OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

| OPTICS, IMAGE SCIENCE, AND VISION

  • Editor: Stephen A. Burns
  • Vol. 26, Iss. 10 — Oct. 1, 2009
  • pp: 2128–2133

Sensing and communication trade-offs in picosatellite formation flying missions

Shlomi Arnon and Debbie Kedar  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 26, Issue 10, pp. 2128-2133 (2009)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.26.002128


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (644 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

One of the primary challenges in all small satellite design is the attainment of adequate sensing and communication capabilities within the stringent spatial limitations. These can be defined in terms of surface area expenditure for the different payloads. There is an inevitable trade-off between enhancing the sensing capacity at the expense of reducing communication capabilities on the one hand and, on the other hand, increasing the communication capacity to the detriment of the sensing ability. Careful balancing of the conflicting demands is necessary to achieve acceptable performance levels. In this paper we study two intersatellite optical wireless communication scenarios: (i) a direct link between two satellites and (ii) a folded path link between a master satellite and a picosatellite equipped with a modulatable retroreflector. In the latter case the picosatellite does not have a laser transmitter and the data carrier is the retroreflected beam from the master satellite. The data rate, which is bounded by the sensing payload resolution, is derived using diffraction theory and Shannon capacity considerations. We develop a mathematical model to describe the interrelations between sensing and communication facilities in a picosatellite flight formation using optical technologies and demonstrate system performance trade-offs with a numerical example.

© 2009 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(060.2605) Fiber optics and optical communications : Free-space optical communication
(110.3055) Imaging systems : Information theoretical analysis

ToC Category:
Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

History
Original Manuscript: May 14, 2009
Revised Manuscript: August 4, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: August 10, 2009
Published: September 3, 2009

Citation
Shlomi Arnon and Debbie Kedar, "Sensing and communication trade-offs in picosatellite formation flying missions," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 26, 2128-2133 (2009)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-26-10-2128


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. S. Sekiguchi, Y. Tanaka, I. Kojima, N. Yamamato, S. Yokoyama, Y. Tanimura, R. Nakamura, K. Iwao, and S. Tsuchida, “Design principles and IT overviews of the GEO Grid,” IEEE Systems Journal 2, 374-389 (2008). [CrossRef]
  2. Y. Yamaguchi, A. B. Kahle, H. Tsu, T. Kawakami, and M. Pniel, “Overview of advanced spaceborne thermal emisión and reflection radiometer (ASTER),” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 36, 1062-1071 (1998). [CrossRef]
  3. L. Wolf and M. Williams, “GEONETCast--delivering environmental data to users worldwide (September 2007),” IEEE Systems Journal 2, 401-405 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. A. Granz and Y. Gao, “SS/TDMA scheduling for satellite clusters,” IEEE Trans. Commun. 40, 597-603 (1992). [CrossRef]
  5. T. A. Gronland, P. Rangsten, M. Nese, and M. Lang, “Miniaturization of components and systems for space using MEMS-technology,” Acta Astron. 61, 228-233 (2007). [CrossRef]
  6. R. Burns, C. A. McLaughlin, J. Leitner, and M. Martin, “TechSat 21: formation design, control, and simulation,” Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference (Cat. No.00TH8484) 2000 (IEEE, 2000), pp. 19-25.
  7. H. Heidt, J. Puig-Suari, A. S. Moore, S. Nakasuka, and R. J. Twiggs, “CubeSat: a new generation of picosatellite for education and industry low-cost space experimentation,” 14th Annual/Proceedings of the Utah State University Small Satellite Conference, Logan, Utah, August 22, 2000.
  8. L. Tan, Y. Yang, J. Ma, and J. Yu, “Pointing and tracking errors due to localized deformation in inter-satellite laser communication links,” Opt. Express 16, 13372-13380 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. T. To1ker-Nie1sen and G. Oppenhaeuser, “In-orbit test result of an operational optical intersatellite link between ARTEMIS and SPOT4, SILEX,” Proc. SPIE 4635, 1-15 (2002). [CrossRef]
  10. W. S. Rabinovich, R. Mahon, H. R. Burris, G. C. Gilbreath, P. G. Goetz, C. I. Moore, M. F. Stell, M. J. Vilcheck, J. L. Witkowsky, L. Swingen, M. R. Suite, E. Oh, and J. Koplow, “Free-space optical communications link at 1550 nm using multiple-quantum-well modulating retroreflectors in a marine environment,” Opt. Eng. 55, 056001 (2005). [CrossRef]
  11. S. Arnon, “Network of sensors: acquisition probability,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 2758-2765 (2007). [CrossRef]
  12. A. Yariv, Optical Electronics in Modern Communications (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited