Poster Abstract: Satellite Based Wireless Sensor

Networks
– Global Scale Sensing with Nano- and Pico-
Satellites
Walter Colitti
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
ETRO Dept.
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050
Brussels, Belgium
+32 2 629 29 06
[email protected]
Kris Steenhaut
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
EhB/IWT
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050
Brussels, Belgium
+32 2 629 29 76
[email protected]
Nicolas Descouvemont
Space Applications Services
Leuvensesteenweg 325,
B-1932
Zaventem, Belgium
+32 2 721 54 84
[email protected]
Adam Dunkels
Swedish Institute of
Computer Science
Isafjordsgatan 22 16440
Kista, Sweden
+46 8 633 16 14
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Space and Earth monitoring is the next step for sensor networks.
Distributed systems of small sensor-equipped satellites improve
the cost efficiency and the missions’ performance. This abstract
discusses the characteristics of satellite Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs) and the challenges they introduce.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
C.2.4 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Distributed
Systems – Distributed applications.
General Terms
Algorithms, Management, Design.
Keywords
Satellite sensor networks, Earth Observation, inter-satellite
communication, nano- pico-satellite.
1. INTRODUCTION
Traditional satellite missions are extremely expensive to design,
build, launch and operate. Because of the high cost, the aerospace
industry have started directing its attention to missions consisting
of many, distributed, small and inexpensive satellites. Distributed
space missions consist of multiple satellites working in a
coordinated fashion to execute the mission’s common goal [2].
Earth Observation (EO) is one of the main focuses of both the
industry and the research community. EO missions consist of a
group of nano-satellites, small satellites with a mass of a few
kilograms, or pico-satellites, with a mass of less than one
kilogram, flying in formation or forming a constellation [2].
Figure 1 illustrates an example of a satellite sensor network.
Satellite sensor missions pose a set of new challenges for the
sensor network community in terms of reliability, communication
and routing. In this abstract, we discuss the similarities and
differences between terrestrial and satellite-based sensor
networks.
Figure 1. Satellite sensor network
2. APPLICATIONS
We envision satellite sensor networks in Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
to be the preferred technology for a variety of EO missions such
as environment and agriculture studying, hazard and disaster
monitoring, and observation for security and crisis management.
Typical examples of environment monitoring are pollution, land,
ocean surface and crop condition monitoring. Examples of hazard
and disaster monitoring are flood prediction, earthquake, and
urban disaster prediction. Example of security and crisis
management are border, vehicle and activity watching.
Distributed satellite missions use one of the following satellite
arrangements: Formation Flying or constellation. The aim of an
FF is to create a virtual satellite, composed by the different
elements of the formation. An FF formation can be used as an
interferometer. The interferometry technique uses different images
acquired from a slightly different point of view to correlate them
in order to get a better resolution. With this method, the spatial
resolution depends on the length of the baseline, which can grow
to thousands of kilometers. This is impossible to realize with a
single instrument.
In a constellation, the satellites are scattered around the Earth,
achieving a quasi-instantaneous global coverage. Typical
applications of a constellation mission are Earth positioning,
telecommunication or Earth monitoring.
3. SATELLITE SENSOR NETWORKS
Satellite based sensor networks share many of the characteristics
of terrestrial sensor networks, the primary one being the resource
constraints. However, they also introduce new challenges mainly
related to inter-satellite communication and routing. These
similarities and challenges are described Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). in this Section.
SenSys’08, November 5–7, 2008, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
ACM 978-1-59593-990-6/08/11
3.1 Similarities with terrestrial WSNs
Due to their small size, the nodes in a satellite sensor network
have a limited amount of resources. This implies that, similarly to
terrestrial sensor networks, the power consumption optimization
is a major issue in the node design. This similarity facilitates the
portability of terrestrial sensor’s resource-constrained hardware
and software to nano- and pico-satellites. The pico-satellites
designed by Pumpkin Inc, for example, mount the MSP430 CPU
which is typical of terrestrial sensor network hardware such as the
Tmote Sky. Moreover, the pico-satellites from Pumpkin Inc use
the μIP embedded TCP/IP stack [1, 3].
Along with the node architecture, the network architecture is
another similarity that originates from the resource constraints.
