See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337464987

An assessment of IoT via satellite: Technologies, Services and Possibilities

Conference Paper · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

3 3,253

2 authors:

Roger Birkeland David Palma

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
81 PUBLICATIONS 396 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 1,046 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roger Birkeland on 23 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822

An assessment of IoT via satellite: Technologies, Services and Possibilities

Roger Birkelanda and David Palmab

a
Department of Electronic Systems, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway,
roger.birkeland@ntnu.no
b
Department of Information Security and Communication Technology, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, david.palma@ntnu.no

September 2019

Abstract
The number of proposed satellite constellations for communication purposes has been steadily
increasing in the past years. Currently, more than 18 constellations have been proposed and
are in different stages of development, from early design to having already launched in-orbit-
demonstration (IOD) satellites. The common feature among these different proposals is that
all of them aim to provide connectivity to IoT sensor systems in areas outside coverage from
terrestrial mobile networks.
Despite the generalized use of IoT for several purposes, IoT via satellite systems typically
target a few special use-cases, leaving other relevant applications and services behind. In this
work, we study and discuss how such systems can be integrated and augment a broader range of
terrestrial IoT and mobile systems. This includes an analysis of the technical properties of the
constellations, their service philosophies, and how they are aligned with existing communication
networks. Relevant cellular and non-cellular terrestrial technologies are considered, including
LoRA, SigFox and 5G alternatives such as NB-IoT.
The impact of mega constellations will also be taken into account, identifying existing tech-
nology and service gaps. These gaps in satellite-IoT systems and in mega constellations may
result in an inadequate augmentation of terrestrial networks and fail to fulfill user requirements.
Relevant end-user services are investigated, spanning from asset tracking, simple environmental
and industrial sensors to more advanced sensor networks in remote areas. The different user
requirements are compared and matched against available and upcoming IoT solutions.
From this, different strategies for integration of IoT via satellite with terrestrial systems are
proposed and evaluated.

1 Introduction Nations Sustainable Development Goals [1], in par-

ticular when considering innovative, responsible and
Communication is crucial in our daily lives, and our sustainable development in remote/unconnected re-
dependence on being online is only growing. It is im- gions of the world. Challenges to future satellite so-
portant for our personal life and well-being, as well as lutions encompass a careful allocation of specific ra-
for our work, our research and our administration of dio frequencies for various applications, as well as de-
resources. In urban and well-developed parts of the tailed technical provisions and regulatory procedures.
world, communication services are plentiful, but one This includes with mobile networks, namely with the
should not venture far outside a city before coverage fifth generation cellular technology (5G) ecosystem.
gaps are encountered. The situation in developing Strategic integration avoids competing for frequen-
parts of the world is even more challenging. cies and instead helps to relieve congestion and over-
loaded networks, while also increasing connectivity
Satellites can be fundamental for enabling the United

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 1 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

when and where typical terrestrial networks (TNs) (5G PPP) and the International Telecommunica-
are not available. With this in mind, ongoing on tion Union (ITU) have been following these devel-
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifi- opments and contributing not only to the awareness
cations include studies and requirements for 5G satel- but also to the specification of integrated terrestrial
lite access and for the broadening the 5G technol- and non-terrestrial networks for improved communi-
ogy to non-terrestrial networks (NTNs) (e.g. satellites cations around the world [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 25].
and unmanned aerial systems) [2, 3, 4, 5]. In this paper we analyse how satellites can support
5G promises to revolutionise terrestrial communica- IoT, augment terrestrial networks and bring connec-
tions by enabling three defined main use-cases: en- tivity to areas where it is sparse or non-existent. Sec-
hanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) access for high tion 2 provides an overview of ongoing or proposed
data-rate applications; massive Machine Type Com- satellite networks, their characteristics, features and
munications (mMTC) for a large number of devices how they may support IoT around the globe. This is
with sporadic communication needs such as Inter- followed by an analysis of how cellular 5G networks
net of Things (IoT) applications; Ultra-Reliable Low- can be augmented by such satellite initiatives into
Latency Communications (URLLC) for mission crit- an integrated ecosystem, in Section 3. Section 4 re-
ical applications. However, such scenarios will likely views possible services and use cases considering dif-
only be available in urban areas, mostly ignoring rural ferent possibilities for system and network architec-
or underdeveloped areas due to their lower revenue tures. Finally, Section 5 provides avenues for further
potential. In these neglected areas small and light discussion and some concluding thoughts.
satellite terminals could provide reliable radio links,
or gateway ground-stations could be used as a back- 2 Satellite IoT
haul for affordable terrestrial solutions. Deploying
an ultra-secure and highly reliable optical backbone Communication links to remote sensor systems have
in space is already envisaged, supported by lasers to been available through machine-to-machine (M2M)
interconnect satellites and up to 1.5 times faster than communication over satellite for many years, before
fiber backbones (LeoSat) [6]. IoT was coined as a term. The Argos tracking sys-
Satellites can effectively provide coverage in remote tem [26] and Iridium dial-up or Short Burst Data
areas, support highly mobile users (e.g. aircraft and (SBD) [27] are good examples of this. Depending
ships, including first responders) and are suited for on definition, we may also include these in the IoT
different applications, from IoT to search and res- family, since their systems provide access and infor-
cue operations. Compared with terrestrial solutions, mation about sensors in remote locations. IoT is here
satellite connectivity is becoming increasingly more defined as such [28]:
cost effective when considering remote areas or devel-
oping areas. The integration of satellite and terres- The internet of things, or IoT, is a system
trial solutions is the most sustainable approach due of interrelated computing devices, me-
to the complementarity between the two solutions, chanical and digital machines, objects,
simultaneously fostering economic growth, social in- animals or people that are provided with
clusion and meeting consumer demand. unique identifiers (UIDs) and the ability
The importance of integrating terrestrial and non- to transfer data over a network without
terrestrial networks has been the subject of several requiring human-to-human or human-to-
research works, focusing on subjects such as vehic- computer interaction.
ular networks (air, space and ground) [7] or IoT
and maritime IoT [8, 9, 10, 11], and building on In addition to the existing systems, there are several
the main features and development from both net- initiatives that offer support for IoT-devices through
works (4G/5G) [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. The value of a satellite component. In this section we focus on
this integration is also acknowledged by the Euro- satellite systems independent from popular terrestrial
pean Space Agency (ESA) through several research communication solutions, and initiatives related to
projects [17, 18] such as SATINET [19], SATis5 [20] 5G are discussed separately in Section 3.
and M2MSAT [21]. Larger research projects funded A selection of efforts and developments on satellite
by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and communications suitable for IoT-like applications are
innovation programme such as SANSA [22], VI- summarized in Table 1. The table shows the main
TAL [23] and SAT5G [24] have also addressed the features for each of the systems, namely: System
integration of terrestrial and satellite networks. Sim- Type); Status; Frequency; Continuous coverage amd
ilarly, 3GPP, the 5G Public Private Partnership Arctic coverage. The System Types are divided into:

