https://lnkd.in/eSC7kS38
I have received many questions regarding this article in which industry (including a representative from Hughes) commented on the reality of implementing true interoperable SATCOM systems. This has been concerning to those in the DoD along with Defense contractors who have advocated for interoperability (including Hughes!). How can we argue both sides? As is often the case, the devil is in the details and I believe the DoD and industry are on a path to interoperable systems. It all depends on how they are defined.
True interoperability at the physical layer (waveform) can be found in DoD purpose built systems (AEHF, MUOS, EBEM over WGS) but is unlikely in commercial systems due to their proprietary nature. Even if this is achieved, interoperability as you go up the stack (7 layer OSI model) becomes increasingly difficult as commercial operators introduce their own design methods and network features.
Many point to our cell phones as an example of how this can be achieved but seem to miss the fact that there are now over 5 billion subscribers worldwide and the cost of implementing a standard is easily supported. Even 30 years ago when the industry was only 10 years old and the subscriber count was near 25 million we witnessed the "standards wars" with TDMA, CDMA and GSM all jockeying for position.
Given there are likely less than 10 million users in todays GEO/MEO/LEO world, creating such a standard is difficult to justify. Of course, 5G Release 17 will serve as a non-terrestrial extension of the current cellular subscriber base and once again a common standard will be justified (but we are not there yet...).
So where to in our quest for interoperability? Given modems are small and cheap these days with even identical SDR chipsets being used in most implementations, why not just port the various waveforms? Again, proprietary technology and differences in the higher layers of the stack make it difficult. I have been told that even documenting the first few layers of a network for others to use could cost millions and LEO systems only make that more difficult given their complexity.
That said, we are seeing more emphasis on the use of open hardware implementations (CMOSS, SOSA, etc) where various modems can "plug and play" in a LEO/MEO/GEO world. Some even feel the Holy Grail of antennas will be upon us soon: an ESA that covers the Ku and Ka bands; linear, LH and RH circular polarizations; and tracks from the horizon to zenith with enough G/T and EIRP to close LEO, MEO and GEO links (we can all dream...)!
We are seeing a lot of DoD funding going to these multi-orbit implementations (DEUCSI, STtNG, etc), but does this get us true interoperability or just multi-orbit versus single orbit "smoke stacks"? The answer lies in the use of modern, software definable network management solutions. Look for more on this over the next few weeks!
Dir, Media Expert Services & Software Systems Engineering
9moThis is super interesting! I'm curious to how they manage multi link types in a mesh like architecture that yield different latencies and capacities. The decision to use Satellite versus fiber has always included things like pricing, reachability and capacity blending them into a mesh topology is an interesting concept.