Ryan Malloy
4ed92efd69
Cospas-Sarsat specification summaries moved to reference/ for internal use only. Links updated to point to official cospas-sarsat.int site. The extracted images remain in public/ for use in other pages.
1599 lines
38 KiB
Markdown
1599 lines
38 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "R013: Cospas-Sarsat Meteosat Second Generation"
|
|
description: "Official Cospas-Sarsat R-series document R013"
|
|
sidebar:
|
|
badge:
|
|
text: "R"
|
|
variant: "note"
|
|
# Extended Cospas-Sarsat metadata
|
|
documentId: "R013"
|
|
series: "R"
|
|
seriesName: "Reports"
|
|
documentType: "report"
|
|
isLatest: true
|
|
issue: 1
|
|
revision: 1
|
|
documentDate: "October 2006"
|
|
originalTitle: "Cospas-Sarsat"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
> **📋 Document Information**
|
|
>
|
|
> **Series:** R-Series (Reports)
|
|
> **Version:** Issue 1 - Revision 1
|
|
> **Date:** October 2006
|
|
> **Source:** [Cospas-Sarsat Official Documents](https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/en/documents-pro/system-documents)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
COSPAS-SARSAT
|
|
METEOSAT SECOND GENERATION (MSG)
|
|
GEOSAR PERFORMANCE
|
|
EVALUATION REPORT
|
|
C/S R.013
|
|
Issue 1 - Revision 1
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
|
|
MSG PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
|
|
History
|
|
Issue
|
|
Revision Date
|
|
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approved by CSC-33
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approved by CSC-37
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
|
|
LIST OF PAGES
|
|
Page \#
|
|
Date of
|
|
Page \#
|
|
Date of
|
|
latest
|
|
latest
|
|
revision
|
|
revision
|
|
cover
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
E-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
E-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
E-3
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
E-4
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
F-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
1-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
F-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
1-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
2-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
2-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-3
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-4
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-5
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-6
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-7
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
3-8
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
3-9
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
3-10
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
3-11
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
3-12
|
|
Oct 06
|
|
4-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
4-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
A-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
A-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
B-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
B-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
C-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
C-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
D-1
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
D-2
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
D-3
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
D-4
|
|
Oct 04
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
Page
|
|
1.
|
|
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1
|
|
1.1
|
|
Background ................................................................................................................. 1-1
|
|
1.2
|
|
MSG GEOSAR Performance Evaluation ................................................................... 1-1
|
|
2.
|
|
MSG GEOSAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
|
|
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 2-1
|
|
2.1
|
|
Performance Evaluation Goals .................................................................................... 2-1
|
|
2.2
|
|
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2-1
|
|
3.
|
|
MSG PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................ 3-1
|
|
3.1
|
|
T-1:
|
|
Processing Threshold, System Margin and Beacon Message
|
|
Processing Performance ................................................................................ 3-1
|
|
3.2
|
|
T-2:
|
|
Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Messages ....................... 3-3
|
|
3.3
|
|
T-3:
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy .................................................. 3-4
|
|
3.4
|
|
T-4:
|
|
MSG GEOLUT Channel Capacity ............................................................... 3-5
|
|
3.5
|
|
T-8:
|
|
Processing Anomaly Performance ................................................................ 3-6
|
|
3.6
|
|
T-9:
|
|
MSG Coverage.............................................................................................. 3-8
|
|
3.7
|
|
Complementarity and Effectiveness of the GEOSAR/LEOSAR Systems ............... 3-11
|
|
4.
