Internet of Space LEO constellations 5G / LEO integration Internet services Routing SDN/NFV

1. Internet of Space
Communication Systems for Future Space-based Internet
Services
Paulo Mendes
Senior Scientist Wireless Communications
CTO/XRC, Central Research and Technology
Airbus
May 2nd, 2019
European Wireless Conference 2019
Aarhus, Denmark
paulo.mendes@airbus.com
http://www.paulomilheiromendes.com
These slides do not reflect the view of Airbus

2. 2
At the Beginning
Weather, TV, Radio, and Telephony
Telstar 1: World´s first active communication satellite (1962)
• A simple single-transponder low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite
In 1973 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation began distributing its video
programming to Canadian customers using the Anik A satellite
By the 1990s, satellite communications would be the primary means of distributing
TV programs around the world.
Most commercial voice satellite services are provided by systems operating
in the L-band by Iridium, Inmarsat, Globalstar and Thuraya.
Telephone calls to satellite terminals are done by dialling
numbers assigned to the Global Mobile Satellite System.
Geostationary satellites can provide relatively high data speeds:
newer satellites using Ku band to achieve downstream data
speeds up to 506 Mbit/s.

3. 3
And then …
Towards data-driven networking
It is widely recognized that the world is increasingly data-driven, cloud-based and transnational,
creating an increasing demand to move large quantities of data quickly and securely around the globe.
Data usage
has drastically
increased in
the last 10
years
More data
created in the
past two
years than
ever before
2015: barrier
of 1 Zeta Byte
of global
traffic
undertaken.
Forecast:
data demand
to grown
exponentially

4. 4
Data-driven, cloud-based transnational services are being boosted by a new generation of technologies
and demand for always-on data access everywhere based on green communications.
IoT
M2M
Autonomous
Vehicles
Green
Networks
Always-on
Connectivity
So, how can Satellite Systems remain
relevant?
What would be the role of High Altitude Pseudo
Satellites?
And then …
Towards data-driven networking

5. 5
Geostationary Satellites
Not designed for data services
Multi-beam High-Throughput Satellites
• More suitable to provide Internet services than single beam satellites.
• Increase on spectrum resources, based on multi-beam and frequency reuse.
• Higher spectral efficiency modulation and coding.
! capacity from 70 Gbps to 150 Gbps
Example:
• Ka-Sat with 4 multi-feed antennas
• Configured with 82 spot beams
Bent pipe Single Beam
• Satellites in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) suffer from high latency and provide little throughout.
• Annoying for voice and video applications.
• Limiting factor for data communications.

6. 6
Next Generation Satellites
Designed for data services
GEO
• Strong for video broadcasting
Space Internet Architecture
• Data-driven services
• IoT and M2M
• 4G/5G backhaul/fronthaul
• Enterprise connectivity
• Connected mobility

7. 7
Space Internet
Global data services
High
Throughput
On Board
Processing
Low
Latency
Value
Added
Markets
On-board routing and switching + multi-beam technology + new LEO systems
From satellites as “gap-fillers” ! To truly network of satellites.
Satellite networks operating as full-duplex spatial extensions of terrestrial networks.

8. 8
Space Internet
Bent-Pipe is too limiting
Why is Bent pipe not enough?
• Bent pipe = Satellites as amplifiers and repeaters.
• This design only allows for modulation of data in RF.
• Worked well for long transcontinental connectivity in the 1960s and 1970s…
• …. and still works for video applications.
• BUT it does not work well for data and poses limitations for the integration with terrestrial networks.
Usability Performance
Traffic Volume
Multi-tenant
Heat dissipation
Energy
consumption
Applications
Services
Towards On Board Processing
• Satellites supporting full duplex ! seamless integration with terrestrial networks (IP, MPLS, or other standard).
• Satellite supporting routing and switching capabilities ! seamless extension of terrestrial networks.

9. 9
Regenerative Payloads
• Signal is demodulated, decoded, re-encoded and modulated aboard the satellite.
• On-board processing: e.g. switching packets based on MPLS or IP routing.
• In-orbit data caching may also be considered.
• Advantages: efficient channelization, routing capabilities.
• Disadvantages: more complex; use power also to process signals.
Perspective for the integration with terrestrial networks:
• Higher flexibility on resource allocation.
• Possibility to embed a 5G gNB or gNB DU into a satellite.
• SDN and NFV will significantly reduce the risk of updated orbiting systems.
Space Internet
On board processing
Software Defined Flexible Payloads
• Reprogrammable features to address dynamic markets.
• Dynamic beam shaping and tracking capabilities.
• Design for wide-area networks and dynamic traffic shaping.
• Rapid response for public protection and disaster recovery.
Example:
• Eutelsat Quantum
• Inmarsat-6

10. 10
Space Internet
Latency matters
• Latency: Time taken for a packet of data to get from one designated point to another.
• Ideally: latency close to zero in order to create a smooth user experience.
LEO at 600 km LEO at 1500 km MEO at 10000 km
Elevation angle Path Distance D (km) Delay (ms) Distance D (km) Delay (ms) Distance D (km) Delay (ms)
UE: 10° satellite - UE 1932.24 6,440 3647.5 12,158 14018.16 46.727
GW: 5° satellite - gateway 2329.01 7.763 4101.6 13.672 14539.4 48.464
90° satellite - UE 600 2 1500 5 10000 33.333
Bent pipe satellite
One way delay Gateway-satellite_UE 4261.2 14.204 7749.2 25.83 28557.6 95.192
Round Trip
Delay Twice
8522.5 28.408 15498.4 51.661 57115.2 190.38
Regenerative satellite
One way delay Satellite -UE 1932.24 6.44 3647.5 12.16 14018.16 46.73
Round Trip
Delay Satellite-UE-Satellite
3864.48 12.88 7295 24.32 28036.32 93.45
3GPP TR 38.811 V15.0.0 – Study for New Radio (NR) to support non terrestrial networks (Release 15)
• Satellite networks:
• The closer to earth, the less latency there is.
• LEO satellites orbiting the earth at around 1,500km ! 25 times closer than GEO satellites (36,000km) and 5 times
closer than MEO satellites (8,000km)
• Case: LEO for data networking becomes compelling, bring latency to value around 12 ms.
! 5 ms when the satellite is in a 90 degree angle.
Typical LEO attitudes on range of (600-1200) km at low elevation of (0-10) º ! fraction of Earth covered = 1.69% to 7.95%.

11. 11
Space Internet
Satellite constellations

12. 12
Federated LEO System
Example -- Starlink Network
• Expect latency over large distances (> 3000 Km) to be lower
than terrestrial optical network. (Prof. Mark Handley @ UCL)
• Expected free-space optical links of 100 Gb/s or higher
(Speed of light in vacuum 47% higher than on glass).
• 12,000 satellites with a bandwidth of about 240Tbps.
• Potential new routing schemes, e.g. path-aware; data-centric.
MEO System
Example -- O3B network
• 16 satellites to provide services to the “Other 3 billion”.
• Ka-band multi-beam HTS (up to 1.2 Gbps per beam).
• Services: mobile backhauling; IP trunking (MNOs).
• RTT of 125 ms < ITU video and voice requirements (75 ms delay).
• Second generation (O3B mpower) “first multi-terabit system” in orbit.
• Software-defined routing between GEO and MEO fleets.
Space Internet
Satellite constellations

13. 13
Space Internet
Satellite constellations: Leveraging inter-satellite links
Telesat LEO simulations of traffic moving over only inter-satellite links
Round-trip time at the network layer including processing latency for system and inter-satellite links.

14. 14
Space Internet
Satellite constellations enabling real-time communications
Source:

