Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards

1
Lunar Outpost Wireless Communications Standards

• Results from a Decade of Planetary Analogue
  Exploration Studies
• Steve Braham,
• Lead, CSA Exploration Systems Operations Centre
  Project,
• Director, PolyLAB, Simon Fraser University
  Telematics Research Laboratory
• Contact sbraham_at_sfu.ca

2
Human Planetary Surface Exploration, Analogue
Testing, Wireless Standards
3
Go COTS

• Communications, Data and Software technologies
  derived from COTS will allow the following
• Greatly reduced development costs as we make
  needed moves to more flexible systems
• Allow many-magnitude jumps in performance and
  reliability
• Allow us to meet timelines for human lunar
  missions
• Increase use of Industry, including greater
  involvement of less traditional industrial
  performers in space exploration
• REQUIRED to meet complex network requirements
  coming from a decade of in-field analogue
  Moon/Mars exploration testing

4
Present vs. COTS - Present

• Presently a standards process for spaceflight
  communications, CCSDS
• Composed primarily of heritage solutions handmade
  for spaceflight
• Based on old, non-standard, physical layers, and
  non-standard upper layers (data link, network
  protocols)
• But can absorb and move to more modern approaches
• Starting to absorb Internet Protocols, but less
  movement on physical layer
• Emerging requirements pressures to change to meet
  the needs of human missions to the Moon and
  beyond
• Believe that we can meet requirements from a
  widespread adoption of IEEE 802 standards,
  especially 802.11,15,16 Field Tested

5
Present vs. COTS - COTS

• Data and Software technologies derived from COTS
  will allow the following
• Greatly reduced development costs as we make
  needed moves to more flexible systems
• Enable autonomy and future upgrade
• Allow many-magnitude jumps in performance and
  reliability
• Allow us to meet timelines for human lunar
  missions
• Increase use of Communications Industry in these
  missions
• Seeing some of these technologies on Space
  Station already

6
CSA Exploration Systems Operations Centre Project

• Component of the CSA Canadian Analogue Research
  Network
• Lead by SFU
• Multiyear Funding (two years initial, entering
  two years follow-on)
• Supports CSA-funded Analogue Research Sites
  performing science and testing concepts and
  technology for planetary surface exploration
• Provides planetary surface exploration systems,
  mission operations, and missions concept design
  engineering expertise and on-site logistics-type
  engineering support
• Links analogue activities to requirements of
  actual surface exploration missions
• Looks for potential links to possible future
  missions to sites

7
SFU Study-Derived Lunar Communications
Requirements

• Meeting the communications and data requirements
  for these missions will not be simple
• Complex topography on planetary surfaces
• Non-line of Sight required on surface and on
  spacecraft
• Multipath environment, inside and outside habitat
  and spacecraft
• Complex On-board Spacecraft data requirements,
  during transit and on surface
• Quality of Service requirements with integrated,
  layered, systems
• Require appropriate protocols, computing, and
  communications solutions, lots of them, with
  well-understood behaviour
• Multi-layered Systems architecture needed
• Cannot be met by present CCSDS in timeframe,
  budget
• Believe that must meet requirements using COTS
  technologies

8
Haughton-Mars Project (NASA, CSA, and Partners)

• Largest terrestrial planetary analogue research
  project
• Project PlanetNet Comms for Planetary
  Exploration, CSA/NASA/SFU/CRC
• MarsCanada Support for Mars analogue studies,
  CSA/NASA/SFU/CRC/SETI Institute
• ExSOC Next-stage support for exploration systems
  in analogue environments, CSA/SFU
• Project Leader/US PI Pascal Lee (NASA/SETI
  Institute/Mars Institute)
• Chief Field Engineer and Canadian PI Steve
  Braham (SFU)
• Spacesuit Collaborators Hamilton-Sundstrand
  Systems International (makers of present US
  Shuttle and ISS spacesuits)
• Many NASA collaborators, increasingly more CSA
  collaborators and funding, building ESA
  collaborations
• http//www.marsonearth.org/

9
Moon (and Mars!), on Devon Island

• Canadian High Arctic
• Twenty km Crater, 23 Mya CLOSE ANALOGUE TO
  SHACKLETON CRATER
• Moon-like and Mars-like!
• Astrobiology and Geology
• Decade of Operations
• Exploration technology studies - Spacesuits,
  robotic rovers, human rovers, greenhouses /
  autonomous life-support, mission operations comms
  and more mission ops to NASA JSC, CSA PTOC,
  NASA Ames, ISU
• End-to-End emulated network delays, using COTS
  protocols and applications to handle
  disconnections, reliability, etc
• Copper, Fiber, Wireless, Satcoms, all fully
  integrated
• Biggest Planetary Analog exploration project in
  the world roughly 150 researchers per year
• Massive press coverage (CNN, BBC, National
  Geographic, Discovery Channel, Channel 4, Daily
  Mail, and more)

