esa iris programme 280709 iris programme 280709... · briefing 28 july 2009 -...
TRANSCRIPT
Dedicated ESA programme to support SESAR under the umbrella of ESA’s Advanced Research in Telecommunication Systems programme (ARTES 10), named “Iris”:
– Commitment of ESA Member States in Sept. 2007
– Definition Phase (Phase 1) completed in Jan. 2009
– Development Phase (Phase 2) approved by ESA Member States in Nov.2008, with funding committed for Phase 2.1 until 2011
ESA Iris Programme:
Satellite communications for ATM
2
Why “Iris” ?
In Greek mythology, Iris is the personification of
the rainbow and messenger of the gods: Iris links
the Sky to the Earth
Stakeholders in Iris activities
Aeronautical
stakeholders
incl. ANSPs, Airspace Users, Eurocontrol, EASA, ICAO,
EUROCAE…
Raise
ARTES 10 funding
Iris
Participating
StatesESA/EC and ESA/SJU
relations
Requirements
3
Advice from aviation
Raise awareness
Iris programme contractors
Aerospace Aerospace & Telecom R&D
institutesTelecom
Iris programme activities
European industry Non-commercial
System design
4
Satellite Communications services in SESAR
Continental airspace + oceanic
Airport Terminal Manoeuvering Area / En-route (continental area: dual link )
Oceanic, Remote & Polar
Login (no traffic)
5European AOC Centre
Airport network
Future terrestrial network
System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Satcom
European Air Traffic Control Centre
Work carried out during Iris Phase 1
Demonstrate the feasibility of meeting requirements:
� Define a new communication system
o Analyse requirements
o Define communication protocols
=> Identified design drivers + proposed preliminary design
� Deduce requirements for the satellite system (i.e. Infrastructure options):
6
� Deduce requirements for the satellite system (i.e. Infrastructure options):
o Service provision and governance model
o Options for satellite system architecture and deployment
o Business case
o Validation: define required subset of the architecture to be financed by ESA
=> Identified options
� Support frequencies allocation
o Contribute to estimates of aviation spectrum requirements (prepare ITU WRC11)
Communication traffic profile per aircraft
Based on Eurocontrol/FAA “Communications Operational Concept
and Requirements” (COCR) for 2020+:
• Various message sizes
– From 77 to 21077 bytes long
7
• Short messages with stringent latency requirements
– Implies peak rates > 14 kbps
• Receive and transmit is infrequent and not predictable
– Ad-hoc reservation of capacity required
• Average throughput per aircraft is a few bps
– low volume of information per aircraft
Capacity Requirements:
ATS&AOC applications X air traffic growth
time
Amount of data
From one flight
flight path / phases
cruise
departure
arrival
at airport
airport departure cruise arrival airport
at airport
time
flight - 1
time
flight - 2
time
flight - i
...
...