15. 15
Space Internet
Changing tides with satellite constellations
Emerging LEO constellations:
• Promise nearly fibber-optic speeds, global coverage, and lower latency.
• How many constellations? Maybe 2 or 3…
• O3B got first to the MEO orbit.
• OneWeb launched first to LEO orbit;
• SpaceX and Telesat, already with prototype satellites in orbit.
• How flexible?
• Satellite life time of 5 to 10 years ! consider for fast-moving broadband market and technology.
Success factors:
• Bridging the digital divide is a laudable goal.
• Terminals:
• Low-cost, easy-to-install.
• Able of steering beams towards moving satellites.
• Backhauling may be a successful market with or without
cheap antennas.
• Consumer broadband is not the only potential success
factor:
• Emergent markets are in-flight connectivity, maritime,
government networks, driverless cars, IoT and M2M.
Chancing Tides:
• Changing traditional value chain: from manufacturing and launch
through operators and service providers, as well as customers.
• Changing stakeholders: insurance providers, regulatory
agencies/spectrum administrators, financial community sorting
out the implications.
• Changing manufacturers: expecting constellation construction
contracts by promoting new smallsat platforms.
• Changing providers: aiming to adapt or develop new launching
technology for constellations.
• Changing ground-station operators: installing new antennas to
provide turn-key solutions for constellation operators.

16. 16
Space Internet
Satellite constellations
• 78 satellites in Ka-band frequencies.
• Provide inter-satellite optical links.
• Goal: serve broadband markets for energy, maritime,
government and enterprise vertical markets.
• 292 satellites in Ka-band spectrum (right to expand it in V-band).
• Goal: provide high-speed broadband for maritime, aviation, remote
enterprise and government, and cover cellular backhaul.
• 1 testing satellite
• Provide low data rate communications for IoT and M2M applications.
• New verticals include smart cities, mining, agriculture, and
transportation and predictive maintenance.
• 75 satellites
• Provide low data rate communications for IoT or M2M
applications.
• 900 satellites in Ku-band frequencies.
• Small, low-cost terminal with cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity.
• Goal: bridging the digital divide; home networks; connected
cars, trains and planes; cellular backhaul.
• 4,425 satellites in Ku- and Ka-band frequencies.
• Provide inter-satellite optical links.
• Goal: provide broadband connectivity to underserved areas of
the globe, and competitive services to urban areas.

17. 17
Space Internet
Low cost communications
How much will we be charged per GB over LEO? – Lets look at SpaceX / Starlink
• Deployment cost = $10 billion (satellite estimated live duration of 5 years).
• Replacement cost = $4 billion (as hardware becomes cheaper and easier to produce and launch into space).
• Aggregate downlink capacity of the full deployment is estimated to be 240 Tbps.
• Assuming only a10% utilization and earnings of 3×the deployment cost ! ~ $0.06 per GB.
Comparable to the $0.003 to $0.03 per GB that we pay today.
LEO vs GEO communication cost:
• GEO connectivity price decreased with the development of HTS satellites.
• LEO expected to reduce cost per Gpbs in comparison to GEO.
• CAPEX to deliver a Gbps:
• LEO (OneWeb) 260k USD vs 2 to 9 million USD for GEO.
LEO vs 5G:
• LEO may end up not being competitive with terrestrial network when fixed infrastructures are already there.
• Using satellite and especially LEO as a backhauling/fronthauling technology will be a way to complement rather than compete.
“Gearing up for the 21st century space race” in Proc of ACM HotNets 2018

18. 18
Space Internet
Satellite constellations: enablers
Source:
Low Cost
Terminals
Multi
Markets
Multi
Tenants
Multi
Orbits

19. 19
Space Internet
Low cost terminals
Similarities with Mobile Sector
• Develop low cost terminals (antenna, distributed power system and modems)
• Increase impact the satellite communication markets as Nokia phones impacted the mobile markets on the mid-1990s.
• Similarity between the mobile sector in the late 1990s and the current satellite communications sector:
• Improvements in technology, decreasing cost of infrastructure, new economic models.
LEO Antennas
• MEO satellite systems ! conventional parabolic dish antenna technology suited for motionless GEO satellites.
• LEO satellites ! high number of moving small satellites poses challenges for terminal antenna.
• Potential solutions:
• Electronically steered, or flat panel antennas (e.g SatixFy).
• Optical beam-forming modules to create scalable conformal antennas (e.g. Isotropic Systems):
• May cost 70 to 95 percent less than existing phased array and flat panel technology.
• Consume 80 percent less power.
• Require 70 percent less electronic components.