10
Moonbase-like Configuration driven by Arctic
Exploration Needs (not simulation)
11
Complex Desert Terrain on Devon Island
12
Large Reflectors in a Moon-like (and Mars-like)
environment
13
2000 IEEE 802.11b Not For Moon (3km, Wi-Fi, Line
of Sight, in Lunar conditions. ISI)!
Target Science Area
Failed due to Multipath
Worked
PlanetNet 1 and 2 worked, even when b-mode WiFi
failed
NASA HMP 802.11b DS Spacesuit Tests
100,000 symbols per second environments 100
Mbps rates required
14
Multipath on the Moon and Mars Why We Need OFDM
and UWB. Mars like a City Downtown.
Nirgal Vallis, Mars, THEMIS Image
Satellite Comms Not Possible
Multipath Dominant But Required
Satellite Comms Possible
15
Getting to Advanced Missions Dont be driven by
Robotics Requirements

• Extensive communication required for scientific
  field exploration - multispectral stereoscopic
  video, hyperspectral imaging and more
• Mission operations requires complex modalities in
  Human missions
• Purely robotic low-flexibility comms, computing,
  and mission operations solutions do not work for
  Human missions where configuration is highly
  dynamic (seconds, not days)
• Human mission technology can applied to robotic
  missions to greatly increase science return
• Human mission requirements must drive solutions,
  even for robotic missions, if goal is human
  exploration of Moon and Mars
• Robotics still very important, but planning based
  purely on robotics will lead to failure later
• Use of robotics/un-crewed data and communications
  standards for future missions, especially human
  missions, will eventually drive up costs greatly

16
Human spaceflight EASIER

• Human Lunar missions often compared to other
  mission choices like, for instance, robotic Mars
  missions
• Not such a hard road to follow, to take humans to
  the Moon
• Having humans in the loop requires many systems
  that operate in human-survivable environment. Low
  TVAC requirements, large masses allowed, only rad
  and safety to worry about. Makes it easier to use
  advanced technology, instead of just
  high-heritage.
• Systems can be cheap - some NASA suppliers spend
  less than 1M to fly hardware on ISS, using COTS
  options, with a few months development time
  (sensor networks)
• Lunar missions can be a lot shorter than robotic
  Mars missions far smaller Total Dose.
• Starting human lunar systems development early
  possible, and highly beneficial to many areas of
  spaceflight
• Benefit even more from analogue field testing and
  training

17
Communications-Driven Mission Ops and Lunar
Architecture Choices

• In a Moon delay and range environment, Mission
  Ops can be radically changed by new comms
  capabilities and methodologies
• Using Apollo models doesnt apply. Extending
  Robotic models doesnt apply.
• Concepts like
• Lights-out autonomous mission operations
• Use of Panoramic imaging to cure point camera
  problem seen on Apollo, and in MER operations
• Multispectral and hyperspectral imaging for
  real-time science backroom target identification
  and site proceed/return/re-visit request.
• Complex hybrid tele-operation and autonomous ops
  for human-assistive robotics
• There will be MANY operations centres in Human
  Lunar and Mars missions.
• Multiple communications systems from different
  agencies and industries
• Possible because new technologies minimize the
  infrastructure needed for comms in an EVA and for
  robotic operations, and can produce extremely
  high data rates, even in Mars missions, with high
  reliability and low costs.
• Lunar Architectures will be driven by mission
  operations choices, including an understanding of
  communications options, flexibility, and
  interoperability

18
Exploration Networking for Traverses Layered
Networking Concept

• SFU-led proposal to NASA under (now defunct) BAA
  process
• Large Canadian and US team, including 3 NASA
  Centres
• Communication system for traverse-capable
  planetary operations
• Resulted from HMP learning experience

19
Layered Networking Requirements from HMP

• Long-range Surface Networking (habitat to
  resources)
• Short-hop Wireless Networking (vehicle to suits)
• Personal Area Networking (spacesuits)
• Sensor Networking (spacesuits and instruments)
• Interplanetary Networking (link to Earth,
  including protocols)
• Integrated
• Closely matched with ESA Wireless WG concepts
• Also matches concepts discussed at NASA SIW
  meetings, SCAWG architectures
• Can only be implemented easily via COTS
• Too many layers and technologies required for
  small-team development at low space-agency
  budgets
• Can already be implemented via COTS, looks easy
  to space qualify

20
ESA-Industry Wireless Working Group and COTS
Back to basics Why spread spectrum wireless such
as DSSS, FH, OFDM and UWB for space?

