response
Capability of High Data Rate Performance

METOL
Photodetector
New Focus 1544-A
InGaAs PIN
Range: 800-1650
nm
BW: 10 kHz 12 GHz
Max Pulse Power: 1
mW

METOL Optical Receiver Diagram
(front-end)
Bias voltage
Direct-Detection Receiver:
Photodetector
Optical signal Optical signal
Optical Band
Pass Filter RL
- Signal Output
1. PIN generates a photocurrent in +

response to the optical signal Transimpedance
Amplifier
2. Photocurrent is converted to a voltage
3. Electrical Signal Processing performed
RL
to recover data

Photoreceiver 1544-A
METOL
(functional diagram)
10 k
Bias voltage
Optical input +
Transimpedance DC Bias Monitor
Amplifier Output
AC-coupled
Output
Transmission Line Transmission Line
148
METOL
References
1. http://www.newfocus.com/product/modelgroup.cfm?
productlineid=3&modelgroupid=1058&app=photonics
2. Coherent Optical Array Receiver For PPM Signals Under Atmospheric Turbulence,
Fernandez, Michela M., 2006. California Institute of Technology.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-position_modulation
4. TCOM 707 Lectures 11 & 12. Dr. Jeremy Allnutt. George Mason University, Fall 2006.
149
METOL
Outline
Introduction
Types of Filters
Near-Sun Pointing Impact
Solar Rejection Filter
MARS Solar Background
Fabry-Perot Etalon Filter
Polarization Filter
150
TCOM 707 - Wassim Issa
METOL
Filter Design
for
151
METOL
Introduction - 1
MARS is 1.93 times further from the sun than is Earth. Its
solar constant should therefore be about 27% that of
Earth, about 374 W/m2
Because there is little atmosphere to absorb the energy,

this is about the same as what we receive at the surface
of Earth
One of the biggest challenges is communicating with the

satellite when its orbit starts to take it near the Sun.
Pointing a large telescope near the Sun is dangerous. It
has been estimated that as much as 1 kW of optical
power could be focused into its sensitive imaging
electronics
152
METOL
Introduction - 2
Two Problems:
Two Much Sun

Background Energy
Mars Sun reflection, not as bad as earth based receiver
Solution:
METOL will be equipped with highly sensitive detectors and very narrow
optical filters centered on the signal wavelength to screen out as much
background light as possible
With such a filter in place, the team believes that it should be possible to
use METOL as a receiver pointed as close as 5 to the Sun, meaning
that the link would be inoperable for just 45 days
We will look at both 30nm reflectance and .1nm etalon filter technology
153
Types of Filters
METOL
TELESCOPE
LOSSES
TELESCOPE
LOSSES
Polarization filter Solar rejection filter

Etalon filter
154
METOL
Near-Sun Pointing Impact
SPE = Sun-Probe-Earth angle
SEP = Sun-Earth-Probe angle
L1 & L2 = dynamic Lagrange points
Relative position of Earth and Mars during small SEP and SPE angles
155
METOL
Solar Rejection Filter - 1
A reflective solar rejection filter is used:
To protect the primary mirror from deformation due to

solar heating
To protect the telescope structural parts from re-focused
light from the primary mirror
Must not disturb the optical wavefront
Must efficiently transmit the signal wavelength of 1064 nm
Reject the vast majority of solar spectrum
Reject the solar spectrum through reflection, rather than
absorption
Limit forward scattering as much as possible
156
METOL
Solar Rejection Filter - 2
Exposure to a somewhat harsh environment, the filter
must be made up of a relatively strong, robust material
and support
The filter covering the entrance aperture of the telescope
will be made up of a mosaic of filter panels
Mosaic Glass Filter Now Available
157
Membrane Filter
METOL
Membrane filter design for large aperture telescope
- Membrane filter design

- 10micron thick
- 5O nm filter FWHM
- Reflects most sunlight
- Transmits laser energy
Optical Membrane Technology for Deep Space Optical Communications Filters

