2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

SelenIRIS: a Moon-Earth Optical Communication

Terminal for CubeSats
1st Jorge Rosano Nonay 2nd Christian Fuchs 3rd Davide Orsucci
Inst. of Communications and Navigation Inst. of Communications and Navigation Inst. of Communications and Navigation
German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Weßling, Germany Weßling, Germany Weßling, Germany
2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS) | 978-1-6654-3439-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICSOS53063.2022.9749725

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

4th Christopher Schmidt 5th Dirk Giggenbach

Inst. of Communications and Navigation Inst. of Communications and Navigation
German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR)
Weßling, Germany Weßling, Germany
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract—Satellite miniaturization and sinking costs of manu- present fewer to no mandatory regulations. These, in contrast,
facturing and launches are bringing Moon missions in the focus limit the available frequency channels in RF communication.
of many space companies and agencies. However, achieving the Optical systems satisfy lower size, weight, and power (SWaP)
desired data rates on CubeSats over long ranges is proving
increasingly challenging with traditional radio-frequency com- requirements than their RF counterparts at the same data rate,
munication systems. Free-space optical (FSO) communications making it possible to achieve a data throughput in the order
offer a compact, light, and low-power alternative with higher of Gbps even for the smallest terminals [1].
data throughput and fewer limitations (e.g., fewer governmental The Institute of Communications and Navigation of the Ger-
regulations, channel interference, eavesdropping. . . ). Based on man Aerospace Center (DLR-IKN) has a long heritage of de-
its long heritage of laser communications and new-space tech-
nology, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) is investigating veloping laser communication terminals for small satellites in
SelenIRIS—a miniaturized terminal for Moon-Earth optical data low Earth orbit (LEO). The optical terminal OSIRIS4CubeSat
transmissions—for its OSIRIS program. This paper will analyze (O4C), its newest development of the Optical Space Infrared
the necessary adaptations that are required to transfer the Downlink System (OSIRIS) program, provides data rates up
technology from the flight-proven low Earth orbit terminals like to 100 Mbps for direct-to-Earth (DTE) links [1]. Based on
OSIRIS4CubeSat (O4C) [1] to a concept mission in Lunar orbit.
Index Terms—OSIRIS, free-space optics, CubeSat, Moon, laser its modular technology, OCS wants to develop SelenIRIS, an
communication, high data rate, new space optical payload on a Lunar orbit that extends its functionalities
with sufficient power for a Lunar DTE link. This terminal
I. I NTRODUCTION should help accommodate the necessities of a rapidly expand-
ing market of small satellites on the Moon; e.g., NASA plans
The space industry is currently experiencing a shift from to place ten CubeSats on Lunar orbit as part of their Artemis
large individual spacecraft, towards fleets of small-sized Cube- 1 mission, some of which have been developed by ESA and
Sats. This trend is already taking place on Earth orbit and is JAXA [2]. These and future spacecraft would profit from FSO
expected to take over also on other celestial bodies. The main communications due to their higher bandwidth, efficiency,
reasons for this shift are technological miniaturization, ampler compactness, and lower channel crosstalk and regulations over
availability of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components, RF systems.
shrinking development and launch costs, shorter development Based on a link budget analysis, this paper describes the
times, standardization, high production scalability, and large necessary technical adaptations to O4C for SelenIRIS. It also
area or even worldwide accessibility. presents possible Lunar mission architectures and their radi-
Simultaneously, the data volume and bandwidth require- ation environment. We then propose three different concepts
ments are undergoing unprecedented growth. Low-latency for the optical terminal with varying size, weight, and power
transfer of information between a rocketing amount of sys- (SWaP) requirements.
tems demands ever-increasing data rates, and classical radio
frequency (RF) channels are becoming obsolete at the highest II. S TATE OF THE A RT
exchange rates. Free-space optical (FSO) technology for space DLR’s OSIRIS program has a long heritage of flight-proven
applications has finally matured enough to supply the demand optical communication terminals for small satellites in LEO.
generated by the increasing number of satellites and data OSIRISv1 and OSIRISv2 explored body pointing mechanisms
volume. Besides higher bandwidth capacities, FSO links also at data rates up to 1 Gbps. OSIRIS4CubeSat (O4C), seen in

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
978-1-6654-3439-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 186
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

Optical
amplifier

APD
Telescope

Laser
source
DHU

Fig. 1. OSIRIS4CubeSat flight model. Fig. 2. CubeISL payload concept.

Fig. 1, was launched in 2021 and is the world’s smallest optical

terminal in space. With a SWaP of 1/3 unit (U), 0.4 kg, and
8.5 W, it transmits data to an optical ground station (OGS)
at speeds of 100 Mbps. Its newest development, CubeISL,
aims to extend the DTE capabilities of O4C with bidirectional
optical inter-satellite links (ISL) [1].

