Satcom for ATM
Iris workshop ESTEC, 18th September 2007
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 2
Objectives
The objective of this study is to specifically investigate whether or not a satellite system dedicated to safety
communications can be made economically viable for a vast majority of aircraft categories.
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 3
■Budget: 715 k€ESA: 450 k€ (63%)CNES: 265 k€ (37%)
■Partners:Core team: 8Consultancy: 9
■Duration: 9 months
■CCN (3 months)
Organisation
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 4
Study logic
Service requirements(WP 1000)
System architecture (WP 2000)
Service provision(WP 3000)
Deployment scenarios (WP 4000)
Cost analysis(WP 5000)
Business case(WP 6000)
STEP
1ST
EP 2
STEP
3ST
EP 4
WS 1
WS 2
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 5
Mission requirements
ATC ANSP
AOC CSP
SATM
Mission requirements
ATC services: Provided by infrastructure composed by a terrestrial and a satellite systemAOC services: Open competitionList of services to take into account:
Data link everywhere & Voice services in remote areasTwo types of services: “Deterministic services” & “Best effort services”
Out of scope for SATM system: A/A comm’s, ADS-B, ground services (airport)QoS requirements:
COCR v1.0
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 6
Capacity requirements
Satellite design depends on capacity distribution
■ New simulation tool:
SAAM
Flight capacity simulator
ECAC capacity simulator
Benefits:Easy to adapt to new scenarios (services, priorities, cells, etc)Scalable
Current work: Aeronautical Traffic loader
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 7
Flight capacity simulator
ResultsBursty trafficBig time of inactivity (64%)Low amount of dataGraphical Weather service to be reviewed
ParametersATC & AOC servicesFlight time: 70 minutesTMA dep: 7 minutes (2 sect)TMA arr.: 10 minutes (3 sect)
Return link Forward linkAverage rate (bps) 164,53 195,48Global information exchanged (kbits)
740,41 879,68
Peak rate (kbps) 4,12 9,44
Return link Forward linkAverage rate (bps) 166,52 570,18Global information exchanged (kbits)
749,34 2565,83
Peak rate (kbps) 4,32 35,46
With Graph. Weather Without Graph. Weather
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 8
Global capacity simulator
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 9
1
23
567-8
9-10
11-12
4
13-14
15-16
Number of aircraft
Résolution 0.5º = 55.6 km
Global capacity simulator
■ Unicast total capacity: Forward: 520 kbps Return: 435 kbps
■ Broadcast: 45 kbps■ Total capacity per service type:
Best effort: • F: 400 kbps• R: 300 kbps
Deterministic:• F: 160 kbps• R: 190 kbps
Global capacity simulator
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 10
Aeronautical Traffic loader
■Software traffic loader■Based on COCR or SATM req’s
ATC AOC
■Platform independent UDP packets Priority is managed Log file available
■Measurements: Time delay
GES AES
GES Traffic loader
AES Traffic loader
Aeronautical comm’s
simulator
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 11
System architecture design
System Design
sate
llite
GES
AES
Dedicated, piggy-back or rentedGeo orbit, ECAC or global coverageEIRP: 52 dBW ~ 41 dBW
Centralised and distributed architecture
Low gain antenna: 0dBiLow transmit power: EIRP 8,8 ~13,5 dB Other drivers: cable loss, antennalocation, diplexer, redundancy
Services requirements can be met (QoS policy)Time delay IntegrityAvailability to be achieved with inter-system redundancy
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 12
Functional architecture
Terrestrial network
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 13
Space segment : payload
■ Antenna module Single beam, 3 and 5 beams studies Satellite antennas: 2,4 meters (regional beam
& global beam) G/T from L-band antenna is the main constraint