W. Thomas Roberts
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA 91208
818-354-9388
tom.roberts@jpl.nasa.gov
158
METOL
MARS Solar Background -1
The solar irradiance at MARS,

at 1064 nm wavelength is:
647 mW m-2 nm-1
at 1 astronomical unit
or
279 mW m-2 nm-1
at MARS mean solar distance
As Mars orbits the Sun with eccentricity

e 0.0934, the solar irradiance varies by:
the square of the Mars solar distance, or
from 82% to 122% of its mean value
during a MARS year
159
METOL
MARS Solar Background - 2

We assume worse case scenario
MARS and laser transmitter sat are in receiver FOV
We Assume
647 mW m-2 nm-1 average MARS radiance
filter ~.1 nm
Gb/sec data stream
From Lukes calculations MARS spot size is equal to

94 km2
We Calculate
160
METOL
MARS Solar Background - 3

MARS background power
647 mW m-2 nm-1 x 94km2 x . 1 nm = .57W (-2.4dBW)
Subtract path loss and add gain (use max distance since laser signal
is weaker)
-2.4dBW-371.8dB+140.3dB=-233.9dBW (4.07x10-24W)
Assuming Gb/sec data stream
one bit period of 10-9 sec will produce 4.07x10-33J
Since we know Energy/photon at 1.07 micron is 1.87 x10--19J
4.07x10-33J/1.87 x10--19J ~ 0 photons reaching detector
Then 161
METOL
Fabry-Perot Etalon Filter - 1
A Fabry-Perot (FP) interferometer or etalon consists of
two flat, parallel, semi-transparent plates coated with
films of high reflectivity and low absorption as shown in
the diagram below:
Light comes in and gets reflected between the plates

and the rays either interfere constructively (and are
transmitted) or they interfere destructively (and are
therefore not transmitted)
162
METOL
The wavelength of the light that is transmitted through
the Fabry-Perot is a function of the separation between
the plates.
you can tune the wavelength of light that is passed.
163
METOL
Fabry-Perot Filter is compact, lightweight and easy to

tune
http://physics.gmu.edu/~satyapal/Projects/
164
METOL
30 pm bandwidth Etalon Filter
High-performance Fabry-Perot etalon mount

for spaceflight Need to collimate
Optical Engineering, Vol. 39 No. 1, January (make accurately parallel)
2000 light in optical path
165
METOL
Polarization Filter
The E vector may rotate by passage through the
transmission medium in space leading to : Circular
Polarization
E = Electric field
Direction
of travel
From (z-axis)
Dr. Allnutt E
A Circular Polarized Filter will be considered
166
METOL
References
Optical Membrane Technology for Deep Space Optical Communications Filters, W.

Thomas Roberts, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
J. S. Accetta and D. L. Shumaker, The Infrared and Optical Systems Handbook
(Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, 1993).
Mars 1064 nm spectral radiance measurements determined from the receiver noise
response of the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter,
http://www-geodyn.mit.edu/MOLA_PassiveRadiometer.pdf
A. Biswas and S. Piazzolla, Deep-Space Optical Communications Downlink Budget
from Mars: System Parameters, August 2003.
SPIEs oemagazine, Solar Filters Based on Fabry-Perot Etalons, June 2004
G.A. Gary, K.S. Balasubramaniam and M. Sigwarth, Multiple Etalon Systems for the
Advanced Technology Solar Telescope, August 2002.
A. Biswas, F. Khatri and D. Boroson, Near-Sun Free-Space Optical Communications
from Space, December 2005
High-performance Fabry-Perot etalon mount for spaceflight, Optical Engineering, Vol.
39 No. 1, January 2000
http://physics.gmu.edu/~satyapal/Projects/favorite.htm
167
METOL
Introduction
Earth Optical Ground Receiver
168
TCOM 707 Gerald Mitchell
METOL
Earth Ground Receiver
Would an Earth Ground Receiver Be

Better Than an Orbiting Earth Receiver?
What About a Backup Ground Receiver on

Earth?
169
METOL
Concepts
Same Laser Transmitter

Consider
Additional distance
Atmosphere
Background
Ground Receiver Recommendations
Aperture
Detector
170
METOL
Additional Path Loss
Earth GEO to MAR SAT