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 2 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

• A – Asset Tracking, corresponding to track- is still an unknown detail for other systems. Several
ing the location of objects as animals, vessels satellite initiatives have launched test satellites dur-
or freight ing the last 12 months, like Kepler [39], Lacuna [53],
• B – Narrowband IoT, corresponding to systems Astrocast[42] and Helios Wire [44]. Apart from Ke-
for generic two-way communication pler’s Ka-band service in operation, little is known
about their status, both regarding technical results
• C – Message-based IoT, corresponding to sys- and the financial soundness of these companies.
tems using one or two-way short messages
• D – Broadband, corresponding to systems ca-
pable of high-bandwidth generic two-way com- 3 5G Satellite and IoT
munication
Satellite access should allow the delivery of 5G ser-
Some systems may fall into more than one category. vices where terrestrial networks do not, and comple-
Regarding the status of a system, it may be consid- ment them where they do. 5G Satellite (5GSat) ac-
ered as Operational, in Testing or currently being cess has the potential of serving remote areas, or ar-
Planned. The considered frequency bands include eas prevented from service either due to economic
VHF, UHF, S-band and Ka/Ku. Not all systems reasons (low revenue vs. profitability) or to disasters
provide continuous coverage and this is shown in the that lead to outages or damaged terrestrial network
table as Yes or No (‘-’). Similarly, Arctic coverage infrastructures. Service continuity for verticals like
is not always provided and this will be noted with maritime communication, public safety, should also
Yes, No (‘-’) or partially (‘/’). ‘?’ denotes missing be supported by 5GSat networks.
or unknown information. Even though 5G considers eMBB, mMTC and
The table includes both generic services like Auto- URLLC as its main usage scenarios for terrestrial
matic Identification System (AIS) [31] and Automatic cellular networks, their implementation in satellite
Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) [32] networks may face some challenges. While eMBB
which are offered by several actors, or specialized pro- and mMTC are interesting scenarios for 5GSat,
prietary networks. Some of the systems are proposed ultra-low latency (e.g. < 1 ms over the air) cannot
to cover a broad aspect of communication services, be achieved with satellite links [4]. Examples of
and it can be assumed they will be linked to 5G in the eMBB supported by 5GSat include providing broad-
end. For example, the mega-constellations by Star- band connectivity (to moving/static cells/relay nodes
Link and Oneweb for access and backhaul, whereas and the core network), secondary backup connec-
Telesat is expected to only be used for backhaul. tivity, an anchor point between two networks, mul-
The different communication systems offer a variety ticast/broadcast, among other applications where
of services. Many revolve around communication sys- medium to large antennas and continuous power-
tems for asset tracking, while others focus on the supply are typically available. Contrastingly, mMTC
support of two-way communication. Asset tracking supported by 5GSat should provide connectivity to
means that the only information propagating through small/handheld, battery-operated IoT devices, where
the system is the position and other simple proper- continuity of service is desired, or instead provide
ties of an asset. Examples of this are GlobalStar [33], connectivity to a relay-node acting as a base station
Argos [26], AIS for tracking of ships and ADS-B for a connecting to other IoT devices. In addition, due
tracking of airplanes. These are mostly one-way com- to the wide service coverage capabilities and reduced
munication, where the end-users have little control vulnerability of space systems (e.g. physical attacks
over when the message should be sent, or the delivery and natural disasters), 5GSat mMTC can be used
time. Systems supporting two-way communication to to broadcast/multicast resources to a large scale of
small devices, such as Iridium dialup or SDB [27], Ke- devices (e.g. Firmware/Software Over The Air Up-
pler Kipp[39], VDES [41], and Astrocast [42] can be grades).
used for a wide range of applications. Similar to past 4G Satellite initiatives [14], 5GSat
Some systems provide direct access to the user equip- can provide service in un-served areas that cannot be
ment, like Iridium and Myriota [52], others provide covered by TNs (e.g. isolated/remote areas, aircrafts,
relay/gateway nodes to which smaller sensor nodes vessels) and in underserved areas (e.g. sub-urban or
(i.e. the UE) can connect to. Figures 2 and 3 show the rural areas) where the performances of TNs is limited
concept with and without the relay node. Similar ap- terrestrial. However, critical infrastructures such as
proaches are expected by proposed satellite systems energy grids and transport (e.g. railway, maritime,
that announce basing their services on LoRa, such aeronautical) increasingly rely on M2M/IoT devices,
as Lacuna Space [53] and Fleet [48]. However this where service availability must be ensured. If prop-

