Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 30
About This Presentation
Title:

Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards

Description:

Lead, CSA Exploration Systems Operations Centre Project, ... Nirgal Vallis, Mars, THEMIS Image. Satellite Comms. Not Possible. Satellite Comms Possible ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:59
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: stephenbra
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards


1
Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards
  • Results from a Decade of Planetary Analogue
    Exploration Studies
  • Steve Braham,
  • Lead, CSA Exploration Systems Operations Centre
    Project,
  • Director, PolyLAB, Simon Fraser University
    Telematics Research Laboratory
  • Contact sbraham_at_sfu.ca

2
Human Planetary Surface Exploration, Analogue
Testing, Wireless Standards
3
Go COTS
  • Communications, Data and Software technologies
    derived from COTS will allow the following
  • Greatly reduced development costs as we make
    needed moves to more flexible systems
  • Allow many-magnitude jumps in performance and
    reliability
  • Allow us to meet timelines for human lunar
    missions
  • Increase use of Industry, including greater
    involvement of less traditional industrial
    performers in space exploration
  • REQUIRED to meet complex network requirements
    coming from a decade of in-field analogue
    Moon/Mars exploration testing

4
Present vs. COTS - Present
  • Presently a standards process for spaceflight
    communications, CCSDS
  • Composed primarily of heritage solutions handmade
    for spaceflight
  • Based on old, non-standard, physical layers, and
    non-standard upper layers (data link, network
    protocols)
  • But can absorb and move to more modern approaches
  • Starting to absorb Internet Protocols, but less
    movement on physical layer
  • Emerging requirements pressures to change to meet
    the needs of human missions to the Moon and
    beyond
  • Believe that we can meet requirements from a
    widespread adoption of IEEE 802 standards,
    especially 802.11,15,16 Field Tested

5
Present vs. COTS - COTS
  • Data and Software technologies derived from COTS
    will allow the following
  • Greatly reduced development costs as we make
    needed moves to more flexible systems
  • Enable autonomy and future upgrade
  • Allow many-magnitude jumps in performance and
    reliability
  • Allow us to meet timelines for human lunar
    missions
  • Increase use of Communications Industry in these
    missions
  • Seeing some of these technologies on Space
    Station already

6
CSA Exploration Systems Operations Centre Project
  • Component of the CSA Canadian Analogue Research
    Network
  • Lead by SFU
  • Multiyear Funding (two years initial, entering
    two years follow-on)
  • Supports CSA-funded Analogue Research Sites
    performing science and testing concepts and
    technology for planetary surface exploration
  • Provides planetary surface exploration systems,
    mission operations, and missions concept design
    engineering expertise and on-site logistics-type
    engineering support
  • Links analogue activities to requirements of
    actual surface exploration missions
  • Looks for potential links to possible future
    missions to sites

7
SFU Study-Derived Lunar Communications
Requirements
  • Meeting the communications and data requirements
    for these missions will not be simple
  • Complex topography on planetary surfaces
  • Non-line of Sight required on surface and on
    spacecraft
  • Multipath environment, inside and outside habitat
    and spacecraft
  • Complex On-board Spacecraft data requirements,
    during transit and on surface
  • Quality of Service requirements with integrated,
    layered, systems
  • Require appropriate protocols, computing, and
    communications solutions, lots of them, with
    well-understood behaviour
  • Multi-layered Systems architecture needed
  • Cannot be met by present CCSDS in timeframe,
    budget
  • Believe that must meet requirements using COTS
    technologies

8
Haughton-Mars Project (NASA, CSA, and Partners)
  • Largest terrestrial planetary analogue research
    project
  • Project PlanetNet Comms for Planetary
    Exploration, CSA/NASA/SFU/CRC
  • MarsCanada Support for Mars analogue studies,
    CSA/NASA/SFU/CRC/SETI Institute
  • ExSOC Next-stage support for exploration systems
    in analogue environments, CSA/SFU
  • Project Leader/US PI Pascal Lee (NASA/SETI
    Institute/Mars Institute)
  • Chief Field Engineer and Canadian PI Steve
    Braham (SFU)
  • Spacesuit Collaborators Hamilton-Sundstrand
    Systems International (makers of present US
    Shuttle and ISS spacesuits)
  • Many NASA collaborators, increasingly more CSA
    collaborators and funding, building ESA
    collaborations
  • http//www.marsonearth.org/