Distance from Earth varies from 56,327,040
kilometers) to over 402,336,000,000
kilometers.
GEO to Earth is 35786 km
Conclusion - Additional path is
insignificant if we double the antenna
aperture to 10m.
Here is why.
171
METOL
Link Budget
Given Parameters:
Pt = 100 watts
Max distance = 402,336,000 kilometers
Shortest distance = 56,327,040 kilometers
Average distance = 225,308,160 kilometers
Calculated Parameters:
Gt = (D/)2
Gr = (D/)2
Lp = (4R/)2
EIRP = Gt + Pt
Pr = EIRP + Gr Lp
172
METOL
Link Budget Continued.
Max Distance
Gt = (2.25/1.06*10-6)2
= (4.44685585 * 1013) * .5
= 2.22342792* 1013
= 133.5 dB
Gr = (10/1.06*10-6)2
= (8.78391278 * 1014) *.5
= 4.39195639 * 1014 watts
= 146.4 dB
173
METOL
Max Distance
Lp = (4(402,336*106 )/(1.06*10-6)2
= 2.27502297 *1037 watts
= 373.5 dB
Pr = EIRP + Gr Lp
= 20 + 133.5 + 146.4 373.5
= -73.6 dB
174
METOL
Shortest Distance Pr = -56.5 dB

Average Distance Pr = -68.6 dB
Why are these numbers important?
If we double the aperture of the ground
receive antenna, we can attain a 6dB gain of
receive power.
But what about the quality of the signal?
175
METOL
Atmospheric Channel
Is the Problem!
Concerns
Turbulence (energy is disbursed)
Absorption (signal loss)
Sky Emission (noise increase)
Cloud Blockage
176
METOL
Turbulence Impact
Lost key benefit of sat receiver designs

Spreads signal
Large area detectors have poor bandwidth
Requires array to collect signal
Also difficult to get optical arrays with high
bandwidth
Possible to compensate by using adaptive
optics
177
METOL
No longer diffraction limited
Example
Field of view increase due to turbulence for 1m diameter telescope
at 1 micron with 2.5 microrad FOV.
From Deep Space Communication, ,Hemmati, Wiley 2006. 178

METOL Atmospheric Transmission Loss
Depends on
Receiver Height
Slant Path
Visibility
% transmission ranges:
.85(sea level, 23km vis, 0 deg)
.92(2km, 23 km vis, 0 deg)
.6 (sea level, 5 km vis, 0 deg)
Assume .5 transmission
Look for >1km sea level
Clean air
179
METOL
Sky radiance spectrum
Additional noise background

due to sky radiance
Maintain NFOV
Maintain Polarization filter
.1nm etalon filter should
eliminate most
background noise
Assume twice as much
photons
180
METOL
Cloud Blockage
The main problem with an optical ground

receiver is the cloud issue.
Southwestern U.S.
181
METOL
Estimate loss
Transmission loss, 50% ~ 3dB

Background x2, ~ 3dB
Need Minimum of 6dB

Main reason why wed need to double
aperture size.
182
METOL
Signal to Noise Conclusion
Looking for a
10 m Optical Telescope
> 1km Sea Level
Mountain Altitude
Good Weather
With Adaptive Optics
183
METOL
Keck observatory
http://www.keckobservatory.org/
10 m telescope
Good weather
4,200-meter altitude
Adaptive optics correction

184
METOL
Costs
Mars satellite to Ground Receiver

Ranges from $100 million to $200 million
Mars Satellite to Earth Satellite
Ranges from at least $1 billion
However..
185
METOL
Link Availability
The Mars Satellite to Earth Satellite is

much more productive than the Mars
Satellite to Ground Receiver due to the
cloud issue.
186
METOL
Conclusion
Replacement Trade offs:

Cost vs. Availability
Ability to Increase Antenna Aperture
Backup Trade offs:
Cost of Two Receivers
Hybrid
187
METOL
References
Hemmati, Deep Space Optical Communications 2006
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_041115.html
http://lasers.jpl.nasa.gov/PAGES/flight.html
http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/05/19.html
http://maxim.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/Mission_Concept_Work/
ISAL_January_2002_SST/SST_ISAL-1/Super_Star_Tracker/Final_Report/
SST_Intro.ppt#258,3,Derived Requirements
188
METOL Earth to Earth Surface Optical Analysis
Steven Schaefer
Outline
Orbit Analysis
Ground Stations
Link Analysis
Attenuation Losses
Data Rate Trades
Terminal Configuration
Beamwidth/Station Keeping
189
TCOM 707 Steven Schaefer
Mars-Earth Terahertz Optical Communications Link
Possible Satellite Orbits
METOL
Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) Highly Elliptical Earth Orbit (HEO)
Advantages of GEO
significantly out weight HEO
190
METOL
METOL (Earth Orbit to Earth Surface)
Lasercom Ground Stations
Selection of three sites per area

seems to provide the right
balance of availability and cost
Total Ground Stations = 2 areas x 3 Stations/area = 6 Stations

191
METOL
Optical Analysis
Earth Orbit to Earth Surface Optical Link
35,786.03 km
Tx
200 THz (1.5 m)
200 THz (1.5 m)
30 cm diam. Rx antenna
30 cm diam. Tx antenna (50% eff.) (can increase to 100 cm)
5W output power
50% efficient
Noise bandwidth 10 GHz
Small Tx aperture allows greater room for 5 m Mars receive aperture

192
METOL
Optical ISL specification: transmit side
Antenna (mirror) diameter 30 cm Efficiency debatable, LL and
Assume efficiency = 50% Aerospace investigating efficiencies
Transmit power = 5 W in the high 80s to low 90%)
Wavelength 1.5 m ( 200 THz)
Antenna gain
G = (D/)2 0.5 = ( 0.30/1.5 10-6)2 0.5
= 1.97392 1011 112.9 dB
Optical ISL spec.: transmit side (contd.)
EIRP = Pt + Gt = 6.98 + 112.9 = 119.9 dBW
Path loss = (4R/)2
= (4 35,786,030/ 1.5 10-6)2
=8.98802 1028 289.5 dB
Optical ISL: receive side
Received power = EIRP Lp + GR
= 119.9 289.5 + 112.9
= -56.7 dBW
An effective system temperature of an optical front end is given by
Ts.eff = (h f)/(eta k)
h = Plancks constant (6.63 10-34 Js)
f = frequency
eta = quantum efficiency (assume 0.5 = 50%)
k = Boltzmanns constant (1.38 10-23 JK-1)
193
METOL (Earth Orbit to Earth Surface) - 10GHz
METOL

Ts.eff = (6.6310-342001012)/(0.51.3810-23)
= 19,217.39 = 19,217 K
For the 10 GHz bandwidth ISL example, the noise power = 1.3810-23
19,217 10 109
(N=KTB) = 3.000 10-9
-85.8 dBW
35,786.03 km
Path loss = 289.5 dB
200 THz 200 THz

EIRP: 119.9 dBW Rx Noise power: -85.8 dBW
Pr: -56.7 dBW
10 GHz (i.e. 10 Gbps)
closes easily, even C/N = -56.7 (85.8) = 29.1 dB Now, lets look at the losses
with losses
C/N = 29.1 dB 13.0 (losses) = 16.1 dB
194
Mars-Earth Terahertz Optical Communications Link
METOL Mie Scattering & Other Losses
LL and Aerospace use HighTran model to
determine total transmission losses
0.45 dB/km
10 Km
Cos (30 deg) = 10km/X
X= 11.547 km or 5.2 dB attenuation 30 deg. 0.45 dB/km * 10 Km =
4.5 dB Attenuation
Transmitter Losses (3-4 dB)= -3.0 dB

