Advertisement

Freely Drifting Small-Satellite Swarms for Sensor Networks in the Arctic

  • Roger BirkelandEmail author
  • David Palma
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)

Abstract

Satellite communications have been widely used to provide connectivity around the world. However, regions such as the Arctic still have limited coverage, despite the need to monitor this region. Currently, several sensors are deployed in the Arctic, but are limited by poor and costly connectivity. Constellations of small satellites, or CubeSats, have been proposed in order to overcome this lack of connectivity, offering an alternative to typical satellite solutions. However, these constellations face challenges in their deployment and in orbital station keeping. In this paper, we propose a simpler deployment of small satellites, in the form of a drifting swarm, integrated with networking protocols widely used in the Internet of Things (IoT). A realistic setup is considered, evaluating this solution taking into account the position of sensor nodes, ground stations and the dynamics of such a drifting swarm. The topology evolution of the small-satellite swarm is studied and all its link characteristics are emulated using a real network stack and protocols. The obtained results prove the feasibility of the proposed solution and show that a freely drifting satellite swarm, with three small satellites, outperforms more costly solutions. Our results also show that by using standardised networking protocols, a satellite architecture with two ground stations connected over the Internet, can reduce the average end-to-end time of a request from 88 to 38 min. The obtained results motivate the use of freely drifting swarms of small satellites for reaching sensor nodes in remote locations, as well as the use of IoT protocols for improved performance.

Keywords

IoT Arctic CubeSat Satellite swarms Network emulation CoAP WSN Sensor networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 699924, SINet.

References

  1. 1.
    Aalborg University (2014) AAUSAT3. http://www.space.aau.dk/aausat3/, online
  2. 2.
    Berge J (2017) Mare incognitum—arctic abc project summary, online, nFR projects 244319 and 245923Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berge J, Geoffroy M, Johnsen G, Cottier F, Bluhm B, Vogedes D (2016) Ice-tethered observational platforms in the arctic ocean pack ice. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(23):494–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.484, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896316320742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkeland R (2014) An overview of existing and future satellite systems for arctic communication. In: Proceedings of ESA small satellites systems and services 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birkeland R (2014) Proposal for a satellite communication payload for sensor networks in the arctic area. In: Proceedings of the 65th international astronautical congressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birkeland R (2017) Freely drifting cubesat constellations for improving coverage for arcticsensor networks. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 1–6,  https://doi.org/10.1109/icc.2017.7997293
  7. 7.
    Birkeland R, Palma D, Zolich A (2017) Integrated smallsats and unmanned vehicles for networking in remote locations. In: Proceedings of the 68th international astronautical congressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bormann C, Hartke K, Shelby Z (2014) The constrained application protocol (CoAP). RFC 7252,  https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7252, https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252.txt
  9. 9.
    Burleigh SC, Farrell S, Ramadas M (2008) Licklider transmission protocol specification. RFC 5326,  https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc5326, https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5326.txt
  10. 10.
    Chakrabarti S, Montenegro G, Droms R, Woodyatt J (2017) IPv6 over low-power wireless personal area network (6LoWPAN) ESC dispatch code points and guidelines. RFC 8066,  https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc8066, https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8066.txt
  11. 11.
    Foundation PS (2017) Python 3.5.3 documentation, online, https://docs.python.org/3.5/
  12. 12.
    Graphics A (2016) Stk. Online, http://www.agi.com/products/stk/. Accessed Apr 2016
  13. 13.
    Insider T (2015) Spacex is working on a ’pizza box’ that should scare your internet company. Online, http://www.techinsider.io/spacex-satellite-program-brings-global-internet-access-2015-9
  14. 14.
    Iridium Communications Inc (2014) Iridium communications. https://iridium.com/ProductList.aspx?productCategoryID=9. Accessed 15 Dec 2014
  15. 15.
    ITU (2015) Technical characteristics for a VHF data exchange system in the VHF maritime mobile band. https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.2092, recommendation ITU-R M.2092-0
  16. 16.
    Kelso DT (1998) Frequently asked questions: two-line element set format. Available at https://celestrak.com/columns/v04n03/
  17. 17.
    Merkel D (2014) Docker: Lightweight linux containers for consistent development and deployment. Linux J 2014(239). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2600239. 2600241
  18. 18.
    Norwegian Space Centre (2015) Satkom i Arktis (ASK). Online, http://www.romsenter.no/Fagomraader/Satellittkommunikasjon/\Satkom-i-Arktis-ASK. Accessed June 2015
  19. 19.
    OneWeb (2015) Oneweb homepage, online, http://oneweb.world/. Accessed Oct 2015
  20. 20.
    Palma D, Zolich A, Jiang Y, Johansen TA (2017) Unmanned aerial vehicles as data mules: An experimental assessment. IEEE Access 5:24716–24726,  https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2017. 2769658
  21. 21.
    Puig-Suari J, Zohar G, Leveque K (2013) Deployment of CubeSat constellations utilizing current launch opportunities. In: 27th annual AIAA/USU conference on small satellitesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rhodes B (2015) Pyephem home page. http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/. Accessed Oct 2015
  23. 23.
    Salopek D, Vasić V, Zec M, Mikuc M, Vašarević M, Končar V (2014) A network testbed for commercial telecommunications product testing. In: 2014 22nd international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), pp 372–377,  https://doi.org/10.1109/softcom.2014.7039061
  24. 24.
    Sanctis MD, Cianca E, Araniti G, Bisio I, Prasad R (2016) Satellite communications supporting internet of remote things. IEEE Internet Things J 3(1):113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2015.2487046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott K, Burleigh SC (2007) Bundle protocol specification. RFC 5050.  https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc5050, https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5050.txt
  26. 26.
    Tanganelli G, Vallati C, Mingozzi E (2015) Coapthon: easy development of coap-based IoT applications with python. In: 2015 IEEE 2nd world forum on internet of things (WF-IoT), pp 63–68,  https://doi.org/10.1109/wf-iot.2015.7389028
  27. 27.
    Thubert P, Hui J (2011) Compression format for IPv6 datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4 Based networks. RFC 6282,  https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc6282. https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6282.txt
  28. 28.
    Whitaker J (2017) Basemap Matplotlib Toolkit 1.0.8 documentation, online, http: //matplotlib.org/basemap/
  29. 29.
    Zohar GG (2013) Ad-hoc regional coverage constellations of cubesats using secondary launches. Master’s thesis, Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis ObispoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic SystemsNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Information Security and Communication TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations