New sharing method between the Fixed Satellite Service and the Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band

• Main Author: Smith, Justin L.
• Other Authors: Electrical and Computer Engineering
• Format: Others
• Published: Virginia Tech 2014
• Subjects: Co-Channel Interference Analysis; AMSS; FSS
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/31049; http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-01272003-134755/

In the US, the 14.0-14.5 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to the Radio-Navigation and the FSS with a secondary allocation to the LMSS. The Radio-Navigation service is the use of RADAR for navigation. An example of Radio-Navigation is the ground proximity radar used for airplane collision avoidance. FSS stands for the Fixed Satellite Service. In general, an FSS is a satellite network consisting of a geo-stationary satellite and non-movable earth stations on the ground. An example of an FSS is the earth terminals used at gas stations to verify credit cards and centrally track inventory. The 14.0-14.5 GHz band is also allocated on a secondary basis to the LMSS or Land Mobile Satellite Service. This is a satellite network with a satellite and a movable terrestrial non-aeronautical earth station. An example of an LMSS is a system called Omnitracs, which provides a satellite-based data connection for the trucking industry. AMSS stands for the Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service. An AMSS is an LMSS dedicated only to airplanes. The CPM or Conference Preparatory Meeting after WRC or World Radio Conference-2000 decided there was an urgent need for technical and regulatory studies covering sharing between the FSS and the AMSS. The requirement for a report on the studies was added to the WRC-2003 agenda. The WRC also stipulated that the studies must demonstrate that sharing between the FSS and the AMSS is feasible enough to allocate AMSS a secondary status in the band. The studies need to be completed before WRC-2003. AMSS contends that sharing is feasible if their service can meet the same PFD limits of the LMSS. Presently, the FCC has licensed the AMSS on an experimental non-interference basis. The FSS contends that characteristics are needed of the AMSS system and a detailed sharing study be completed to verify sharing is feasible. The FSS believes that sharing may not be feasible if the same transponder is used for AMSS and FSS. The FSS perceives that the AMSS is asking for a super secondary status. Super secondary status implies that the AMSS would only be required to adhere to PFD limits on individual aircraft and not for multiple aircraft in view of a victim FSS receiver. Future studies will clarify this issue. The issues associated with the sharing analysis are; the modeling of the orbital separation of the satellites, the atmospheric interference into the communication link and the availability of the communication link between the FSS and the AMSS. The issues associated with modeling of the simulation are the static, verses dynamic modeling environments and developing a dynamic software tool to track airplane movement. This thesis plans to propose a new sharing methodology between the FSS and the AMSS that could be contributed to the WRC-2003 agenda. Three systems examples were provided at ITU meetings inresponse to the WRC-2003 agenda item. The three systems will abide by the ITU-R S.728 EIRP limits. The three systems indicate that static analysis shows that sharing is feasible involving only one aircraft as the interfere. This is not a reasonable solution for a real time environment because there is only one aircraft used. It is necessary for the link to support multiple aircraft. The factors that indicate sharing is feasible are: non-harmful interference to the victim and reasonable enough link margin in the interfere system to make it viable. A viable system in the case of aircraft would include high-speed internet and video. The AMSS interfere system cannot propose a power limit that will not allow it to close itâ s own link. In order to mitigate the interference, systems can agree to certain interference mitigation techniques. The different techniques are: transmitting power control, geostationary arc avoidance angle and orbital arc separation. Power control as described above is the centralized control of the interfering antenna into the victim. This is done by simulating the interference environment and pre-scheduling the decreases of the transmitting power. This is a feasible solution except that it decreases the availability and thru-put of the interfere system. This approach can make the system have unrealistic link margins and spotty availability due to the pre-scheduled power control. Another technique is the geostationary arc avoidance angle. This technique is not applicable since both the AMSS and FSS use geostationary orbits. The third technique is geostationary separation. This technique requires co-channel systems to maintain a certain orbital spacing between them. FSS systems in certain bands have a minimum of 3 degrees of orbital spacing between co-channel systems. Since the AMSS has 01/25/03 a mobile terrestrial system (aircraft) as part of the link, it requires a higher orbital separation between it and the FSS system. The results of dynamic analysis indicate that this technique is feasible at 10 degree orbital spacing. The Monte Carlo analysis completed for this thesis simulated the results of four scenarios: co-located, 3 degree, and 5 and 10-degree orbital separation. It can be determined from the results that the interference decreases as the orbital separation increases. These simulations were done based on a 10 aircraft interfere scenario. === Master of Science