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 3 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

Table 1: Overview of IoT-like satellite communication systems and initiatives

Feature
System Status
T S F C A
Short, random messages, no Arctic coverage
OrbComm [29] A O V – – Own set of satellites. Evolved from type A to also C
L-band through Inmarsat
Short, random messages. Receivers on National Oceanic
ARGOS [26] A O U – Y and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites.
New generation closer to type C
Iridium SBD [30] C O L Y Y Short messages only.
AIS [31] A O V – Y Tracking vessels (and installations) only
ADS-B [32] A T V – / Tracking airplanes only
Low-rate two-way, modem type communications
Iridium [30] B O L Y Y
Iridium NeXT use large terminals, can be local gateways
Globalstar [33] B O L Y / Tracking services. Limited Arctic coverage
Inmarsat [34] B O L Y – No Arctic service
Gonets [35] B P U Y Y Low rate system.
Thuraya [36] B O L – – No Arctic coverage
First deployment in 53 deg orbit. Next phase
StarLink [37] D T K Y /
includes 81 deg, so no Arctic coverage the first period
No Inter Satellite Links (ISL), more Earth stations.
OneWeb [38] D T K Y Y
Indications of development for mobile equipment.
High-datarate service operational,
Kepler’s Kipp [39] D T K – Y
IoT-service planned
Telesat [40] D P K C Y Backhaul, not for single terminals
VDES [41] B T V – Y Shared system, limited capacity, low rate, two way
OQ Technology C P ? ? ? Low rate system
Astrocast [42] C T L – Y Two-way communication, very small messages
AISTECH [43] A P ? ? ? Asset tracking
Asset tracking, low-rate IoT + blockchain.
Helios Wire [44] C T S – –
Status of testing unknown.
Sky and Space Global [45] C T S – – Voice + short messages. No polar coverage.
Hiber Global [46] C T ? – Y Low rate
Aerial Maritime [47] A T V – - Asset tracking (AIS & ADS-B) between 37 deg N/S
Fleet [48] B T U – Y LoRaWAN [49] gateways. One terminal can cover 15 km
Spire [50] AIS & ADS-B.
Swarm technologies [51] C T U – Y Small sensors
IoT module/modem/egde computing device.
Myriota [52] B P ? ? ?
No extra gateway needed for users
Lacuna Space [53] B T ? ? ? Based on LoRaWAN
T
System type: A: Asset tracking; B: Narrowband IoT; C: Message based IoT; D: Broadband
S
Status: O: Operational; T: Testing; P: Planned
F
Frequency: V: VHF; U: UHF; S: S-band; K: Ka/Ku-band
C
Continuous coverage: Y: Yes; ‘–’: No
A
Arctic coverage: Y: Yes; ‘–’: No; ’/’: Partially

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 4 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

erly integrated with cellular 5G, 5GSat has the po- Important aspects in 5GSat include roaming between
tential of reinforcing the required service reliability terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, guaranteeing
in a cost effective manner and including all the fea- satellite trans-border service continuity as well as op-
tures provided by 5G (e.g. confidentiality, integrity, timal routing over satellite for enabling a global 5G
roaming, QoS, billing, among others). satellite overlay [2]. This would build on, for exam-
ple, constellations of LEO satellites providing access
3.1 Cellular 5G and 5GSat Integration to UEs, where each spacecraft is equipped with a
gNB and Inter-Satellite links for connecting to other
From an architectural point of view, connecting to spacecrafts. In addition, 5GSat access should also
a terrestrial network via Satellite access could be be aligned with 5G’s orchestration mechanisms, not
transparent, using a bent-pipe satellite payload for only for edge delivery, content offload and multi-
connecting to a ground station coupled with a Pub- access edge computing (MEC) VNF software, but
lic Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or core network. also for including satellite resources as Physical Net-
However, this view is too simplistic and would result work Functions (PNFs) in the 5G ecosystem.
in the loss of features and mechanisms provided and Overall, 5GSat should enable indirect connection
used by 5G. For example, due to longer propagation through a 5G satellite access network, which could
delays in satellite systems, timers used by protocols be used for example to enable communication in Off-
and mechanisms such as Hybrid Automatic Repeat shore Wind Farms. The possible satellite access ap-
Request (HARQ) would have to be extended in or- proaches can be defined as: 1) UE direct access to 5G
der to maintain functionality. satellite, 2) UE relayed access to 5G satellite RAN
In order to include satellite links between 5G’s New and 3) gNB supported by a satellite backhaul.
Radio (NR) access network and the Next Generation
Core (NGC) the 3GPP system must to be enhanced
not only to handle the latencies introduced by the
satellite backhaul, but also to support service con-
tinuity between land-based 5G access and satellite-
based access networks [2]. This implies not only pro-
viding services using satellite access but also ensuring
handover (HO) and roaming support. Such services
may be directly accessed by the UE, through a re-
lay UE or through a Next Generation Node B (gNB)
backhauled by a satellite link.
Compared to previous approaches to the Integration
of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, the use
of new non-geosynchronous orbit (NGSO) constella-
tions and the softwarisation of 5G into Virtualised
Network Functions (VNFs) creates both challenges
and opportunities. For example, while NGSO sys-
tems are enablers for massive IoT access at a lower
cost and with smaller energy requirements, the mo-
bility of the infrastructure’s transmission equipment,
such gNBs and Remote Radio Heads (RRHs) may
lead to Inter Carrier Interference (ICI) and increased
Figure 1: Traditional backhaul architecture
HO signalling [4]. On the other hand, VNF al-
lows the delocalization of network functions, which
could be used to improve the overall QoS scenarios Direct access can be provided by a 5G-enabled satel-
where, for example, in areas where user density is ex- lite that connects directly to the Core Network or
pected to increase (e.g. Access and Mobility/Session through an overlay of satellites. Alternatively, di-
Management Functions (AMF/SMF) delocalization rect access may also result from a bent-pipe satellite
to improve/enhance local communications). This re- (transparent, with no on-board processing capabili-
quires further investigation of services, their require- ties) used to connect to a 5G Satellite RAN. Relayed
ments, of configuration/maintenance and of regula- access occurs when a UE connects, using the 5G NR
tory frameworks between satellite and terrestrial net- interface, to a relay UE which in turn has capabilities
works, addressing service continuity, ubiquity and to connect to the satellite network. This connection
the scalability of these networks. again results either from a satellite directly providing