20. 20
Space Internet
Multi-tenant cooperation
Heterogeneity as key for cooperation
• Expectation: competition would increase with more LEO constellations.
• BUT: more differences between these LEO systems ! less competition there is.
• Major constellations are quite different in terms of CAPEX profile, system promoters, system design, and target markets.
Target markets
• LeoSat ! high volume broadband markets.
• OneWeb ! connectivity anywhere.
• Iridium and Eutelsat ! low data rate communications for IoT or M2M.
Challenges
• Regulation, finance, commercial goals, and user terminals.
• Time to gain market access and develop distribution networks ! delay ramp-up and commercial returns.
• Competition of GEO/MEO communications satellite systems, such as Viasat-3 or O3b mPower.
• So, some projects may join forces to overcome operational challenges.

21. 21
Space Internet
Multi-orbit solutions
Complementing LEO
• Relying only on LEO availability may impair performance:
• LEO satellites have intermittent availability.
• Temporary communication blockage in some locations.
• Not enough wireless resources for all the users in some locations.
• GEO and MEO are more predictable.
• The right solution: you can access the right satellite to carry the right traffic in the right way.
Enablers
• Operators (e.g. Telesat) with fleets spanning multiple orbits.
• Potential cooperation between operators (e.g. OneWeb and Intelsat).
• Terminals serving multiple orbits and multiple frequencies at the same time.
Enhanced traffic management
• Traffic differentiation.
• GEO ! broadcast services based on HTS platforms.
• MEO / LEO ! low delay Internet service provision.

22. 22
Space Internet
Value added markets
• In sectors such as telecommunications, multi-national enterprise, government services,
aerospace, maritime and energy, LEO systems can:
• Solve essential communications and connectivity issues.
• Meet the ever-growing demand to move large quantities of data quickly and securely
around the world.
• For a typical Fortune 1000 company:
10 percent increase in data accessibility ! > 57 million Euros additional net income.
Cellular
Backhauling and
Fronthauling
Government
Enterprise
Secure
communications
Industry 4.0
Connecting Oil,
Gas facilities
Monitoring and
operating remote
equipment
Connected
Mobility
Connected
aircraft and
vessel
Autonomous
vehicles

23. 23
Space Internet
Value added markets
Cellular
Backhauling and
Fronthauling
Government
Enterprise
Secure
communications
Industry 4.0
Monitoring and
operating remote
equipment
Connected
Mobility
Connected
Vehicles
Autonomous
vehicles
• Security and resilience are key
attributes with a ‘touchless satellite
architecture’.
• Carrying traffic between any points
on earth without touching the earth’s
surface (isolated from any terrestrial
infrastructure).
• Airlines, and cruise lines are
demanding for more bandwidth for
consumer devices and for Internet
access anywhere.
• Autonomous vehicles require
frequent upgrades independently of
their location.
• Narrowband services means bi-
directional communication (e.g. for
firmware updates, monitoring).
• As IoT visions such as “smart cities”
become more widely deployed, high
performing LEO constellations will be
a cost-effective way to connect
devices.
• Standard-based approach ! LEOs
becoming a core component in the
telecommunication infrastructure
versus a stand-alone proprietary
network (e.g. GEO).
• Integration into cellular networks will
increase LEOs role in core markets
such as IoT and M2M, while fulfilling
the 5G Vision.

24. 24
Space Internet
Leveraging mobile internet services
Vision:
• Internet access from space may drastically change the way we
get online.
• Access to all 7.3 billion people.
• Satellites operating at data rates of Tb/s in LEO orbit providing
overall capacity of one Zetabyte/month.
• Foreseen important role of Space Communications, in the
success of the Digital Age.
Advise from 5GPP:
To achieve expected capacity, coverage, reliability, latency and improvements in energy consumption, the 5G architecture is expected to:
Run over a converged optical-wireless-satellite infrastructure for network access, backhauling and fronthauling with the possibility of
transmitting digital and modulated signals over the physical connections.