A. OSIRIS4CubeSat
O4C is the basis for all OSIRIS missions that follow a
miniaturization trend. The compact terminal, shown in Fig. 1,
is capable of sending 100 Mbps downlinks to a terrestrial
OGS. Its fine pointing assembly (FPA) improved the pointing
accuracy compared to past missions. Besides its compactness, Fig. 3. Diagram of the CubeISL optical terminal.
its main improvement is the implementation of a 4-quadrant
diode (4QD) and a fast steering mirror (FSM) to measure the
angular deviation of the beacon laser and align the incoming communication payload would fly on a 6 to 12 U CubeSat,
signal beam with the emitted path [1]. O4C’s modular design out of which 2 to 6 U should be available for SelenIRIS. The
and use of COTS components allow easy exchange and terminal will be designed for a one-year mission duration in
extension of its subsystems for new missions like CubeISL Lunar orbit. As a mission requirement, the optical transmission
or SelenIRIS. between the payload and the OGS should maintain a reliable
link four times a day for ten consecutive minutes. Table I
B. CubeISL
shows a summary of relevant operational parameters for the
CubeISL is designed to achieve DTE links at 1 Gbps and communication link.
ISL communications at 100 Mbps. It is expected to fly in 2023.
As depicted in Fig. 2, the system has been extended with an TABLE I
optical amplifier that achieves a higher optical output of 1 W PARAMETERS OF THE S ELEN IRIS OPTICAL COMMUNICATION LINK
to counteract the increased distances of ISL. It incorporates Parameter Description Value
a powerful COTS data handling unit (DHU) to process the Range Link distance 363 200 - 405 400 km
higher data rates. The system requires a SWaP of 1 U, 1 kg, Downlink 1565 nm
Wavelength
Uplink 1540 nm
and 35 W to allocate its new components [1]. Modulation Downlink NRZ-OOK or PPM
Contrary to O4C, CubeISL will emit and receive high data Scheme Uplink NRZ-OOK or PPM
rates simultaneously. For this purpose, it includes a more Coding Downlink RS(255,223) or LDPC 1⁄2
sensitive avalanche photodiode (APD) detector besides the Scheme Uplink RS(255,223) or LDPC 1⁄2
Coarse pointing By the CubeSat 0.1 deg
4QD used for tracking. Fig. 3 shows the schematics of the Fine pointing By SelenIRIS µrad-range
optical terminal. The emitted beam is depicted with red arrows,
while the received beam is shown with blue arrows.
The one-year mission time frame does not consider the
III. M ISSION A RCHITECTURE transfer time from Earth into Lunar orbit. Thus it must be
DLR’s optical communication payload SelenIRIS primary accounted for separately. For this study, we will consider two
goal is to demonstrate a Moon-Earth high-speed data link types of Lunar transfer options: direct and low-thrust transfers.
between a CubeSat and an OGS using laser technology. The Direct transfers, as shown in Fig. 4, require high-thrust

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
187
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

Fig. 4. Direct transfer (red) and insertion into Lunar orbit (yellow). Fig. 5. Low-thrust maneuver from GTO to Lunar orbit.

chemical propulsion systems and large quantities of fuel. mirrors and transmitter power at the OGS, a bigger telescope
Despite being the least fuel-efficient option, they can take as on the satellite, and more sensitive detection technologies than
short as a day to place the satellite in a Lunar orbit. With O4C or CubeISL. Some of the components that will make a
one single pass through the highly energetic Van Allen belts link possible are also those most susceptible to damage by
(VAB), this transfer would significantly reduce the payload’s high-energy radiative particles. Shielding these components
required radiation shielding, as will be shown in Subsection from higher radiation doses than any of the previous OSIRIS
IV-A. Typically, a ∆V of 3.9 km/s is required for the trans- missions will be of critical importance.
Lunar injection from LEO and Lunar-orbit injection [3]. If The following subsections will analyze the radiative space
the trans-lunar injection starts from a geostationary transfer environment and power budget of the SelenIRIS mission.
orbit (GTO), the total ∆V shrinks to a minimum of 1.4 km/s Based on the results, we propose three design concepts with
[4]. Most launchers are capable of placing a single CubeSat varying SWaP requirements.
via a direct transfer in Lunar orbit. Heavy-lift vehicles (e.g.,
NASA’s SLS or SpaceX’s Falcon heavy) can offer ride-share A. Radiation Dose
opportunities for multiple CubeSats [2].
As a consequence of the new-space approach in OSIRIS, its
Compact and highly-efficient thrusters can also be used for projects rely on COTS components to shrink costs and devel-
Lunar transfers and capture in so-called low-thrust maneuvers. opment time. In most cases, these parts do not have any space
Such propulsion systems take advantage of very high specific heritage. Enduring the harsh environment of space has proven
impulses to decrease total fuel consumption significantly. The to be one of the biggest challenges for these components.
total duration can extend from less than a year to several years Understanding the conditions that the satellite will encounter is
[4]. Fig. 5 depicts a low-thrust transfer from GTO and its large critical to accurately test all sensitive components in advance.
number of passes through the VAB. Hence, orbital data for each of the three proposed lunar
Low-energy maneuvers with a deep-space cruising phase are transfer scenarios in Section III—a direct transfer and low-
also a common type of Lunar transfer. They usually require a thrust maneuvers from LEO and GTO—has been computed
longer time than direct transfers and more fuel than low-thrust using STK. The radiation dose was simulated with OMERE.
transfers [4]. Hence, this study will focus only on the other Fig. 6 shows a plot with the total cumulative dose for each
two transfer options. of the three transfers, including an additional stay of one year
For this study, we have selected three scenarios: a direct around a 2.2-hour lunar orbit.
transfer from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) spanning over 5 Radiation levels in Fig. 6 are given as total dose in rad units
days, a low-thrust maneuver from a 500 km LEO extending for varying aluminum shielding thicknesses. These results are
for 365 days, and a low-thrust maneuver from GTO for the summarized in Table II for Al shieldings of 5 and 10 mm. The
same length. A final ∼2.2-hour Lunar orbit at an altitude of total cumulative dose was determined with the SHIELDOSE
250 km and 90º inclination was chosen for all three scenarios. 2 calculator for a silicon solid sphere. It comprises the dose
The orbital data has been modeled with the Systems Tool Kit from trapped electrons, trapped protons, solar protons, and
(STK) software. secondary photons. Trapped protons and electrons are mainly
found spiraling around the inner and outer VAB, respectively.
IV. S ELEN IRIS
Trapped radiation was simulated for a mission starting in 2024
SelenIRIS will encounter unprecedented challenges in the coinciding with solar maxima conditions, and using the AE8
OSIRIS program. It must reliably exchange data at a range and AP8 models for electrons and protons. The IGRF magnetic
of 400 000 km, while Earth’s turbulent atmosphere randomly field model was used to portray the effect of the VAB and its
distorts its optical beam. The mission will make use of larger particles.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
188
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