• Robust COTS technologies exist to support very
  low data rates to very high rates 20Kbps to
  100Mbps, depending on the application
• Much lower transmitted peak power than
  narrow-band RF
• Immune to large amounts of background RF noise
  will actually operate below average background RF
  noise levels
• Extensive built-in error correction, packet error
  handling, and forward error correction
• Protocols are inherently Internet Protocol (IP)
  suite (or derivative) enabled
• Newer technologies are increasingly becoming
  immune to multipath effects due to selective
  fading (multi-reflections) OFDM and
  ultra-wideband (UWB) are key to the emerging
  terrestrial wireless grid
• Miniaturisation already very mature for COTS
  wireless Rad-Tolerant ASICS for space possible
  today at moderate cost

21
Overlap ESA-Industry Wireless WG Scenarios
Appropriate for Lunar/Mars Missions

• Fully mobile and un-tethered continuous crew
  health monitoring via RF SS Wireless Personal
  Area Nets (PANs) and Body Area Networks (BANs)
• Intra-spacecraft, Lunar/Mars station
  health/integrity monitoring utilising wireless
  sensor networks
• Portable computing devices and crew mobility
  shared, integrated wireless networks within and
  outside habitat modules
• Fully self-sufficient, in-situ science instrument
  data handling via wireless LAN, WPAN (no cables
  at all)
• Robust, reliable mobile hi-rate surface data
  comms in a high selective-fading and non-LoS
  environment using OFDM or UWB
• Costs of space qualification of COTS techs for
  human missions magnitudes cheaper, with
  magnitudes more testing, than heritage data
  technologies

22
ESA-Industry Wireless WG Scenarios Appropriate
for Lunar/Mars Missions cont.

• Several appropriate opportunities for SS RF
  Wireless

ESA
SFU
ESA
ESA
NASA
ESA
SEA Ltd. Concept
ESA Concordia
SFU Concept
23
Solution Overall benefits of IEEE Standards

• Unification, Harmonization, Interoperability,
  Layered
• IEEE 802 Overview Architecture
• IEEE 802-2001 Overview and Architecture
• IEEE Std 802a-2003 Overview and Architecture
  Amendment 1 Ethertypes for Prototype and
  Vendor-Specific Protocol Development
• IEEE Std 802b-2004 Registration of Object
  Identifiers
• IEEE 802.1 Bridging Management
• IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control
• IEEE 802.3 CSMA/CD Access Method
• IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Access Method
• IEEE 802.11 Wireless
• IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area Networks
• IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Metropolitan
  Area Networks
• IEEE 802.17. Resilent Packet Rings
• ? Allows wireless systems to interoperate with
  ethernet (IP and more) infrastructure with
  sophisticated QoS, switching, logical / physical
  network split, failover modes, industrial quality
  timing, life-critical functioning, and more.
  Upgrades built into the process.

24
IEEE Short-Range (WPAN, lt100m)

• Present IEEE short-range standards in development
  (from IEEE site)
• IEEE Std 802.15.1-2002 - 1Mb/s WPAN/Bluetooth
  v1.x derivative work
• P802.15.2- Recommended Practice for Coexistence
  in Unlicensed Bands
• P802.15.3 - 20 Mb/s High Rate WPAN for
  Multimedia and Digital Imaging
• P802.15.3a - 110 Mb/s Higher Rate Alternative
  PHY for 802.15.3
• P802.15.4 - 200 kb/s max for interactive toys,
  sensor and automation needs
• And P1451.5 Working Group for Wireless Sensor
  Standards
• ? Low-power, ad-hoc and infrastructural, mesh

