1 / 95

Leveraging Emerging Commercial Systems for SHF and Ka-band MILSATCOM Final Briefing 4 December 1996

Leveraging Emerging Commercial Systems for SHF and Ka-band MILSATCOM Final Briefing 4 December 1996. Study Team. Study Lead Pete Nesky. Technical Team Task leader: Walt Ciesluk System engineering: P. Fishman, L. Keane, S. MacConduibh Terminal architecture/design: J. Psilos, W. J. Taylor

serafina
Download Presentation

Leveraging Emerging Commercial Systems for SHF and Ka-band MILSATCOM Final Briefing 4 December 1996

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Leveraging Emerging Commercial Systems for SHF and Ka-band MILSATCOMFinal Briefing4 December 1996

  2. Study Team Study Lead Pete Nesky Technical Team Task leader: Walt Ciesluk System engineering: P. Fishman, L. Keane, S. MacConduibh Terminal architecture/design: J. Psilos, W. J. Taylor Satellite payload/bus design: R. Carroll, P. Cunniffe, J. Teunas Satellite/terminal antenna design: V. Oliver, M. Rhines, J. Werth Economics Team Task Leader: Peter Cunniffe Terminal costing: P. Schwartz, T. Troiano Space segment costing: P. Cunniffe Market & economic assessments: P. Cunniffe, D. Kukfa, P. Murphy

  3. Study Concept • Reduce the cost of the SHF and Ka-band (wideband) segment of MILSATCOM architecture by leveraging emerging commercial technology • Emerging commercial Ka-band satellite systems: • 15 systems proposed to FCC in 1995 (e.g., Galaxy/Spaceway, Cyberstar and Astrolink) • Most plan to deploy processed satellites with intersatellite crosslinks as early as 2000 • Direct point-to-point communications between 2 ft. terminals anywhere on globe at full duplex data rates up to several Mbps • Target terminal cost: about $1000 • If Spaceway-like systems are deployed, DoD could reduce costs by using commercially available components in military SHF/Ka-band terminals and satellites

  4. Study Objectives • Examine use of commercial components and design approaches in military terminals and satellites • Estimate cost savings from use of commercial components and approaches • Estimate additional cost savings possible from allowing commercial satellite industry to use SHF and Ka-band frequencies designated by U.S. for military use • DoD retains its existing/planned geosynchronous slots • Commercial industry allowed to apply for other slots • Availability of commercial terminals and satellites using SHF and military Ka-band offers opportunity to further reduce DoD terminal and satellite costs • Examine commercial interest in military frequencies • Assess viability of commercial Ka-band satellite systems

  5. Baseline: ADT Option B Concept Space Segment Design Terminal Design Space Segment Costing Terminal Costing Market & Economic Assessments Commercial Use of Military SHF/Ka Findings & Recommendations Study Roadmap Commercial viability of Ka-band satellite systems Commercial viability of Ka-band satellite systems

  6. Scope of Study Subject of this study

  7. Terminal Design

  8. Terminal Design Approach • Review current military terminal situation • Identify terminal cost reduction strategies • Survey military terminal migration plans and categorize terminal types by platform and frequency band • Develop terminal architectures and performance characteristics for all SHF and Ka-band terminals • Develop a detailed terminal design baseline to support the terminal cost estimate

  9. Current Terminal Situation • MILSATCOM ADT estimated the DoD wideband terminal population: ~120 terminal types ~7000 terminals ~ 60 terminals per type (average quantity) • DoD pays for development of same capability (especially software) many times on different contracts • No discounts for large quantity buys • High operations and support (O&S) costs

  10. Terminal Cost Reduction Strategies Case 1 ADT Option B (Baseline) Case 2 Terminal Consolidation and Commonality Case 3 Maximum Use of Commercial Components Case 4 Commercialization of Military Frequency Bands

  11. Terminal Design Cases Case 1 - ADT Option B • Military based architecture developed by MILSATCOM ADT • 100+ terminal types (mixture of new and modified) • Individual military terminal acquisitions Case 2 - Terminal Consolidation and Commonality • Minimize number of SHF and Ka-band terminal types (6 types) • Maximize commonality of terminal modules among types • Joint terminal acquisition

  12. Terminal Design Cases (Concluded) Case 3 - Maximum Use of Commercial Components • Extend Case 2 by maximizing use of commercial components, assuming commercial availability of Spaceway-like terminals • Use commercial baseband subsystems • Size antennas and HPAs to match commercial capability and allow use of commercial RF subsystems • 384 kbps uplink data rate for basic terminals • Limited number of higher data rate terminals • Utilize commercial grade environmental ruggedization for basic stationary terminals Case 4 - Commercialization of Military Frequency Bands • Extend Case 3 by assuming use of commercial components that would become available if commercial systems were allowed to operate in SHF and military Ka-band (antennas, amplifiers and upconverters / downconverters)

  13. Terminal Architecture • 6,670 SHF and Ka-band military terminals • Two terminal categories • Stationary platforms (fixed and transportable) • 78% of the terminals • Manually pointed, non-tracking (satellites are stationkept) and commercial grade (less ruggedized) • Mobile platforms (airborne, shipboard and manpack) • 22% of the terminals • Automatic antenna pointing and tracking, ruggedization, radomes and other specific antenna constraints • Six terminal types • 28 functional modules • Commercial or existing products postulated where possible • Candidate design implementations for remaining modules

  14. Terminal Types and Quantities(Derived from DoD SA ADT Joint Terminal Matrix, June 1996) Freq. Band Terminal Types Platforms Quantity SHF Fixed, Transportable, Vehicular Stationary, 4’ Antenna 1,150 Mobile, 4’ Antenna 90 SHF Shipboard Stationary, 2’ Antenna Ka 4,000 Transportable, Vehicular Mobile, 2’ Antenna Ka Airborne, Shipboard 1,000 Mobile, 2’ Antenna (MP) Ka Manpack 400 Stationary, 6’ Antenna (Inj) Fixed, Transportable Ka 30 Total 6,670

  15. Terminal Block Diagram (SHF and Ka-band) Notes: D/L Data D/L IF LNA + Down- Converter Frequency Segment Common Modules Downlink Processor LO Control Frequency Segment Specific Modules LO Data, Control Terminal Control Processor (TCP) Used in Mobile Platforms Only Antenna Control Baseband Processor Timing Control U/L Data Time/ Frequency Reference Antenna High Power Amplifier Transec Ref GFE Radome Radome Common BUS LO Up-Converter LO Data U/L Data w/preamble Uplink IF Uplink Processor Control Power Supply Comsec GFE I/O Baseband Processing Assembly

  16. Terminal Module Matrix Commercially Available Modules (Cases 3 and 4) Additional Commercially Available Modules (Case 4)

  17. Commonality with EHF Terminal • Assessed EHF terminal design to determine potential component commonality with SHF and Ka-band terminals • EHF terminal communication requirements assumed to be identical to the SHF and Ka-band terminals, except: • 44 GHz uplink frequency (with hopping) • Downlink frequency hopping • Improved timing precision (Rubidium frequency standard)* • Significant module commonality exists and is factored into the production quantities and cost estimates for SHF and Ka-band terminal procurements • EHF terminal acquisition costs could also be reduced if part of a consolidated terminal acquisition * May not be required in EHF terminal; further study required

  18. EHF Terminal Block Diagram Notes: D/L Data D/L IF Modules Common to SHF and Ka Band Terminals LNA + Down- Converter Downlink Processor LO Control LO Used in Mobile Platforms Only Data, Control Terminal Control Processor (TCP) Antenna Control Baseband Processor Timing Control U/L Data Time/ Frequency Reference Antenna High Power Amplifier Transec Ref GFE Radome Radome Common BUS LO Up-Converter LO Data U/L Data w/preamble Uplink IF Uplink Processor Control Power Supply Comsec GFE I/O Baseband Processing Assembly

  19. Summary of Terminal Design • Joint terminal acquisition with consolidated requirements enables limited number of unique terminal types and maximum component commonality among types • Terminal designs based on commercial-grade hardware and communications capabilities allows maximum use of commercial components • Commercial use of SHF and military Ka-band frequencies would extend commercial component availability

  20. Terminal Cost Estimates

  21. Objective and Approach • Evaluate cost savings from terminal type consolidation, component commonality, and maximum use of commercial hardware (Case 3) • Evaluate additional cost savings achievable if commercial use of SHF and military Ka-band is permitted (Case 4) • Case 2 not costed due to significant number of military-unique component designs that would be required • Approach • Determine commercial component costs based on cost of similar existing COTS components or expected cost of Spaceway-like components • Estimate non-commercial component costs using PRICE H/M • Add integration and operations & support (O&S) cost projections based on industry experience • Compare cases 3 and 4 to case 1 (ADT Option B baseline)

  22. Summary of Terminal Costs for Cases 1, 3, and 4 (1996 $ Millions) Total 21-Year EMD Production Acquistion LCC Case 1 - ADT 562 2401 2963 7955* Case 3 - Max Commercial 29 547 576 1150 Case 4 - Comm'lize Bands 21 410 432 863 * includes some O&S personnel costs

  23. Terminal Cost by Frequency(Acquisition Costs for All Services) (1996 $ Millions) Case 1 Case 3 Case 4 (ADT Option B) Ka-band Terminals EMD 501 17 10 Production 539 465 348 Total Acquisition 1040 482 358 SHF Terminals EMD 61 12 11 Production 1862 82 63 Total Acquisition 1923 94 74 Total - Ka & SHF 2963 576 432

  24. Differences between Cases 1 and 3 Case 1 (ADT) • 100+ terminal types • Individual procurements • Mission-tailored capabilities • Little or no component commonality among types • Military specifications, little use of commercial hardware • Minimal use of Spaceway-like components • More conservative approach (e.g., redundancy, some multi-band terminals, hubs) Case 3 (Max Commercial) • 6 terminal types • Joint procurement • Standard set of capabilities • Maximum component commonality among types • Maximum use of commercial specs and components • Use of commercial Spaceway-like components • Aggressive design approach (e.g., no redundancy, single band, no hubs)

  25. 180 160 140 Average LCC (1996 $ thousands) Case 4 Case 3 120 100 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Terminal Quantity Effect of Quantity on Average Terminal Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

  26. Summary of Terminal Costing • SHF and Ka-band terminal acquisition costs could be significantly reduced (from about $3B to under $0.6B) • Military-unique development costs minimized • Component costs reduced due to much larger commercial quantities • O&S costs smaller due to maintenance of lower cost components • Use of additional commercial components available from commercial use of SHF and military Ka-band (Case 4) could further reduce terminal acquisitioncosts by $144M (25%) and 21-year LCC by $287M

  27. Space Segment Design

  28. Space Segment Design Overview • Used results of “red team” analysis of ADT Option B SHF and Ka-band payload concepts • Bottom-up estimate with detailed design approach for each payload component • Detailed weight and power budgets for SHF and Ka-band payload designs • Sized SHF and Ka-band satellites and developed satellite subsystem mass breakdowns based on total payload mass and power • Satellite sizing results used to estimate launch mass and mass margin (launch vehicle capability - satellite launch mass) for commercially available launch vehicles

  29. Earth Theater X X Y Z Y Z Z X Y A B C Z Z X Y Y X C C B A X X X Y Y Z Z C A B B A C B A C X X Z Y Y Z B C A Y Z Y X Z Y X Z X SHF Payload Key Parameters • Processing satellite with crosslinks • Tx total power: 1032W • Total capacity: 2.1 Gbps • Three crosslinks: • 500 Mbps (RF) or 1 Gbps (laser) • Earth coverage MBA • Thirty-seven 2.5° beams • Three frequency bands • Two 35W TWTs per three beams • Theater MBA • Nineteen 1° beams • Three frequency bands • One 8W TWT per beam • Polarization reuse of all beams • Capacity (80 MHz beams) • D/L 60 Mbps per polarization • U/L 49 Mbps per polarization • BER: 10-10 to support ATM