wave front errors, beam expansion, amplifier efficiency
Transmitter Pointing Loss = -0.5 dB
nominal
Channel (atmospheric losses) = -4.5 dB
average based on Turbulence and wave front distortion. Adaptive optics will help.
Receiver losses = -3 top -4 dB
coupling into receiver, connection losses
Receiver Pointing (tracking) losses = -0.5 dB
Implementation losses = -3 to -4 dB
demodulator errors, detection errors, coupling light into fiber)
Coding Gain = +6.0 dB
based on Reed-Soloman, Aerospace estimate, very efficient, 16 over head for 239 transmitted
bits)
Margin = -3.0 dB
Total Losses = -13.0 dB
195
METOL
Ts.eff = (6.6310-342001012)/(0.51.3810-23)
= 19,217.39 = 19,217 K
For the 40 GHz bandwidth ISL example, the noise power = 1.3810-23 19,217 40
109 Tx Rx
= 1.100 10 -8
200 THz
200 THz
-79.7 dBW
40 GHz receivers are maximum optical Antenna gain: 112.9 dB Antenna gain: 112.9 dB
bandwidth in laboratories today per color EIRP: 119.9 dBW Rx Noise power: -79.7 dBW
C/N = -56.7 (79.7) = 23 dB Pr: -56.7 dBW
C/N = 23.0 (13 dB losses) =10.0 dB

For the 1.5 m (200 THz) ISL example, Close 40 Gbps with good margin
Ts.eff = (6.6310-342001012)/(0.51.3810-23)
= 19,217.39 = 19,217 K
For the 60 GHz bandwidth ISL example, the noise power = 1.3810-23 19,217 60
109 Tx Rx
= 1.600 10-8 200 THz 200 THz
-78 dBW
EIRP: 119.9 dBW Rx Noise power: -78 dBW
C/N = -56.7 (78.0) = 21.3 dB Pr: -56.7 dBW
C/N = 21.3 (13 dB losses) = 8.3 dB

Just closing 60 Gbps, may not have full margin; no
196
TCOM 707 Steven Schaefer receiver to complement 60 Gbps
METOL (Earth Orbit to Earth Surface) Link Calculation Data Sheet * (Example)
METOL
Interactive excel spreadsheet; in collaboration with Wayne Fenner (Aerospace Corp)
Actual photons received
Photons required for 1x10-6
* Contribution from Wayne Fenner, Aerospace Corp 197

METOL (Earth Orbit to Earth Surface) - Summary
METOL
Performed with previous spreadsheet 40 Gbps Recommend
1 W laser can be reduced even further

with 1 meter receive aperture
Analysis shows that one wavelength will be

limited to between 40-60 Ghz
Receiver Instantaneous Bandwidth (IBW)
technology in the Lab is limited to about 40 GHz
198
METOL
Possible Lasercom Transmitter Configuration
Optical filter for

protection from Sun
Isolation struts required to

Cover for intransit to orbit maintain 1/10 of 0.6 mrad
1.55m wavelength (selected for availability of space qualified parts and compatibility to
terrestrial networks)
30 cm Aperture
5 Watt output (up to 10W in lab space qualified)
Laser Diode Distributed Feedback laser: tunable from 0.7um to 1.6 um (20-25 mW)
Erbium Doped Amplifier
Non-coherent
On-Off Keying Modulation
InGaAsP detector (indium gallium arsenide phosphide). 199

METOL
Beamwidth
Beamwidth = 1.2/D radians

= (1.2 1.5 10-6)/(0.3)
= 0.0000060 radians station keeping needed for 1/10 of 0.6 rad
= 0.0003438o (achievable based on industry standards)
At 35,786.03 km, physical width of the 3 dB beam is (35,786,030
m 0.0000060) = 214.7m
35,786 km
214.7 m
200
METOL
Summary
2 Satellites in Geostationary Orbit (GEO)

Good visibility and availability
3 Ground Stations
Good availability in average weather conditions
5W transmitter, 30cm Tx and Rx, OOK provides 40

Gbps capability
Good combination of component availability and performance
1.5 um wavelength selected availability of space

qualified components and compatibility to terrestrial
networks
201
METOL
References
1. Architectural Options for a Future Deep Space Optical Communications Network,