TABLE II
R ADIATION DOSE FOR L UNAR TRANSFERS AND ORBITS BY SOURCE

Direct Low-thrust Low-thrust Lunar

Param. Unit transfer (LEO) (GTO) orbit
Time days ∼5 365 365 365
Shielding mm 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10
Trapped
krad 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.1 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
electrons
Trapped
krad 0.0 0.0 28.7 14.4 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0
protons
Solar
protons krad 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.5 2.8 1.1 3.2 1.3
Sec.
photons krad 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total
dose krad 0.1 0.0 55.7 16.0 17.9 2.4 3.2 1.3

during critical moments while crossing the VAB. Additional

Fig. 6. Total radiation dose for relevant lunar transfers with an additional tests with even larger radiation doses of 50 krad(Si) showed
one-year stay on a 2.2-hour Lunar orbit. little degradation of 0.24 dB/m for the input signal. This value
could be further lowered to 0.17 dB/m by adding dopants like
cerium or hydrogen [10].
Solar radiation describes any untrapped particle emitted by APD detectors are the most vulnerable elements to radiation
the Sun. The radiative dose from protons was determined with degradation due to increased surface and bulk dark currents.
the ESP model at a confidence level of 97% and from other When unbiased, APDs can resist large photon irradiations
ions with the Psychic model. The environment of the mag- of 200 krad(Si) [11]. For biased APDs, tests with photon
netosphere was calculated with the Störmer magnetospheric irradiation showed only a fraction of the degradation that
cutoff theory. occurred for tests with proton irradiation [12]. This difference
Secondary photons stem from collisions of high-energetic is due to the high ionization effect of photons versus the
particles (e.g., cosmic rays) with matter, primarily in the upper typical displacement damage that energetic particles like pro-
atmosphere. Secondary radiation, simulated with the GCR ISO tons cause, which is the main contributor to the performance
15390 model, can contribute significantly to the displacement decrease of these detectors. The APD’s dark current increases
damage and thus should not be neglected [5]. linearly with the dose and can lead to deteriorations of up
The total dose from Fig. 6 and Table II shows that the to a few microamperes for extreme radiation conditions of
received radiation during direct transfers can be neglected due 300 krad(Si) [12]. Radiation testing on relevant detectors for
to a singular pass through the VAB and its short time. In SelenIRIS will be critical to determine the material thickness
this case, we can consider the total dose to be that of the shielding that will be required for these components.
stay around the Lunar orbit. Low-thrust maneuvers from GTO By limiting the maximum radiation level to 25 krad(Si)
with a one-year stay on the Moon encounter doses on average for the whole mission duration we ensure that the most
an order of magnitude higher than for direct transfers. When critical components do not suffer extensive damage. For direct
the trajectory starts from LEO, the satellite will receive on transfers, this could be achieved with an Al shielding thickness
average a radiation dose one order of magnitude higher than of 1 mm. For low thrust transfers, 5 mm would be needed
from GTO. A duration of one year was chosen for the transfers when starting from GTO and 8 mm for LEO.
and orbits due to its simple scalability. New radiation doses
can be computed from this value by applying a linear rescaling B. Optical Link Budget
factor proportional to the actual mission duration. The design of the communication terminal strongly depends
The most sensitive components on SelenIRIS to radiation on the results from the link budget. Preliminary power link
damage are the seed laser, the erbium-doped fiber amplifier budgets, with the link budget tool QCalc [13], have shown
(EDFA), and the APD detector. Seed laser irradiation with 100 that to achieve a positive link margin, the OGS would need
krad(Si) has shown no noticeable deterioration [6], [7]. On the to be on the order of 80 cm in diameter and emit 60 W of
other hand, radiation-induced attenuation (RIA) through point power, and the satellite should have a telescope of 8 cm and
defects can lead to considerable losses on EDFAs. Tests with 1 W laser power. Moreover, the effect of the atmosphere must
EDF amplifiers without pumping at 25 krad(Si) showed low also be considered, as it will distort the beam’s shape, path,
degradation of 1 dB/m for the pumped power and 0.5 dB/m for and intensity. Forward error correction (FEC) schemes can be
the signal power [8]. The RIA decreases for pumped amplifiers implemented to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the data
as continuous photo-annealing and recovery take place [9]. exchange. The following sections will discuss these topics in
Hence, pumping the EDFA would reduce radiation damage further detail.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
189
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

