NewSpace Spectrum Sharing: Assessing Interference Risk and Mitigations for New Satellite Constellations

Tonkin, Susan; Vries, Jean Pierre De

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3140670

Cited by 18 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We thus consider the worst-case interference where the directional antennas of an interfering system are pointed towards the victim system, if no interference mitigation technique is applied. However, we expect our results to be relevant also for practical separation distances, since [10] reported that ground stations of NGSO systems operating in the Ka-and V-band could be considered as co-located for spatial separations of up to 20 km, and as nearly co-located for a separation of 100 km.…”

Section: A Interference Types and Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…1) Look-Aside: This is a distributed satellite diversity technique which imposes a minimum separation angle between the link of a victim satellite system and all interfering links from other systems. We assume this angle to be at least 5, which was found in [10] to achieve a good tradeoff between the performance of large and small constellations. Fig.…”

Section: B Interference Mitigation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, these works considered NGSO legacy deployments with few satellites, where NGSO-NGSO interference was not an issue, as expected for emerging constellations. Importantly, NGSO-NGSO intersystem interference has been largely unaddressed in literature, with the notable exception of [9], [10]. The authors in [9] considered only two low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations and one medium Earth orbit (MEO) constellation, with a satellite diversity technique to mitigate interference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, it is not clear whether the interference mitigation technique analysed in [9] is efficient for dense deployments. The authors in [10] conducted an extensive Fig. 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper we consider inter-satellite coexistence in the Ku-band, conducting an extensive study on the impact of both NGSO-NGSO and NGSO-GSO co-channel interference on throughput. We adopt the methodology in [10], which we extend to incorporate GSO systems and more diverse NGSO architectures, i.e. highly elliptical orbit (HEO) and geosynchronous constellations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Should We Worry About Interference in Emerging Dense NGSO Satellite Constellations?

Braun

Voicu

Simić

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many satellite operators are currently planning to deploy non-geostationary-satellite orbit (NGSO) systems for broadband communication services in the Ku-, Ka-, and V-band, where some of them have already started launching. Consequently, new challenges are expected for inter-system satellite coexistence due to the increase in the interference level and the complexity of the interactions resulting from the heterogeneity of the constellations. This is especially relevant for the Kuband, where the NGSO systems are most diverse and existing geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) systems, which often support critical services, must be protected from interference. It is thus imperative to evaluate the impact of mutual inter-system interference, the efficiency of the basic interference mitigation techniques, and whether regulatory intervention is needed for these new systems. We conduct an extensive study of intersatellite coexistence in the Ku-band, where we consider all recently proposed NGSO and some selected GSO systems. Our throughput degradation results suggest that existing spectrum regulation may be insufficient to ensure GSO protection from NGSO interference, especially due to the high transmit power of the low Earth orbit (LEO) Kepler satellites. This also results in strong interference towards other NGSO systems, where traditional interference mitigation techniques like look-aside may perform poorly. Specifically, look-aside can be beneficial for large constellations, but detrimental for small constellations. Furthermore, we confirm that band-splitting among satellite operators significantly degrades throughput, also for the Ku-band. Our results overall show that the complexity of the inter-satellite interactions for new NGSO systems is too high to be managed via simple interference mitigation techniques. This means that more sophisticated engineering solutions, and potentially even more strict regulatory requirements, will be needed to ensure coexistence in emerging, dense NGSO deployments.

show abstract

Section: A Interference Types and Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: B Interference Mitigation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, it is not clear whether the interference mitigation technique analysed in [9] is efficient for dense deployments. The authors in [10] conducted an extensive Fig. 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Should We Worry About Interference in Emerging Dense NGSO Satellite Constellations?