|
|
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 4-1
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
|
|
LIST OF ANNEXES
|
|
Annex A :
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin Test Results .......................... A-1
|
|
Annex B :
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance ...................................................B-1
|
|
Annex C :
|
|
Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Performance
|
|
Test Results ...............................................................................................C-1
|
|
Annex D :
|
|
Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete
|
|
Messages Test Results ............................................................................. D-1
|
|
Annex E :
|
|
Frequency Measurement Accuracy Test Results ...................................... E-1
|
|
Annex F :
|
|
Capacity Test Results ............................................................................... F-1
|
|
LIST OF FIGURES
|
|
Figure 3.1 :
|
|
Location of MSG Alerts ........................................................................... 3-8
|
|
Figure 3.2 :
|
|
MSG Footprint Boundary ......................................................................... 3-9
|
|
Figure 3.3 :
|
|
Eastern Footprint Boundary .................................................................... 3-10
|
|
Figure 3.4 :
|
|
Northern Footprint Boundary ................................................................. 3-10
|
|
LIST OF TABLES
|
|
Table 3.1 :
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin ............................................... 3-2
|
|
Table 3.2 :
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance ................................................... 3-3
|
|
Table 3.3 :
|
|
Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Performance
|
|
at Processing Threshold (31 dBm Uplink) ............................................... 3-3
|
|
Table 3.4 :
|
|
Time to Produce Messages at Processing Threshold (31 dBm Uplink) ... 3-4
|
|
Table 3.5 :
|
|
Time to Produce Messages at Processing Threshold for the
|
|
95th Percentile (31 dBm Uplink) ............................................................... 3-4
|
|
Table 3.6 :
|
|
Capacity Performance Results Measured by French GEOLUT ............... 3-6
|
|
Table 3.7 :
|
|
Capacity Performance Results Measured by Spanish GEOLUT ............. 3-6
|
|
Table 3.8 :
|
|
Processing Anomaly Performance as Function of
|
|
Received Beacon Bursts (Measured by Maspalomas GEOLUT)............. 3-7
|
|
Table 3.9 :
|
|
Processing Anomaly Performance as Function of Number of Alert
|
|
Messages Sent to MCC (Measured by Toulouse GEOLUT) ................... 3-8
|
|
Table 3.10 :
|
|
Complementarity and Effectiveness of
|
|
MSG GEOSAR/LEOSAR Systems ........................................................ 3-11
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
1 - 1
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|
The European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)
|
|
provides 406 MHz Search and Rescue (SAR) repeaters on their Meteosat Second Generation
|
|
(MSG) meteorological satellites. The first of the MSG satellites was launched in
|
|
August 2002 and following payload testing the SAR instrument was made available for use
|
|
by Cospas-Sarsat Ground Segment operators from October 2002. However, because MSG
|
|
satellites were under development when the original Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR demonstration
|
|
and evaluation programme was conducted, its performance had not been tested operationally.
|
|
In view of this the Cospas-Sarsat Council directed that prior to formal inclusion as part of the
|
|
operational Cospas-Sarsat System, a MSG GEOSAR performance evaluation programme
|
|
should be conducted to:
|
|
a.
|
|
measure MSG GEOSAR / GEOLUT performance; and
|
|
b.
|
|
establish specification and commissioning requirements for GEOLUTs which operate
|
|
with the MSG GEOSAR payload.
|
|
1.1
|
|
Background
|
|
From 1996 to 1998 Cospas-Sarsat conducted a demonstration and evaluation programme to
|
|
determine the suitability of using satellites in geostationary orbit equipped with SAR
|
|
instruments to process the signals from Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz distress beacons. This
|
|
programme, hereafter referred to as the GEOSAR D & E, was implemented using the GOES
|
|
series of satellites provided by the USA, the Insat-2 satellites provided by India, and
|
|
experimental ground segment equipment provided by Canada, Chile, India, Spain and the
|
|
United Kingdom. The GEOSAR D & E demonstrated that GEOSAR satellites provided a
|
|
significant enhancement to the Cospas-Sarsat system. Following from this conclusion, in
|
|
October 1998 the Cospas-Sarsat Council decided that the 406 MHz GEOSAR system
|
|
components should be incorporated into the Cospas-Sarsat System as soon as possible. A
|
|
summary report of the Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR D&E is available from the Cospas-Sarsat
|
|
web site as document C/S R.009. The complete report is also available from the Cospas-
|
|
Sarsat Secretariat on request.