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 5 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

a 5GSat RAN or using a bent-pipe approach. These serving cell and a new one, possibly emerging in quick
approaches are further discussed in Section 4. succession above the horizon. However, it is not clear
A more traditional approach considers access through how eventual coverage gaps between satellites can be
cell towers (gNBs) supported by a satellite backhaul,handled, for example with delay-tolerant networking
where UE’s shall operate normally as with 100% ter- techniques [54].
Grouping the satellites of a constellation in a single
restrial networks. This solution is particularly inter-
esting for expanding a 5G mobile platform (e.g. a TA, or groups of TAs, of which a Tracking Area Iden-
train with installed gNBs) or for recovering access tity (TAI) List can be composed by the Access and
after disaster scenarios. In this case NR-capable de-Mobility Management Function (AMF) to send to
ployed towers would have their interfaces to the 5G the UE, is an already existing solution. However, the
Core directly transported over the satellite link, asdrawback is that by using the same TA the UE does
seen in Figure 1. not need perform Mobility Registration Updates and,
therefore, the network will be unaware of the UE’s lo-
3.2 Challenges and Possible Solutions cation, which will require it to page over large areas.
If each non-geostationary gNB is assigned a different
Typical cellular networks, and 5G, were not designed TAI then the network awareness of UE location is
to handle large coverage areas such as those given improved and so is the paging procedure, at the ex-
by satellite nodes, particularly geosynchronous or- pense of additional Mobility Registration Update sig-
bit (GSO) satellites. This raises questions regard- nalling. Currently, a new paging procedure with min-
ing connection management, node accessibility (pag- imum update signalling is being proposed by 3GPP
ing) and overall mobility. Different PLMNs may as an alternative [55], where the AMF provides the
be overlapped by a single satellite, cell selection UE with a list of Registration Areas that should fol-
mechanisms are open, roaming, authentication and low each other, in a pre-defined order, as expected in
billing/charging must also be taken into account. NGSO satellite constellations.

3.2.1 Mobility Issues 3.2.2 Access Issues

In order to ensure service continuity handover (HO) Radio Access in 5G (NR), was not designed for
signalling must be extended, supporting HO trigger- NTNs and therefore issues may arise when consider-
ing whenever a UE leaves or enters cellular cover- ing Satellite links. These issues arise from the speci-
age. This HO can happen between terrestrial and ficity of propagation channels, with different multi-
non-terrestrial networks, based on different handover path delay and Doppler spectrum models, from the
triggering policies. For example, a UE may leave a chosen frequency plan and channel bandwidth, from
5GSat network as soon as enough cellular coverage power limited link budgets, among other aspects.
is available but only only chose to leave a cellular The Physical Layer of NR needs to be adapted
network when the signal is too poor. (e.g. reference signals, preamble sequences, slot ag-
The HO process should be lossless and consider mea- gregation, Physical Resource Blocks, HARQ, among
surement report from both access technologies (ter- others), as well as MAC and network layers, in or-
restrial and non-terrestrial), while also supporting der to support the pairing between UL/DL bands
different possible NTN architectures (e.g. using re- for Satellite communications (e.g. S and Ka bands).
generative or bent-pipe payloads). For this purpose, In particular, appropriate modulation and coding
common mobility management techniques such as schemes for low Peak to Average Power Ratio
defining Tracking Areas (TAs) and Registration Ar- (PAPR) should be considered in order to guarantee
eas (RAs) must be used by both TNs and NTNs. power savings in the UL [4], which is particularly rel-
Regarding the definition of TAs, fixed beam spots of evant when considering direct access of IoT devices
a GSO satellite can be associated to a specific TA, in remote locations.
as defined by the Satellite Operator. With NGSO The possible range of maximum one-way delay val-
satellites a different approach must be used, with ues found in satellite access (from 30 ms to 280 ms
Earth-fixed TAs (based on latitude and longitude co- depending on altitude) raises questions on the im-
ordinates), which remain independent from moving pact on the 5G system, including in the Non-Access
beams spots. Stratum (NAS), where Session Management and Mo-
A mobility aspect to be considered specifically NGSO bility Management procedures are handled. This de-
satellites is the mobility of satellite gNBs, even when lay affects the link between the UE and gNB, as well
the UE is stationary. This will require the UE to as the link between the gNB and the Core Network.
perform a cell re-selection between the disappearing Architectural assumptions to minimise the impact on