Braun

Voicu

Simić

et al. 2019

2019 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Handover Strategies for Emerging LEO, MEO, and HEO Satellite Networks

Voicu,

Bhattacharya,

Petrova

2024

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Satellite networks are expected to support global connectivity via future 3GPP non-terrestrial networks (NTNs), as well as private non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) constellations, e.g. OneWeb, SpaceX, and Amazon's Kuiper. In both 3GPP and private NGSO networks, handling mobility is critical, due to the intrinsic continuous movement of the satellites. In this paper we select three representative inter-satellite handover (HO) strategies and we study their impact on the achievable space-to-ground link performance in emerging NGSO constellations. With 1) Closest Satellite HO a ground station always connects to the closest satellite, with 2) Max Visibility HO a ground station connects and remains connected to the satellite with the maximum visibility time, until this satellite stops being visible, while with 3) CINRbased HO a ground station is handed over to the closest satellite if the carrier-to-interference-and-noise ratio (CINR) decreases by 3 dB below a maximum reference level. The first two HO strategies achieve the upper and lower bounds of the satellite-to-ground link performance based on the constellation geometry, while the third one is representative of HO mechanisms triggered by signal strength measurements. We consider five private constellations with different characteristics, some of which have already been launched. The goal is to determine the most suitable HO strategy for each constellation and our results show that this depends on the constellation type, i.e. low earth orbit (LEO), medium earth orbit (MEO) and highly elliptical orbit (HEO), and design. For large LEO constellations with thousands of satellites like SpaceX and Kuiper, CINRbased HO is recommended, since it achieves a good tradeoff among the spectral efficiency, propagation delay and handover rate, while the Doppler shift is in any case high. For smaller LEO constellations with hundreds of satellites like OneWeb, Closest Satellite HO is preferred due to the highest spectral efficiency and lowest propagation delay, while the handover overhead is similar for all strategies. For MEO and HEO constellations with tens to a few hundreds of satellites like Mangata and Pleiades, Closest Satellite HO is best. This achieves the highest spectral efficiency, lowest delay and sometimes a low Doppler shift, while the handover rate is in any case low. Finally, CINR-based HO is recommended in seldom cases of strong inter-constellation interference. Overall, the results suggest that the inter-satellite HO strategy should be adjusted to the constellation specifics, where e.g. adaptive handover selection algorithms could be employed for constellations that are enhanced in time by adding new satellites and orbit types.

show abstract

A Survey on Nongeostationary Satellite Systems: The Communication Perspective

Al-Hraishawi

Chougrani

Kisseleff

et al. 2023

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The next phase of satellite technology is being characterized by a new evolution in non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites, which conveys exciting new communication capabilities to provide non-terrestrial connectivity solutions and to support a wide range of digital technologies from various industries. NGSO communication systems are known for a number of key features such as lower propagation delay, smaller size, and lower signal losses in comparison to the conventional geostationary orbit (GSO) satellites, which can potentially enable latency-critical applications to be provided through satellites. NGSO promises a substantial boost in communication speed and energy efficiency, and thus, tackling the main inhibiting factors of commercializing GSO satellites for broader utilization. The promised improvements of NGSO systems have motivated this paper to provide a comprehensive survey of the state-of-theart NGSO research focusing on the communication prospects, including physical layer and radio access technologies along with the networking aspects and the overall system features and architectures. Beyond this, there are still many NGSO deployment challenges to be addressed to ensure seamless integration not only with GSO systems but also with terrestrial networks. These unprecedented challenges are also discussed in this paper, including coexistence with GSO systems in terms of spectrum access and regulatory issues, satellite constellation and architecture designs, resource management problems, and user equipment requirements. Finally, we outline a set of innovative research directions and new opportunities for future NGSO research.

show abstract

NewSpace Spectrum Sharing: Assessing Interference Risk and Mitigations for New Satellite Constellations

Cited by 18 publications

References 5 publications

Should We Worry About Interference in Emerging Dense NGSO Satellite Constellations?

Should We Worry About Interference in Emerging Dense NGSO Satellite Constellations?

Handover Strategies for Emerging LEO, MEO, and HEO Satellite Networks

A Survey on Nongeostationary Satellite Systems: The Communication Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About