Link design: the tracking procedure and perhaps render it impossible. By

The system uses spectral isolation to differentiate the emit- emitting four independent beam spots, each with a diameter
ted and received signals. As in past OSIRIS missions, the significantly smaller than the aperture, their divergence angle
wavelengths will also be among the C and L-band (1530 - would exceed the atmospheric beam wander. The divergence
1620 nm). For this study, we will use 1540 nm for uplinks becomes 51.9 µrad for a spot size of 4 cm, as compared to the
and 1565 nm for downlinks. The main reason is the greater 10.0 µrad beam wander. The antenna gain Gt can be computed
availability of COTS high-power emitters at the C-band. as:
The modulation scheme can be switched between non-
4πAt 1
return-to-zero (NRZ) on-off keying (OOK) and pulse-position Gt = · 2 · gt (α, β, γ, X) (1)
λ2
modulation (PPM) to meet the power and bandwidth require- [M 2 ]
ments in different scenarios. where At is the effective telescope area, λ is the wavelength,
Forward error correction (FEC) codes further improve the M 2 is a factor of the beam quality, and gt (α, β, γ, X) is a
link performance by adding redundant parity bits to the trans- transmitter efficiency factor as a function of the truncation
mitted information bits. The receiver’s decoder checks them to factor α, the far-field factor β, the obscuration ratio γ, and
detect or correct a limited number of bit errors, thus reducing the off-axis factor X [15]. In the limit α ≫ 1, β = 0, γ = 0,
the power requirements and increasing the link margin [14]. and X = 0, the formula reduces to the gain for an untruncated
For this mission, we will consider Reed-Solomon (RS) and Gaussian beam. For the OGS, the transmitter efficiency factor
Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) encoding, due to their low √
is now assumed to be given by gt ( 2, 0, 0, 0) = 0.748 and
complexity and high performance, respectively. Convolutional, M 2 = 1.1. In this new configuration, the OGS transmitter
concatenated, turbo, and fountain codes are not considered due gain decreases from 119.9 dB (for an 80 cm aperture) to 102.1
to their higher complexity or lower performance than RS or dB (with four 4 cm beams each having an effective area of
LDPC codes. At = 12.6 cm2 ). The system thus needs to generate an output
Reed-Solomon (RS) codes with hard decision decoding are power of 60 W or 17.8 dBW to compensate for the losses
often chosen for short to medium-sized blocks due to their low of the new gain. Multiple manufacturers offer COTS EDFAs
complexity, fast decoding, high data rates, and the absence with an output between 20 and 30 W. One could achieve the
of error floors. These advantages come at the expense of a desired output power by combining multiple amplifiers.
moderate coding gain—typically ranging between a few and The loss from the transmittance of the optical components
5 dB at a BER of 10−6 —as compared to an uncoded scheme. has been determined based on the design of CubeISL. The
OSIRIS missions have previously used an RS(255,223) coding transmitter has a transmission factor of 0.94 corresponding to
scheme with an overhead of 12.5%. It is widely available an optical loss of -0.27 dB. The receiver path, which uses
on COTS FPGAs and counts with a long heritage on the more elements, has a transmission of 0.71 and a loss of -1.52
OSIRIS project. With an RS(255,223) scheme, the BER could dB.
be improved from 10−3 to about 10−6 . In this case, the coding
Deviations in the pointing of the emitter from the ideal line
gain (i.e., the decrease in SNR required to achieve the same
of sight lead to further losses as the receiving terminal does
BER) for a BER of 10−6 can be approximated to 4 dB [14].
not collect the highest intensity from the Gaussian distributed
Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes offer perfor-
beam. Assessing the pointing losses with high accuracy re-
mances close to the capacity limit at very high data rates. For
quires a mature concept and, in most cases, existing hardware
a similar code rate, LDPC achieves a BER of 10−6 with an
that can be tested. To overcome this issue, we will assume a
SNR 3.5 dB lower than an RS scheme. If LDPC with a code
fixed pointing loss ηp (ϕ) of -2.0 dB. Based on this value and
rate of 1/2 can be successfully implemented, the link should
neglecting bias error and jitter, it is possible to determine the
expect a higher coding gain of 8.5 dB [14].
highest allowable pointing error angle ϕ with:
An interleaving scheme on top of the FEC code can also
prevent the loss of whole codewords in the presence of burst  R 1   2
errors at the cost of an added delay and memory storage. −α2 u2 Dt
e J0 π ϕu du 
 γ λ
ηp (ϕ) =  (2)
 
Transmitter: 
R 1


During downlinks, the satellite has to generate an output e−α2 u2 du
γ
power of 1 W. Since COTS high-power laser sources do not
achieve such high power, the satellite’s signal from the seed where J0 (x) is the order zero Bessel function of x, and Dt
laser must be boosted with an erbium-doped fiber amplifier is the transmit aperture diameter [16]. The maximum pointing
(EDFA). error during uplinks is 19.9 µrad and 9.0 µrad for downlinks.
In the case of uplinks, if the OGS were to emit a signal Adaptive optics can potentially correct the beam wander. But
using its large aperture, the beam’s divergence angle would if left uncorrected, the pointing error in uplinks will consist of
be significantly smaller than the deflection angle by which the the atmospheric beam wander (i.e., 10 µrad) and the angular
center of the beam gets displaced while crossing the atmo- deviation due to the misalignment of the OGS. The maximum
sphere (e.g., beam wander). This scenario would make difficult allowable angular misalignment of the OGS, in this case,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
190
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

