Link Budget Analysis of Bi Directional LEO and GEO Optical Feeder Links Advancing The Beam Wander Model's Accuracy

www.nature.
com/scientificreports
OPEN Link budget analysis

of bi‑directional LEO and GEO
optical feeder links advancing
the beam wander model’s accuracy
Carla Cantore 1,3*, Davide Monopoli 1,3, Angelo Altamura 2, Alberto Mengali 2,
Marco Grande 1 & Antonella D’Orazio 1
The telecommunications of the future rely on the concept of a three-dimensional architecture able
to integrate terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks with the goal to ensure a reliable and high-speed
connectivity to users located anywhere. In this context, free space optical communications constitute
a candidate technology for feeder links, thanks to their advantages in terms of bandwidth and
achievable data rates. Nonetheless, due to the propagation impediments encountered by an optical
beam travelling through atmosphere, flexible and accurate instruments able to support the design
of optical feeder links are needed. Therefore, in this paper a link budget numerical tool able to meet
these requirements is presented and the link budget analysis for real optical feeder links is performed
demonstrating its prediction accuracy by means of the comparison with experimental results for
both low Earth orbit and geostationary Earth orbit based configurations. Finally, the limits of the
conventional beam wander model are analyzed and overcome.
Free space optical (FSO) communications, consisting in the line-of-sight transmission of a modulated optical
beam between a transmitter and a receiver, are gaining more and more attention as a possible solution to cope
with the ever-increasing demand for higher bandwidths and capacities arising from the spread of multimedia
services as well as from the definition of new use cases for future fifth generation and Beyond (B5G) and sixth
generation (6G) n etworks1. Besides the communication performance improvement that comes with every new
generation of mobile networks, one of the B5G/6G main goals is to overcome the current lack of a reliable and
broadband connectivity serving users living outside urban areas, but also to improve the resilience of the exist-
ing network infrastructures in response to natural disasters and emergency s ituations2. Therefore, future mobile
networks will rely on the new concept of 3-D networks made up of terrestrial and non-terrestrial nodes, such
as satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and high-altitude platforms (HAPs), allowing to reach a high-
capacity worldwide connectivity.
In the context of non-terrestrial networks (NTNs), the possibility to employ the FSO technology is under
investigation due to its numerous advantages, among which it is necessary to mention the availability of a huge
amount of spectral bandwidth, in the order of Terahertz, not subjected to regulations. The latter can allow to
reach the high data rates required by the actual and, above all, future expected traffic demand that conventional
radiofrequency (RF) links are not able to meet, but also to overcome the congestion experienced by the RF
licensed spectrum. Moreover, optical wireless communications (OWCs) offer less power consumption for the
same throughput and smaller system sizes compared to the RF c ounterpart3, other than a lower beam divergence
that, considering only geometric effects, leads to a higher signal intensity at the receiver and makes it more dif-
ficult for a malicious user to perform an attack.
In addition, the European Space Agency (ESA), within its ongoing High Throughput Optical Network
(HydRON) project4, has already identified FSO technology as the solution to develop an all-optical global net-
work through the seamless integration of the existing terrestrial optical transport networks (OTNs) with a new
space-based optical network architecture able to guarantee the same performances, in terms of capacity and
throughput, delivered by the fiber-based OTN. This new paradigm implies the adoption of bi-directional FSO
links between optical ground stations (OGSs) and satellites, i.e., optical feeder links (OFLs), as well as optical
1
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Polytechnic University of Bari, 70126 Bari, Italy. 2European
Space Agency, ESTEC, 2201 AZ Noordwijk, The Netherlands. 3These authors contributed equally: Carla Cantore
and Davide Monopoli. *email: c.cantore@phd.poliba.it
Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 1
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
links among satellites, i.e., optical inter-satellite links (OISLs)5. The latter are characterized by a more mature
technology already employed, for example, in the European Data Relay System (EDRS), and deployed in the
SpaceX’s Starlink constellation6. The former are more challenging to implement so that several demonstrations
were carried out, but no operational OFL is available y et7. This is due to the propagation channel, i.e., while an
OISL runs far from the terrestrial atmosphere, an OFL involves the propagation of the optical beam both through
free space and atmosphere, being the latter the limiting factor in the achievable system performances due to
several phenomena affecting the optical beam differently from the ones experienced by a RF signal. Among them,
the most detrimental one is represented by atmospheric turbulence which induces several effects on the optical
beam, such as scintillation and beam wander. Therefore, in order to support future systems design activities, it
is necessary to estimate the achievable performances through the accurate evaluation of typical figures of merit.
In this paper, a flexible numerical tool able to support the design of both ground-to-space and space-to-
ground OFLs is proposed. In particular, the tool focuses on the link budget estimation which allows to evaluate
the feasibility of a link from the computation of the received optical power taking into account the influence of
all the system components, i.e., the transmitter, the channel, and the receiver, on the optical beam propagation
through gain and loss terms.
In literature, several examples of link budget analysis for OFLs have been reported8–14 that show several limits.
The majority of the existing literature works is focused on the link budget calculation for specific scenarios
of interest, often modeling only one propagation direction, i.e., only u plink12 or only d ownlink13, while others
10,12,14
consider just one propagation t heory . The numerical tool proposed in this paper presents several advantages
and novelties with respect to them. First of all, the accurate modeling of turbulence-induced phenomena has
been fulfilled, considering the differences between uplink and downlink propagation directions, as well as two
different propagation theories, i.e., the Rytov theory, valid only under weak turbulence, and the extended Rytov
theory, valid under all turbulence regimes.
Moreover, some turbulence-related quantities are often neglected or evaluated only through analytically
simpler but not so accurate models, although they play an important role when it comes to evaluate the perfor-
mances of FSO links through atmosphere.
Among them, beam wander, which leads to pointing errors and increased scintillation, plays a major role
in the achievable system performances, as will be deeply explained in the next sections. The proposed model
evaluates the pointing loss deriving from beam wander as well as the induced scintillation aggravation, which are
overlooked in8–10,14. Furthermore, the tool allows to overcome the limitation related to the adoption of a coarse
link distance approximation in the conventional model describing the turbulence-related beam wander effect,
through the possibility of substituting it with: (1) a more accurate geometrical approximation; or (2) with the
exact link distance value. The integration of this tool capability stems from a novel investigation about the impact
that the link distance accuracy has on the beam wander-related quantities. To the best of author’s knowledge,
this is the first time that this analysis has been addressed.
High pointing accuracies are crucial to establish OFLs. Indeed, due to the narrow optical beam divergence
and to the Gaussian laser irradiance profile, transmitter and receiver alignment must be ensured. Our link
budget model differentiates itself from existing ones by the capability to evaluate the losses deriving from both
deterministic pointing errors, e.g., misalignments in the transmitter optics, and random errors, such as beam
wander and mechanical vibrations. Indeed, most literature works neglect pointing e rrors8,9,14, or evaluate their
impact in a restricted way. For example10, only models deterministic pointing errors, u nlike13 that only consid-
ers random pointing jitter, while11,12 apply an approximated model which does not distinguish between random
and deterministic errors.
Another critical aspect to evaluate the OFL availability is represented by perturbed sky effects. Despite
this10,12,13, do not include the losses deriving from hydrometeors in their link budgets. Several empirical mod-
els can be found in literature regarding fog, clouds, rain, and snow losses, whose applicability depends on the
considered scenario. Thus, the proposed numerical tool gives the flexibility to choose among different models
to compute the losses related to perturbed sky effects, differently from other works, such a s11, that do not offer
this kind of versatility.
In a previous paper, we developed a preliminary optical link budget m odel15. In this paper, we present a
novel link budget numerical tool for OFLs, which accounts for the accurate modeling of beam wander as well as
deterministic and random pointing errors, giving the possibility to analyze the transmission of both tracked and
untracked beams. Moreover, the numerical tool is able to evaluate link budgets of dynamic scenarios involving
low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites. This is done reconstructing the satellite orbit and computing the link budget
for sampled time instants, spanning the link duration. In such a way, the impact of the varying link geometry on
the system performance can be established.
Thanks to these capabilities, the accuracy of the proposed link distance approximation has been demonstrated
against varying elevation angles, consequently proving the relevant improvement in the beam wander and link
budget estimations performed by the tool.
The numerical tool accounts for several models quantifying the turbulence strength, derived from experi-
mental campaigns. This feature, together with the previous ones, allows to reliably estimate OFLs performances,
as demonstrated by the analysis of real experimental scenarios.
In conclusion, the tool has been developed paying attention to guarantee flexibility, which has been reached
giving the possibility to the user to freely define the scenario under analysis through the definition of many input
parameters, as well as allowing to choose between different available mathematical models to evaluate the losses
related to each propagation phenomenon.
The paper is organized as follows. “System and channel models for OFLs” section describes the electromag-
netic phenomena and the implemented models involved in the optical beam propagation through atmosphere
and free space together with those related to the evaluation of the losses. In addition, the contributions of the
Vol:.(1234567890)
receiver and transmitter to the link budget are shown. “Link budget analysis for experimental OFLs” section
provides the validation of the proposed numerical tool based on the comparison of real data derived from OFLs
experimental demonstrations and measurements, highlighting the tool accuracy and sweep capabilities. “Impact
of link distance on the beam wander for experimental OFLs” section investigates the impact of the aforemen-
tioned different link distance evaluations on the quantities related to beam wander. Finally, conclusions and
future works are discussed in “Conclusions” section.
System and channel models for OFLs