25. 25
Global Access to the Internet:
• About 47% of the global population of 7.6 billion people does not have internet access.
Global Data Services
Mobile internet access

26. 26
Wireless coverage:
• “5G is projected to cover more than 40 percent of the world’s population in 2024” – Ericsson Mobility report, Nov 2018
• Looking at 3G/4G availability in 95 countries: 93 countries: > 50% of time; 23 countries > 90% of the time.
Global Data Services
Mobile internet access

27. 27
Consistency of wireless services:
• There's a huge variation in speed between the slowest 3G network (1 Mbps) and the fastest 4G network (30 Mbps).
• Japan: 2nd in 3G/4G availability; but 9th in overall speed.
Global Data Services
Mobile internet access

28. 28
LTE Coverage with gaps within areas of good coverage
LTE End-to-end (E2E) Mobile Latency
Will require significant deployment investment
5G promises E2E mobile latency of ~ 5 ms, BUT
E2E mobile latency depends on density of devices,
distance of the RAN, processing delay in network
devices, network load.
E2E Internet Latency
Outside the control of the 5G operator.
May pass by the deployment of Edge Computing
4G coverage today – Gaps within areas of good coverage
5G – Network of Networks aiming to reach extensive KPIs
Space Internet
Increasing the capability of cellular networks

29. 29
Space Internet
Cellular / Satellite integration
5G will use frequency bands similar to satellites
(mmWaves) ! Satellite could be integrated into 5G
(Backhauling / Fronthauling).
This kind of complementarily is currently limited.
Solutions exist but are often proprietary and costly.
NG RAN architecture in NTN with
gNB-DU processed payload
NG RAN architecture in NTN with
gNB processed payloadData
network
gNB
UE
NTN
Remote
Radio
Unit
5G CN
NR-Uu
N1/2/3 over
SRI N1/2/3 N6
NTN NG Radio access network
Data
network
gNB
-
DUUE
NTN
Remote
Radio
Unit
gNB-
CU 5G CNNR
-
Uu F1 over
SRI
N1/2/3 N6
NTN NG Radio access network
NRUu
gNBDU

30. 30
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
Reliable backhaul load – Example: autonomous cars
• The data generated by each car would be: cameras at 20-60 mbps; radar upwards at 10 kbps; sonar at
10-100 kbps; GPS at 50 kbps; LIDAR between 10-70 mbps.
• Cumulating: the data each car will require almost 4000 GB of data which means 4TB of data daily.
1 ms latency:
• Industrial control systems.
• Autonomous driving.
• Smart grid.
10 ms latency:
• Tele-medical applications
• Augmented reality.
• Process automation.
50 ms latency:
• Gaming and virtual reality.
• Cooperative driving.
• UAV control.
Deployment challenges:
• Where to place the edge?
• Orchestration of a highly distributed multi-tenant system.
• Strict guarantees all the time.
• Integrated with the (public, private) cloud.

31. 31
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
The edge is a (set of) networked nodes
where computational and storage resources may be
accessed in the short time frame.
Where is the Edge?
by Vodafone
by Vapor IO
Kinetic Edge micro data center
operating alongside a cellular tower.

32. 32
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
The edge of
communications
• Placing edge nodes adjacent to existing cellular transmitters ! leverage their existing fiber to communicate with
one another with minimum latency.
• Example: Vapor Kinetic Edge has modules with 44 server rack units (RU) and up to 150 kilowatts of server power.
• A cluster of six fiber-linked modules would host 0.9 megawatts.
• Deploying distributed physical nodes connected by fiber ! highly resilient edge infrastructure that can be treated
like a logical, single entity.
Can we reduce deployment cost by using LEO links?

33. 33
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
The Capability of the Edge
Power perspective
• We have milliwatts at one end of distributed computing (devices), and gigawatts at the other (cloud).
• World's big data centres have a total power consumption of about 100GW.
• Startup Kolos planning to build a data centre in northern Norway with 1000MW.
• Most equipment racks use 3-5kW, but some can go to 20kW if power and cooling is available.
• Device edge have very limited power (e.g. smartphone 1-3W, IoT gateway 5-10 W).
• Micro data-centers near cell towers might be 50kW container sized units (135KW – Vapor IO).
• Note: a typical macro-cell tower might have a power supply of 1-2kW.
Rough calculation:
Total realistic "network edge” will account for less than 1% of total aggregate computational capability.