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 6 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

the 5G NAS must be made and certain satellite re-

quirements may also be needed for minimising this
impact.
Latency may also have an impact on 5GSat’s Quality
of Service (QoS) and thus adding a new Radio Access
Technology (RAT) type identifier for satellite access
has been proposed. This allows the AMF to deter-
mine the RAT Type so that the Session Management
Function (SMF) is able to impose restrictions on
which QoS profiles can be used for Packet/Protocol
Data Unit (PDU) sessions going via the selected
RAT. Similar QoS concerns need to be considered
in 5GSat not only for direct UE-satellite access but
also when using a satellite-based backhaul, where for
example ultra-low latency (e.g. packet delay ≤ 5 ms)
cannot by supported by GSO satellites.
Figure 2: Transparent architecture

4 Services and Possibilities

Figures 2 and 3 show the foreseen architecture alter-
Novel satellite communication systems currently be- natives for satellites as part of 5G networks. The
ing planned will fill many of the existing commu- figures follow 5G nomenclature as defined by 3GPP,
nication gaps, if deployed. The impact of filling seeking to provide an integration between terrestrial
these gaps spans from cutting Internet-connection and non-terrestrial networks, but similar concepts
costs for regular households to bringing connectiv- can be valid for different systems as well. In addition,
ity to new areas of the globe. For example, a study while the figures depict only one satellite node, the
from BroadbandNow, released earlier in 2019, pre- space segment could correspond to a network or con-
dicts that households in the US may save up to $30 stellation of satellites with or without inter-satellite-
billion USD due to the entry of one or more alterna- links.
tive suppliers of broadband. The cost for households Figure 2 illustrates a bent-pipe satellite architecture,
with only one provider is 15% higher than for house- or transparent architecture, and can be seen as a
holds that have access to two providers [56]. Con- generic communication link between a user termi-
versely, in several remote areas without Internet con- nal and a terrestrial 5G base-station (gNB). With
nectivity – both on land, at sea, and in less-populated a transparent payload, the satellite is seen as Remote
areas as the Arctic and Antarctica – service coverage Radio Head (RRH), which is simpler from the space
would be the main added value. segment point-of-view, however it requires an NR-
based interface between the gNB and the RRH. This
NR interface requires additional care since it will be
4.1 Network Architecture Possibilities used in conditions different than those for what it was
designed (e.g. longer delays or Doppler shifts). In this
Generically, network architectures supported by approach, the gNB is connected to the satellite link
satellite systems use satellite link as a backhaul be- via a ground station and the UEs can either directly
tween the core network, or the Internet, and gateway connect using the satellite link (Direct Access) or via
nodes compatible with this link. In cellular networks a Relay Node (RN). The RN may either be seen as
these nodes correspond base stations (e.g. gNB) for 5G-compatible node that provides a standard 5G in-
other nodes to connect. This allows for nodes con- terface, or as a gateway for non-5G nodes/sensors.
strained by power or size, among other limitations, to Using an RN, in both transparent and regenerative
use different radio technologies and remain connected architectures, may reduce some of the differences be-
(e.g. LoRaWAN). As discussed in Section 3, and tween the two payload options. In particular, an RN
illustrated by Figure 1, such backhaul architecture can terminate procedures and air interfaces (up to
can be used to enhance 5G coverage. However, there Layer 3) and it may also allow for the use of standard
are alternatives to this solution, which requires pre- satellite communication links, or an adapted more
existing gNBs or the deployment of new ones (e.g. in suitable NR link for the backhaul (between RN and
remote locations or disaster areas). a [Donor]gNB), while keeping a standard NR inter-

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 7 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

face with the UEs. This would limit the impact of OneWeb [57]. The second method is to make use of
typical satellite channel impairment to this link only inter-satellite links (ISL) such that traffic is routed
and allow for simpler and more energy-efficient 5G through various satellites until a ground station is
communication with the UEs. reachable. Iridium and Starlink are examples of such
Figure 3 shows a regenerative satellite architecture approach, requiring a lower number of ground sta-
where the satellite acts a 5G base station (gNB). tions. However, satellites supporting ISLs demands
A regenerative payload typically increases satellite a larger and more capable platform with higher power
complexity but it also allows for lower delays since and maneuvering/pointing capabilities. This leads to
PHY/MAC procedures (e.g. error correction) can be a complex system design, both for the satellite bus
locally terminated at the onboard gNB. In addi- and operations [57].
tion, a regenerative payload allows using standardised As an alternative to ISLs between similar satellites
satellite-communication technologies for connecting in one system or constellation, it is also possible to
the satellite with the terrestrial gateway/NGC. Op- consider a backhaul network provided by satellites in
tionally, to simplify the payload, a satellite may only a different orbit. These can be larger and more com-
implement a gNB’s lower-layers, known as a gNB Dis- plex satellites in orbital planes that will be visible for
tributed Unit (gNB-DU, up to layer 3), and connect a longer period, such as GEO or HEO. Ultimately,
to the corresponding gNB Centralised Unit (gNB- different communication possibilities, and satellites
CU), typically hosted by the gateway. with varied size, cost and complexity, can be com-
bined to address different purposes.