An OFL can be seen as a point-to-point FSO link in which the transmitter modulates the information bits onto
an optical carrier that is collimated and sent, by means of a telescope, through the channel. At the receiver, a tel-
escope collects the incident beam through its lens and focuses it onto a photodetector which converts the optical
signal into an electrical one that can be elaborated and demodulated to retrieve the transmitted information data.
The geometry of an OFL between an OGS and a satellite is shown in Fig. 1, in which L is the link distance,
i.e., the distance between the OGS and the satellite, H and hOGS are the satellite and OGS altitudes, respectively,
being ζ the elevation angle between them. RE is the mean Earth radius and dATM is the length of the atmosphere
portion crossed by the optical beam.
This section aims to provide a comprehensive description of the way in which each element composing the
overall OFL affects the beam propagation and, consequently, the received optical power. This analysis requires to
distinguish between the two possible propagation directions, i.e., ground-to-space or uplink and space-to-ground
or downlink. This is due to the channel asymmetry since an uplink beam travels first across the atmosphere and
then through the free space, as opposed to a downlink one.
Each electromagnetic phenomenon or system component taking part in the link budget evaluation is dis-
cussed, along with the implemented mathematical models.
Free space
The free space portion of the propagation channel induces only diffraction of the optical beam while it propa-
gates. Therefore, an attenuation term LFS related to the growing beam divergence experienced by the wave must
be accounted for in the link budget equation. According to the Friis law
2

LFS = (1)
4πL
where (m) is the operating wavelength and L (m) is the link distance.
Absorption and scattering

The terrestrial atmosphere is made up of gases and particles whose density decreases with altitude. Their interac-
tion with the optical beam can lead to absorption and scattering of some photons resulting in loss and angular
redistribution of the beam energy, respectively. Both phenomena strictly depend on wavelength and on the
concentration and size of the atmosphere molecules for a specific location.
Absorption and scattering are commonly grouped together under the name of extinction, representing the
attenuation experienced by a wave propagating through the atmosphere. The related loss, τATM (dB), is quanti-
fied by the Beer–Lambert l aw16
τATM = 10 log10 exp [−α()dATM ] (2)
in which dATM (m) is the length of the atmosphere portion crossed by the optical beam and α() (m−1) is the
extinction coefficient16.
Optical turbulence
The heating of the Earth surface due to the incident solar radiation is the cause of random air temperature
variations. The latter, combined with random pressure variations, induce optical turbulence, i.e., stochastic
Figure 1. Optical feeder link geometry.
Vol.:(0123456789)
fluctuations of the atmosphere refractive index, both in space and t ime17. This phenomenon is described by
the Kolmogorov theory, which follows a statistical approach, and leads to three main effects involved in the
optical beam propagation, i.e., scintillation, beam wander, and additional beam spreading. To understand how
these effects are differently involved in the two transmission directions, it is necessary to mention that optical
turbulence comes with the formation of turbulent eddies whose sizes are comprised between an inner scale of
turbulence l0 and an outer scale L017.
The turbulence entity is quantified by the refractive index structure parameter Cn2 (h) (m−2/3) which, for a slant
path as the one involved in an OFL, depends on the altitude h (m). Even if several mathematical models exist in
literature for this parameter, the most used is the Hufnagel-Valley (HV) one, expressed a s17
w 2
2 −5 10 h −16 h h
Cn (h) = 0.00594 (10 h) exp − + 2.7 · 10 exp − + A exp − (3)
27 1000 1500 100
where w (m/s) is the root mean square wind speed and A (m−2/3) is the nominal value of the structure parameter
at ground level.
The values A = 1.17 × 10−14 m−2/3 and w = 21 m/s, recommended by the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) for nighttime observations18, lead to the so-called HV-5/7 model19. To represent different turbulence
strengths, multiples of the HV-5/7 model, indicated as MxHV-5/7 can also be considered.
The proposed numerical tool also implements a modified version of the HV model accounting for the ground
layer atmospheric effects on an OGS located at an altitude hOGS (m) above the mean sea level12.
Another turbulence-related parameter is the atmospheric coherence length r0 (m), also-called Fried’s param-
eter, whose expression depends on the wave model. Even if the transverse mode emitted from a laser is typically
Gaussian, the downlink beam is well approximated by a plane wave17, while the uplink one by a spherical wave20.
In the first case, the Fried’s parameter can be evaluated as3
H − 35
r0 = 0.423k2 sec (ξ ) Cn2 (h) dh (4)
hOGS
where ξ ( ◦ ) is the zenith angle between the OGS and the satellite located at an altitude H (m) and k = 2π/ is
the wavenumber. Instead, for a spherical w ave3
H 5 − 3
h − hOGS
3 5
2
r0 = 0.423k sec (ξ ) Cn2 (h) · 1− dh . (5)
hOGS H − hOGS
A smaller value of r0 is associated with a stronger turbulence level.
Scintillation
When the eddies size is comparable with the beam size, redistribution of the energy within the beam occurs
resulting in irradiance fluctuations, known as scintillation.
While scintillation does not change the average received optical power, it induces temporal variations in its
instantaneous value that can still degrade the OFL performance. Indeed, it can eventually lead to fading of the
received signal below the receiver sensitivity, reducing the link availability17. The latter is related to the fraction
of operating time in which link failure occurs and, depending on the application, a specific link availability is
required.
Scintillation is typically quantified through the scintillation index, i.e., the normalized variance of irradiance,
whose mathematical expression changes based on the propagation direction for a slant path.
The scintillation index, in the most general case, is the sum of a radial term and a longitudinal one. Nonethe-
less, considering that in uplink the transverse correlation width of irradiance ρc (m) will be certainly larger than
the receiver aperture diameter DR (m)17, it is possible to assume the receiver as a point one and, consequently, to
consider only the longitudinal component of σI2. On the contrary, in the downlink case ρc can be smaller than
DR implying that the link will benefit from aperture averaging at the receiver, reducing the scintillation impact.
The expression of the scintillation index depends also on the turbulence regime. For weak turbulence regime,
the Rytov theory regarding the beam propagation through turbulence can be adopted which is also more compu-
tationally manageable. Instead, outside this regime, the expression derived from the extended Rytov theory must
be considered, given that the latter is valid in all turbulence regimes. The expression of the transverse correlation
width also varies according to the two theories hence, given the chosen model and propagation direction as input
parameters, the proposed numerical tool evaluates σI2 through the proper expression, automatically verifying
for the downlink case if ρc is smaller than DR and, if so, applying the averaged scintillation index expression. All
the implemented expressions for the scintillation index can be found i n17.
The evaluation of the scintillation index is essential to compute the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and bit error
rate (BER) in a FSO link, as stated i n21.
To counteract turbulence-induced fading, a proper link margin, i.e., a surplus of optical power, should be
considered at the transmitter side. The choice of an adequate link margin can be done evaluating the probability
that the received power falls below a given t hreshold22. Thus, a mathematical model for the probability density
function (PDF) of the received irradiance is required.
An expression for the scintillation-related fade margin LSI (dB) has been derived in23, according to which
Vol:.(1234567890)