B.L. Edwards
2. Lasercom Fundamentals, Wayne Fenner, The Aerospace Corporation, Jun 2002
3. Lesson Plans from TCOM 707 Advanced Link Design, Dr Allnutt, 2006
4. Review of Laser Communications Research at JPL, H. Hemmati
5. Comparative Study of Optical and Radio-Frequency Communications for a Deep-
Space Mission, H. Hemmati, February 1997
6. Introduction to Laser Communication Systems, Felton Flood, The Aerospace
Corporation
7. NASA Mars Fact Sheet
8. Recommendation ITU-R P.1622, ITU 2003
9. Near-Sun Free-Space Optical Communications from Space. A. Biswas, IEEEAC
Paper, 2005
202
METOL
Back-up
203
METOL Mars-Earth Terahertz Optical Communications Link
Alternate Orbit configuration (One 1 Au off-set)
204
Mars-Earth Terahertz Optical Communications
METOL
Link Summary
205
METOL
RF Study: Earth
Ground to Satellite Link
Dec 14, 2006
206
TCOM 707 GEOFF HAMSHAR
METOL Outline
RF Benefits summary
TDRSS summary
3 GEO Orbit
Link Calculations
GEO to Ground
GEO to TDRSS
Theoretical Modulation and Data Rate
Single Ground Station
5 Ground station
Conclusions
207
SUMMARY
METOL
We will examine the feasibility of an RF link

to achieve high data rates between Earth
satellite and ground. The existing TDRSS
will be evaluated for both uplink and
downlink tie-in. New methods for
increased RF data rate on the downlink
will be explored. This analysis will assess
RF capability and where it will fit into the
overall design.
208
METOL
WHY RF?
Cost reduction
TDRSS, and other commercial satellite links are
already deployed. Can build off existing ground
stations and satellites
Cheaper implementation cost
Reliability
Time tested existing technology
More resistant to LOS interference and weather
Greater coverage with existing satellites
RF components have longer lifetime
Backup or parallel downlink
Uplink satellite control
209
METOL
TDRSS Summary
Existing, proven relay network of
9 satellites
6 original, 3 advance link satellites
Peak downlink of 300 and 800 Mbps
Ku-band
13.7 - 15 GHz (225 MHz BW)
Ka-band
25.25 - 27.5 GHz (650 MHz
BW)
Used for comms. with shuttle,
Hubble, and other satellites.
GEO Coverage all the way
around Earth
US station in White Sands, NM
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/ac144/021201tdrs.html
210
METOL 3 GEO Earth Orbit
-TDRSS -35,405 KM
-GEO - 36,300 KM
Equator
A three satellite GEO system setup with sufficient separation should allow for nearly
complete coverage. TDRSS can be used for uplink control or parallel downlink
without significant cost, complexity, or weight addition. RF/TDRSS can reduce risk,
and cost by using satellites and ground stations already in service.
211
METOL
Sat to Ground Orbit Calculations:

Freq: 26 GHz (Ka -band) = .0115 meters
= 50%
Pt = 5W = 7dBW
Gt(3m) = ((3/.0115)^2).5 = 55dB
Gr(10m)= ((10/.0115)^2).5 = 65dB
R(sat-ground) = 36,300Km;
Lp= (4R/ )^2 Lp(sat-ground) = 207dB
Noise: K=1000K, B(max)=650MHz KTB(max) = -110dB;
Pr = Pt + Gt + Gr Lp L_other= 7 + 55 + 65 207 5 = -85 dBW
C/N(sat-ground) = Pr KTB = 25 dB
212
METOL
Sat. to TDRS Link Calculations:

Freq: 26 GHz (Ka -band) = .0115 meters
= 50%
Pt = 5W = 7dBW
Gr-t(3m) = ((3/.0115)^2).5 = 55dB
R(sat-TDRS) = 10,000Km;
Lp= (4R/ )^2 Lp(sat-TDRS) = 196dB;
Noise: K=1000K, B(max)=650MHz KTB(max) = -110dB;
Pr = Pt + Gt + Gr Lp -Lother= 7 + 55 + 55 196 5 = -84 dBW
C/N(sat-TDRS) = Pr KTB = 26 dB
213
METOL
Modulation and Bandwidth
Theoretical Projections
The highest achievable data rate using a single ground station with the most aggressive
modulation with 650 MHz of BW is:
5.58Bits/Hz X 0.93 X 650MHz = 3.4Gbps
If we had up to 2GHz BW we may be able to achieve 10Gbps, but it is highly unlikely we could
have more than 650 MHz of BW allocated.
214
METOL
Frequency Reuse for
Higher Data Rate
1200Km
600Km
2
1
At 1 beamwidth it should be possible to reuse frequency with multiple stations.

