Back
 CN  Vol.5 No.4 , November 2013
An Analysis and Computation of Optimum Earth Geographical Coverage for Global Satellite Communications
Abstract: This paper presents simple mathematical mobility models for configuration of Global interconnectivity with LEO satellite systems. The aim of this paper is to investigate on the performance measures of the satellite mobility models regarding optimum Global coverage arc length depending on the satellite locations relative to the four zones (quadrants) of the earth surface. A typical body of the satellite was positioned at a modified height of 780 Km from the earth surface and revolving round the earth in a circle of radius, 7160 Km was carefully studied and analytically parameterized enabling the generation of realistic instantaneous coverage arc lengths data. We compared the minimum required instantaneous arc lengths for the three mobility models that should cover the geographical coverage areas of the earth. The impact of the satellite movements relative to the earth locations was that the instantaneous coverage arc lengths were exponentially varying with time and continuously distributed within the four zones of the earth surface to provide continuous coverage around one polar orbit plane and assuming operations can continue down to an elevation angle of zero degree. The advantage of the derived mobility models is achieving almost 100% global coverage as a result of the dynamic behavior of the satellite playing an important role of providing instantaneous coverage arc lengths. This procedure also allows comparisons among different degrees of built-up zones of the earth surface as well as extra-polation to the different locations on the earth surface.
Cite this paper: O. Vincent and A. Nzeako, "An Analysis and Computation of Optimum Earth Geographical Coverage for Global Satellite Communications," Communications and Network, Vol. 5 No. 4, 2013, pp. 337-343. doi: 10.4236/cn.2013.54042.
References

[1]   P. Chitre and F. Yegenoglu, “Next Generation Satellite Networks: Architectures and Implementations,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1999, pp. 30-36.

[2]   P. K. Chowdhury, M. Atiquzzama, et al., “Handover Schemes in Space Networks: Classification and Performance Comparison,” 2nd IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology, Pasadena, 17-20 July 2006, pp. 8-108.

[3]   I. F. Akyildiz, H. Uzunalioglu and M. D. Bender, “Handover Management in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite,” Mobile Networks and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1999, pp. 301-310.

[4]   E. Papatron, et al., “Performance Evaluation of LEO Satellite Constellations with Inter-Satellite Links under SelfSimilar and Passion Traffic,” John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, 1999.

[5]   S. Karapantazis, et al., “On Call Admission Control and Handover Management in Multimedia LEO Satellite Systems,” Proceedings of the 23rd AIAA International Communications Satellite System Conference, Rome, 25-28 September 2005.
http//newton.ee.auth.gr/pavliodou/papers/co56.pdf

[6]   T. Pratt, et al., “Satellite Communications,” 2nd Edition, John Wiley, Ltd., New York, 2003, pp. 52-432.

[7]   S. Karapantazis, et al., “On Bandwidth and Inter-Satellite Handover Management in Multimedia LEO Satellite Systems,” 23rd AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference (ICSSC 2005), Rome, 25-28 September 2005.
http//newton.ee.auth.gr/pavliodou/papers/co59.pdf

[8]   V. Paxson, “End-to-End Internet Packet Dynamics,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1999, pp. 277-292.

[9]   K. Claffy, G. C. Polyzos and H.-W. Braun, “Measurement Considerations for Assessing Unidirectional Latencies,” Vol. 4, No. 3, 1993, pp. 121-132.

[10]   F. W. Sears, M. W. Zemasnsky and H. D. Young, “University Physics,” 6th Edition, Addison Wesley, New York, 1981, pp. 181-182.

[11]   S. C. chapra and R. P. Canale, “Numerical Methods for Engineers,” 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Inc., New York, 2006, p. 17.

 
 
Top