34. 34
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
Mitigate the low capacity at the edge
Orchestration of a large number of edges
(at base stations)
Rely on a lower number of higher power edges
(at micro data centers)

35. Lower distances between network equipment, but
potentially higher processing delay
35
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
Mitigate the low capacity at the edge
Higher distance between network equipment, but
potentially lower processing delay
In live network test, the delay value may be easily reach 50 ms and
even 100 ms.
Delay values may be in the order of 50ms, with single LEO
satellite
Difference can be higher in a edge-to-cloud scenario
Latency over larger distances (>3000Km) towards cloud centers < than terrestrial fiber optics

36. 36
Space Internet
Support for efficient Edge Computing
Amazon
• AWS Ground Stations: 12 parabolic antennas installed at Amazon’s global regions.
• Plus lower-cost antennas spread across other areas:
• Allows for more connectivity and more opportunities to downlink data.
• Repaves the playing field for sorting out edge computing problems.
• All of this is available to customers as a service, so you’re only paying for it when you’re using it.

37. 37
Opportunities for Satellite Operators
• Main value proposition of smallsat IoT constellations
Single global network, low cost, IoT connectivity outside of cellular coverage.
• However, the proportion of devices that need to be connected outside of the footprint of terrestrial networks may be limited.
• Major use cases
Maritime; Aerospace; Oil and gas exploration; Remote industrial facilities; Transportation services; Agriculture.
Space Internet
Support for Internet-of-Thinks
IoT in LEO:
• Low distances:
less path loss ! less terminal power and antenna directivity
• Advantages in terms of terminal cost and size.
• Moving satellites:
- Time variant communication channel
- Requires a specific waveform and suitable antenna design.
Hybrid terrestrial and satellite:
• Solution:
Low cost terrestrial IoT devices + satellite connecting
aggregation terminals.
• Terrestrial IoT devices = low cost.
• Satellite aggregator = easier connectivity.

38. 38
General scenario
• Satellite connected cars may ramp up:
• Majority with narrowband L-band solutions and not broadband Ka-/Ku-bands.
• There are three main types of connectivity applicable to connected cars:
• Autonomous vehicles.
• Entertainment (e.g. in-vehicle broadband connectivity and video streaming).
• Industrial Internet of the car (e.g. predictive vehicle diagnostics and maintenance).
Space Internet
Support for connected cars
Challenges
• A perceived lack of value add for 100% connectivity vs. 99%
cellular connectivity for most consumers
• Most connected cars may remain connected solely via cellular.
• Costs and various technical challenges may limit the overall growth
of the satellite connected car

39. 39
Green System
• Main boosters in the Ariane 5 satellite launcher use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
• An entire year’s worth of Ariane 5 launches creates less greenhouse gases than one evening’s flights from
New York to London.
• The carbon footprint of the launcher should be spread across multiple satellites, which operate for ~15 years.
• When in orbit, satellite use solar energy collected from large arrays of solar cells.
Space Internet
Green communication system
Space debris
• Space debris = defunct satellites that have not been re-orbited + fragments.
• ESA Clean Space initiative considering the entire life-cycle of space activities:
• EcoDesign: embedding environmental sustainability within space
mission design.
• CleanSat: developing technologies to prevent the creation of future
debris.
• Active debris removal: removing spacecraft from orbit and
demonstrating in-orbit servicing of spacecraft.

40. 40
Space Internet
Potential core functionalities
On Board
Processing
Mesh
Configuration
Inter-Satellite
Links
Integration
with Cellular
Networks

41. 41
5G Integration (standardization)
• Adoption of 3GPP-standardized New
Radio over satellite.
• Integration of gNB (full or DU) in satellites.
• Handover management for mobile base
stations.
• Routing/forwarding solutions for inter-gNB
communications.
Cognitive Networking
• Builds on cognitive radio, involving higher-
layers of the protocol stack.
• Distributed software agents autonomously
learn network conditions, correlations and
behaviours.
Information-centric Networking (ICN)
• Reduces communication latency.
• Supports intermittent connectivity.
• Supports network mobility.
• Supports extra flexibility.
• Embeds packet authentication and
robustness against DoS attacks.
Software Defined Radio /Payloads
• Reduces operational risks of OBP.
• Reduces product design cycles by reusing
common components (e.g. RF front-ends,
modular signal processing).
• Extends live expectation by
accommodation of new technologies.
5G CN
gNB
NR-Uu
NG over
SRI
NR-Uu
gNB
NG over
SRI
NTN
Gateway
Xn
UE
5G CN
NTN
Gateway
Information
Centric
Networking
Cognitive
Networking
5G
Integration
Software
Defined
Radios
Space Internet
Core technology