9
Moon (and Mars!), on Devon Island
  • Canadian High Arctic
  • Twenty km Crater, 23 Mya CLOSE ANALOGUE TO
    SHACKLETON CRATER
  • Moon-like and Mars-like!
  • Astrobiology and Geology
  • Decade of Operations
  • Exploration technology studies - Spacesuits,
    robotic rovers, human rovers, greenhouses /
    autonomous life-support, mission operations comms
    and more mission ops to NASA JSC, CSA PTOC,
    NASA Ames, ISU
  • End-to-End emulated network delays, using COTS
    protocols and applications to handle
    disconnections, reliability, etc
  • Copper, Fiber, Wireless, Satcoms, all fully
    integrated
  • Biggest Planetary Analog exploration project in
    the world roughly 150 researchers per year
  • Massive press coverage (CNN, BBC, National
    Geographic, Discovery Channel, Channel 4, Daily
    Mail, and more)

10
Moonbase-like Configuration driven by Arctic
Exploration Needs (not simulation)
11
Complex Desert Terrain on Devon Island
12
Large Reflectors in a Moon-like (and Mars-like)
environment
13
2000 IEEE 802.11b Not For Moon (3km, Wi-Fi, Line
of Sight, in Lunar conditions. ISI)!
Target Science Area
Failed due to Multipath
Worked
PlanetNet 1 and 2 worked, even when b-mode WiFi
failed
NASA HMP 802.11b DS Spacesuit Tests
100,000 symbols per second environments 100
Mbps rates required
14
Multipath on the Moon and Mars Why We Need OFDM
and UWB. Mars like a City Downtown.
Nirgal Vallis, Mars, THEMIS Image
Satellite Comms Not Possible
Multipath Dominant But Required
Satellite Comms Possible
15
Getting to Advanced Missions Dont be driven by
Robotics Requirements
  • Extensive communication required for scientific
    field exploration - multispectral stereoscopic
    video, hyperspectral imaging and more
  • Mission operations requires complex modalities in
    Human missions
  • Purely robotic low-flexibility comms, computing,
    and mission operations solutions do not work for
    Human missions where configuration is highly
    dynamic (seconds, not days)
  • Human mission technology can applied to robotic
    missions to greatly increase science return
  • Human mission requirements must drive solutions,
    even for robotic missions, if goal is human
    exploration of Moon and Mars
  • Robotics still very important, but planning based
    purely on robotics will lead to failure later
  • Use of robotics/un-crewed data and communications
    standards for future missions, especially human
    missions, will eventually drive up costs greatly

16
Human spaceflight EASIER
  • Human Lunar missions often compared to other
    mission choices like, for instance, robotic Mars
    missions
  • Not such a hard road to follow, to take humans to
    the Moon
  • Having humans in the loop requires many systems
    that operate in human-survivable environment. Low
    TVAC requirements, large masses allowed, only rad
    and safety to worry about. Makes it easier to use
    advanced technology, instead of just
    high-heritage.
  • Systems can be cheap - some NASA suppliers spend
    less than 1M to fly hardware on ISS, using COTS
    options, with a few months development time
    (sensor networks)
  • Lunar missions can be a lot shorter than robotic
    Mars missions far smaller Total Dose.
  • Starting human lunar systems development early
    possible, and highly beneficial to many areas of
    spaceflight
  • Benefit even more from analogue field testing and
    training

17
Communications-Driven Mission Ops and Lunar
Architecture Choices
  • In a Moon delay and range environment, Mission
    Ops can be radically changed by new comms
    capabilities and methodologies
  • Using Apollo models doesnt apply. Extending
    Robotic models doesnt apply.
  • Concepts like
  • Lights-out autonomous mission operations
  • Use of Panoramic imaging to cure point camera
    problem seen on Apollo, and in MER operations
  • Multispectral and hyperspectral imaging for
    real-time science backroom target identification
    and site proceed/return/re-visit request.
  • Complex hybrid tele-operation and autonomous ops
    for human-assistive robotics
  • There will be MANY operations centres in Human
    Lunar and Mars missions.
  • Multiple communications systems from different
    agencies and industries
  • Possible because new technologies minimize the
    infrastructure needed for comms in an EVA and for
    robotic operations, and can produce extremely
    high data rates, even in Mars missions, with high
    reliability and low costs.
  • Lunar Architectures will be driven by mission
    operations choices, including an understanding of
    communications options, flexibility, and
    interoperability

18
Exploration Networking for Traverses Layered
Networking Concept
  • SFU-led proposal to NASA under (now defunct) BAA
    process
  • Large Canadian and US team, including 3 NASA
    Centres
  • Communication system for traverse-capable
    planetary operations
  • Resulted from HMP learning experience

