ssp implementation: geo vs. leo · 15 cost leo" geo" launch" • launch cost is a...
TRANSCRIPT
SSP Implementation: GEO vs. LEO
Reza Zekavat
1
GEO Orbit SBSP
2
Cost? Maintenance? Environmental?
Solar storm?
Installa1on and Launching Costs
3
GEO: 35786 km (22300 Mile) Interna1onal Space Sta1on: 278 km (173 mi) and 460 km (286 mi)
GEO Orbit Conges1on à Limited Units
4
Coverage Closer to the Equator
5
LEO?
6
LEO Implementa1on: Direct Transmission
7
• Lower al3tudes à lower power loss • Lower transmission power per unit • Higher reliability • Lower cost of launching • Complex? • Handoff Process • Synchroniza3on • Rou3ng if a cluster is not in ground sta3on field of view
8 8
Multi-Satellite Synchronization? • Different Doppler • Different distance to ground
LEO Implementation: Direct Transmission
Follower – Leader Op1on
9
PCBS visibility zone
/ cone Follower Satellite
Leader Satellite
10 10
Follower-Leader Option
Synchronization may not required if each spacecraft orbit in formation is carefully designed
But how about conversion loss? • RF to DC • DC to RF
MEO-‐LEO (Tethered Op1on)
11
Transmission Line Structures (TLS) Ionosphere
Atmosphere Orbital Control Situation Awareness Power Distribution High Gain Comm.
Power Relaying Security
Reliability
Solar Power Harves1ng Units (SOPHU)
LEO Satellite Ground PCBS
The Earth
Ci1es in the Equator Transmission Line Needed
12
Captured Power
13
TX Antenna Aperture Area (Km2) Pt(dB) Captured
Power GEO 5000Km 1000Km
500m (88dBi)
4 98 100 MW 1 TW 3 TW 1 91 20 MW 200 GW 600 GW
0.01 71 200 KW 2 GW 6 GW 250m (82dBi) 0.01 71 33 KW 340 MW 1GW
( ) ( )32.45 20log 20logDirect Km MHz Ion Atm EclL d f L L L= + + + + +
Atmospheric Loss
Eclipse Loss
Ionosphere Loss
• Transmission frequency: 5GHz • The power harvested by solar cells: 1400W/m2
14
GEO LEO DISTRIBUTION Central Distributed
ACCESSIBILITY Near Equator Everywhere (Orbit Design)
EFFICIENCY (POWER) Lower Higher
RELIABILITY Low High COST/KWATT High Low
HAZARD Higher Lower SIGNAL
PROCESSING Simpler Complex !
15
Cost LEO GEO
Launch • Launch cost is a significant portion; • Several launches will be needed ; • The launch to lower orbits is much lower than to the GEO;
Lower Launch cost Higher Launch cost
Ground Stations
• Several smaller units are needed • All units are identical, • Production cost per unit is lower
One huge unit is needed
Lower Ground Station Cost Higher Ground Station Cost Ground Power
distribution No distribution is needed Distribution is needed
Not applicable Significant Cost
With Tether • Several studies tethers have been conducted. • Commercially available.
Technology is available Not applicable
Satellite Several small identical units;
lower production cost per unit; Similar harvesting area to GEO
One huge unit
Lower cost Higher cost
Research Areas 1. Analysis and comparison of already proposed techniques: a. Expected Efficiency; b. Expected Cost; c. Expected Space Needed on The Ground; d. Expected Reliability; e. Expected Durability;
2. The best techniques for absorbing solar energy in the space? a. Forming the Structure of Satellites; b. Designing the best Orbit; c. Solar Sensors;
3. Energy Transfer from the atmosphere to the earth surface (Wireless; Laser; Cable)
a. Wireless Transmission Scheme (Modulation, Beam-forming) b. RF – Optical Systems? c. Antenna structures (Number of Antennas, Antenna Design) d. Selecting the transmission parameters
16
Research Areas
4. Ground Receivers a. The Ground Antenna Structure (Size, Distribution, etc); b. Passive or Active Receiver? c. High Aperture Antenna Beam-forming
5. Energy Conversion (How energy should be converted to the City Electricity?) Whether Rectantennas are the best options?
6. Channel Modeling The effect of Ionosphere on the RF Signal and Ionosphere baser on their power; 7. Environmental Effects The Effect of High Energy Laser or RF signal on Ionosphere; 8. Cyber Systems a. The Control Process of the Whole Structure; b. Directing power from one satellite to another;
17
References
18
1. S. G. Ting and S. A. Zekavat, “Space-based Solar Power via LEO Satellite Networks: Synchronization Efficiency Analysis,” proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 03-09, 2013.
2. S. G. Ting, S. A. Zekavat, and O. Abdlekhalik, “Space-Based Wireless Solar Power transfer via a network of LEO satellites: Doppler Effect Analysis” proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 03-09, 2012.
3. S. G. Ting, O. Abdelkahlik, and S. A. Zekavat, “Constraint Estimation of Spacecraft Positions,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2012.
4. S. G. Ting, O. Abdelkhalik, and S. A. Zekavat, “Implementation of Differential Geometric Filter for Spacecraft Formation Orbit Estimation,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2012, Article ID 910496, 13 pages, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/910496, 2012.
5. S. G. Ting, O. Abdelkhalik, and S. A. Zekavat, “High Performance Spacecraft Formation Orbit Estimation using WLPS-based Relative Position Measurements: Signal Transmission Time Delay Modeling,” EURASIP Journal on Navigation and Observation, vol. 2011, Article ID 654057, 12 pages, doi:10.1155/2011/654057, 2011.
6. S. A. Zekavat, and O. Abdlekhalik, “An Introduction to Space-Based Power Grids: Feasibility Study,” proc., IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, Mar. 06-12, 2011.
7. S. A. Zekavat, O. Abdelkhalik, S. G. Ting, and D. Fuhrmann, “A Novel Space-Based Solar Power Collection via LEO Satellite Networks: Orbital via a Novel Wireless Local Positioning System,” proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 07 – 12, Big Sky, MT, 2010.
8. S. G. Ting, O. Abdelkhalik, and S. A. Zekavat, “Differential Geometric Estimation for Spacecraft Formations Orbits via a Novel Wireless Positioning,” proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 07 – 12, Big Sky, MT, 2010.
Question?
Thank you
19