42. 42
Space Internet
Example of technical challenges: TCP/IP vs ICN
TCP/IP limitations:
• Internet host-centric communication models is not
aligned with highly mobile scenarios with
intermittent connectivity.
Major advantage of ICN:
• Decouples data (service) from the device creating/
storing it, though location independent naming.
• Publish/subscribe information model which is robust
against DoS attacks.
• Allows tackling problems related with device
mobility (user device, vehicles, satellites).
• Facilitates data caching in network devices (e.g.
satellites, gateways).
• Efficient data distribution without the need for costly
overlays (e.g. IP + CDNs).
• Facilitates the implementation of different
dissemination models: Many/Any-to-One (e.g. IoT);
One-to-Many/Any (e.g. Data distribution); Many/Any-
to-Many/Any (e.g. M2M).
Satellite networks augment ICN with:
• Wide-area coverage.
• Inherent broadcast capability (e.g. allows
simultaneous update to a large number of in-
network caches and forwarding schemes).

43. 43
Space Internet
Example of technical challenges: SDN; 5G NR and Smart
Routing
Satellite Virtualized Network
• Leverages Software Defined Networking to deliver cost
efficient, high-level resources availability and flexible
resources sharing at the Satellite Access Network (SAN).
• SAN includes the satellite gateways and the satellite
terminals.
• SAN needs to be integrated in the future 5G RAN.
5G New Radio to support Non
Terrestrial Networking (NTN)
• 3GPP channel model - 3GPP TR 38.811
• Impact of NR on NTN e.g. avoiding strict
timing relations for forward compatibility and
latency reduction.
• OFDM family is the one getting most attention
to derive the future 5G New Radio, as stated
by Qualcomm.
• Comparison with packet switched SAT Multiple
Access Techniques: e.g. (Slotted) ALOHA
Smart Routing over NTN
• Solutions for NTNs including constellations
based on different or combined orbits or
platform types.
• Exploit inter-satellite links to reduce ground
infrastructure.
• Exploiting in-network data caching to reduce
latency.
• Path computation on gateways or
regenerative satellites.

44. 44
Space Internet
Final thought: Space-enabled interconnection market
Motivation
• Bandwidth of each satellite may be at most just a few Gbps, but aggregate capacity expected to
reach multiple Tbps.
• Universal low-latency broadband access may bring significant benefits for the Internet.
Idea
• Integrate Space Networks into the Internet backbone as a
global point of exchange.
• Space Networks (e.g. OneWeb, TeleSat, SpaceX) sell
connectivity to terrestrial Internet Service Providers.
Challenges
• Suitable interconnection models including transit providers, last-mile providers.
• Relative movement between satellites in different orbits ! customized inter-satellite routing protocols for optimal path discovery between
source and destination satellites.
• LEO connectivity is intermittent with short, yet frequent, disconnection bursts ! may be a problem if exposed to inter-domain traffic (may
increase BGP stability problem).
• Handover between ground-stations and satellites is frequent: ground stations are within the footprint of a satellite only for a few minutes.
• Bandwidth fluctuation, due to bursty Internet traffic and oscillation of satellite link capacity due natural phenomena.
• To solve the connectivity volatility issue new trends such as path-aware routing and data-centric routing could be used.
T. Klenze et al.“Networking in Heaven as on Earth” ACM HotNets 2018

45. Internet of Space
Communication Systems for Future Space-based Internet
Services
Paulo Mendes
Senior Scientist Wireless Communications
CTO/XRC, Central Research and Technology
Airbus
May 2nd, 2019
European Wireless Conference 2019
Aarhus, Denmark
paulo.mendes@airbus.com
http://www.paulomilheiromendes.com