Figure 3: Regenerative architecture

4.2 Satellite System Architecture Figure 4: Layered satellite architecture

An important focus from 5GSat is the ability to sup-
port mobility and handovers in order to maintain Figure 4 illustrates different satellite overlay possi-
continuous a link between the UE and the 5G core. bilities, ISL and backhaul, which can be combined
On the other hand, most of the existing or foreseen for creating alternative routing paths. This may con-
IoT Satellite systems typically provide a store-and- tribute not only to add robustness to the overlay net-
forward type of services, or possible intermittent two- work but also to explore different access options for
way communication. Each of these approaches has its UEs. As shown in the figure, in addition to UEs
benefits and drawbacks, which means that different directly connecting to NGSO satellites (e.g. LEO),
use-cases may fit better or worse. terrestrial gateways (static or mobile) may also sup-
There are generally two ways of ensuring a contin- port them by connecting directly to a GSO satellite
uous link between the user and the core network. backhaul.
One method is to make use of many ground sta- Satellites in GEO orbit may be suited for provid-
tions around the world, so that satellites are able ing backhaul connectivity since they are perceived
to directly relay traffic between a UE and the net- as being stationary and support powerful links, due
work core. This method is used for example by to their increased size and capabilities. Elliptical or-

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 8 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

bits as Highly Elliptical Orbits (HEO) or eccentric Different scenarios and UE properties are listed in
Medium Earth Orbit (eMEO) can also be used, as the table, such as two-way communications (two-
they provide coverage over a larger area with only way comms.), continuous coverage, Powerful UEs like
a few satellites. For example, the Arctic area can semi-mobile terminals on vehicles or larger sensor sys-
be continuously covered by only two or three HEO tems, low-energy UEs which can be small sensors de-
(for example, Molyna or Tundra orbits [58]) or eMEO ployed around a farm or a facility, constrained UEs
satellites. However, the use of GEO satellites may which can be terminals with limited antenna sizes,
impose a higher latency than LEO/ISL, depending tracking of small animals which implies low-energy
on the desired destination. A typical HEO system and constrained UEs, sparse deployments composed
will inflict a propagation latency similar to, or larger of UEs for tracking assets or monitoring the environ-
than, GEO satellites. eMEO-satellites, for example ment, and deployments of emergency base-stations.
in a 4-hour orbit, will cause a delay on the order of The table indicates that non-5G and 5G systems
30 to 40 ms one way, compared to over 100 ms with can offer complementary services, suitable for dif-
GEO. ferent needs. It is assumed that small, low-power,
low-rate and sparse sensor deployments will benefit
4.3 Services and Use Cases most from tailored or optimized non-5G solutions.
In these cases, the communication links can be tai-
Table 2 shows combinations of use cases that include lored to optimize the energy consumption. However,
a satellite component. The different architectures integrated 5G systems may also offer similar suitable
that we consider are 5G backhaul, 5G/IoT direct ac- solutions by using the same radio technologies and
cess to UE and 5G/IoT relayed access to UE. As ear- more streamlined approaches. This can be seen, for
lier specified, IoT satellite corresponds to satellite so- example, in the specifications of 4/5G Narrowband
lutions proposed before 5G. On the other hand, while IoT (NB-IoT) which does not include handover sup-
also support IoT, 5G satellite focuses on the integra- port and uses narrower carriers.
tion between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks.

Table 2: Use cases and architectures 5 Conclusions

5G 5G 5G IoT IoT The potential of satellite solutions for supporting

backhaul access relay access relay communications around the world is not new. How-
Two-way ever, there has been a significant increase of lower-
Y Y Y / / cost solutions compared to the traditional large-scale,
comms.
high-cost GEO satellites. In this paper we compare
Continuous
Y Y Y – – 27 new or developing satellite solutions with different
coverage
capabilities and explore their potential in supporting
Powerful
– Y Y Y Y IoT.
UE
While integrating satellite solutions as a backhaul
Low-energy for terrestrial networks has already been explored in
– / Y / Y
UE the past, this has mostly served high-throughput ap-
Constrained
– / Y Y Y
plications and not focused on the direct support of
UE UEs. Currently, the integration of terrestrial and
Tracking of non-terrestrial networks is a building block for 5G
– – – Y –
small animals and its ambitions of global coverage.
Sparse Regarding the integration of terrestrial and non-
– / – Y – terrestrial networks aspects that need to be re-
deployments
searched include the handover support in in NGSO,
Emergency
Y / Y – – which should be quick handovers and scalable. This
deployments
concerns the management of tracking and registra-
tion areas, information needed at the AMF, as well
In Table 2 a cell marked with ‘Y’ means that the ar- as techniques for handling paging the UEs. From
chitectural component in the respective column can the communication link perspective, increased prop-
support the use case and requirement in the corre- agation delays from NTNs require the adaptation of
sponding row. A cell marked with ‘/’ indicates par- MAC/RLC protocols and procedures. However, 5G’s
tial support, whereas a cell marked with ‘–’ indicates support of multiple radio access technologies and def-
a poor fit. inition of different slices/QoS bearers, among other

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 9 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