  30. LO’s Control Time 100W Frequency Timing 50 lbs. Subsystem Control (A) SHF Payload To/From Crosslink Earth Coverage Earth Coverage 37 Element 37 Element, 2.5° Beam 2.5° Beam (x37) EIRP=48.9 dBW G/T = 7.4 TWTAs RX Receivers Beam Digital 1680W Processing Switching 50 lbs 168 lbs. 56 lbs Network 35W (24) LNA 24W A/D D/C 94 lbs. Dig. Filter Dehop FEC Dehop IF Amp Interleaver Demod Transfer AGC FEC MOD Switch Interleaver U/C Cell Switch TWTAs Beam 5W 5W Switching 123 lbs 119 lbs 203W 1483 W 100W 277W 384W Network 131 lbs. 424 lbs. 29 lbs. 110 lbs. 120 lbs. Theater Coverage 12W Theater Coverage 19 Element, (56) (48) 8W (24) (5376 48 lbs. 19 Element 1° Beam (x19) Channels) 1° Beam G/T = 15.4 EIRP=50.5 dBW Crosslink Package Pointing & Laser: 249W, 141 lbs. Tracking Control RF: 303W, 317 lbs Telescopes MGB Mux/ Optics To/From Demux (B) Package Transfer Switch FEC (3) (3) (C) Note: EIRP and G/Ts correspond to edge of coverage

  31. SHF Payload Power and Weight Budget

  32. A B C X X Y Z C C B A Y Z Z X Y C A B B A C B A C Z Z X Y Y X B C A X X X Y Y Z Z D E F X X Z Y Y Z F F E D Y Z Y X Z F D E E D Y X Z X F E D F E F D G Ka-Band Payload Key Parameters • Processing satellite with crosslinks • Tx total power: 1800W • Total capacity: 1.6 Gbps • Three crosslinks: • 500 Mbps (RF) or 1 Gbps (laser) • Earth coverage MBA • Thirty-seven 2.5° beams • Three frequency bands • Two 50W TWTs per three beams • Theater MBA’s • Nineteen 1° beams • Three frequency bands • Two 25W TWTs per three beams • HDR inject • One 1° beam • Polarization reuse of all beams • Capacity (80 MHz beams) • D/L 40 Mbps per polarization • U/L 49 Mbps per polarization • BER: 10-10 to support ATM Earth Theater HDR Inject

  33. LO’s Control Time 100W Frequency Timing 50 lbs. Subsystem Control (A) Ka-band Payload To/From Crosslink Earth Coverage Earth Coverage 37 Element, 37 Element 2.5° Beam (x37) 2.5° Beam G/T = 7.4 TWTAs EIRP=49.4 dBW RX Receivers Beam Digital Switching Processing 2400W Network 168 lbs. 18 lbs. 12 lbs. 50W (24) 12W A/D 48 lbs. Dig. Filter LNA FEC D/C Interleaver Dehop Transfer Dehop Demod MOD Switch FEC IF AMP U/C Interleaver AGC Cell Switch 5W TWTAs 5W Beam 346W 1679W 100W 233W 71 lbs. 42 lbs. Switching 192 lbs. 480 lbs. 29 lbs. 97 lbs. 1200W Network 120 lbs. 5W 5W (77) (4200 (48) 25W (24) 10W 71 lbs. 42 lbs. Channels) 38 lbs. Theater Coverage Theater Coverage ) 2x19 Element, 2x19 Element 0.5° Beam 0.5° Beam HDR Injection (x19 ea. MBA) EIRP=60.5 dBW 5W G/T = 21.38 1° Spot (x1) 38 lbs. G/T=11.4 Crosslink Package Pointing & Laser: 249W, 141 lbs. Tracking Control RF: 303W, 317 lbs Telescopes MGB Mux/ To/From Optics Demux (B) Transfer Switch Package FEC (3) (3) (C) Note: EIRP and G/Ts correspond to edge of coverage