■ Bent pipe repeater AMS(R)S L band (mobile link) & Ku band (fix link) L-band: Proven technology (XM Radio, MTSAT) Ku-band: Proven technology
■ Payload power/mass: From 1525 W / 119 kg up to 2386 W / 240 kg
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 14
Coverages
Global beam coverage Regional beam coverage
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 15
Air interface
■ Option CDMA (dedicated) GES: Centralized or distributed Synchronous CDMA Connectionless Data rate: 5.5 kbps Turbocoding ½
Forward link Return link
■ Option DVB-S2 GES: Centralized Single TDM Symbol rate: 1 Mbaud Adaptative modcod Less power required High spectrum efficiency
■ Option CDMA (dedicated) GES: Centralized or distributed Synchronous CDMA Data rate: 5.5 kbps Aloha, mini-slot & DAMA
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 16
SATM analysisLink budgets
300
150812
1288
Pow. Sat (W)
78
401000
1000
Bit rate (kbps)
41.4
38.452.8
52.8
Sat. EIRP (dBW)
Scenario 3: Global
Scenario 3: GlobalScenario 2: 2.4 m
Scenario 1: 1.4 m
2
3.2
5.4
5.4
Bit rate (kbps)
-8.6
-8.6
-3.6
-1.6
G/T Sat (dB/K)
11.5
13.5
10.8
8.8
AES EIRP (dBW)
Scenario 3: Global
Scenario 3: Global
Scenario 2: 2.4 m
Scenario 1: 1.4 m
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 17
Avionics
■ Trade-off analysis (G/T & EIRP)■ Architectural drivers:
Antenna issues (0 dBi antenna)• Size & drag: Small, low drag blade configuration • Location:
– Shadowing– Multipath– Space diversity (depending on satellite configuration)
RF Cable loss Thermal design : passive cooling
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 18
Avionics
■ Trade-off analysis to lower the cost■ Cost drivers: Reliability / Availability analysis + High Power
Amplifier ■ Options considered: Voice capability, dual receiver, CDMA
receiver■ Technical features:
Dual 0 dBi antenna (low gain antenna, easy to install in every aircraft)
EIRP (From 13.5 dBW global beam to 8.8dBW European beam)
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 19
Service provision
Market architectureANSP have VHF networkCSP offers bundled
services to usersIndependents providers in
the value chainFlexible pricing
Current situation
Lessons learnt:Modest competition is
necessaryPreserve intellectual
propertyCapacity planning is
important
Mandatory carriage
ATSC services
ThreatsCompetitor systemsAirline acceptability:
Mandate benefits Cost reductions
Open competition
AOC services
ThreatsCompetitor systemsAirline acceptability:
Cost reductions
Market architectureNeed for an oversight bodyValue chain
Future situation
UnbundledSatelliteoperator
GES operator
End-user
BundledSatelliteoperator
GES operator
CSP
End-user
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 20
Deployment scenarios
The FCI will include 2 segments :• A new Ground radio system• A new Satellite radio system
Carriage of FCI avionics will be mandatory in 2020. A transition period of 7 years is considered
Full FCI Operation
Initial FCI Operation
Avionics Transition
Satellite Radio
Ground Radio
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
2013 - Carriage Mandate
2020 - Paradigm Shift
2008 - SESAR Master Plan for Future Communicatino Infrastructure (FCI)
NEW COMMUNICATION STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
TRANSITIONPHASETO FCI
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 21
Deployment scenarios
D e d ic a t e d S a t .A T M P a y lo a d
D e d ic a t e d S a t .
D e v e lo p m e n tP h a s e
T r a n s i t io nP h a s e
F u l l O p e r a t io n a lP h a s e
A T M P a y lo a dD e d ic a t e d S a t .
A T M P a y lo a d
L e a s e d C a p a .
D e d ic a t e d S a t .D e d ic a t e d S a t .
L e a s e d C a p a .
A T M P a y lo a d
A T M P a y lo a d
123
4 A T M P a y lo a d
L e a s e d C a p a .5
L e a s e d C a p a .
D e d ic a t e d S a t .
