Improving in-orbit responsiveness of low earth orbit sun-synchronous satellites by selection of ground segment location

Abstract

Responsiveness is a key requirement for spaceborne systems to sustain competitive advantage over non-spaceborne systems. For an operational satellite, in-orbit responsiveness is defined as the agility of the satellite to respond to a given demand. In this article, the average wait time to pick up user demand from the ground segment is adopted as the metric to evaluate the effect of ground segment location on in-orbit responsiveness of low earth orbit sun-synchronous satellites. The average wait time metric depends on the pattern of ground segment access to satellite and also on distribution of user demands. An analytical method is employed to determine pattern of ground segment access to satellite. Distribution of user demands in time domain is modeled by the means of cumulative distribution function concept. Monte Carlo simulations are adopted to capture inherent uncertainty in distribution and total volume of user demands. Based on average wait time metric, ground segment locations which improve in-orbit responsive of satellite are found. In order to show feasibility of our proposed approach, a case study is adopted and improvement of average wait time metric depending on ground segment location is demonstrated. Also, average wait time metric for various ground segment locations is given for illustration.

Keywords

In-orbit responsiveness low earth orbit satellite ground segment location Monte Carlo metric

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Singer

. Responsive space. Air Force Mag 2006; 89(N3): 48–52.

Andreev VA, Mikhailov VS, Solovey VA, et al. DNEPR program: prospects and advantages for responsive space. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 1st responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 1–3 April 2003, paper no. RS1-2003-8003. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Del Monte L, Duhamel E and Bandecchi M. A European approach to responsive space. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 8th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 8–11 March 2010, paper no. RS8-2010-1005. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Cosyn

. China plans rapid-response, mobile rocket, nanosatellite next year. SpaceDaily (1 May 2001): accessed 8 October 2010.

Matsuda S, Kanai H, Fuji T, et al. An affordable microsatellite launch concept in Japan. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 6th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 28 April–1 May 2008, paper no. RS6-2008-5004. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Bédard D and Spaans A. Responsive space for the Canadian forces. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 5th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 23–26 April 2007, paper no. RS5-2007-3004. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Teehan RF. Responsive space situation awareness in 2020. Blue Horizons Paper, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, USA, 2007.

Wertz JR. ORS mission utility and measures of effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 6th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 28 April–1 May 2008, paper no. RS6-2008-1003. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Eves S and Cawthorne A. Redefining the word “responsive” in ORS. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 7th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 27–30 April 2009, paper no. RS7-2009-3007. Reston, VA: AIAA.

10.

Saleh JH and Raymond G. Responsive space: concept analysis, critical review, and theoretical framework. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2007 conference and exposition, Long Beach, CA, 18–20 september 2007, paper no. AIAA-2007-6015. Reston, VA: AIAA.

11.

Saleh

Dubos

. Responsive space: concept analysis and theoretical framework. Acta Astronaut 2009; 65(N3–4): 376–398.

12.

Cain JS, Newland F, Pranajaya F, et al. Rapid development of proof-of-concept missions. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 6th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 28 April–1 May 2008, paper no. RS6-2008-2004. Reston, VA: AIAA.

13.

Strunce R, Eckert F and Eddy C. Responsive space’s spacecraft design tool (SDT). In: Proceedings of the AIAA 4th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 24–27 April 2006, paper no. RS4-2006-4005. Reston, VA: AIAA.

14.

Brown O and Eremenko P. Fractionated space architectures: a vision for responsive space. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 4th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 24–27 April 2006, paper no. RS4-2006-1002. Reston, VA: AIAA.

15.

Oderman MR. Responsive financing—the ultimate oxymoron? In: Proceedings of the AIAA 1st responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 1–3 April 2003, paper no. RS1-2003-7002. Reston, VA: AIAA.

16.

Cebrowski

Raymond

. Operationally responsive space: a new defense business model. Parameters 2005; 35(N2): 67–77.

17.

Doggrell

. Operationally responsive space: a vision for the future of military apace. Air Space Power J 2006; 20(N2): 42–49.

18.

Brown

. A concept of operations and technology implications for operationally responsive space. Air Space Power J 2004; 18(N2):

19.

Thomas

Gee

. Creating an agile, all-space architecture. Crosslink 2009; 10(N1): 6–11.

20.

Espindola

Walden

. Developing a responsive ground system enterprise. Crosslink 2009; 10(N1): 30–37.

21.

Toorian A, Blundell E, Suari JP, et al. CubeSats as responsive satellites. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 3rd responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 25–28 April 2005, paper no. RS3 2005-3001. Reston, VA: AIAA.

22.

Allgeier S, Nagabhushan V, Fitz-Coy N, et al. The role of universities in developing a responsive space industry. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 8th responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 8–11 March 2010, pp.1–8. Reston, VA: AIAA.

23.

Wertz JR. Coverage, responsiveness and accessibility for various “responsive orbits”. In: Proceedings of the AIAA 3rd responsive space conference, Los Angeles, CA, 25–28 April 2005, paper no. RS3-2005-2002. Reston, VA: AIAA.

24.

Navabi

Bonyan Khamseh

. Monte Carlo simulation for modeling the effect of ground segment location on in-orbit responsiveness of LEO sunsynchronous satellites. J Electron Issue Satell Space Commun 2011; 28(N2): 239–248.

25.

Wang

Sammis

Gutschick

. Review of satellite remote sensing use in forest health studies. Open Geogr J 2010; 3: 28–42.

26.

Goldsmith R, Trachtman E, Lenz C, et al. 24/7 access to LEO spacecraft TTC and payload data using the INMARSAT BGAN service. In: Proceedings of the small satellite systems and services symposium, Funchal, Portugal, 31 May–4 June 2010, pp.1–8.

27.

Sun R, Maessen D, Guo J, et al. Enabling inter-satellite communication and ranging for small satellites. In: Proceedings of the small satellite systems and services symposium, Funchal, Portugal, 31 May–4 June 2010, pp.1–15.

28.

Fortescue

Stark

Swinerd

. Spacecraft systems engineering, 3rd ed. Reston, VA: John Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp. 294–296.

29.

Bonyan Khamseh

Navabi

. On reduction of longest accessibility gap in LEO sun-synchronous satellite missions. J Aerosp Technol Manage 2011; 3(N1): 53–58.

30.

Bonyan Khamseh

Navabi

. Development of access-based metrics for site location of ground segment in LEO missions. J Aerosp Technol Manage 2010; 2(N3): 279–286.

31.

Curtis

. Orbital mechanics for engineering students . Elsevier Aerospace Engineering Series. Burlington, UK: Elsevier, 2005, pp.213–217.

32.

Roddy D. Satellite communications. 4th ed. Professional Engineering Series. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006, p.78.

33.

Mun

. Modeling risk: applying Monte Carlo simulation, real options analysis, forecasting and optimization techniques, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons, Inc., 2006, pp. 105–105.

34.

Liu

. An analytical model to predict the probability density function of elevation angles for LEO satellite systems. IEEE Commun Lett 2002; 6(N4): 138–140.

35.

Modiri A and Mohammady L. Mathematical prediction of sun-synchronous polar LEO satellite visions for earth stations. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, ICACT, Gangwon-Do, Korea, 17–20 February 2008, pp.1559–1563. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.