1 1
LSI = 4.343 erf −1 (2ρthr − 1)[2 ln (σI2 + 1)] 2 − ln (σI2 + 1) (6)
2
where ρthr is the desired fraction of outage time, i.e., the probability that the received power falls below the con-
sidered threshold, and σI2 is the scintillation index. This model assumes a lognormal PDF for the received power
after aperture averaging. Moreover, some evidence that the lognormal distribution for power holds even when
the received intensity PDF does not follow a lognormal behavior, as in presence of strong turbulence, exists14,23.
The model of Eq. (6) does not consider that deep fades can cause loss of clock, requiring a certain time period
to achieve resynchronization of the bit stream, during which data are lost. Thus, an increase in the mean BER
will be experienced. Moreover, it does not account for the additional fading coming from pointing and tracking
errors.
In conclusion, the presented model has been implemented in the tool, together with an approximated ver-
sion valid only in specific ranges of ρthr and σI223, to give an estimation of the required fade margin. Nonetheless,
the computed value must not be considered sufficient to counteract turbulence and achieve the desired link
availability, especially in scenarios where the lognormal model for the received power does not hold. Other
mitigation techniques, such as forward error correction codes and interleaving, must be employed to achieve
the desired B ER21.
Beam wander
Eddies bigger than the beam size induce random displacements of the beam hot spot at the receiver, known as
beam wander. This effect can be neglected in downlink since, due to the cited asymmetry, the downlink beam will
spread in free space reaching the atmosphere with a diameter larger than the typical outer scale of turbulence.
Instead, in uplink, the beam will stay smaller than L0 through the atmosphere path suffering from beam wander,
with possible displacement values up to several hundred meters17.
In detail, eddies bigger than the atmospheric coherence length are related to phase fluctuations. Instead,
eddies bigger than beam size but smaller than r0 induce further irradiance fluctuations, consequently leading to
an increased on-axis scintillation index.
Applying the reciprocity principle, beam wander at the receiver plane can be modeled as if it arises from a
random tilt at the transmitter plane.
The average displacement of the received beam from the boresight is quantified through the beam wander
variance rc2 that, for a Gaussian collimated beam and assuming an infinite outer scale of turbulence, is conven-
tionally evaluated a s17
2 5
2W0 3
�rc2 � 2 2
= 0.54(H − hOGS ) sec (ξ ) (7)
2W0 r0
where W0 (m) is the transmitter beam radius that, if not known, can be evaluated by the proposed numerical
tool considering its relationship with the transmitter aperture diameter DT (m), that for a Gaussian beam is17
DT2 = 8W02 . (8)

Angular beam wander θBW (rad) gives the same information of beam wander variance, but seen as an angular
tilt at the transmitter side, and it is expressed as12

�rc2 �
θBW = . (9)
L
The conventional beam wander variance expression of Eq. (7) considers the following approximation for the
link distance17:
L∼
= (H − hOGS ) sec (ξ ). (10)
The approximation of Eq. (10), assuming a flat Earth model, is commonly adopted in turbulence-related expres-
sions and literature link budget models. Since this approximation appears to be coarse, especially for high zenith
angles, the proposed numerical tool allows also to evaluate the beam wander variance considering a more accu-
rate approximation, derived as described i n24, but without neglecting the OGS altitude
1
= −(RE + hOGS ) sin (ζ ) + [(RE + H)2 − (RE + hOGS )2 cos2 (ζ )] 2 .
L∼ (11)
In Eq. (11), ζ = 90 − ξ [ ◦ ] is the elevation angle and RE (m) is the mean Earth radius. In addition, there is also the
possibility in the tool to evaluate Eq. (7) considering the exact link distance value, if it is known, in place of its
approximation. Considering that the beam wander variance is directly proportional to the link distance squared,
the tool capability to accurately evaluate the link distance relevantly improves the beam wander estimation.
It is important to point out that Eq. (9) is valid only if the same link distance is used for both the numerator
and the denominator therefore, substituting the coarse approximation for the numerator and a different value
for the denominator, will lead to a wrong evaluation of the beam wander effect.
Figure 2 shows the absolute error between the two approximations given in Eqs. (10) and (11) as a function of
the elevation angle. In particular, the plot considers an OGS at an altitude of 122 m, as the one located in Koganei
and operated by the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), and a LEO
satellite at an altitude of 610 km. The plot highlights that the difference between the two approximations is higher
Vol.:(0123456789)
for smaller elevation angle, while it decreases as the elevation angle increases. A zero error can be achieved only
for an elevation angle ζ = 90◦ since, only in this case, Eqs. (10) and (11) return the same distance value. Further
analysis on how the different approximations affect the beam wander evaluation will be performed in “Impact
of link distance on the beam wander for experimental OFLs” section.
Beam wander leads to the worsening of time-varying power fades due to the increased scintillation. In
addition, both the movement of the short-term beam centroid and the motion of the hot spot around the beam
centroid can be observed at the satellite. Thus, beam-wander induced pointing errors occur. Due to these effects,
beam wander must be properly characterized and considered in link budget analysis, especially if countermeas-
ures to mitigate it are not enforced at the OGS.
The simplest way to reduce beam wander consists of increasing the beam divergence, so that the probability of
missing the target decreases. However, this approach leads to a reduced received power. Therefore, the preferred
mitigation technique is to use a fast-tracking transmitter to track the beam.
Tracking can be seen as a first-order adaptive optics (AO) s ystem25. Indeed, the phase of an optical wave
passing through a circular aperture can be represented by an infinite summation of modes described by the
orthogonal basis given by the Zernike polynomials. The latter can be related to typical aberrations involved in
optical systems. In particular, the first Zernike mode is associated with the averaging effect of a circular receiv-
ing aperture, while the next two modes represent the vertical and horizontal tilts of the incoming wavefront26.
Thus, lowest-order AO, i.e., tilt compensation, allows to compensate for beam wander correcting the first three
spatial modes.
In uplink OFLs, AO is typically employed at the OGS to pre-distort the wavefront of the outgoing beam in
order to pre-correct optical turbulence effects. However, to successfully perform AO mitigation, a proper meas-
urement of turbulence-induced phase distortions along the same path traversed by the uplink beam must be
performed. This is usually done by sensing the angle-of-arrival fluctuations of a received downlink beacon signal
originating at the satellite. In this way, the conjugated phase to apply for pre-correction can be e stimated22. The
phase conjugation step is then performed through a fast-steering mirror that compensates for tilt errors and,
in the case of higher-order AO, through a deformable mirror that corrects higher order distortions26. However,
several limitations in the achievable correction exist.
First of all, the estimated correction is valid only over an angular distance equal to the isoplanatic angle.
The latter quantifies the angular distance over which atmospheric turbulence remains unchanged, and depends
on the turbulence profile, elevation angle, and w avenumber17. Nonetheless, consecutive downlink and uplink
transmissions are angularly separated by the point-ahead angle (PAA). This is due to the finite speed of light
and relative movement of the satellite with respect to the OGS. Thus, if the PAA is bigger than the isoplanatic
angle, the AO system is degraded by anisoplanatism and the AO correction is not effective. This is particularly
true for LEO OFLs, in which uplink and downlink paths can be completely u ncorrelated22. However, anisopla-
natism can also affect geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) OFLs because of the lateral speed between the OGS and
the GEO satellite27.
In addition, the finite bandwidth of the AO system limits the maximum speed at which pre-distortion can
be applied26. The rate at which AO corrections must be made is dictated by the Greenwood frequency, i.e., the
rate at which atmospheric turbulence changes with time17. In the case of LEO OFLs, the spectrum of irradiance
fluctuations comprises components at higher frequencies, up to several kHz, due to the satellite high s peed28.
Finally, if the OGS transmits and receives through different apertures, the beam wander cannot be compen-
sated and can be in the order of tens of microradians22.
In conclusion, beam wander plays a major role when transmitting an uplink untracked beam but can still
lead to residual errors also in the case of tracked beams. Thus, its modeling in the proposed numerical tool is of
major importance. In particular, regarding the scintillation index, both the model valid for an untracked beam
and the one valid for a tracked beam, in which all beam wander effects have been perfectly removed, have been
implemented. The related expressions can be found in19.
Figure 2. Absolute error between the link distances evaluated through the conventional and more accurate
approximations for LEO scenario.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Turbulence‑induced beam spreading