Deployment scenarios provide planning inputs for Business Assessment
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 22
Ex : ATM Satcom Deployment Scenario 5
Space Segment Assumptions for Scenario 5• Lease Capacity for Development Programme
• First Space Segment Element– 1 ATM Dedicated Satellite
– Support Transition & Full Operational Service
– Lifetime 15 years
– Launch target : 2014
• Second Space Segment Element– 1 ATM Dedicated Satellite
– Lifetime 15 years
– Support Operational Service
– Launch target : 2017
• Refurbishment of ATM Dedicated Satellite will be required around 2030
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 23
Ex : ATM Satcom Deployment Scenario 5
Ope. Space Sgt (2)
Ope. Space Sgt (1)
Ope. Ground Deployment
Avionics Deployment
Aircraft Certification
Avionics Certification
System Standardisation
System Validation
Test User Segm ent
Tes t Ground Segm ent
Dedicated Satellite
Dedicated Satellite
Lease Capacity
Full Satcom Service
Initial Satcom Service
Development Program m e
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
2013 - Carriage Mandate
2018 - Full Satcom Capability
2011 - System Test Bed
2020 FCI Target
Development & Launch of Dedicated Satellite
Development & Launch of Dedicated Satellite
Reduction of risks space sgt Limited verification
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 24
Business Scenarios - Building Blocks
Services
System Architecture and Deployment
Market Environment
Funding Scenario
Business Scenario
Linked
Rev
enue
Flo
wC
ost P
rofil
e
Private Venture
(PV)
Public Procurement
(PP)
Public Private Partnership(PPP/PFI)
Reduced Nominal
ECAC ATS ECAC AOC Non ECAC
Users Competition Pricing
OR
OR OR
+ +
+ +
ExtendedOR
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 25
High Level Schedule
Space Segment 1 (Initial)
Space Segment 2 (Full Deployment)Space Segment 1R (Replenishment)
EDC FCC EoC
Init Ops (4y) Full Ops (16y)
S/S Next generation
Development / Validation
CAPEX 1 CAPEX 2 CAPEX R
Pioneer AOC Service Full AOC Service
2008 2013 2018 2027 20332020
SESAR Master Plan
SATM Phases
SATM CAPEX
SATM Space Segment Life
SATM Equipment
SATM Services
Equipment Ramp UpStandard Definition
ICAO Standard ReadyA/C Equipment KO
A/C Equipment Finished
Development Phase
Deployment Phase FCI Full Operations
ATSC operator certification Full ATSC service
Equipment Maintenance
T0 T0+5y T0+7y T0+14y T0+20y
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 26
System Scenarios - Cost Profiles
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Scenario 3 - 1 Sat + 1 PayloadScenario 5 - Baseline - 2 satsScenario 6 - 2 sats (global coverage)
Yea
rly
Co
st (
M€)
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 27
Revenue ModelingService Value Chain and Charging Scheme
RCO
ANSP
SATM Operator
ATSC Fees (% of RC)
ATSC Fee(Terrestrial Radio)
ATSC Fee (Satcom)
Airlines ATS
Route Charges Payment (RC)
Subscription Fee + Service usage fees
AOC SatCom service lease
Satellit
e ATS
C &
AOC servi
ce
ATSC & A
OC
Service Charge
Satellite AOC
capacity
Commercial Operators
ATSC Service
Access (TR + SAT)
CSPRetention (OPEX, CAPEX amortization
(TR), margins)
RegulatedCompetitive
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 28
Revenues – Nominal Scenario
Yearly Revenue Flow
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Time
Year
ly R
even
ues
(M€)
ATSC
AOC
Extended coverageRevenues (20 years total)
AOC Revenues 445 M€ATSC Revenues 647 M€Nominal Revenues 1 092 M€
Non ECAC services 93 M€Extended Revenues 1 185 M€
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 29
Business case conclusion
■ For the funding scenarios: The PFI offers the best compromise
• Most financially attractive to both public authorities and private investors• More robust to cost and revenues uncertainties• Best guarantees in terms of viability and permanency over years
The Private Venture scenario considered does not look financially viable
