ESA Iris Programme Overview of results from Iris Phase 1. Briefing 28 July

Transcription

1 ESA Iris Programme Overview of results from Iris Phase 1 Briefing 28 July Nathalie.Ricard@esa.int 1

2 ESA Iris Programme: Satellite communications for ATM 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 Definition Phase (Phase 1) completed in Jan Development Phase (Phase 2) approved by ESA Member States in Nov.2008, with funding committed for Phase 2.1 until 2011 Why Iris? In Greek mythology, Iris is the personification of the rainbow and messenger of the gods: Iris links the Sky to the Earth 2

3 Stakeholders in Iris activities Iris Participating States ARTES 10 funding ESA/EC and ESA/SJU relations Requirements Aeronautical stakeholders incl. ANSPs, Airspace Users, Eurocontrol, EASA, ICAO, EUROCAE Raise awareness Advice from aviation Iris programme activities Iris programme contractors European industry Non-commercial Aerospace Telecom Aerospace & Telecom R&D institutes 3

4 System design 4

5 Satellite Communications services in SESAR Continental airspace + oceanic Airport Terminal Manoeuvering Area / En-route (continental area: dual link ) Oceanic, Remote & Polar Login (no traffic) Airport network Future terrestrial network System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Satcom European AOC Centre European Air Traffic Control Centre 5

6 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): 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) 6

7 Communication traffic profile per aircraft Based on Eurocontrol/FAA Communications Operational Concept and Requirements (COCR) for 2020+: Various message sizes From 77 to bytes long 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 7

8 Capacity Requirements: ATS&AOC applications X air traffic growth cruise departure arrival flight - 1 flight path / phases time at airport at airport flight - 2 time Amount of data From one flight airport departure cruise arrival airport flight - i... time begin end time flight - N... Communication pattern of one aircraft (cf. COCR) X Total instantaneous throughput time time 00:00 24:00 Traffic density in 2025 (cf.eurocontrol Long Term Forecast) Traffic Model: calculation of the information throughput for all aircraft flying simultaneously over a given area during the busiest day of the year 8

9 Iris new Satellite Communications Standard Based on Eurocontrol/FAA Communications Operating Concept and Requirements (COCR) for with design optimisation hypotheses: Cost of equipage and use to be kept low Meet performance for continental airspace + capacity needs for Flexible and scalable architecture: no constraint on the number of Ground Earth Stations Interoperable standard supporting multiple Service Providers Use protected radio-spectrum in L-band (AMS(R)S band: 1,545-1,555 MHz and 1, ,656.5 MHz) Support voice and data 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) Similar to AMSS NEW 9

10 Boundaries of Communication System Design Space Segment Pilot HMI CMU CPDLC AES ATN/IPS MAC ATC Centre Controller HMI FDP ATN/IPS PHY CPDLC ATN/IPS GES MAC PHY MAC PHY NMC/NCC Boundaries of the Iris System SWIM Infrastructure 10

11 User terminal key design drivers Mobile link in L-band Mature, reliable, proven equipment (e.g. no cause of interference) Low cost 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 11

12 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 The payload mass+power is driven by the capacity on the forward link i.e. the number of carriers 12

13 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 3 rd -party satellite system 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 13

14 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 Possible extensions of coverage considered in Iris studies: - Visible Earth from GEO orbit - Northern latitudes areas by agreement with other countries operating HEO satellite systems 14

15 Dependability requirements: consequence on system design 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 15

16 Operational System Architecture 16

17 Iris Subset: Minimum infrastructure required for validation Subset Space Segment Test flights Deployment Subset Ground Segment (2 GES, NMC, NCC) System validated (2015) Pre-operational phase for Certification Operational System (2020) 17

18 Service model and business case options 18

19 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) (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 19

20 Revenue model for a Public-Private Partnership Revenues AOC charges AOC Equity Return Additional Equity Return Equity Reurn Revenue from Route Charges ATS Debt repayment Interest & Tax Guaranteed minimum revenue 8% Equity return Operational Costs Source: AVISAT study 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 20

21 Financing Scenarios: different types of PPP Feasibility studies considered a Public Procurement or Public-Private Partnerships Scenario-1 Scenario-2 Scenario-3 Initial development costs Paid by ESA Paid by ESA Paid by ESA 1st Satellite costs public guaranteed loan. Only repayable if the Mandate materialises 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 2nd Satellite costs 2nd CAPEX payable by SSP as investment. Debt in 2018 is lower risk for investors as returns guaranteed after nd 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 Assets belong to SSP Asset transfer Assets handed to SSP in 2020 Assets become the responsibility of the SSP in 2020 to operate and provide the service Replacement of assets Replacement assets paid by SSP Replacement assets paid by SSP Replacement assets paid by public Source: AVISAT study 21

22 Sensitivity analysis in the business case: Satellite service provider revenue EUROCONTROL EMOSIA methodology was used to analyse the impact of changing assumptions: Source: Samara study AOC services price per flight [2-10EUR], the percentage of revenue from route charges allocated to the SSP [ %], a/c equipage date and the market penetration of the Satcom service for AOC [25-65%] have the largest impact. 22

23 Iris Phase 1: Regulatory activities 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 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 Aviation communication needs Methodology to derive AMS(R)S spectrum requirements for WRC-11 A.I. 1.7 Satellite system parameters Status: methodology to estimate spectrum requirements based on ESA inputs has been proposed to ITU WP4C and ICAO WG-F Total bandwidth requirements for AI

24 Conclusions: requirements driving the design 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 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 24

25 Iris - Contact Points ESA Iris Programme Franco.Ongaro@esa.int Nathalie.Ricard@esa.int ESA Iris System Design Studies Andrea.Santovincenzo@esa.int (Satellite System) Domenico.Mignolo@esa.int (AVISAT, Samara) Catherine.Morlet@esa.int (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 25