functionalities, may help with adoption of this tech- [3] ——, “Study on management and orchestra-
nology in distinct use cases. tion aspects of integrated satellite components
Despite the potential of a 5G solution for providing in a 5G network,” 3rd Generation Partner-
IoT around the world, with unified and standardized ship Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR)
approach for UEs and other network components, 28.808, 9 2019, version 0.2.0. [Online]. Available:
several approaches are possible. Different architec- http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/28808.htm
tures and technologies may be more suitable for dis-
tinct use-cases and their requirements. For example, [4] ——, “Study on New Radio (NR) to support
an integrated 5G satellite solution has the potential non-terrestrial networks,” 3rd Generation Part-
for providing a suitable answer in disaster scenarios nership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR)
such as floods, avalanches or other natural disasters. 38.811, 2019, version 15.2.0. [Online]. Available:
Deploying emergency base stations, or simply using http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/38811.htm
5GSat as an alternative backhaul link for damaged
terrestrial connections, could mitigate serious com- [5] ——, “Study on scenarios and require-
munication issues. On the other hand, due to the ments for next generation access technolo-
fast-paced evolution of the IoT and the wide range gies,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project
of applications, smaller and more agile satellite sys- (3GPP), Technical Report (TR) 38.913, 7
tems, may provide more adequate solutions and push 2018, version 15.0.0. [Online]. Available:
new technology without going through long and slow http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/38913.htm
standardization and roll-out phases. However, non-
[6] H. Zhao, “Enabling the next generation
5G systems may become more dependent on individ-
of satellite services,” ITU News, no. 2,
ual companies and their strategic plans, which leads
p. 52, 2019. [Online]. Available: https:
to a higher risk of a system becoming discontinued.
//www.itu.int/en/itunews/Pages/default.aspx
The choice between a standalone satellite-IoT and a
5GSat solution significantly depends on the use case [7] N. Zhang, S. Zhang, P. Yang, O. Alhussein,
being considered and on how these technologies may W. Zhuang, and X. S. Shen, “Software De-
evolve. We consider different network architectures fined Space-Air-Ground Integrated Vehicular
and use cases, based on currently available or pro- Networks: Challenges and Solutions,” IEEE
posed satellite systems, and conclude that use cases Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 7, pp.
characterized by extremely limited resources and/or 101–109, Jul. 2017.
physical constraints will benefit from tailored satellite
solutions, despite the integration of terrestrial and [8] M. Gineste, T. Deleu, M. Cohen, N. Chuberre,
non-terrestrial networks proposed by 5G. V. Saravanan, V. Frascolla, M. Mueck, E. C.
Strinati, and E. Dutkiewicz, “Narrowband IoT
Service Provision to 5g User Equipment via a
Acknowledgements
Satellite Component,” in 2017 IEEE Globecom
Workshops (GC Wkshps), Dec. 2017, pp. 1–4.
This work was funded by the project TEL.01.19.7
“IoT over satellite for remote areas”, funded by the [9] Z. Qu, G. Zhang, H. Cao, and J. Xie, “LEO
Norwegian Space Agency and NTNU. Satellite Constellation for Internet of Things,”
IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 18 391–18 401, 2017.

References [10] T. Wei, W. Feng, Y. Chen, C.-X. Wang, N. Ge,

and J. Lu, “Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Com-
[1] United Nations, “Sustainable development munication Networks for the Maritime Internet
goals,” accessed 08.09.2019. [Online]. Available: of Things: Key Technologies, Opportunities,
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ and Challenges,” arXiv:1903.11814 [cs], Mar.
sustainable-development-goals/ 2019, arXiv: 1903.11814. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11814
[2] 3GPP, “Service requirements for next gener-
ation new services and markets,” 3rd Gen- [11] M. D. Sanctis, E. Cianca, G. Araniti, I. Bisio,
eration Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech- and R. Prasad, “Satellite Communications Sup-
nical Specification (TS) 22.261, 2019, ver- porting Internet of Remote Things,” IEEE In-
sion 17.0.0. [Online]. Available: http: ternet of Things Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 113–
//www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/22261.htm 123, Feb. 2016.

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 10 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

[12] G. Giambene, S. Kota, and P. Pillai, “Satellite- [23] “Vital project H2020,” accessed 26.09.2019.
5g Integration: A Network Perspective,” IEEE [Online]. Available: http://www.ict-vital.eu/
Network, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 25–31, Sep. 2018.
[24] “SaT5g Project,” accessed 16.07.2019. [Online].
[13] A. Guidotti, A. Vanelli-Coralli, M. Conti, S. An- Available: https://www.sat5g-project.eu/
drenacci, S. Chatzinotas, N. Maturo, B. Evans,
A. Awoseyila, A. Ugolini, T. Foggi, L. Gaudio, [25] 5G PPP Architecture Working Group,
N. Alagha, and S. Cioni, “Architectures and Key “View on 5g Architecture,” 5G PPP,
Technical Challenges for 5g Systems Incorporat- White Paper, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available:
ing Satellites,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/
Technology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2624–2639, Mar. 07/5G-PPP-5G-Architecture-White-Paper_v3.
2019. 0_PublicConsultation.pdf

[14] A. Guidotti, A. Vanelli‐Coralli, T. Foggi, [26] CLS Group, “Argos (webpage),” 2014,
G. Colavolpe, M. Caus, J. Bas, S. Cioni, accessed March 2014. [Online]. Available:
and A. Modenini, “LTE-based satellite commu- http://www.argos-system.org
nications in LEO mega-constellations,” Inter-
[27] Iridium Communications Inc, “Iridium
national Journal of Satellite Communications
next: Advanced technology,” 2013, irid-
and Networking, vol. 0, no. 0, 2018. [Online].
ium NEXT: Advanced Technology. [Online].
Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
Available: http://www.iridium.com/About/
abs/10.1002/sat.1258
IridiumNEXT/Technology.aspx
[15] R. Gopal and N. BenAmmar, “Framework for
Unifying 5g and Next Generation Satellite Com- [28] “Internet of things (IoT) - definition,”
munications,” IEEE Network, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. accessed October 2019. [Online]. Available:
16–24, Sep. 2018. https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/
definition/Internet-of-Things-IoT
[16] L. Boero, R. Bruschi, F. Davoli, M. Marchese,
and F. Patrone, “Satellite Networking Integra- [29] Orbcomm, “Orbcomm webpage,” 2018, ac-
tion in the 5g Ecosystem: Research Trends and cessed August 2018. [Online]. Available: https:
Open Challenges,” IEEE Network, vol. 32, no. 5, //www.orbcomm.com/en/networks/satellite
pp. 9–15, Sep. 2018. [30] Iridium Communications Inc, “Iridium commu-
[17] “Satellite for 5g | ESA’s ARTES Pro- nications,” 2014, accessed 15.12.2014. [Online].
grammes,” accessed 16.05.2019. [Online]. Avail- Available: https://iridium.com
able: https://artes.esa.int/satellite-5g
[31] exactAIS, “Vessel monitoring,” 2014, accessed
[18] “Projects | ESA’s ARTES Programmes,” April 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.
accessed 16.05.2019. [Online]. Available: exactearth.com/applications/vessel-monitoring
https://artes.esa.int/projects?field_category_
tid%5B%5D=39&field_companies_target_id= [32] Delovski et.al, “Ads-b over satellite the world’s
All&sort_bef_combine=field_status_date_ first ads-b receiver in space,” in Proceedings of
value+DESC ESA Small Satellites Systems and Services 2014,
2014.
[19] “SATINET | ESA’s ARTES Programmes,” ac-
cessed 16.05.2019. [Online]. Available: https: [33] Globalstar, “Globalstar webpage,” 2103,
//artes.esa.int/projects/satinet accessed nov. 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.globalstar.com/products
[20] “SATis5 | ESA’s ARTES Programmes,” ac-
cessed 16.05.2019. [Online]. Available: https: [34] Inmarsat, “Inmarsat webpage,” 2013, ac-
//artes.esa.int/projects/satis5-0 cessed november 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://inmarsat.com
[21] “M2msat | ESA’s ARTES Programmes,” ac-
cessed 16.05.2019. [Online]. Available: https: [35] Gonets Leosat System, “Gonets.ru webpage,”
//artes.esa.int/projects/m2msat 2013, accessed Nov. 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://gonets.ru
[22] “SANSA - Horizon 2020 Project 2016,” ac-
cessed 26.09.2019. [Online]. Available: https: [36] “Thuraya,” online, 2019. [Online]. Available:
//sansa-h2020.eu/ https://www.thuraya.com/

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 11 of 12
 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Washington, USA, 21-25 October 2019.
Copyright © 2019 by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Published by the IAF, with permission and
released to the IAF to publish in all forms.

[37] Tech Insider, “SpaceX is working on [49] LoRa Alliance, “Lorawan™ 1.0.3 specification.”
a ’pizza box’ that should scare your [Online]. Available: https://lora-alliance.org/
internet company,” Sept 2015. [On- sites/default/files/2018-07/lorawan1.0.3.pdf
line]. Available: http://www.techinsider.io/
[50] “Spire. data and analytics from orbit,” 2019.
spacex-satellite-program-brings-global-internet-access-2015-9
[Online]. Available: https://www.spire.com/en
[38] OneWeb, “Oneweb homepage,” 2015, ac-
[51] “Enabling global connectivity with the world’s
cessed October 2015. [Online]. Available:
lowest-cost satellite network,” 2019. [Online].
http://oneweb.world/
Available: https://www.swarm.space/
[39] Kepler, “Kepler’s first ku-band satellite is in [52] “Myriota,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https:
orbit,” accessed February 2018. [Online]. Avail- //myriota.com/
able: http://www.keplercommunications.com/
blog/item/first-launch [53] “Tracking assets,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.lacuna.space/
[40] “Telesat,” Online, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.telesat.com/ [54] M. Amadeo, G. Araniti, A. Iera, and A. Moli-
naro, “A Satellite-LTE Network with Delay-
[41] Recommendation ITU-R M.2092-0 - Tech- Tolerant Capabilities: Design and Performance
nical characteristics for a VHF data ex- Evaluation,” in 2011 IEEE Vehicular Technology
change system in the VHF maritime mo- Conference (VTC Fall), Sep. 2011, pp. 1–5.
bile band, ITU, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.2092 [55] 3GPP, “Study on architecture aspects for using
satellite access in 5G,” 3rd Generation Partner-
[42] “Astrocast - the nanosatellite iot net- ship Project (3GPP), Technical Report (TR)
work,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: 23.737, 9 2019, version 1.0.0. [Online]. Available:
//www.astrocast.com/ http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23737.htm

[43] “AISTECH - Access to Intelligent Space Tech- [56] BroadbandNow, “Elon Musk & Jeff Bezos Can
nologies,” Online, 2019. [Online]. Available: Save American Households $30+ Billion with
https://www.aistechspace.com/ LEO Satellites,” online, 2019. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://broadbandnow.com/research/
[44] “HeliosWire,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: leo-satellite-internet-consumer-savings-study
//helioswire.com/
[57] I. del Portillo, B. G. Cameron, and E. F.
[45] “Sky and Space Global,” 2018. [Online]. Avail- Crawley, “A technical comparison of three
able: https://www.skyandspace.global/ low earth orbit satellite constellation systems
to provide global broadband,” Acta Astro-
[46] “Iot connected, pole to pole, east to west,” nautica, vol. 159, pp. 123 – 135, 2019.
2019. [Online]. Available: https://hiber.global/ [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0094576518320368
[47] “Aerial maritime,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://aerial-maritime.com/GB.aspx [58] Lars Løge, “Arctic communications system uti-
lizing satellites in highly elliptical orbits,” Ph.D.
[48] “Fleet space technology,” 2019. [Online]. Avail- dissertation, Norwegian University of Science
able: https://www.fleet.space/ and Technology, 2013.

IAC-19,B4,7,13,x51822 Page 12 of 12

View publication stats