becomes 9.9 µrad and must be kept below this value to avoid
larger pointing losses than -2.0 dB.
Atmospheric Channel:
The biggest challenge for the SelenIRIS mission is over-
coming the high losses from the Moon-Earth link distance. The
2
range loss LR = [λ/(4πL)] [17] varies between -309.5 and
-310.4 dB for the Moon’s perigee (at 363 200 km) and apogee
(at 405 400 km), respectively. On average, we will assume a
link distance between the satellite and OGS of 387 500 km
and a loss of -310.0 dB.
Additionally, the beam will suffer deflections, shape de-
formations, attenuation, and intensity fluctuations as it passes Fig. 7. Effect of aperture averaging on the scintillation index in downlinks.
over turbulent patches of air. Transmittivity coefficients have
been computed with MODTRAN at relevant altitudes. The
remaining heights were evaluated via linear interpolation. cm, the variance of the angular RMS value of the beam wander
Since the OGS is located in Weßling (Germany) at 600 m becomes 10.0 µrad. The angular beam wander is included in
altitude, we computed a mid-latitude summer atmospheric the link budget as an additional pointing error.
model with a visibility of 23 km and rural aerosol levels. The The scintillation index measures the random intensity vari-
atmospheric transmission, which follows Beer’s law, yields ations caused by the turbulent atmosphere. A detailed descrip-
a transmission loss of -0.8 dB in uplinks and -0.5 dB in tion of its simulation for different link scenarios and turbulence
downlinks at an elevation angle of 30º. strengths is out of the scope of this paper and is given
Modeling turbulence in the atmosphere is not an easy task by [18]. A multiple-input-single-output (MISO) configuration
and requires simplifications and approximations. In this study, with identical beams, reduces the scintillation index σI2 by
the refractive index structure parameter Cn2 (h) was computed a factor proportional to the number nb of beams used—
2 2
using the Hufnagel Valley (HV) turbulence profile model: σI,M ISO = σI,SISO /nb [19]. Additionally, in downlinks,
when the telescope aperture is larger than the spatial coherence
 v 2
10 −h/1000 radius, the non-uniform irradiance gets integrated over the
Cn2 (h) = 0.00594 10−5 h e whole collecting aperture in an effect called aperture averaging
27 (3)
[17], [18]. As depicted in Fig. 7, aperture averaging leads to
+ 2.7 · 10−16 e−h/1500 + A0 e−h/100
a drastic reduction of the scintillation index. The plot com-
where h is the height, v is the RMS wind speed at high al- pares the decrease in the scintillation index when considering
titudes, and A0 defines the turbulence strength at the elevation aperture averaging to a point source telescope without aperture
of the ground station [17]. We considered a scenario for night averaging. The results are given for a weak and strong fluctu-
conditions with A0 = 1.7 · 10−14 m−2/3 and v = 21 m/s ation theory, and day and night HV turbulence models. Point
and another for daytime with A0 = 1.0 · 10−13 m−2/3 and receivers exhibit saturation at low elevation angles, which
v = 30 m/s. For this link budget analysis, we will use the can only be described using a strong turbulence fluctuation
night HV model. theory. However, the model for aperture averaging using weak
From the refractive index structure parameter, it is possible fluctuation theory fits well with empirical measurements even
to determine the effects caused by the turbulent air as given at very low elevations [20].
by [18]. Fluctuations in the angle-of-arrival (AoA) produced The random intensity variations from scintillation cause, on
by beam deflections lead to jitter or dancing of the image average, a fading loss. Its fluctuations are described best by
on the detector plane. During uplinks, the AoA fluctuations a lognormal probability density function, which can be used
account for only 0.2 nrad. Downlinks, on the other hand, will to determine a new effective bit error rate (BER) [19]. A
experience deviations of 1.7 µrad. These can be corrected at more general method to describe the fading loss in a turbulent
the OGS via first-order adaptive optics (i.e., tip-tilt mirrors). channel uses a threshold probability pthr to determine an
Over long-term time frames, the beam’s spot size during effective scintillation loss Lsci , and is given by:
uplinks expands over a larger area in an effect called beam

spreading. Its broadening is approximately proportional to the q
hard aperture of the transmitter [18]. As the effective aperture Lsci = 4.343 erf −1 (2pthr − 1) 2ln (σI2 (D) + 1)
of the OGS for uplinks has been reduced to 4 cm, the beam  (4)
1
− ln σI2 (D) + 1


gets expanded by just 2.2% and will not be further considered.
2
However, over short-term periods, the instantaneous center of
the beam gets displaced randomly by the beam wander. Same where erf −1 stands for the inverse error function and σI2 (D)
as the beam spreading, beam wander only affects uplinks [18]. for the scintillation index averaged over the aperture D [21].
For elevation angles of 30º and a reduced hard aperture of 4 With a scintillation index of 0.033 during uplinks and a

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
191
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

we will use a 50/50 splitting ratio and therefore, a splitting

loss of -3 dB for each channel.
After the signal has been forked it must be coupled onto the
detector surface or an optical fiber. Its coupling efficiency is
strongly dependent on the receiver radius [22]. With a typical
core diameter of 9 µm, optical fibers will suffer a coupling
loss of -5.0 dB. The losses when coupling onto the detector’s
surface are almost negligible due to its comparably large size.

Optical Link Budget:

A robust optical link exhibits a link margin of 3 dB between
Fig. 8. Point-ahead angle of a satellite over its altitude for three Lunar orbits.
the power at the detector and that required to achieve a specific
BER. Using Friis’ transmission equation for all the relevant
gains and losses, it is possible to determine the power that
threshold probability of 10−3 , the loss due to scintillation reaches the detector surface for each channel, as given in
becomes -2.5 dB. The scintillation index for downlinks is Table III for uplinks and Table IV for downlinks. The effective
much smaller due to aperture averaging (i.e., σI2 (D) = 0.0008) power at the detector results from adding the coding gain
and yields a fading loss of just -0.4 dB. to the detector power. The results are given for an OOK-
Another critical aspect of FSO communications with satel- NRZ modulation format, an RS(255,223) FEC coding scheme,
lites is the point-ahead angle (PAA). The emitter’s pointing night conditions simulated with the HV night model, a satellite
mechanism must compensate for the change in the spacecraft’s elevation of 30º, and an IM/DD detection technology.
position during the signal round-trip time due to the space-
craft’s high velocity. Whether the path of the uplink channel TABLE III
undergoes the same atmospheric conditions as the downlink U PLINK LINK BUDGET ( ALL VALUES ARE GIVEN IN dB)
channel (i.e., reciprocal channels) depends on whether the
Uplink
isoplanatic angle is larger or smaller than the PAA [18]. The Parameter
Comm. Tracking
PAA of the satellite on Lunar orbit was determined considering Coding gain 4.0 0.0
its orbital speed, the Lunar orbital speed around Earth, and the Mean power 17.8 17.8
rotational speed of the topocentric OGS. Fig. 8 shows the PAA Tx Antenna gain 102.1 102.1
Optical loss -0.3 -0.3
of a Lunar satellite on three relevant orbits: equatorial clock- Pointing loss -2.0 -2.0
wise, polar, and equatorial counterclockwise. Shaded in blue Range loss -310.0 -310.0
are all possible values for the PAA at different inclinations. For Ch Atmospheric attenuation -0.8 -0.8
Scintillation loss -2.5 -2.5
comparison, the black line represents the isoplanatic angle for Antenna gain 103.7 103.7
an elevation of 30º of 9.6 µrad. A reciprocal channel for up and Rx Optical loss -1.5 -1.5
downlinks requires that the PAA is smaller than the isoplanatic Splitting loss -3.0 -3.0
Coupling loss 0.0 0.0
angle. The advantage of passing both beams through the same Power at detector -96.5 -96.5
LB
patch of the atmosphere lies in the possibility of correcting Effective power -92.5 -96.5
wavefront distortions with adaptive optics. Alternatively, the
OGS would require a synthetic beacon or a laser guide star
[18]. Careful selection of the satellite altitude and inclination
will influence how distortions can be corrected. TABLE IV
D OWNLINK LINK BUDGET ( ALL VALUES ARE GIVEN IN dB)
Receiver:
The receiver gain Gr is given analogous to the transmitter Downlink
Parameter
Comm. Tracking
gain Gt in (1) by: Coding gain 4.0 0.0
Mean power 0.0 0.0
4πAr Tx Antenna gain 99.8 99.8
Gr = (1 − γ 2 ) (5) Optical loss -0.3 -0.3
λ2
Pointing loss -2.0 -2.0
where Ar is the area of the receiver’s primary mirror, and Range loss -310.0 -310.0
γ is its obscuration ratio [22]. The gain for uplinks using an 8 Ch Atmospheric attenuation -0.5 -0.5
cm aperture receiver is 103.7 dB, and for downlinks with an Scintillation loss -0.4 -0.4
Antenna gain 123.6 123.6
80 cm receiver, 123.6 dB. Rx Optical loss -1.5 -1.5
Further losses to consider at the receiver are splitting and Splitting loss -3.0 -3.0
coupling losses. The receiver uses two detectors—one for Coupling loss -0.1 0.0
Power at detector -94.4 -94.3
beam tracking and one for data reception—and the incoming LB
Effective power -90.4 -94.3
signal has to be split between both detectors. For this study,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
192
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

An experimental analysis of the 4QD detector used for antenna with a 21 m dish and 10 kW uplink power, the
the tracking channel showed that 250 pW or -96.0 dBW system’s data rate decreases to just 8 Kbps for downlinks and
of power are needed to achieve accurate tracking. Its link 1 Kbps on uplinks [24].
margin is shown in Table V. The low margin proves that the As summarized in Table VI, in its simplest configuration of
satellite will not reliably track the OGS beacon, especially 2 U, 1.7 kg, and 35 W, SelenIRIS would achieve 4.4 Mbps
during uplinks. To improve the tracking channel, a more in uplinks and 7.2 Mbps in downlinks. The downlink rate
sensitive detector could be designed with a minimum required represents a nearly 30-fold increase compared to the JPL IRIS
sensitivity of 100 pW. Alternatively, one could enlarge the radio terminal in conjunction with the DSN. An additional
satellite’s telescope aperture. A 12 cm primary mirror would advantage of FSO systems over their RF counterparts is the
increase the link margin in up and downlinks by 3.6 dB at the increased availability of small-sized antennas at a significantly
expense of additional volume requirements. This last option lower operating cost.
will be further discussed in Subsection IV-C. For the most data-hungry transmissions, the 4 to 6 U
configurations incorporate a coherent transceiver. The 6 U
TABLE V concept adds a 12 cm telescope which would allow using
L INK MARGIN FOR THE TRACKING CHANNEL
the same tracking detector as in past OSIRIS missions. The
Tracking following subsection describes these concepts in more detail.
Parameter
Uplink Downlink It must be noted, that this study has solely focused on
Effective power -96.5 dBW -94.3 dBW
Rx required power -96.0 dBW -96.0 dBW
APD detection technologies. Better detectors—e.g., supercon-
Link margin -0.5 dB 1.7 dB ducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPD)—or larger
telescopes can be used at the ground station to improve
downlink data rates.
As for the communication channel, the required power at
the APD detector for a specific BER can be determined with: C. Payload Design
The SelenIRIS mission has been designed based on the
Preq = Ep rb S (6) experience and hardware of O4C and CubeISL. Different
concept designs have been proposed to meet varying SWaP
where Ep = (ℏc)/λ is the photon’s energy, ℏ is Planck’s
requirements. In its elementary configuration of 2 units, as
constant, rb is the system’s data rate, and S is the detector’s
shown in Fig. 9, the system includes a 1 U telescope with
sensitivity for a given BER in photons per bit [17]. By
an 8 cm aperture and an intensity modulation and direct
selecting a required power at any detector 3 dB lower than
detection (IM/DD) receiver. 1 U is the most compact telescope
the effective power, we can ensure a link margin of the
volume that can incorporate the large-aperture required from
same magnitude. Considering a state-of-the-art APD with a
the link budget analysis. The COTS telescope is made of SiC
sensitivity of 500 photons per bit for a BER of 10−9 [23], we
to withstand temperature drifts with minimal deformation and
obtain the necessary data rate rb to achieve the required power
weighs less than 0.7 kg. The collecting aperture has been
for a reliable link. Table VI gives the resulting data rates for
maximized, resulting in an obscuration ratio of 0.3.
a robust Moon-Earth optical link with the SelenIRIS terminal.
The optical transceiver includes an emitter with a seed
laser that receives information and telemetry from the data
TABLE VI
ACHIEVABLE DATA RATES FOR THE COMMUNICATION CHANNEL handling unit (DHU). The laser signal is then amplified to
1 W by the EDFA, passed through a collimator, and exits
Comm. the terminal through the two-mirror telescope. At the receiver,
Parameter
Uplink Downlink
Effective power -92.5 dBW -90.4 dBW the signal enters through the telescope and is reflected on
Rx required power -95.5 dBW -93.4 dBW the fast-steering mirror (FSM). The FSM accurately aligns
Data rate 4.4 Mbps 7.2 Mbps the incoming signal path with the center of the 4-quadrant
detector (4QD). The reflected beam from the FSM crosses
the chromatic beamsplitter, aligning the emitted and received
Comparison with SOTA RF communication: signal along the same path. It is then forked at an achromatic
Based on the results from the link budget, it has been shown beamsplitter which divides its intensity between the 4QD
that with the current technological stand, DLR can develop a tracking detector and the more sensitive APD sensor for the
CubeSat communication terminal for high data rate exchange data. On the core of the transceiver is a microcontroller in
between a Lunar satellite and a ground station. The current charge of exchanging telemetry with the DHU, processing the
RF standard terminal for Lunar CubeSats is the JPL IRIS data from the tracking sensor, and forwarding information to
v2.1 radio transceiver. At its full transmitting capabilities, the the FSM actuator.
terminal utilizes a SWaP of 0.78 U, 1.3 kg, and 35 W. In Placed at the base of the terminal is the DHU. This pro-
connection with the Deep Space Network (DSN), the LunaH- cessing unit handles most of the information, monitors critical
Map CubeSat will achieve a maximum downlink rate of 256 components, and communicates with the satellite’s onboard
Kbps and uplink rates of 8 Kbps. Using a moderate-sized computer (OBC). A radiation-hardened COTS FPGA has been