|
|
1.2
|
|
MSG GEOSAR Performance Evaluation
|
|
During the period that the GEOSAR D & E was being conducted, EUMETSAT was
|
|
developing a 406 MHz repeater for their MSG satellites that would be capable of relaying the
|
|
signals from Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz distress beacons.
|
|
Because the technical characteristics of the MSG SAR instrument are different from SAR
|
|
instruments on the GOES and the Insat-2 satellites, the tests reported herein were conducted
|
|
to establish MSG GEOSAR / GEOLUT performance, and any specific GEOLUT
|
|
specification and commissioning requirements.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
1 - 2
|
|
|
|
The administrations of France, Spain and the United Kingdom provided and operated the
|
|
GEOLUTs that participated in the MSG performance evaluation.
|
|
The tests reported herein were performed while the MSG-1 satellite was at its final operating
|
|
position of 3.4 W. France's 406 MHz beacon simulator with a linearly polarised whip
|
|
antenna was used to transmit the uplink signals developed specifically for the testing.
|
|
- END OF SECTION 1 -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
2 - 1
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
MSG
|
|
GEOSAR
|
|
PERFORMANCE
|
|
EVALUATION
|
|
GOALS
|
|
AND
|
|
OBJECTIVES
|
|
2.1
|
|
Performance Evaluation Goals
|
|
The goals of the performance evaluation programme were to:
|
|
a.
|
|
characterize the technical performance of the MSG GEOSAR / GEOLUT system and
|
|
confirm whether MSG GEOSAR satellite / GEOLUT systems would be effective for
|
|
providing useful 406 MHz alert data; and
|
|
b.
|
|
validate specification and commissioning requirements for GEOLUTs which would
|
|
operate with the MSG satellite.
|
|
2.2
|
|
Objectives
|
|
The programme was subdivided into specific technical objectives. Each objective was
|
|
addressed by conducting tests and analysing the results. The tests were similar to the
|
|
technical tests conducted in the previous GEOSAR D&E. Where necessary the procedures
|
|
were modified to gain additional information that would be necessary to develop MSG
|
|
GEOLUT specification and commissioning requirements. Most of the tests required a
|
|
beacon simulator whose power output and message could be accurately controlled.
|
|
An overview of each objective is listed below:
|
|
T-1
|
|
Processing Threshold, System Margin, and Beacon Message Processing Performance
|
|
Determine the processing threshold, processing performance, system margin and the
|
|
performance in respect of long format beacon messages for GEOLUTs which operate
|
|
with the MSG payload. The beacon test signals used to assess these parameters do
|
|
not include beacon messages that collide with each other.
|
|
T-2
|
|
Time to Produce Valid and Confirmed Messages
|
|
Determine the statistical distribution of the time required for the GEOLUT to produce
|
|
valid and confirmed beacon messages. The beacon test signals used to assess this
|
|
parameter do not include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
|
T-3
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy
|
|
Determine how accurately the beacon carrier frequency can be determined by the
|
|
MSG GEOSAR / GEOLUT system. The beacon test signals used to assess this
|
|
parameter do not include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
|
T-4
|
|
MSG GEOLUT Channel Capacity
|
|
Assess the capability of the GEOSAR system to handle multiple simultaneously
|
|
active distress beacons in a single 406 MHz channel. This parameter is assessed by
|
|
generating traffic loads which include beacon messages which collide with each other.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
2 - 2
|
|
|
|
T-5
|
|
Impact of Interference
|
|
Monitor the band for the presence of interference while the tests are being performed,
|
|
in order to understand any anomalies in the results and to illustrate the ability of the
|
|
GEOSAR system to provide valid messages in the presence of interference and noise
|
|
in the frequency bands used by the MSG GEOSAR system.