The plot above shows 5 possible ground station locations assuming a 2 margin.
215
METOL Alternative Approach
If we use the Ka-wide-band TDRSS spectrum of 650 MHz and multiple stations we can achieve at least
10 GBPS with a more conservative modulation scheme.
3.72Bits/Hz X 0.93 X .650GHz X 5 stations = 11.24Gbps
Further Study:
These numbers are based on IEEE wideband 802.16 projections and
assume that such modulation schemes will convert to satellite
communications.
It is assumed that parallel communications can be established with 5
ground stations without a significant noise increase.
5 stations require 5 separate transmitters, adding weight and power
consumption
These modulation schemes require a high C/N ratio, which translates to
more power and antenna size required.
216
METOL
Conclusions
An RF link from the Earth satellite to ground can help
reduce risk, and increase effective datarate as opposed to
optical alone. RF can overcome weather and atmospheric
attenuation much better than optical can.
Biggest RF limitation is lack of available bandwidth.
Therefore it is more reasonable to look to RF to maintain
the 100 Mbps average datarate during optical down times
(weather outages) rather than for peak data rates.
The Earth satellite should at very least be compatible with
existing TDRSS to help increase link reliability and provide
the front portion of the low datarate uplink services used for
satellite control. This is a cheap addition with huge
benefits.
217
References
METOL
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tg1/contrib/802161c-00_07.pdf
http://www.lyngsat.com/tracker/tdrs9.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/tdrs/tdrs_presskit.pdf
http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html
http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000451/01/212872.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/8159/23897/01094018.pdf
http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/TUBE/pdf/infopack.pdf
http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/ac144/021201tdrs.html
http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/tdrshij.html
http://classwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/kaband-updates/
KaTP_Transition_Plan.pdf
218
METOL
WRAP UP
219
TCOM 707
METOL
Final thoughts
EO commercial infrastructure may not be applicable to

high power space applications
Integration w/other legacy space network assets
necessary to reduce cost
Other possible design trades
RF/Optical hybrid
UV
Constellation of relay
Space vs Ground Terminal Trades
220
TCOM 707
METOL Space Terminal Architecture
Closer
No atmosphere
availability exceeding 98%
reduce sky background/turbulence free
near diffraction limited performance
can transmit to deep space
coherent communications/phase measurements
no rolling clouds/MARS round trip time (9 to 55 minutes)
Select lasers in atmospheric absorption bands
Smaller aperture than Ground Based System(~50%)
221
TCOM 707
METOL
Space
Ground Terminal
Terminal Architecture
Architecture
No Launch cost
Launch cost could fund multiple ground stations
Continuous upgrades
No single point of failure
Deep Space Network RF example
Continuous operational improvement
Less stabilization/pointing error
No weight/power/environmental restrictions
No optical uplink
Life Cycle cost benefit
222
TCOM 707
METOL
METOL Organization
Mark Introduction
Steve Wait/ Charlene Mars/Earth Orbit Scenarios
Lucas Telescopes/Tracking
Rushi Laser Tx.
Tunde Solar Power
Dana Modulation
Wassim Filters
Jaime Data Storage
Gerald Mars Direct to Earth Downlink
Wrap up
223
TCOM 707
METOL
WRAP UP
224
TCOM 707
METOL
METOL
METOL
Challenges
Challenges
Extremely long and variable propagation delays