8
time
begin end
time
flight - N
time
Total instantaneous
throughput
00:00 24:00
Traffic Model: calculation of the
information throughput for all aircraft
flying simultaneously over a given
area during the busiest day of the year
X
Traffic density in 2025 (cf.Eurocontrol Long Term Forecast)
Communication pattern of one aircraft (cf. COCR)
Iris new Satellite Communications Standard
Sim
ilar to
– Interoperable standard supporting multiple Service Providers
Based on Eurocontrol/FAA “Communications Operating Concept and
Requirements” (COCR) for 2020+ with design optimisation hypotheses:
• Cost of equipage and use to be kept low
• Meet performance for continental airspace + capacity needs for 2025+
• Flexible and scalable architecture: no constraint on the number of Ground Earth Stations
9
− System specifically designed for aeronautical Air/Ground Satcoms
− Quality of Service management
− Light terminals: small antenna and reduced High Power Amplifiers
− Improved spectrum efficiency
− Can be used with any type of satellite (GEO, LEO, HEO)
Sim
ilar to
AM
SS
N
EW
– Interoperable standard supporting multiple Service Providers
– Use protected radio-spectrum in L-band (AMS(R)S band: 1,545-1,555 MHz and 1,646.5 – 1,656.5 MHz)
– Support voice and data
CPDLC
ATN/IPS
MAC
Pilot HMI
CMU
Space Segment
AE
S
Boundaries of Communication System Design
10
SWIM Infrastructure
CPDLC
ATN/IPS
ATN/IPS
PHY
MAC MAC
MAC
PHY PHY
Controller
HMI
FDPAT
C C
en
tre
NM
C/N
CC
GE
S
Boundaries of the Iris System
User terminal key design drivers
• Mobile link in L-band
– Mature, reliable, proven equipment
(e.g. no cause of interference)
– Low cost
• Key assumptions
11
• Key assumptions
– Use omni-directional aircraft antennas (suitable for all IFR aircraft)
• Low power consumption, highly reliable, low drag
– No forced air-cooling required
• Power limited at 40 to 60W
– Co-primary mean of communication
• Software certification probably at level C
Critical parameters for the system design
The size of the antenna
for the return link is driven
by the user terminal peak rate⇓⇓⇓⇓
Whatever the volume of info,
the size will be the same
12
The payload mass+power
is driven by the capacity
on the forward link
i.e. the number of carriers
Satellite System Architecture
• LEO, HEO or MEO based architecture were considered not cost effective
– Number of LEO/HEO/MEO satellites required is larger that number of GEO satellites.
• Non-GEO based solutions might be considered if using a 3rd-party satellite system
13
Baseline:
• 2 GEOs in hot redundancy to cover ECAC
– Peak Instantaneous Aircraft Count (PIAC) over ECAC ~6000 a/c
• Non-GEO based solutions can be considered as additional components (e.g. Polar coverage)
– PIAC over northern latitudes ~70 a/c
Possible extensions of coverage considered in Iris studies:
Service Provision requirements:
geographical area
Iris focus on SES/ECAC service area but the communication system is foreseen to
become a worldwide standard (ICAO standardisation) so that other world regions
could implement compatible systems using the very same terminals on-board aircraft
14
Iris studies:
- Visible Earth from GEO orbit
- Northern latitudes areas by agreement with other countries operating HEO satellite systems
Dependability requirements:
consequence on system design
15
A 2+1 (spare) Hot Redundant satellite constellation is required to meet the target
system availability
Replenishment: a 3rd satellite should be operational by the time the system
availability requirement is not met
Operational System Architecture
16
Iris Subset:
Minimum infrastructure required for validation
Subset Space
Segment
Test flights Deployment
2015-2020+
17
Pre-operational phase
for CertificationOperational System (2020)System validated (2015)
Subset Ground
Segment (2 GES,
NMC, NCC)
Service model and business case options
18
Iris Programme
Fundamental assumptions
All Iris Phase 1 studies assume that:
(1) Satcom becomes co-primary means of communication in high-density airspace
(Dual link) and primary means in ORP
(2) Mandatory carriage of Satcom applies as of 2020 in SES/ECAC airspace and
concerns IFR traffic (incl. GA)
19
(3) The satellite communications operational system is a component of the
European ATM System, which is financed by a mix of public budgets, private
investments and cost recovery from end users: ANSP route charges for ATS
communication services and airspace users charges for AOC services
(4) Deployment of the satellite communications operational infrastructure in 2 steps:
•ESA Iris Programme finances the minimum system required for validation
(except satellite platform and launch), deployed by 2014, which is also the first
element of the fully operational system.