  34. Ka Payload Power and Weight Budget

  35. Spacecraft Bus Sizing Approach • Spacecraft bus subsystem masses estimated using sizing model • Inputs: Orbit, payload mass and power assuming RF crosslink • Electrical power subsystem mass calculated using battery and solar array sizing equations • Nickel Hydrogen batteries • Gallium Arsenide/Germanium solar cells • Structure and thermal control mass based on factors derived from database of 50 communications satellites • Propulsion assumed to be bipropellant for orbit transfer, xenon ion for N-S stationkeeping, and monopropellant for remainder • Propellant tank mass calculated based on percentage of propellant mass for orbit transfer and stationkeeping/control • Propulsion, attitude control and TT&C subsystem masses based on typical component masses

  36. Satellite Subsystem Mass Breakdown Example: Use of Sea Launch Vehicle SHF Satellite Ka-band Satellite Subsystem Mass Breakdown Mass (kg) % Dry Mass Mass (kg) % Dry Mass Power Subsystem 620 23% 840 27% Structure 380 14% 430 14% Propulsion Subsystem 190 7% 200 6% Attitude Control & Det. 120 4% 120 4% Thermal Control Subsystem 120 4% 160 5% Telemetry & Command/Data Mgt 40 1% 40 1% Spacecraft Bus 1,470 54% 1,790 58% Bus Margin (15%) 220 8% 270 9% Payload (including 25% margin) 1,040 38% 1,040 34% Satellite Dry Mass 2,730 100% 3,100 100% Propellant (including 5% margin) 2,040 75% 2,330 75% Satellite Launch Mass 4,770 175% 5,430 175% Launch Mass Margin Using Sea Launch 480 18% -180 -6%

  37. GTO GTO SHF Satellite Ka-band Satellite Launch Inclin. Capability Launch Mass Margin Launch Mass Margin Vehicle (deg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) Atlas IIAR 27 3830 5580 -1750 6360 -2530 Proton 20 4662 5220 -558 5940 -1278 Sea Launch 0 5250 4770 480 5430 -180 Ariane 5 7 6800 4830 1970 5490 1310 GTO = Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (200 km perigee) Satellite Launch Mass and Margin

  38. Space Segment Cost Estimates

  39. Space Segment Costing Approach • Satellite cost models not sufficiently detailed to differentiate among satellites with or without: • Subsystems or components that would be commercially available if Spaceway-like systems are developed • Subsystems or components that would be commercially available with commercial use of military frequencies • Instead, estimated satellite costs for two cases • Nominal case roughly corresponds to scenario where commercial Spaceway-like system has not yet been developed • Best case roughly corresponds to scenario where commercial Spaceway-like system has been developed • Assumed commercial-like acquisition approach

  40. Space Segment Costing Method • Spacecraft bus • Commercial common bus (e.g., HS-702) assumed • Unmanned Space Vehicle Cost Model, 7th Edition (USCM7) used to estimate cost of spacecraft subsystems • 15% mass margin added to each subsystem before costing • Payload • Digital processors and crosslink packages: • Most complex payload elements and much of weight • PRICE-H parametric model used to estimate costs • PRICE-H manufacturing complexity factors derived from NASA Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) baseband processor and industry crosslink study • Same processors and crosslink for SHF and Ka payloads

  41. Space Segment Costing Method (Concluded) • Payload (concluded) • Antennas and remaining payload electronics: • Based on cost of ACTS multibeam antenna and communications electronics (other than processor) from NASA Cost Model (NASCOM) • Costs cross-checked with USCM7 communications payload component-level cost estimating relationships • Rules of thumb applied for use of commercial spacecraft bus, learning curve effects, and non-recurring to recurring cost ratios • Launch costs estimated using cost and performance data for commercially available launch vehicles • Results cross-checked with historical cost trends derived from database of 50 commercial comsats and with cost of proposed commercial Ka-band satellites