19
Layered Networking Requirements from HMP
  • Long-range Surface Networking (habitat to
    resources)
  • Short-hop Wireless Networking (vehicle to suits)
  • Personal Area Networking (spacesuits)
  • Sensor Networking (spacesuits and instruments)
  • Interplanetary Networking (link to Earth,
    including protocols)
  • Integrated
  • Closely matched with ESA Wireless WG concepts
  • Also matches concepts discussed at NASA SIW
    meetings, SCAWG architectures
  • Can only be implemented easily via COTS
  • Too many layers and technologies required for
    small-team development at low space-agency
    budgets
  • Can already be implemented via COTS, looks easy
    to space qualify

20
ESA-Industry Wireless Working Group and COTS
Back to basics Why spread spectrum wireless such
as DSSS, FH, OFDM and UWB for space?
  • Robust COTS technologies exist to support very
    low data rates to very high rates 20Kbps to
    100Mbps, depending on the application
  • Much lower transmitted peak power than
    narrow-band RF
  • Immune to large amounts of background RF noise
    will actually operate below average background RF
    noise levels
  • Extensive built-in error correction, packet error
    handling, and forward error correction
  • Protocols are inherently Internet Protocol (IP)
    suite (or derivative) enabled
  • Newer technologies are increasingly becoming
    immune to multipath effects due to selective
    fading (multi-reflections) OFDM and
    ultra-wideband (UWB) are key to the emerging
    terrestrial wireless grid
  • Miniaturisation already very mature for COTS
    wireless Rad-Tolerant ASICS for space possible
    today at moderate cost

21
Overlap ESA-Industry Wireless WG Scenarios
Appropriate for Lunar/Mars Missions
  • Fully mobile and un-tethered continuous crew
    health monitoring via RF SS Wireless Personal
    Area Nets (PANs) and Body Area Networks (BANs)
  • Intra-spacecraft, Lunar/Mars station
    health/integrity monitoring utilising wireless
    sensor networks
  • Portable computing devices and crew mobility
    shared, integrated wireless networks within and
    outside habitat modules
  • Fully self-sufficient, in-situ science instrument
    data handling via wireless LAN, WPAN (no cables
    at all)
  • Robust, reliable mobile hi-rate surface data
    comms in a high selective-fading and non-LoS
    environment using OFDM or UWB
  • Costs of space qualification of COTS techs for
    human missions magnitudes cheaper, with
    magnitudes more testing, than heritage data
    technologies

22
ESA-Industry Wireless WG Scenarios Appropriate
for Lunar/Mars Missions cont.
  • Several appropriate opportunities for SS RF
    Wireless

ESA
SFU
ESA
ESA
NASA
ESA
SEA Ltd. Concept
ESA Concordia
SFU Concept
23
Solution Overall benefits of IEEE Standards
  • Unification, Harmonization, Interoperability,
    Layered
  • IEEE 802 Overview Architecture
  • IEEE 802-2001 Overview and Architecture
  • IEEE Std 802a-2003 Overview and Architecture
    Amendment 1 Ethertypes for Prototype and
    Vendor-Specific Protocol Development
  • IEEE Std 802b-2004 Registration of Object
    Identifiers
  • IEEE 802.1 Bridging Management
  • IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control
  • IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Access Method
  • IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Access Method
  • IEEE 802.11 Wireless
  • IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Networks
  • IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Metropolitan
    Area Networks
  • IEEE 802.17. Resilent Packet Rings
  • ? Allows wireless systems to interoperate with
    ethernet (IP and more) infrastructure with
    sophisticated QoS, switching, logical / physical
    network split, failover modes, industrial quality
    timing, life-critical functioning, and more.
    Upgrades built into the process.

24
IEEE Short-Range (WPAN, lt100m)
  • Present IEEE short-range standards in development
    (from IEEE site)
  • IEEE Std 802.15.1-2002 - 1Mb/s WPAN/Bluetooth
    v1.x derivative work
  • P802.15.2- Recommended Practice for Coexistence
    in Unlicensed Bands
  • P802.15.3 - 20 Mb/s High Rate WPAN for
    Multimedia and Digital Imaging
  • P802.15.3a - 110 Mb/s Higher Rate Alternative
    PHY for 802.15.3
  • P802.15.4 - 200 kb/s max for interactive toys,
    sensor and automation needs
  • And P1451.5 Working Group for Wireless Sensor
    Standards
  • ? Low-power, ad-hoc and infrastructural, mesh

