This document briefly describes some considerations and variants for the communication architecture for the HSI mission.
Introduction and rationale
I’m not too concerned about the lack of set facts at the moment, for several reasons: Before we have the tender in place (where our requirements will be) and until we get the offers from suppliers we don’t really know what we will be playing with. Since we are doing things as quick as possible, we cannot build the comm system for the SC ourselves. So basically, we have to know what options we have to derive final details. The various suppliers will have different equipment and possibly also different requirements/options/offerings for GSs. This goes both for the comm systems (TM/TC, payload downlink, ground stations) as well as software for operation. I will expect that the suppliers are able to deliver needed software to operate their satellites. Then we will have to see if that cuts it for us or if/how much we will have to implement our own.
Satellite hardware
sss
Ground stations
As Tor Arne says, we have several options for operational ground stations, including KSAT Svalbard (and other locations) as well as perhaps Kystverkets station in Vardø. I believe it would be vise to have access to an operational service to rely on, in addition to:
• Our own ground station. Currently not near meeting our requirements wrt. S-band. However, getting funding for a heavy upgrade looks very promising. We should know this month, I think. Again, depending on cost/schedule/options we then could buy some GS hardware/software from the satellite supplier or set up our own general equipment (or both).
• Partners: Porto, Vigo and also other universities can be potential supporter and help with data acquisition. However, cost and time to build ground stations must be considered (that is why I think we should approach professional operators to have at least a fall-back). We should be able to supply a hardware design for a versatile ground station (one version of it is currently being set up at the local radio club ARK) as well as our own; but the partners must endure the time and cost to implement it.
• Access to NASAs huge antennas could be very interesting, especially if things does not work out as it should, and also if we are able to set up more advanced experiments based on the SDR-payload in next steps.
Operations software
• Again, I think we must know what we have to play with from the satellite supplier wrt. implementing our own software on-top/instead of. Then we can sit down and see if software/toolchains from our partners can/should be used or not.
• I’ve initiated discussions with Statsat; a company affiliated with the space centre and Space Norway. They are doing operations of the AIS-satellites and NORSat satellites. They now have four satellites operational, and a staff of only four-five people doing everything. They are in the process of re-writing their software based on the 5-6 years of experience they now have, in order to further simplify and stream-line operations. They are delivering an operational service for Kystverket, in addition to more ad-hoc support to research teams with other payloads on the NORSats. I’ve invited them and Space Norway to Trondheim in November/December.
• Also KSAT can be approached on this. We will also approach them when other activities are cleared of the list. We have a lot of people we know very well in KSAT at the moment.
I hope this helps clarify my thoughts, and that it can be used as basis for discussions. Please let me know if you think any of this does not make sense.