25
IEEE Middle-Range (WLAN, lt 1 km range)

• 802.11a-1999 (8802-111999/Amd 12000(E Wireless
  LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
  Layer (PHY) specificationsAmendment 1
  High-speed Physical Layer in the 5 GHz band
• 802.11b-1999 and 802.11b-1999/Cor1-2001
  Higher-speed Physical Layer (PHY) extension in
  the 2.4 GHz band
• 802.11d-2001 Specification for Operation in
  Additional Regulatory Domains
• 802.11e-2005 Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality
  of Service Enhancements
• 802.11F-2003 Recommended Practice for
  Multi-Vendor Access Point Interoperability via an
  Inter-Access Point Protocol Across Distribution
  Systems Supporting IEEE 802.11 Operation
• 802.11g-2003 Further Higher-Speed Physical Layer
  Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band (OFDM)
• 802.11h-2003 Spectrum and Transmit Power
  Management Extensions in the 5GHz band in Europe
• 802.11i-2004 Medium Access Control (MAC)
  Security Enhancements
• 802.11j-2004 4.9 GHz5 GHz Operation in Japan
• 802.11n Standard for Enhancements for Higher
  Throughput (MIMO High speed)
• ? Ad-hoc and infrastructural networks multiple
  logical networks over physical infrastructure.
  Tested at HMP needs more modern 802.11g,n, mesh

26
IEEE Long-Range (WMAN, lt70km)

• IEEE 802.16Conformance01/02/03-2003 Protocol
  Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS)
  Pro-forma for 10-66 GHz WirelessMAN-SC Air
  Interface
• IEEE 802.16.2-2004 Coexistence of Fixed
  Broadband Wireless Access Systems
• IEEE 802.16-2004 Air Interface for Fixed
  Broadband Wireless Access Systems
• IEEE 802.16f-2005L Management Information Base
• IEEE 802.16e-2005 Air Interface for Fixed and
  Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
  Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control
  Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in
  Licensed Bands.
• ? Non-Line of Sight (up to approx 10 km), High
  QoS, Enterprise-grade. Basic technology in SFU
  PlanetNet, primary crater comms

27
Issues and requirements with wireless networks

• Need capabilities VLAN wireless complex network
  needs logical layering, not just physical
• Need the ability to debug the internal network
  status of the WLAN devices industrial debug
  software critical
• Need good support from providing company must
  not use space only standards in professional
  next-generation spaceflight
• Repeating of Multi-SSID (mesh of VLANs) would be
  very useful - Mesh is critical, on all scales
• Paths to 802.16e, 802.20, including MIMO (i.e.
  802.11n), would be good.
• Supportable by range of engineers, software,
  hardware

28
Primary Benefits of IEEE and COTS-based and
derived solutions

• Cheaper to space-qualify new technologies than
  invent in-house technologies IT now big enough,
  compared to early spaceflight, that spin-in is
  more important than spin-off. 1 to 10 of costs,
  expected.
• Utilize technologies implemented in millions to
  billions of operational units, not dozens
• COTS standards compatibility means COTS systems
  can be used in ground systems, including analogue
  testing industry can easily provide, and compete
• COTS interoperability means commercial standard
  software and commercial quality programmers can
  be used, instead of non-competitive in-house
  programmers. Moves software development to
  Industry
• COTS allows commercial grade testing techniques,
  off-the-shelf test gear, many, many, many trained
  experts in each specialist components
• Less in-house unstable software, commanding
  errors (Rockot / Cryosat, Huygens, initial Ariane
  V, MPL, MGS) due to move to operating with
  standard software interfaces to hardware.
  Standard software libraries, protocols, testing
  methodology, and implementations.

29
Problems with not going IEEE

• Expensive
• Inflexible
• Built by small teams - low quality, bad testing,
  small user base - we need to move from
  spaceflight built in expensive research groups
  and small industry teams to a large-scale space
  industry, and, eventually, international space
  industry
• Space agency RD budgets small compared to
  industry doesnt recognize that we are in
  spin-in world, not a spin-off world.
• Unstable, error-prone awful IVV options
• Stuck on ancient technology concepts, and
  increasingly non-compatible with emerging
  standards and technologies
• Boring! Time to bring the excitement that can
  result in new technology to bear to drive us to
  new exciting options in spaceflight!
• Anti-Industry and Anti-Growth large lunar base
  will require industry and growth

30
Conclusions

• COTS enables us for the next generation of
  spacecraft, for human missions to the Moon and
  beyond
• Disruptive! First agencies and nations to these
  technologies will have major leadership in
  surface comms
• Any space agency that doesnt adopt COTS-derived
  technologies will have serious problems with
  meeting cost and timeline pressures
• COTS will allow increased interoperability with
  space agencies, as same lessons are being learned
  everywhere
• IEEE COTS gives us the international process that
  lets us proceed
• Lets us still use well-understood, technically
  simpler, interplanetary / cis-lunar CCSDS
  solutions