Eddies smaller than the beam size lead to an additional diffraction of the propagating wave with respect to the
one due to free space, as well as to a distortion of the received wavefront. In addition, the random movement of
the short-term beam due to beam wander leads to a larger long-term spot size WLT at the receiver, whose square
can be expressed as17
2
WLT = W 2 + W 2 TSS + W 2 TLS . (12)
The first term in Eq. (12) is the beam radius at the receiver plane after propagation through free space. Together
with the second term, that is associated with diffraction induced by small scale sizes, it defines the short-term
beam radius WST .
Beam wander contributes to the long-term spot size through the third term in Eq. (12), that corresponds to
the variance of the displacement of the instantaneous beam center at the receiver plane rc2 17.
The turbulence-induced beam spreading loss LSR can be evaluated through the Strehl ratio (SR), i.e., the ratio
of the on-axis mean irradiance in presence of turbulence to the one in absence of turbulence at the receiver’s
image plane17
5 − 56
DT 3
LSR = 1 + . (13)
r0
ropagation17.
It is important to highlight that this additional loss affects only the uplink p
Pointing errors
The narrow beam divergence typical of optical beams and the limited field of view (FOV) of FSO receivers require
a constant line of sight (LOS) connection between the transmitter and receiver optics. Thus, high pointing accura-
cies, in the order of sub microradians, must be ensured for the entire link duration to guarantee link a vailability3.
However, several sources of pointing errors can affect OFLs, leading to deviations from the LOS between the
OGS and the satellite and, thus, to a reduced received power, eventually causing link failure.
The narrow beam divergences and large distances involved in OFLs, combined with the relative motion
between OGSs and satellites, make pointing a complex task. Therefore, automatic tracking systems must be
properly designed and operated. Ephemeris data, i.e., the satellite position retrieved from the orbit equation,
and navigation systems such as the global positioning system (GPS), are used to perform coarse pointing, while
a tracking system enables fine p ointing29.
Due to a Gaussian roll-off in the laser beam mean irradiance profile along the radial direction, even small
pointing errors become significant in both propagation directions. Indeed, since scintillation levels increase with
the square of the radial distance from the optical axis17, pointing errors can significantly impact fade statistics.
Pointing errors can be of three kinds, i.e., static, dynamic, and random errors. Static errors are fixed and do
not depend on the link elevation angle. They consist of constant angular deviations �θOGS (rad) from the LOS
direction due to mechanical misalignments in the transmitter optics. Among sources of static errors, mechanical
misalignments in the construction of the transmitter optics can be i dentified30.
Instead, dynamic errors are elevation dependent. Uncertainties in the LOS direction due to reference frame
errors belong to this c ategory30. Indeed, information extracted from GPS and two-line element (TLE) sets are not
accurate enough to point an OGS towards a satellite. TLE files of satellite orbits can be downloaded from the U.S.
Space Command’s Space-Track service31. However, the satellite could be distant from the predicted location due
to uncertainty in these orbital elements, as well as due to time synchronization errors in the tracking s ystem32.
In detail, if the orbit information has been recently acquired, uncertainties are low. For instance, the mean
along-track error (i.e., the error along the direction of the satellite trajectory), can vary from few meters when
the TLE file is recent, up to more than 5 km after 3 days of satellite motion and more than 24 km after 7 days30.
Another elevation-dependent pointing error is the one due to an uncompensated PAA. The PAA value
depends on the satellite orbital speed and elevation a ngle30. In a LEO OFL the PAA can range from about 20 µ
rad at the horizon up to 50 µrad at the zenith. Instead, the PAA for GEO OFLs varies between 17 µrad and 20 µ
rad, approximately30. Typically, a constant PAA correction is applied, leading to a residual pointing error. It can be
demonstrated that the narrower the beam divergence and the higher the elevation, the higher the pointing loss30.
Random pointing errors, or jitter, consist of unpredictable errors that can be both elevation and non-elevation
dependent, leading to uncertainties in the instantaneous direction of the beam with respect to the LOS. Thus,
intensity fluctuations can be observed at the receiver.
Pointing jitter can be caused by noise in the tracking system and mechanical vibrations, other than by tur-
bulence-induced beam wander. The satellite sources of vibrations can be internal or e xternal29. The former
encompass vibrations due to navigation noise, thruster operations, antenna pointing mechanism, solar array
driver, noise in the tracking system and, generally speaking, operation of other satellite subsystems. The latter
comprise the impact of micrometeorites, the gravitational fields of celestial bodies such as the Sun, the Moon,
and the Earth, solar radiation pressure and satellite structure bending due to temperature gradients as well as
to elastic forces of tension, and bending originating from the cyclic satellite m ovement29. The loss induced by
deterministic pointing errors, i.e., PAA error, static errors, and orbit uncertainties, can be evaluated knowing
the angular deviation related to them, a s30
Vol.:(0123456789)
 � �2 
�θOGS
Lpointing,static = exp −2 θe−2
. (14)
2
In Eq. (14), �θOGS (rad) is the angular deviation induced by deterministic pointing errors and θe−2 /2 (rad) is
the radial angular distance from the beam center where the intensity falls to 1/e2 of its peak value, i.e., the half-
divergence angle. The latter can be derived from the transmitter beam radius a s16
θe−2
= (15)
2 πW0
and is also related to the full width at half maximum (FWHM) divergence angle by the following equation16
θe−2 θFWHM
= √ . (16)
2 2 ln 2
In presence of random errors, the radial pointing error can be statistically described by a Rician distribution if
azimuth and elevation errors are identically distributed and u ncorrelated33. If the bias error is zero, the distribu-
tion simplifies to a Rayleigh one. In the last case, the jitter-induced pointing loss is expressed a s30
2
θe−2
2
Lpointing,random = 2 (17)
θe−2 2
2 + 4σjitt
where σjitt can account for both vibrations and beam wander. Indeed, assuming that these random errors are
independent and normally distributed, their standard deviations can be added in quadrature to evaluate the
total pointing j itter30.
Nonetheless, the simultaneous occurrence of constant bias errors and random errors can have a huge impact
on BER performance33. Thus, also a comprehensive model for pointing loss accounting for both constant and
random errors has been implemented in the tool. According to30, the average pointing loss becomes
θe−2 2
� �  
2 2
�θtot
Lpointing,static+random = � · exp −2 � . (18)
 
θe−2 2 θe−2 2
� �
+ 4σ 2 + 4σ 2
2 jitt 2 jitt
The developed numerical tool gives the possibility to choose if considering both static and random pointing
errors or only one of them.
The flexible modeling of pointing errors is of great importance to design OFLs. Indeed, sufficient control
bandwidth and dynamic range must be allocated to deal with pointing errors and jitter. Moreover, the accuracy
of the pointing and tracking system must be comparable with the beam divergence angle. The latter could be
increased to counteract pointing uncertainties. However, this strategy could lead to unacceptable low received
power and, thus, to a negative link margin.
Fog and clouds

Adverse weather conditions associated with the presence of hydrometeors can affect the laser beam propagation.
Unlike RF signals, which are mostly degraded by the rain, the major threat for optical beams is represented by
fog due to the comparable size of the droplets with the optical wavelengths, leading to a high scattering efficiency.
The Mie theory can be adopted to derive the related attenuation, that can reach values up to 480 dB/km34, mak-
ing the link temporarily unfeasible.
Since the presence of clouds affects the propagation in a similar way, the combined phenomena can be mod-
elled through an extinction coefficient βfog/clouds () (km−1)
−q

3.91
βfog/clouds () = (19)
V 0.55
where V (km) is the visibility and the wavelength is expressed in micron. Several empirical models are available
for the q exponent, that is the so-called size distribution coefficient of scattering. Our tool implements some
of the most validated models, that are the Kruse model, the Kim one, and the Al Naboulsi o ne34. The first one’s
validity is not sure for visibility values less than 1 km. Therefore, the second one is a modified version of the first
one able to overcome this limit34. Finally, the Al Naboulsi model is related only to fog attenuation and is valid
for wavelengths between 0.69 µm and 1.55 µm and for visibilities between 50 m and 1 km. It directly allows to
compute a specific attenuation Afog (dB/km), from which the overall fog-related loss Lfog (dB) can be retrieved as
Lfog = Afog lfog . (20)
Instead, starting from βfog/clouds () the related loss Lfog/clouds (dB) is given by
Lfog/clouds = 10 log 10 exp(−βfog/clouds ()lfog/clouds ). (21)
In Eqs. (20) and (21), lfog and lfog/clouds represent the in-fog/clouds propagation lengths expressed in kilometers.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Rain
Raindrops size results larger than the signal wavelength in the optical domain, leading to a wavelength-inde-
pendent scattering of the optical wave traversing them. The related loss is of the same order of the one affecting
millimeter-waves, ranging from about 1–10 dB/km3. Therefore, models developed for millimeter-waves can be
adopted also in the optical domain.
The rain extinction coefficient βrain (dB/km) is a function of the rain rate R (mm/h) through the following
relationship3
βrain = γ α (22)
in which γ and α are parameters dependent on the raindrop-size distribution whose values have been experi-
mentally established in different models. The proposed numerical tool implements the Marshall and Palmer35,
the Carbonneau9, and the Korai, Luini and Nebuloni (KLN) models36. As an alternative, also a model based only
ne37, has been implemented. As for the fog loss, the rain loss Lrain (dB) is obtained
on visibility, i.e., the Atlas o
multiplying Eq. (22) for the in-rain propagation length lrain (km).
Snow
Usually, the size of the snowflakes is bigger than that of the raindrops, resulting in higher attenuation of the
optical wave, ranging from 3 to 30 dB/km16, with also larger values if the snow completely hinders the optical
beam. The snow specific attenuation βsnow (dB/km) can be evaluated a s9
βsnow = aSb (23)

where S (mm/h) is the snowfall rate and a and b parameters, whose expressions differ between wet and dry snow,
depend on the w avelength9. Alternatively, an empirical model based only on visibility can be a dopted38. Also
in this case, an in-snow propagation length lsnow (km) is needed to compute the overall snow loss Lsnow (dB).
Transmitter and receiver

The transmitter impacts on the link budget through the laser source emitted optical power PT (W), the trans-
mitter chain efficiency ηT and the telescope gain GT . This last term is strictly related to the wavelength and the
telescope aperture diameter and can be derived starting from the solid emission angle T (srad)38, leading to
4π ∼ 4DT 2

GT = = . (24)
�T
The receiver telescope also amplifies the signal through its gain GR , which is still dependent on the telescope
aperture diameter DR38
πDR 2

GR = . (25)