Asymmetrical forward and reverse link capacities
Extremely high link error rates
Intermittent link connectivity, e.g., Blackouts
Lack of fixed communication infrastructure
Effects of planetary distances on the signal strength and the
protocol design
Power, mass, size, and cost constraints for communication
hardware and protocol design
Backward compatibility requirement due to high cost involved
in deployment and launching processes
225
TCOM 707
Final Thoughts
METOL
EO commercial infrastructure may not be applicable to

high power space applications
Integration w/other legacy space network assets
necessary to reduce cost
Other possible design trades
RF/Optical hybrid
UV
Space Network Development
Space vs Ground Terminal Trades
226
TCOM 707
METOL Space Terminal Architecture
Closer
No atmosphere
availability exceeding 98%
reduce sky background/turbulence free
near diffraction limited performance
can transmit to deep space
coherent communications/phase measurements
no rolling clouds/MARS round trip time (9 to 55 minutes)
Select lasers in atmospheric absorption bands
Smaller aperture than Ground Based System(~50%)
227
TCOM 707
METOL
Space
Ground Terminal
Terminal Architecture
Architecture
No Launch cost
Launch cost could fund multiple ground stations
Continuous upgrades
No single point of failure
Deep Space Network RF example
Continuous operational improvement
Less stabilization/pointing error
No weight/power/environmental restrictions
No optical uplink
Life Cycle cost benefit
228
TCOM 707
METOL
METOL Organization
Mark Introduction
Steve Wait/ Charlene Mars/Earth Orbit Scenarios
Luke Telescopes/Tracking
Jaime Data Storage/Stabilization
Rushi Laser Tx.
Tunde Solar Power
Dana Modulation
Wassim Filters
Gerald Mars Direct to Earth Downlink
Wrap up
229
TCOM 707
METOL
THANK YOU FOR TCOM 707
230
TCOM 707

TCOM707 Dec 2007 Metol

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TCOM707 Dec 2007 Metol

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

METOL

Key Program Concerns

Martian Lunar Local

2003 Mars Express

Key Link Budget Parameters

Constellation and Availability

Inflexible Link Parameters

The larger the aperture,

The Highest Transmit

Issues to Focus on for the Next Generation

Small Lander UHF:

Charlene Chen/Steven Wait

Options for Mars spacecraft.

Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)

Options for Earth spacecraft.

Steve will explain his choice later in the

Relay (path options)

Synchronous orbit with earth around the sun

Mars Relay Satellite Element

Mars HEO Orbital Plans

HEO Provide more stable aiming/ pointing

One HEO Orbit:

Two HEO Orbits:

Earth Relay Satellite Element

Two or more GEO

Mars to Earth Trunk Line

Assuming a 10 degree envelope about the sun (+/- 5 degrees )

Additional Heliocentric Orbit Relay Sat. Leads/Lag Earth by X

Optical Telescope and

Mars to Earth Optical Link

International Consortium of space agencies (NASA, ESA, ISRO, JAXA,

Mars to Earth GEO Optical Link

280 THz (1.07 micrometer) 280 THz (1.07 micrometer)

Optical ISL specification: transmit side Feasible?

2-5m Optical Antenna ?

Large Optical Telescopes Huge!

Hubble ~ 250 cm curved mirror

2-5m Optical Antenna ?

Design & Launch?

Flat Mirror Assembly

Membrane Mirror Assembly

2-5m Design & Launch?

Wave front calibration

Wave front detector

Detect Known Source (star, beacon, etc. . )

James Webb Space Telescope

Optical ISL spec.: transmit side (contd.)

Avg 329,120,000km = 371.8 db

Optical ISL: receive side

Receiver noise power calculation cannot

Laser detectors suffer from a variety of

S/N = (is)2/((iN1)2 + (iN2)2)

An effective system temperature of an

For the 1.07 m (280 THz) ISL example,

Path loss = 372.6 dB

280 THz 280 THz

We need more C/N (8.4dB at Worst Dist)

Can get close to 5 Gbits/Sec at max distance

Beam Width = 1.2/D radians

Arc diameter at earth = 365,048,000 0.00000057 = 208,000 m (208 km)

Planets Worst Case Scenario

29Km/sec+.5km/sec + 21Km/sec +.25km/sec = 50.75km/sec

Assumes from surface of both planets

HEO Mars Satellite