•The remaining elements (incl. redundant space segment) are deployed
between the time that the mandate is announced and its effective date
Revenue model for a Public-Private Partnership
AOC
Debtrepayment
Equity Return
Revenue from
Revenues
Equity Reurn
Guaranteed minimum
Additional Equity Return
AOC charges
20
from Route
Charges
Operational Costs
ATS
Interest & Tax
Guaranteed minimum revenue
� 8% Equity return
• ATC revenues must guarantee a minimum revenue for the Satellite Service Provider from 2020 onwards to cover operational costs, interest and tax, repayment of the debt for the invesment
• AOC revenues are subject to market risk but make the business case attractive enough to private operators
Source: AVISAT study
Financing Scenarios: different types of PPP
Paid by ESAInitial development
costsPaid by ESA Paid by ESA
public guaranteed loan. Only
repayable if the Mandate
materialises
1st Satellite costs First satellite paid by the public.
Not repayable. Remains
property of oversight body
First satellite paid by the public.
Not repayable. Remains
property of oversight body
Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3
Feasibility studies considered a Public Procurement or Public-Private Partnerships
21
materialises property of oversight body
2nd CAPEX payable by SSP
as investment. Debt in 2018
is lower risk for investors as
returns guaranteed after 2020
2nd Satellite costs 2nd satellite paid by the public.
Not repayable. Remains
property of oversight body
2nd satellite paid by the public.
Not repayable. Remains
property of oversight body
Replacement assets paid by
SSPReplacement of
assets
Replacement assets paid by
SSP
Replacement assets paid by
public
Assets belong to SSPAsset transfer Assets handed to SSP in 2020 Assets become the
responsibility of the SSP in
2020 to operate and provide the
service
Source: AVISAT study
EUROCONTROL EMOSIA methodology was used to analyse the impact of
changing assumptions:
Sensitivity analysis in the business case:
Satellite service provider revenue
22
AOC services price per flight [2-10EUR], the percentage of revenue from route
charges allocated to the SSP [0.25 - 0.75%], a/c equipage date and the market
penetration of the Satcom service for AOC [25-65%] have the largest impact.
Source: Samara study
� Coordination of a common position regarding AMS(R)S spectrum
among European and National Frequency Management offices
� Support activities to seek a European consensus and establish
extra-European alliances within ITU
Iris Phase 1: Regulatory activities
ESA participates in ICAO Working Aviation
Satellite system
23
ESA participates in ICAO Working
Group F and ITU Working Party 4C
activities, to support the
preparation of WRC11 agenda item
on AMS(R)S
Status: methodology to estimate
spectrum requirements based on
ESA inputs has been proposed to
ITU WP4C and ICAO WG-F
Aviation communication
needs
system parameters
Methodology to derive AMS(R)S
spectrum requirements for WRC-11 A.I. 1.7
Total bandwidth requirements for
AI 1.7
Communication System Design:� Communication protocols to be designed to operate with different types of
satellites (GEO, LEO, HEO) so that interoperability between operators is possible
� The design should be such that ICAO acceptability criteria can be met (e.g. IPR)
� The spectrum used should be minimised
Analysis and Definition of the Satellite System:� Dependability issues (esp. availability) are the main design driver
� Costs trade-off points towards a GEO solution, but Nordic countries request for
Conclusions: requirements driving the design
24
� Costs trade-off points towards a GEO solution, but Nordic countries request for high-latitude coverage led to consider complementary capacity from 3rd party satellites in Highly Elliptical or Low Earth Orbit.
� Antenna size and payload power are driven by ATS/AOC applications requirements
Service provision:� If satellite communication for ATS is mandated it guarantees long-term revenues
for a satellite communications service provider; then the system and user terminals cost of ownership should be low
� Role of SESAR JU, as system architect, to define the system architecture and deployment process
ESA Iris Programme
ESA Iris System Design Studies
Iris - Contact Points
25
ESA Iris System Design Studies
[email protected] (Satellite System)
[email protected] (AVISAT, Samara)
[email protected] (ICOS, Phoenix)
Piero Angeletti (Astrid: aircraft avionics study)
Marco Chiappone (IDeAS: dependability study)
Frank Zeppenfeldt (HEO study)
Tony Azzarelli (Regulatory / frequency matters)
Documentation available via www.telecom.esa.int/iris