For the receiver, as for the transmitter, an efficiency ηR must be taken into account. Finally, if the received beam
needs to be coupled in a single mode fiber (SMF) prior to its conversion in the electrical domain for being
amplified, the link budget equation will include a SMF coupling efficiency ηF , that is not considered for non-
pre-amplified intensity modulation/direct detection schemes.
Optical turbulence downgrades the spatial coherence of the waves, limiting the achievable SMF coupling
efficiency in reception. A model for this term is the one given in39, that is
1 1
AR 2 2AR
ηF = 8a2 exp −a2 − x1 + x22 · I0 (26)

x1 x2 x1 x2 dx1 dx2 .
0 0 AC AC
In Eq. (26), AR (m2 ) is the receiver aperture area and Ac = πρ02 (m2 ) is the spatial coherence area of the incident
wave, also-called speckle size, being ρ0 = 0.48r0 (m) the spatial coherence r adius17, and I0 (x) is the modified
Bessel function of the first kind and zero order. Instead, the a parameter depends on the receiver specifications
as follow:
DR πWm
a= (27)
2 f
where Wm (m) is the fiber-mode field radius at the fiber end face and f (m) is the receiver focal length.
Equation (26) is valid under the approximation of a Gaussian field mutual coherence function but its accuracy,
evaluated in17, is such that it is worth to implement this model with respect to the most general one, allowing
also to reach a trade-off between accuracy and computational cost.
Link budget analysis for experimental OFLs

In this section, the numerical results related to the link budget analysis for two different OFLs scenarios, one
considering a downlink transmission from a LEO satellite and the other analyzing the uplink communication
towards a GEO satellite, are shown.
The models presented in the previous section have been integrated to build a novel link budget model, which
is able to properly evaluate their combined impact in each turbulence regime. In particular, the great variety of
Vol.:(0123456789)
implemented models allows to adequately evaluate the impact of phenomena which are overlooked in exist-
ing link budget equations, which are not meant to quantify the combined impact of scintillation and beam
wander8–10,14, as well as of random and deterministic pointing e rrors8–14, which are interrelated phenomena.
In addition, the possibility to choose among different perturbed sky effects-related empirical models poten-
tially extends the tool applicability to any geographic location.
The proposed command-line numerical tool takes as input some system parameters fully characterizing the
scenario of interest as well as the models to be used in the computation and returns in output all the gain and
loss terms together with the mean received optical power and the estimated necessary fade margin.
Given the computed mean received optical power PR (dB), if SR (dB) is the receiver sensitivity, the available
link margin LM (dB) can be evaluated as
LM = PR − SR (28)
where PR (W), in the most general case, is evaluated by the tool as
PR = PT GT ηT ηR τATM Lpointing LSR LFS · Lfog/clouds Lrain Lsnow . (29)
While in uplink Lpointing accounts for both beam wander and other kinds of pointing errors, in downlink beam
wander is neglected. In the same way, the turbulence-induced beam spreading loss LSR must not be considered
in downlink.
The link margin must be able to cope with fading and is related to the link availability. Indeed, the higher the
link margin, the higher the link availability. However, the adopted modulation, coding, and eventual diversity
scheme define the receiver sensitivity3. Thus, the link availability that a certain link margin can guarantee depends
on the particular system configuration.
The tool gives also the possibility to perform parametric sweep analysis defining an array of values for up
to two input parameters, which can be helpful to understand how the OFL design changes in different operat-
ing conditions and to optimize the system. In this case, the output quantities are returned specifying to which
values of the variable input parameters they correspond to. The sweep capabilities are also shown in this section
through the link budget analysis of a dynamic downlink transmission from a LEO satellite. Indeed, due to the
relative movement of the LEO satellite with respect to the OGS, the link geometry changes over time leading to
a variable received optical power.
Downlink LEO OFL

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), together with the NICT, conducted the first bi-directional
in-orbit OFL demonstration using a LEO satellite, in 2 00640.
The Kirari Optical Communication Demonstration Experiments with the NICT OGS (KODEN) took place
during March, May and September 2006, as well as during October 2008 and February 200941. In details, the
transmission between the Optical Inter-orbit Communications Engineering Test Satellite (OICETS) and the
NICT OGS in Koganei, Tokyo, was performed considering one beam for the downlink transmission and a multi-
beam system, based on four laser beams in order to mitigate the scintillation effect, for the uplink transmission.
In this paper, the downlink transmission was numerically validated.
The OICETS, orbiting at an altitude H = 610 km, is equipped with the Laser Utilizing Communications
Equipment (LUCE) featuring a telescope with a transmitting aperture diameter DT = 26 cm and transmitting
at a wavelength = 847 nm with a power PT = 100 mW and an efficiency ηT = −2.7 dB.
The NICT OGS, located at an altitude h0GS = 122 m, featured an optical receiver employing a receiving
telescope with an aperture diameter DR = 20 cm and presenting an efficiency ηR = −8.1 dB. A sub-aperture of
the 1.5 m transmitting telescope, with diameter DR = 31.8 cm, was used for reception after May 2 00641. Since
one goal of KODEN was to evaluate the degradation of the SMF coupling efficiency in downlink transmissions42,
this loss term must be considered in the link budget analysis.
Results from measurements taken on 30 March 2006, are reported i n40. Since there are no clear indications
on the acquisition timing, which would allow to reconstruct the plot of the downlink received optical power for
the entire link duration starting from the knowledge of the satellite orbit, the link budget has been evaluated
only for a particular system configuration, i.e., considering an elevation angle of 25◦ , for which measurements
of the atmospheric transmittance are available40.
Given that the considered field test happened before May 2006, the link budget analysis reported here adopts
the 20 cm receiving aperture diameter as one of the input parameters.
Regarding the input parameters characterizing the channel, a transmittance equal to 0.45, consistent with the
value in40, has been considered. For what concerns the turbulence strength, a Cn2 (h) model was developed for the
NICT OGS based on measured data41. Its expression is a modification of the HV model, given b y41
w 2
h h h
Cn2 (h) = M · 0.00594 (10−5 h)10 exp − + 2.7 · 10−16 exp − + A exp − (30)
27 1000 1500 100
where the parameters were estimated to be M = 0.2 and A = 9.0 × 10−14 m−2/3, with w = 21 m/s. Thus, the
tool has been extended to also consider this model for the refractive index structure parameter. In this way, a
comparison between the measured quantities and the computed ones can be performed.
Given the not so high elevation angle, which can lead to a major impact of turbulence on the beam propaga-
tion, the extended Rytov theory has been chosen to compute the turbulence-related quantities. In particular,
for the scintillation margin the rigorous model has been used giving in input to the tool a value of the desired
fraction of outage time ρthr = 10−4 , which corresponds to a link availability of 99.99%.
Vol:.(1234567890)
No perturbed sky effects have been included since the measured transmittance value already accounts for
the partly cloudy weather40.
During each experiment, the initial bias pointing error was eliminated by entering offset commands at the
OGS. Only after achieving alignment, the communication phase could start.
Measurements of the fine tracking error made on 30 March 2006 are reported in41, according to which the
tracking error was calculated to be σjitt = 2.0 µrad.
The link budget analysis for the downlink LEO OFL is shown in Table 1.
The computed mean received optical power, equal to − 36.98 dBm, agrees with the experimentally measured
values depicted in40. Moreover, the value of the computed SMF coupling efficiency, i.e., − 13.74 dB, falls in the
range of the measured values that goes from − 11 to − 18 dB, as shown in42.
Regarding turbulence, a Fried’s parameter r0 = 4.62 cm and a scintillation index σI2 = 0.32 can be retrieved
from the numerical tool which, for the computation of the latter, has considered aperture averaging at the receiver.
Indeed, the tool has verified that the estimated transverse correlation width results smaller than the receiver
aperture diameter. The two computed values agree with the measured ones plotted in41.
From the computed scintillation margin, it is evident that scintillation must be carefully taken into account
during system design activities since it can introduce a significant performance degradation. Indeed, it is neces-
sary to ensure that the received power stays above the receiver sensitivity to make the link feasible which, in
the case of a LEO satellite, implies that this condition must be satisfied for different elevation angles due to the
satellite movement during the entire link duration.
Uplink GEO OFL