25
IEEE Middle-Range (WLAN, lt 1 km range)
  • 802.11a-1999 (8802-111999/Amd 12000(E Wireless
    LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
    Layer (PHY) specificationsAmendment 1
    High-speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz band
  • 802.11b-1999 and 802.11b-1999/Cor1-2001
    Higher-speed Physical Layer (PHY) extension in
    the 2.4 GHz band
  • 802.11d-2001 Specification for Operation in
    Additional Regulatory Domains
  • 802.11e-2005 Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality
    of Service Enhancements
  • 802.11F-2003 Recommended Practice for
    Multi-Vendor Access Point Interoperability via an
    Inter-Access Point Protocol Across Distribution
    Systems Supporting IEEE 802.11 Operation
  • 802.11g-2003 Further Higher-Speed Physical Layer
    Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band (OFDM)
  • 802.11h-2003 Spectrum and Transmit Power
    Management Extensions in the 5GHz band in Europe
  • 802.11i-2004 Medium Access Control (MAC)
    Security Enhancements
  • 802.11j-2004 4.9 GHz5 GHz Operation in Japan
  • 802.11n Standard for Enhancements for Higher
    Throughput (MIMO High speed)
  • ? Ad-hoc and infrastructural networks multiple
    logical networks over physical infrastructure.
    Tested at HMP needs more modern 802.11g,n, mesh

26
IEEE Long-Range (WMAN, lt70km)
  • IEEE 802.16Conformance01/02/03-2003 Protocol
    Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS)
    Pro-forma for 10-66 GHz WirelessMAN-SC Air
    Interface
  • IEEE 802.16.2-2004 Coexistence of Fixed
    Broadband Wireless Access Systems
  • IEEE 802.16-2004 Air Interface for Fixed
    Broadband Wireless Access Systems
  • IEEE 802.16f-2005L Management Information Base
  • IEEE 802.16e-2005 Air Interface for Fixed and
    Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
    Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control
    Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in
    Licensed Bands.
  • ? Non-Line of Sight (up to approx 10 km), High
    QoS, Enterprise-grade. Basic technology in SFU
    PlanetNet, primary crater comms

27
Issues and requirements with wireless networks
  • Need capabilities VLAN wireless complex network
    needs logical layering, not just physical
  • Need the ability to debug the internal network
    status of the WLAN devices industrial debug
    software critical
  • Need good support from providing company must
    not use space only standards in professional
    next-generation spaceflight
  • Repeating of Multi-SSID (mesh of VLANs) would be
    very useful - Mesh is critical, on all scales
  • Paths to 802.16e, 802.20, including MIMO (i.e.
    802.11n), would be good.
  • Supportable by range of engineers, software,
    hardware

28
Primary Benefits of IEEE and COTS-based and
derived solutions
  • Cheaper to space-qualify new technologies than
    invent in-house technologies IT now big enough,
    compared to early spaceflight, that spin-in is
    more important than spin-off. 1 to 10 of costs,
    expected.
  • Utilize technologies implemented in millions to
    billions of operational units, not dozens
  • COTS standards compatibility means COTS systems
    can be used in ground systems, including analogue
    testing industry can easily provide, and compete
  • COTS interoperability means commercial standard
    software and commercial quality programmers can
    be used, instead of non-competitive in-house
    programmers. Moves software development to
    Industry
  • COTS allows commercial grade testing techniques,
    off-the-shelf test gear, many, many, many trained
    experts in each specialist components
  • Less in-house unstable software, commanding
    errors (Rockot / Cryosat, Huygens, initial Ariane
    V, MPL, MGS) due to move to operating with
    standard software interfaces to hardware.
    Standard software libraries, protocols, testing
    methodology, and implementations.

29
Problems with not going IEEE
  • Expensive
  • Inflexible
  • Built by small teams - low quality, bad testing,
    small user base - we need to move from
    spaceflight built in expensive research groups
    and small industry teams to a large-scale space
    industry, and, eventually, international space
    industry
  • Space agency RD budgets small compared to
    industry doesnt recognize that we are in
    spin-in world, not a spin-off world.
  • Unstable, error-prone awful IVV options
  • Stuck on ancient technology concepts, and
    increasingly non-compatible with emerging
    standards and technologies
  • Boring! Time to bring the excitement that can
    result in new technology to bear to drive us to
    new exciting options in spaceflight!
  • Anti-Industry and Anti-Growth large lunar base
    will require industry and growth

30
Conclusions
  • COTS enables us for the next generation of
    spacecraft, for human missions to the Moon and
    beyond
  • Disruptive! First agencies and nations to these
    technologies will have major leadership in
    surface comms
  • Any space agency that doesnt adopt COTS-derived
    technologies will have serious problems with
    meeting cost and timeline pressures
  • COTS will allow increased interoperability with
    space agencies, as same lessons are being learned
    everywhere
  • IEEE COTS gives us the international process that
    lets us proceed
  • Lets us still use well-understood, technically
    simpler, interplanetary / cis-lunar CCSDS
    solutions
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com