Nano- and pico-satellites may not have sufficient power to
exchange data with the ground station on an individual basis. One
possible solution to overcome power consumption problems
consists in grouping the satellites in a cluster. One master satellite
(i.e. the sink) is responsible for the communication with the
ground station and various slave satellites transmit to the sink.
This implies that routing is executed at different levels.
3.2 Challenges
3.2.1 Inter Satellite Link (ISL)
The ISL allows the satellites to exchange information and share
resources to achieve the performance goal while reducing the
traffic load to ground. In order to reduce the ISL cost and design
time, the ongoing research is testing the suitability of commercialoff-
the-shelf (COTS) communication protocols [2]. Specifically,
the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) and IEEE 802.16 (WiMax) standards are
being investigated. The criteria for the selection of these two
communication protocols are based on the range (i.e. higher
propagation delays may be experienced in satellite
communications), networking features (especially MAC functions
to reduce the number of collisions) and the support for mobility.
In addition, IP based technologies simplify the inter-networking
with other future space networks. Preliminary results have already
demonstrated that both WiMax and WiFi are promising
candidates for the implementation of ISL. On one hand, the
WiMax technology offers an extensive support for QoS, full
native IP support and high physical layer efficiency. On the other
hand, WiFi is a more mature technology and therefore may result
in simpler portability to the space domain, on condition that the
timing is adapted due to the higher propagation delays. A solution
can be the combination of both technologies: WiFi for close
proximity in formation flying missions while the long range of the
WiMax protocol covers the connectivity in constellations.
3.2.2 Time synchronization and power saving
The non-zero propagation delay of satellite WSNs could impose
challenges on time synchronization protocols and on the choice of
the MAC protocol. In fact, the power saving mechanisms of
various MAC protocols used in terrestrial WSNs rely on the time
synchronization that dictates the moments in which the nodes
communicate.
3.2.3 Routing
A common practice used in terrestrial sensor network applications
is to design routing algorithms that minimize the communication
power and consequently increase the sensor lifetime. This
requirement needs to be ported to space applications and therefore
the Friis free space propagation model needs to be taken into
account. This model defines the relationship between the received
and transmitted power and states that the communication power is
significantly reduced when the information is transmitted from
source to destination via multi-hop paths. However, distributed
satellite missions impose strict time constraints, especially in a
formation where the satellites need to maintain themselves in a
precise relative position and orientation. Typical wireless realtime
control systems have an upper bound of 10 ms for the endto-
end latency (including sensing, communication, computation
and actuation). This implies constraints on the multi-hopping
because the signal end-to-end delay depends on the number of
traversed satellites (processing, queuing, and propagation delay).
3.2.4 Reliability
Similarly to terrestrial sensor networks, a satellite based sensor
network is a distributed and unattended system. This implies that
it needs to be dynamic and self-adaptive in order to react with
network reconfigurations in case of failure. However, satellite
sensor networks have to commit more challenging requirements as
a consequence of the node mobility. Orbital velocity in LEO is
approximately 7.5 Km/s and undesirable perturbations change the
orbit over time. In addition, formation flying requires the nodes to
keep a precise relative position and orientation, which causes
more frequent reconfigurations in populated orbits.
4. CONCLUSIONS
New challenges arise as sensor networks move towards low-cost,
nano- and pico-satellite missions in low-earth orbit. Although
nano- and pico-satellite missions share the resource constraints
and reliability requirements of terrestrial sensor networks, the
long communication ranges, high-speed node mobility, and nonzero
propagation delays requires us to revisit the underlying
assumptions in network time synchronization, communication
protocols, and power-saving mechanisms.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been done in the scope of the ITEA project
European Sensor Network Architecture (ESNA) thanks to the
support of IWT-Flanders.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Dunkels, A. Full TCP/IPfor 8-Bit Architectures. Proc. of the
First International Conference on mobile applications,
systems and services, 5-8 May 2003, San Francisco, CA,
USA.
[2] Vladimirova, T., Bridges, C.P., and Prassinos G.
Characterizing Wireless Sensor Motes for Space
Applications. Proc. Of II NASA/ESA Conference on
Adaptive Hardware and Systems, 5-8 August 2007,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
[3] A. Kalman. PicoSatellite Programming within the
Constraints of the 1kg, 10x10x10cm CubeSat Standard.
Second IEEE Conference on Space Mission Challenges for
Information Technology, 16-20 July, Pasadena, California.