Regarding the uplink transmission direction, the communication between the Tesat’s Transportable Adaptive
Optical Ground Station (T-AOGS) and the TDP1 laser communication terminal (LCT) onboard Alphasat satel-
lite has been analyzed43.
The same scenario of the experimental measurements made on 26 April 2018, is considered for the link
budget estimation. Starting from the TLE relative to the Alphasat orbit, downloadable at31, and from the knowl-
edge of the OGS coordinates, which is co-located with the ESA OGS in Tenerife at an altitude hOGS = 2450 m43,
the link distance, the satellite altitude, and the elevation angle can be retrieved in Matlab, by means of built-in
functions, for a given time instant. Specifically, the start time of the acquisition has been chosen for the analysis,
corresponding to 01:05:48 UTC, leading to a satellite altitude H = 35,800 km, an elevation angle of 32.9◦ , and
a link distance L = 38,368 km.
The T-AOGS can transmit an optical beam through three different aperture diameters, i.e., 35 mm, 48 mm,
or 95 mm43, with optical power PT = 50 W and efficiency ηT = −1.5 dB at the wavelength = 1064 nm44. In the
mentioned experiment, the smaller aperture has been used, which implies a transmitter beam radius W0 = 15.6
mm44. Instead, the TDP1-LCT is equipped with a receiving telescope with an aperture diameter of 135 mm and
adopts coherent homodyne d etection43, thus SMF coupling efficiency is considered in the link budget.
For what concerns pointing errors, the tracking system of the LCT shows a residual tracking error during
communications with root mean square value σjitt = 0.07 µrad45. At the same time, the T-AOGS alignment was
adjusted for each link by an operator, reducing the static pointing error up to �θOGS = 10 µrad46.
Regarding the atmospheric channel, a transmittance equal to 0.92, extrapolated from other measurements
done in the same location in similar conditions47, has been considered. In addition, no perturbed sky effects have
been included in the link budget estimation.
Regarding the turbulence model, the Maui3 profile, developed for another OGS site with characteristics
similar to the Tenerife one, results to be the most representative of measurement d ata46. Thus, as for the previous
scenario, the tool has been extended implementing this model, whose mathematical expression can be found
in48. In this way, a fair comparison between numerically evaluated and measured quantities can be performed.
The extended Rytov theory has been adopted to compute turbulence-related quantities. This last choice is due
to the same observation made for the downlink LEO OFL related to the not so high elevation angle.
The scintillation margin is evaluated through the rigorous expression considering a 99.99% link availability
and an untracked beam.
Output parameter Downlink LEO OFL

Transmitted power PT 20 dBm
Free space loss LFS − 265.32 dB
Transmitter telescope gain GT 121.78 dB
Receiver telescope gain GR 117.41 dB
Extinction loss τATM − 3.80 dB
Turbulence-induced beam spreading loss LSR –
Pointing loss Lpointing − 2.53 dB
Scintillation margin LSI − 9.13 dB
SMF coupling efficiency ηF − 13.74 dB
Received optical power PR − 36.98 dBm
Table 1. Link budget analysis for downlink LEO OFL.
Vol.:(0123456789)
The link budget analysis, reported in Table 2, returns a mean received optical power of − 43.94 dBm, very
close to the measured mean value of − 42.6 d Bm43.
The tool also returns a Fried’s parameter r0 = 11.46 cm and a scintillation index σI2 = 0.37. These values are
in agreement with the measured ones shown i n43, validating the tool accuracy.
Dynamic downlink LEO OFL

The German Aerospace Center (DLR) cooperated with JAXA and NICT to perform the first LEO downlink
transmission in Europe during 2006, in the framework of the KIrari’s Optical Downlink to Oberpfaffenhofen
(KIODO) experiment. In particular, the LUCE terminal onboard OICETS was exploited to transmit an optical
beam towards a ground station located in Oberpfaffenhofen (OGS-OP), near M unich49.
The OFL involved in the experiment, which took place on 14 June 2006, has been analyzed through the devel-
oped tool. Due to the knowledge of the exact acquisition start time, i.e., 01:04 UTC, and experiment runtime,
i.e., 380 s, which can be found i n49, and thanks to sweep capabilities of the tool, the received optical power at the
OGS-OP has been evaluated for the entire link duration. As for the uplink GEO OFL scenario, the satellite orbit
reconstructed in Matlab starting from the related TLE fi le31, and the coordinates of the OGS-OP50, have been
used to compute the link distances and elevation angles for the entire link duration considering a 1 Hz sampling
frequency. Figure 3 shows the link distance (black curve) and elevation angle (red curve) as a function of the time
elapsed from the start of the pass of the satellite. As expected, due to the dynamic movement of the LEO satellite,
the link distance and elevation angle change over time leading to higher link distances for lower elevation angles.
The link budget analysis has been evaluated considering the transmission of a 100 mW beam at a wavelength
of 847 nm from a telescope with aperture diameter DT = 26 cm as for the downlink transmission between
OICETS and the OGS located in Koganei40. Instead, the OGS-OP is equipped with a receiving telescope char-
acterized by DR = 40 cm49, followed by a direct detection chain which implies that the SMF coupling efficiency
must not be included in the link b udget50. Since no measurements of the transmitter and receiver efficiencies
for this experiment are available in literature, a transmitter efficiency of − 2.7 dB, equal to the one involved in
the previously analyzed downlink transmission from the same optical terminal, has been c onsidered40, while
ηR is set equal to 0 dB.
For the considered experiment, the maximum root mean square tracking error is known to be σjitt = 0.7 µ
rad51. Regarding the atmospheric transmittance, a value of 0.19 has been considered as i n51.
Measurements of the refractive index structure parameter for each trial of the KIODO experiment are avail-
able in51. Moreover, the best fit turbulence profile was estimated based on the scintillation indexes measured
Output parameter Uplink GEO OFL

Transmitted power PT 46.99 dBm
Free space loss LFS − 293.13 dB
Transmitter telescope gain GT 102.38 dB
Receiver telescope gain GR 112.01 dB
Extinction loss τATM − 0.36 dB
Turbulence-induced beam spreading loss LSR − 0.68 dB
Beam wander and pointing loss Lpointing − 5.16 dB
Scintillation margin LSI − 9.74 dB
SMF coupling efficiency ηF − 4.50 dB
Received optical power PR − 43.94 dBm
Table 2. Link budget analysis for uplink GEO OFL.
Figure 3. Link distance (black curve) and elevation angle (red curve) as a function of time elapsed since the
pass of the satellite for the dynamic downlink LEO scenario.
Vol:.(1234567890)
during 2006 trials52. The outcomes of the fitting procedure show that the HV model with A = 2.20 × 10−12 m−2/3
and w = 10 m/s and the extended Rytov theory return the better results.
Since the measurements took place during a clear sky n ight49, no perturbed sky effects have been modelled.
Figure 4 depicts the downlink computed received optical power as a function of the elevation angles involved
in the communication timeframe.
The computed received optical power exhibits the same behavior of the measured one reported i n49, except
for the fact that the obtained values are higher than the measured ones of about 8 dB. However, the approxima-
tions made for the receiver and transmitter efficiencies, due to the lack of measurement data, can explain this
discrepancy.
From the computed received optical power it is evident that a LEO OFL with no adjustments of the transmit-
ted power, according to the variable link distance, is characterized by a variable received power. Therefore, the
link must be properly designed to guarantee a received power higher than the receiver sensitivity for the entire
link duration, especially for lower elevation angles or, in the same way, the transmitted power must be properly
varied to obtain a constant received signal. To further validate the accuracy of the performed link budget analysis,
the Fried’s parameter and scintillation index have been extracted and plotted in Fig. 5 in red and black curves,
respectively, as a function of the elevation angle.
From the black curve of Fig. 5, it is possible to note that a higher elevation angle leads to a reduced scintilla-
tion since the portion of the beam propagation path traversing the atmosphere becomes smaller.
Finally, the Fried’s parameter, plotted in the red curve of Fig. 5 as a function of the elevation angle, further
confirms that a higher elevation angle is associated with a reduced turbulence effect on the beam propagation
leading to a larger atmospheric coherence length.
Both the scintillation index and the Fried’s parameter show behaviors in agreement with the measured o nes49,
validating the tool capability to accurately predict the link performances. However, numerical values perfectly
correspond to measured ones only for the scintillation index49,51, while a slight overestimation of the Fried’s
parameter is obtained from the tool. This can be explained considering that the adopted turbulence profile
has been optimized only based on measured scintillation indexes and not considering the measured Fried’s
parameters52.
Figure 4. Received optical power as a function of the elevation angle for the dynamic downlink LEO scenario.
Figure 5. Scintillation index (black curve) and Fried parameter (red curve) as a function of the elevation angle
for the dynamic downlink LEO scenario.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Impact of link distance on the beam wander for experimental OFLs