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
193
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

angular pointing error from 9.0 µrad to 6.1 µrad in order to

Telescope EDF Amplifier maintain the same pointing loss of -2.0 dB.

V. S UMMARY AND O UTLOOK

Optical transceiver In this paper, we present SelenIRIS: a high data rate Moon-
Earth optical communication terminal for Lunar CubeSats. We
have described three relevant Lunar transfer options for Cube-
Sats and analyzed the environmental radiation dose for each
Data Handling Unit scenario and mission duration. In a worst-case scenario with a
slow-thrust maneuver and one-year mission duration, the total
Fig. 9. System design of the 2 unit optical terminal. radiation dose still meets the acceptable levels tested on most
COTS components that were used in previous missions.
A link budget between a Lunar satellite and a terrestrial
chosen with the capability to simultaneously write and read the ground station has assessed the first-order limitations of the
data of the optical terminal at a maximum speed of 1 Gbps. optical terminal. It has proven that the current bottleneck lies
Table VII details each concept’s expected size, weight, and at the tracking channel and, especially, the 4QD sensitivity.
power (SWaP) requirements. The 2 U design is comprised of Ensuring that a robust link can be held will need either a
a 1 U telescope and a 1 U optical terminal. The telescope component redesign or a larger telescope at the satellite. With
weighs 0.7 kg and the transceiver 1 kg. The whole system these improvements, SelenIRIS would achieve data rates of 4.4
requires 35 W of power during operation. Mbps for uplinks and 7.2 Mbps for downlinks. These rates
represent a 550-fold improvement in uplinks and a 28-fold
TABLE VII improvement in downlinks compared to SOTA RF terminals
S IZE , WEIGHT, AND POWER ANALYSIS FOR RELEVANT DESIGN CONCEPTS
with similar SWaP requirements. Additionally, an optical link
Volume Size Weight Power would significantly reduce requirements and costs for the
2 units 20x10x10 cm 1.7 kg 35 W ground station.
4 units 20x20x10 cm 3.2 kg 58-75 W The aforementioned data rates are given for the simplest 2
6 units 25x15x15 cm 4.0 kg 58-75 W
unit configuration proposed for the SelenIRIS mission. At the
expense of additional SWaP requirements, the system can be
The 4 U configuration expands the functionality of the extended with a 2 U coherent receiver or a 3.3 U telescope with
2 U concept with a coherent receiver. To accommodate the a 12 cm aperture. With a coherent detection scheme, downlink
increased volume requirement, two additional units have been rates of 90 Mbps would be possible, and even faster data rates
allocated for this purpose. This configuration shows a trade- can be achieved with single-photon detectors. Future studies
off between a larger SWaP (see Table VII) in exchange will discuss these improvement possibilities in more detail.
for enhanced sensitivities of 100-200 ppb for the satellite’s
coherent receiver. The coherent transceiver weighs around 1.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
kg and consumes an additional 23 to 40 W of power. We would like to especially thank Andrea M. Carrillo
The OGS will also need a coherent transceiver. Due to Flores from the Institute of Communications and Navigation
its size—larger than 40 cm—, the coherent signal has to be at DLR for her contribution to the link budget analysis under
corrected with adaptive optics (AO) before mixing the received atmospheric turbulence effects and her help in the revision of
beam with the local oscillator. The coherent detector at the this paper.
OGS combined with AO requires only 40 ppb to achieve the
same BER as an IM/DD APD detector with a sensitivity of R EFERENCES
500 ppb. For a sensitivity of 40 ppb and a required power of [1] B. Rödiger, C. Fuchs, J. R. Nonay, W. Jung, and C. Schmidt, “Miniatur-
-93.4 dBW, the achievable data rate for downlinks increases ized Optical Intersatellite Communication Terminal – CubeISL,” 2021
drastically to 90 Mbps. The data rate can be improved even IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC
Workshops), pp. 1-5, 2021.
further with single-photon detectors, like SNSPD. [2] D. M. McIntosh, J. D. Baker, and J. A. Matus, “The NASA CubeSat
Besides the coherent receiver, in its biggest configuration Missions Flying on Artemis-1”, NASA/34th Annual Small Satellite
of 6 U, the satellite also includes a larger telescope of 3.3 U Conference, Paper SSC20-WKVII-02, 2020.
[3] J. Parker and R. Anderson, “Low-Energy Lunar Trajectory Design”, JPL
and 12 cm aperture. The telescope’s weight increases to 1.5 NASA, 2014.
kg, while its gain improves by 3.6 dB. The communication [4] D. Folta, D. Dichmann, P. Clark, A. Haapala, and K. Howell, “Lunar
data rate would increase to 10 Mbps during uplinks and 16 Cube Transfer Trajectory Options”, NASA/AAS Space Flight Mechanics
Meeting, Paper AAS 15-353, 2015.
Mbps during downlinks. Moreover, the tracking link margin [5] S. Buchner, P. Marshall, S. Kniffin, and K. LaBel, “Proton Test Guideline
would improve enough to allow maintaining the same track- Development – Lessons Learned”, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
ing technology as has been used in past OSIRIS missions. 2002.
[6] I. Esquivias, and others, “Evaluation of the radiation hardness of GaSb-
However, the ampler aperture leads to a smaller divergence based laser diodes for space applications”, 12th European Conference
angle during downlinks, thus diminishing the allowable OGS on RADECS, pp. 349-352, 2011.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
194
 2022 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS)