A Public Procurement could be considered if the business case does not attract private investors
■ Main drivers:Operator exposure to various risksUser equipment ramp-upSystem size vs. serviceCompetition against other solutions
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 30
PPP / PFI Scenario
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 31
PPP / PFI - Funding Distribution
Public Sector
Concessionnaire
100% CAPEX1
100% CAPEX280% Debt20% Equity
OPEX
Debt Repayment
Interests and taxes
% REPCAPEXREP Debt interests
REP Debtagainst assets and a running
business
Initial Deployment Full Deployment Full Operations Replacement of Assets
PPP Investment - Funding Distribution
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Timeline (Years)
Fu
nd
ing
(M
€)
-80
20
120
220
320
420
520Public FundsEarly RevenuesSATM SPC DebtSATM SH EquityCum. Investment
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 32
PPP / PFI – Cash Flow Balance
ToP
AOC 3P
Senior Debtrepayment
EquityReturn
% Route Charges Operations
Costs
SATM Public Authority
SATM Private Operator
SATM Revenues
3P RevSharing of Commercial Revenues
50%
50%
The ToP guarantees the senior debt repayment and operating costs
The AOC commercial revenues and eventual extra revenues will generate the concessionnaire return
The revenue sharing mechanism reduces the public sector contribution and consequently the savings could be potentially flown down to the end users
Interest & Tax
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 33
PPP - SATM SPC Cash Flows
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Timeline (Years)
Cas
h Fl
ow (M
€)PPP / PFI – Financial Results
SATM Concessionnaire IRR = 21% over 20 yBreakeven Point reached at t0+8y (2022)Public Sector NPV = -110 M€
■ The expected IRR is considered as attractive for private investors
■ The concessionaire will finance the replenishment with a fair deal by
Equity Cash FlowOperational phase
Equity Cash FlowFull system
Cumulate Equity Cash Flow
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 34
PPP / PFI - Sensitivities
The concessionaire is robust to AOC market risk, nevertheless AOC revenues could also be considered as an additional upside for investors (public or private)
Sensitivity to AOC price PPP Scenario
AOC price (M€) 0 2 4 6 8 10AOC Revenues (M€) 0 74 148 222 297 371
SATM Operator IRR 10,43% 14,15% 17,71% 21,03% 24,25% 27,36%Public Sector NPV 2008 (M€) -202 -171 -141 -110 -79 -49
Sensitivity to Public Sector Contribution PPP Scenario
Contribution to Initial CAPEX 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 80% 80% 80% 80%AOC revenue sharing (private part) 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 90% 80% 70% 60%AOC Revenues (private part) (M€) 222 222 222 222 222 222 400 356 311 267
SATM Operator IRR 21,03% 15,59% 12,18% 9,65% 7,62% 5,70% 17,12% 15,97% 14,78% 13,51%Public Sector NPV 2008 (M€) -110 -90 -70 -49 -29 -9 -143 -125 -106 -88
The PPP relies a lot on the public sector initial CAPEX contribution, however, the public contribution to the initial CAPEX can be reduced
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 35
PPP / PFI - Conclusions
■The expected IRR is considered as attractive for private investors
■The concessionnaire seems robust to market risk■The funding of the initial CAPEX by the development agency
contributes a lot to the expected profitability but could be lowered
■The replenishment of assets seems feasible without endangering the concessionnaire viability
Iris Workshop 18 Sept. 2007 36
General conclusion
■Several scenarios for a satellite-based system for aeronautical communications have been analysed.Technically, a satellite system could meet the requirementsThe business case shows that it is economically viable.
■Many points are still open:The mandatory carriage confirmationThe final mission requirements (ATC and AOC)A deep analysis on the communication standard
■Some of these points will be treated in the next months