In the uplink GEO OFL analyzed in the previous section, the beam wander loss has been evaluated through the
conventional model, i.e., the implementation of Eq. (7) with the conventional approximation of Eq. (10) for the
link distance has been used.
A comparison between the results previously presented and the ones obtained substituting the exact link
distance and the more accurate approximation of Eq. (11) has been carried out for the same GEO scenario, i.e.,
assuming the same inputs. In particular, the same geometrical and channel parameters enumerated in the “Uplink
GEO OFL” section have been adopted. Table 3 shows the outcome of this analysis. In particular, as explained
above, the exact link distance value has been evaluated through built-in Matlab functions which require in input
the satellite TLE file, necessary to reconstruct its orbit, and the OGS coordinates.
The obtained results suggest that the conventional model leads to an overestimation of the beam wander vari-
ance and angular beam wander, leading to a worse beam wander loss with respect to the one evaluated adopting
the exact link distance value for both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (9).
Instead, the more accurate approximation allows to correctly evaluate the three beam wander parameters
since it returns a link distance which differs from the exact value of only about 1 km, that corresponds to an error
of 0.0029% against a 71.78% error related to the conventional link distance approximation. Thus, preliminary
link design procedures, characterized by not known OGS coordinates and satellite orbit parameters, can benefit
from the high achieved accuracy resulting in enhanced link budget analyses.
Considering the absolute error between the two approximations shown in “Beam wander” section, for eleva-
tion angles smaller than the one involved in the chosen uplink GEO scenario, a bigger error in the evaluation
of the beam wander parameters is expected. This problem can mostly affect uplink communications with LEO
satellites, since the elevation angle changes during the link duration and can reach low values.
Therefore, the beam wander has been analyzed also for the uplink communication in the same scenario of
the downlink LEO OFL presented in “Downlink LEO OFL” section, but considering the transmission of a single
beam with respect to the real measurements. In details, the NICT OGS transmits at a wavelength = 815 nm
with a transmitter beam radius W0 = 0.25 cm40.
Regarding the acquisition timeframe, necessary to compute the OICETS orbit, the link distance and the
elevation angle, the 30 March 2006 trial has been considered as for the downlink budget analysis. It is known
that the link started around midnight (local time) and lasted 4 min and 41 s, but the exact acquisition start time
is not specified in literature40. Given these considerations and the fact that the transmission was allowed only for
elevation angles above 15◦ for safety r eason41, a start time equal to 00:36:15 (local time) was chosen. Doing so,
elevation angles between 16.02◦ and 47.67◦ are involved in the simulated scenario. The channel has been modeled
considering the same parameters adopted for the “Dynamic downlink LEO OFL” scenario.
The beam wander variance, angular beam wander and beam wander loss, for the proposed uplink LEO
scenario, are reported in Figs. 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Specifically, the black curves consider the conventional
approximation for the link distance, the red ones are obtained substituting the more accurate link distance
Output parameter
Link distance Beam wander variance rc2 Angular beam wander θBW Beam wander loss LBW
Conventional approximation L = 65, 908.14 km 3.1203 × 105 14.5590 µ rad − 4.4787 dB
More accurate approximation L = 38, 368.91 km 1.0575 × 105 8.4757 µ rad − 2.0726 dB
Exact value L = 38, 367.80 km 1.0574 × 105 8.4757 µ rad − 2.0726 dB
Table 3. Beam wander parameters for uplink GEO OFL.
Figure 6. Beam wander variance as a function of the elevation angle for uplink LEO scenario, evaluated
considering the conventional link distance approximation (black curve), the more accurate link distance
approximation (red curve) and the exact link distance value (dashed cyan curve).
Vol:.(1234567890)
Figure 7. Angular beam wander as a function of the elevation angle for uplink LEO scenario, evaluated
considering the conventional link distance approximation (black curve), the more accurate link distance
approximation (red curve) and the exact link distance value (dashed cyan curve).
Figure 8. Beam wander loss as a function of the elevation angle for uplink LEO scenario, evaluated considering
the conventional link distance approximation (black curve), the more accurate link distance approximation (red
curve) and the exact link distance value (dashed cyan curve).
approximation in Eq. (7) and the cyan curves derive from the use of the exact link distance value. For all three
figures, the last two curves are overlapped, confirming the accuracy of the more accurate approximation.
As expected, the overestimation behavior of the conventional beam wander model is higher for lower eleva-
tion angles while it reduces as the elevation angle increases, reflecting the trend observed in “Beam wander”
section for the error between the two link distance approximations.
The wrong evaluation of the beam wander effect can lead to an overestimation of the resulting loss at the
receiver and, above all, to a wrong prediction of the hot spot displacement which needs to be corrected to guar-
antee a good alignment between the transmitter and the receiver during the communication.
Conclusions
In this paper, a novel numerical tool for link budget estimation has been presented in response to the need to have
an instrument able to support in a flexible, accurate and efficient way the design of OFLs, which are expected to be
a key element in future telecommunication networks. This task requires to fully understand the electromagnetic
phenomena affecting the optical beam propagation from ground to space and from space to ground as well as the
interrelationships between them. A comprehensive survey has been reported alongside the related main math-
ematical models implemented in the proposed tool, leading to a novel and comprehensive link budget model.
The tool capabilities have been exhaustively presented and validated through the analysis of three experi-
mental OFLs for which measurements results are available in literature. To compare computed quantities with
experimental ones, turbulence conditions resembling the ones experienced during measurements have been
considered. Nonetheless, during the procedure of designing an OFL, link budget evaluations should be carried
out considering a worst-case scenario. This can be done by means of the developed tool, choosing the proper
model for the refractive index structure parameter among the implemented ones.
Moreover, a novel analysis of the conventional beam wander model and its limitations has been performed,
thanks to the tool capability to compute both the exact link distance value and a more accurate approximation
other than the conventional coarse approximation. In particular, the overestimation behavior of the beam wander
Vol.:(0123456789)
model, leading to incorrect link budget analyses, has been demonstrated and overcome. Consequently, the tool
properly allows to support system design activities with an enhanced accuracy, especially for low elevation angles.
The proposed tool could be adopted and extended to analyze FSO links with other platforms, such as HAPs,
UAVs or ships, which can be helpful in the context of 3-D networks.
Data availability
Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained
from the authors upon reasonable request.
Received: 29 January 2024; Accepted: 8 April 2024
References
1. Chowdhury, M. Z., Shahjalal, M., Ahmed, S. & Jang, Y. M. 6G wireless communication systems: Applications, requirements,
technologies, challenges, and research directions. IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. 1, 957–975 (2020).
2. Giordani, M. & Zorzi, M. Non-terrestrial networks in the 6G era: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Netw. 35, 244–251 (2021).
3. Kaushal, H. & Kaddoum, G. Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor.
19, 57–96 (2016).
4. Hauschildt, H. et al. HydRON: High throughput optical network. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Space Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS), 1–6
(2019).
5. Vasko, C. et al. Optical high-speed data network in space-an update on HydRON’s system concept. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Space
Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS) 7–13 (Kyoto City, Japan, 2022).
6. SpaceX. SpaceX Gen2 Direct-To-Cellular System, Attachment A, Technical Information to Supplement Schedule S. https://licen
sing.f cc.g ov/c gi-b
in/w
s.e xe/p
rod/i b/f orms/a ttach
ment_m
enu.h
ts?i d_a pp_n
um=1 44336 &a cct=5 99269 &i d_f orm_n
um=1 5&fi
ling_
key=-488505 (2023).
7. Li, R., Lin, B., Liu, Y., Dong, M. & Zhao, S. A survey on laser space network: Terminals, links, and architectures. IEEE Access 10,
34815–34834 (2022).
8. Plank, T., Leitgeb, E. & Loeschnigg, M. Recent developments on free space optical links and wavelength analysis. In Proc. Int. Conf.
Space Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS) 14–20 (Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2011).
9. Muhammad, S. S., Kohldorfer, P. & Leitgeb, E. Channel modeling for terrestrial free space optical links. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Transparent Opt. Netw., vol. 1, 407–410 (Barcelona, Spain, 2005).
10. Kotake, H. et al. Link budget design of adaptive optical satellite network for integrated non-terrestrial network. In Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Space Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS) 240–247 (Kyoto City, Japan, 2022).
11. Liang, J., Chaudhry, A. U., Erdogan, E. & Yanikomeroglu, H. Link budget analysis for free-space optical satellite networks. In Proc.
IEEE 23rd Int. Symp. World Wireless Mobile Multimedia Netw. (WoWMoM) 471–476 (Belfast, United Kingdom, 2022).
12. Barrios, R., Dimitrov, S., Mata-Calvo, R. & Giggenbach, D. Link budget assessment for GEO feeder links based on optical technol-
ogy. Int. J. Satell. Commun. Netw. 39, 160–177 (2021).
13. Giggenbach, D., Knopp, M. T. & Fuchs, C. Link budget calculation in optical LEO satellite downlinks with on/off-keying and large
signal divergence: A simplified methodology. Int. J. Satell. Commun. Netw. 41, 460–476 (2023).
14. Henniger, H. & Wilfert, O. An introduction to free-space optical communications. J. Radioeng. 19, 203–212 (2010).
15. Cantore, C., Monopoli, D., Altamura, A., Mengali, A. & Grande, M. An accurate and efficient numerical tool for the analysis and
design of optical feeder links. In 2023 IEEE 10th Int. Workshop Metrology Aerosp. (MetroAeroSpace) 534–539 (Milan, Italy, 2023).
16. Ghassemlooy, Z., Popoola, W. & Rajbhandari, S. Optical Wireless Communications: System and Channel Modelling with MATLAB
(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2019).
17. Andrews, L. C. & Phillips, R. L. Laser Beam Propagation Through Random Media 2nd edn. (SPIE Press, Bellingham, 2005).
18. Rec. ITU-R P.1621-2, I. T. U. Propagation data required for the design of earth-space systems operating between 20 THz and 375
THz (2015).
19. Andrews, L. C. Field Guide to Atmospheric Optics (SPIE Press, Bellingham, 2019).
20. Majumdar, A. K. Advanced Free Space Optics (FSO): A systems Approach (Springer, New York, 2014).
21. Stotts, L. B. & Andrews, L. C. Bit error rate performance of a laser ground-to-satellite uplink communications systems in the pres-
ence of atmospheric turbulence and loss. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Space Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS) 66–73 (IEEE, Kyoto City, Japan,
2022).
22. Carrasco Casado, A. & Mata Calvo, R. Free-space optical links for space communication networks. In Springer Handbook of Optical
Networks 1057–1103 (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2020).
23. Giggenbach, D. & Henniger, H. Fading-loss assessment in atmospheric free-space optical communication links with on-off keying.
Opt. Eng. 47, 046001–046001 (2008).
24. Cakaj, S., Kamo, B., Koliçi, V. & Shurdi, O. The range and horizon plane simulation for ground stations of low Earth orbiting (LEO)
satellites. Int. J. Commun. Netw. Syst. Sci. 4, 585–589 (2011).
25. Zhao, Z. & Liao, R. Effects of beam wander on free-space optical communications through turbulent atmosphere. In Proc. of SPIE,
vol. 7685, 155–166 (Orlando, Florida, USA, 2010).
26. Dimitrov, S. et al. Digital modulation and coding for satellite optical feeder links with pre-distortion adaptive optics. Int. J. Satell.
Commun. Netw 34, 625–644 (2016).
27. Sodnik, Z., Armengol, J. P., Czichy, R. H. & Meyer, R. Adaptive optics and ESA’s optical ground station. Proc. SPIE 7464, 47–55
(2009).
28. Toyoshima, M., Takenaka, H. & Takayama, Y. Atmospheric turbulence-induced fading channel model for space-to-ground laser
communications links. Opt. Exp. 19, 15965–15975 (2011).
29. Arnon, S. Power versus stabilization for laser satellite communication. Appl. Opt. 38, 3229–3233 (1999).
30. Carrillo-Flores, A., Giggenbach, D., Knopp, M., Orsucci, D. & Shrestha, A. Effects of pointing errors on intensity losses in the
optical LEO uplink. In Int. Conf. Space Opt. (ICSO), vol. 12777, 2476–2491 (Dubrovnik, 2022).
31. Space-track. https://www.space-track.org/.
32. Pettersson, G. M., Perdigues, J. & Sodnik, Z. Unmodified portable telescope for space-to-ground optical links. In Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Space Opt. Syst. Appl. (ICSOS) 1–7 (Portland, OR, USA, 2019).
33. Ma, J., Li, X., Yu, S., Tan, L. & Han, Q. Influence of satellite vibration on optical communication performance for intersatellite laser
links. Opt. Rev. 19, 25–28 (2012).
34. Esmail, M. A., Fathallah, H. & Alouini, M.-S. Analysis of fog effects on terrestrial free space optical communication links. In Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops (ICC) 151–156 (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2016).
35. Marshall, J. S. & Palmer, W. M. K. The distribution of raindrops with size. J. Meteor. 5, 165–166 (1948).
Vol:.(1234567890)
36. Korai, U. A., Luini, L. & Nebuloni, R. Model for the prediction of rain attenuation affecting free space optical links. Electronics 7,
407 (2018).
37. Sharma, V. & Kaur, G. Degradation measures in free space optical communication (FSO) and its mitigation techniques- a review.
Int. J. Comput. Appl. 55, 23–27 (2012).
38. Kaushal, H., Jain, V. & Kar, S. Free Space Optical Communication (Springer, New Delhi, 2017).
39. Dikmelik, Y. & Davidson, F. M. Fiber-coupling efficiency for free-space optical communication through atmospheric turbulence.
Appl. Opt. 44, 4946–4952 (2005).
40. Toyoshima, M. et al. Development of the optical ground station for the OICETS satellite and experimental results. In 57th Int.
Astronaut. Congr. 1–11 (Valencia, Spain, 2006).
41. Toyoshima, M. et al. Overview of the laser communication system for the NICT optical ground station and laser communication
experiments on ground-to-satellite links. NICT J. 59, 053–075 (2012).
42. Takenaka, H., Toyoshima, M. & Takayama, Y. Experiment of the fiber coupling efficiency for satellite downlinks. NICT J. 59,
077–082 (2012).
43. Saucke, K. et al. Characterisation of the optical channel GEO to ground: Using five years of data from Alphasat TDP1 and T-AOGS
for investigation of different conditions. Proc. SPIE 11852, 2425–2437 (2021).
44. Saucke, K. et al. The TESAT transportable adaptive optical ground station and the operational experiences. Proc. SPIE 10562,
1033–1056 (2017).
45. Saucke, K. et al. The TESAT transportable adaptive optical ground station. Proc. SPIE 9739, 37–47 (2016).
46. Saucke, K. et al. Three years of optical satellite to ground links with the T-AOGS: Data transmission and characterization of
atmospheric conditions. Proc. SPIE 11180, 525–534 (2019).
47. Toyoshima, M. et al. Ground-to-satellite optical link tests between Japanese laser communications terminal and European geo-
stationary satellite ARTEMIS. Proc. SPIE 5338, 1–15 (2004).
48. Bradford, L. W. Maui4: A 24 hour haleakala turbulence profile. In Proc. Adv. Maui Opt. and Space Surveill. Technol. Conf. (AMOS
2010) 499–516 (2010).
49. Perlot, N. et al. Results of the optical downlink experiment KIODO from OICETS satellite to optical ground station oberp-
faffenhofen (OGS-OP). In Proc. SPIE Free Space Laser Commun. Technol. XIX Atmospheric Propag. Electromag. Waves, vol. 6457,
645704–1–645704–8 (2007).
50. Moll, F. & Knapel, M. Free-space laser communications for satellite downlinks: Measurements of the atmospheric channel. In Proc.
62nd Int. Astronaut. Congr. (IAC) (2011).
51. Brechtelsbauer, M. et al. Report on DLR-JAXA joint experiment: The Kirari optical downlink to Oberpfaffenhofen (KIODO) (Tech.
Rep, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), 2007).
52. Knoedler, A. & Moll, F. Atmospheric turbulence statistics and profile modeling. Local to DLR Oberpfaffenhofen. In COAT-2019—
Workshop (Châtillon, France, 2019).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and mentorship provided by Marco Grande from the
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Polytechnic University of Bari. His expertise in free
space optical communication systems was invaluable in shaping the direction of this research and refining our
methodology. His constructive feedback and insightful suggestions played a pivotal role in elevating the overall
quality of this study. This work was supported in part by the European Space Agency (ESA) in the framework of
the activity “Optical Communications Lab Tools”, under ESA contract no. 4000139742/22/NL/CRS/nh; in part
by the European Union under the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) of NextGenerationEU, partner-
ship on “Telecommunications of the Future” (PE00000001 - program “RESTART”, CUP: D93C22000910001).
Responsibility for the contents of this document resides in the authors or organizations that prepared it, and the
contents of this document does not reflect the official opinion of the European Space Agency.
Author contributions
C.C. and D.M. developed the link budget model and implemented the code, C.C. performed the link budget
analyses, M.G., A.A., A.M. and A.D. supervised the work. C.C. and D.M. drafted the manuscript. All authors
reviewed the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.C.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024
Vol.:(0123456789)