[7] P. Henderson, and others, “Space validation of 1550nm DFB laser diode
module”, Proc. SPIE 11180, International Conference on Space Optics
– ICSO 2018, 111805G, 2019.
[8] A. Ladaci, and others, “Optimized radiation-hardened erbium doped
fiber amplifiers for long space missions”, Hournal of Applied Physics
121, 163104, 2017.
[9] J. Ma, and others, “Space radiation effect on EDFA for inter-satellite
optical communication”, Optik 121, pp. 535–538, 2008.
[10] T. S. Rose, D. Gunn, and G. C. Valley, “Gamma and proton radiation
effects in Erbium-doped fiber amplifiers: Active and passive measure-
ments”, Journal of lightwave technology, Vol. 19, 2001.
[11] A. S. Huntington, L. A. Sellsted, M. A. Compton, and E. W. Taylor,
“Mesa-isolated InGaAs avalanche photodiode damage by ionizing radi-
ation”, Proc. SPIE 8164, Nanophotonics and Macrophotonics for Space
Environments V, 816404, 2011.
[12] H. N. Becker and A. H. Johnston, “Dark current degradation of near
infrared avalanche photodiodes from proton irradiation”, IEEE Transac-
tions on Nuclear Science, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 3572-3578, 2004.
[13] D. Orsucci, J. R. Nonay, A. Shrestha, and F. Moll, “QCalc: a tool to
compute classical and quantum communication rates over free-space
optical channels”, Proc. SPIE 11868, Emerging Imaging and Sensing
Technologies for Security and Defence VI, 118680F, 2021.
[14] R. Barrios, B. Matuz, and R. Mata-Calvo, “Satellite Communications in
the 5G Era: Ultra-high-speed data relay systems”, IET Telecommunica-
tions Series, vol. 79, pp. 341-373, 2018.
[15] B. J. Klein and J. J. Degnan, “Optical antenna gain 1: Transmitting
antennas”, Applied Optics, vol. 13, pp. 2134-2141, 1974.
[16] W. K. Marshall and B. D. Burk, “Received optical power cal-
culations for optical communications link performance analysis”,
NASA/Communications Systems Research Section, TDA Progress Re-
port 42-87, pp. 32-40, 1986.
[17] H. Hemmati, “Near-Earth Laser Communications”, CRC Press, 2009.
[18] L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, “Laser Beam Propagation through
Random Media”, SPIE, 2nd Edition, 2005.
[19] A. Mustafa, D. Giggenbach, J. Poliak, and S. T. Brink, “Quantifying
the effect of the optimization of an m-fold transmitter diversity scheme
with atmospherically induced beam wander and scintillation”, Photonic
Networks, vol. pp. 1–3, 2019.
[20] D. Giggenbach and F. Moll, “Scintillation Loss in Optical Low Earth
Orbit Data Downlinks with Avalanche Photodiode Receivers”, IEEE
International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications
(ICSOS), pp. 115-122, 2017.
[21] D. Giggenbach and H. Henniger, “Fading-loss assessment in atmospheric
free-space optical communication links with on-off keying”, Optical
Engineering, vol. 47, pp. 046001 1–6 , 2008.
[22] J. J. Degnan and B. J. Klein, “Optical antenna gain 2: Receiving
antennas”, Applied Optics, vol. 13, pp. 2397–2401, 1974.
[23] M. S. Ferraro, and others, “Impact-ionization-engineered avalanche
photodiode arrays for free-space optical communication”, Optical Engi-
neering, vol. 55(11), 111609, 2016.
[24] A. Babuscia, C. Hardgrove, K. M. Cheung, P. Scowen, and J. Crowell,
“Telecommunication System Design for Interplanetary CubeSat Mis-
sions: LunaH-Map”, 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1-9, 2017.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ La Laguna. Downloaded on July 31,2024 at 12:36:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
195