  42. Space Segment Costing Assumptions Nominal case • Spacecraft bus subsystems are minor modifications to existing common bus design. • Manufacturing complexity of payload digital processor based on ACTS baseband processor. • Payload non-recurring costs based on design that advances the state-of-the-art. • Cost of GaAs solar cells is three times cost of Silicon. • Recurring costs based on 95% cost improvement curve (learning curve). • Commercial launch on Ariane 5 (Ka satellite) and Sea Launch (SHF satellite). Best case • Spacecraft bus subsystems are essentially “off the shelf”and require little new design. • Processor less complex to manufacture than ACTS baseband processor. • Payload non-recurring costs based on design that is state-of-the art. • Cost of GaAs solar cells is two times cost of Silicon. • Recurring costs based on learning curve of 92% for spacecraft and 95% for payload. • Commercial launch on Sea Launch (both satellites).

  43. Space Segment Cost Summary Cost Element Nominal Case Best Case (Millions of 1996 Dollars) SHF Ka SHF Ka Number of Satellites 4 4 4 4 Average Recurring Cost per Satellite Satellite Hardware 173 184 146 154 Program-level Costs (20%) 35 37 29 31 Fee (10% of above) 21 22 18 19 TOTAL RECURRING COSTS 913 972 770 814 TOTAL NONRECURRING COSTS 359 365 239 242 Average Total Cost per Satellite (318) (334) (252) (264) LAUNCH SERVICES 340 500 340 340 Average Cost per Satellite (85) (125) (85) (85) TOTAL COST 1612 1836 1349 1396 TOTAL SPACE SEGMENT COST 3448 2745 NOTE: Totals may not add due to rounding

  44. Price vs. Mass 350 Commercial Comsats 300 SHF - Nominal (4) SHF - Best (4) 250 Ka - Nominal (4) Ka - Best (4) 200 Galaxy/Spaceway (20) Average Price (1996 $M) 150 Original Spaceway (17) AstroLink (9) 100 Millenium (4) Cyberstar (4) 50 Comsat Trend 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Satellite Dry Mass (kg) Satellite Cost Estimates vs. Commercial Comsat Trend * Average Cost = (Total Recurring Cost + Total Non-recurring Cost) / Number of Satellites. Number of satellites for each system is shown in parentheses.

  45. Satellite Cost Estimates vs.Military Comsat Trend

  46. Summary of Space Segment Cost Estimate • Space segment consisting of 4 SHF and 4 Ka-band processed satellites would cost $2.7 to $3.4 billion to develop and deploy • Not including spare satellites, operations or ground facilities • Additional satellites would cost: • $180 to $230 million per satellite or less • Plus launch cost of $85 to $125 million per satellite • Estimated satellite cost is: • Higher than commercial satellite trend • Lower than military satellite trend • At high end of proposed cost of commercial systems

  47. Space Segment Cost Savings from Leveraging Emerging Commercial Systems • Development of Spaceway-like system(s) would make best-case satellite cost estimate more likely than nominal case • Because military payload more likely to be state-of-the-art (SOA) than beyond SOA (best vs. nominal case assumptions) • Difference between nominal and best case estimates: SHF space segment: $263 million Ka-band space segment: $440 million Potential savings: About $700 million • Additional cost savings may result if military variants of commercial satellites are procured (i.e., satellites are nearly common vs. use some common components) • DoD would save on development (non-recurring) costs • DoD would save on recurring costs by buying modified satellites off commercial production line

  48. Market Size and Economic Viability Assessments

  49. Market and Economic Assessments Overview • Objectives • Estimate size of commercial market for Ka-band satellites • Assess economic viability of proposed commercial Ka-band satellite systems • Why? • Terminal cost estimates assume Spaceway-like system is deployed and terminal components are commercially available • Space segment cost depends on whether Spaceway-like system is already developed (nominal vs. best case estimate)

  50. Market Assessment Approach • Identify applications for commercial Ka-band satellites • Use market size indicators to focus on largest application(s) • Review competing commercial services • Parametrically estimate size of commercial market

More Related