Link Budget Analysis of Bi Directional LEO and GEO Optical Feeder Links Advancing The Beam Wander Model's Accuracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Link Budget Analysis of Bi Directional LEO and GEO Optical Feeder Links Advancing The Beam Wander Model's Accuracy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Link Budget Analysis of Bi Directional LEO and GEO Optical Feeder Links Advancing The Beam Wander Model's Accuracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.nature.

OPEN Link budget analysis

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 1

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 2

System and channel models for OFLs

Absorption and scattering

Figure 1. Optical feeder link geometry.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 3

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 4

DT2 = 8W02 . (8)

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 5

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 6

Turbulence‑induced beam spreading

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 7

Fog and clouds

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 8

βsnow = aSb (23)

Transmitter and receiver

Link budget analysis for experimental OFLs

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 9

Downlink LEO OFL

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 10

Uplink GEO OFL

Output parameter Downlink LEO OFL

Table 1. Link budget analysis for downlink LEO OFL.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 11

Dynamic downlink LEO OFL

Output parameter Uplink GEO OFL

Table 2. Link budget analysis for uplink GEO OFL.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 12

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 13

Impact of link distance on the beam wander for experimental OFLs

Table 3. Beam wander parameters for uplink GEO OFL.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 14

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 15

Received: 29 January 2024; Accepted: 8 April 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 16

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:8579 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59198-x 17

You might also like