|
|
T-6
|
|
Impact of Interference From LEOSAR Satellites
|
|
Assess the impact of interference from LEOSAR satellite downlink signals on the
|
|
ability of the GEOLUT to produce valid and confirmed alert messages.
|
|
T-7
|
|
MSG GEOLUT Network Performance
|
|
Determine if at a given time some GEOLUTs are affected by interference from the
|
|
LEOSAR system, the expected GEOSAR alerts would continue to be reliably
|
|
provided by other GEOLUTs in the MSG ground segment.
|
|
T-8
|
|
Processing Anomalies
|
|
Assess the performance of the GEOLUT in respect of the production of processing
|
|
anomalies.
|
|
T-9
|
|
MSG Coverage
|
|
Estimate the geographic coverage of the MSG GEOSAR system.
|
|
- END OF SECTION 2 -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 1
|
|
|
|
3.
|
|
MSG PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS
|
|
3.1
|
|
T-1: Processing Threshold, System Margin, and Beacon Message Processing
|
|
Performance
|
|
The processing threshold, processing performance and the system margin are "figures of
|
|
merit" of the GEOLUT, as defined below.
|
|
Processing Threshold
|
|
The processing threshold is the value of the minimum carrier to noise density ratio (C/N0) at
|
|
the GEOLUT processor for which the GEOLUT is able to produce a valid message for a
|
|
beacon event 99% of the time (the lower this value the more sensitive the GEOLUT). Equally
|
|
the processing threshold can be expressed in terms of the minimum beacon effective isotropic
|
|
radiated power (EIRP) for which the GEOLUT is able to produce a valid message 99% of the
|
|
time.
|
|
System Margin
|
|
The system margin is the difference between a nominal beacon (which by definition is a
|
|
beacon with an EIRP of 37 dBm) and a beacon operating at the GEOLUT threshold.
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
|
Valid message processing performance is the minimum EIRP for which the MSG GEOLUT
|
|
can produce a valid message for the beacon event within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95%
|
|
of the time. The valid message processing performance can also be expressed in terms of the
|
|
C/N0 at the GEOLUT that produces this level of performance.
|
|
Long Message Processing Performance
|
|
At present Cospas-Sarsat does not have a GEOLUT specification requirement for producing
|
|
complete and confirmed long messages. Nevertheless, with the increased use of location
|
|
protocol beacons using the long message format, it is necessary to assess the MSG system
|
|
performance in this regard.
|
|
3.1.1
|
|
Methodology and Data Collection
|
|
A beacon simulator with a linearly polarised whip antenna was used to replicate distress
|
|
beacons that transmit long format messages at specific EIRPs. 20 bursts were transmitted for
|
|
each beacon identification which simulated a beacon being active for approximately 17
|
|
minutes. Hereafter the term "beacon event" is used to describe a beacon being active for a
|
|
period of time. Schedule constraints and equipment availability required the test to be
|
|
conducted in three parts, two parts comprising 25 beacon events each and the other
|
|
comprising 50 beacon events. In total 100 beacon events for each EIRP were transmitted,
|
|
whilst ensuring that signals from individual beacon events did not overlap in time and
|
|
frequency with the signals from other beacon events. The uplink EIRP of the test signals
|
|
were calibrated to within +/- 1 dB. The output of the GEOLUT was monitored and the time
|
|
required to produce valid, complete and complete confirmed messages for each beacon event
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 2
|
|
|
|
was captured. The procedure was repeated at EIRP values ranging from 38 dBm to 29 dBm,
|
|
in one dB increments.
|
|
The UK and Spanish GEOLUTs were still under development during some of the testing, and
|
|
were not available to participate in all 100 beacon events that were transmitted.
|
|
Consequently the UK and Spanish performance was evaluated based on a reduced sample set
|
|
of 75 and 50 beacon events respectively.
|
|
3.1.2
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin
|
|
The processing threshold and system margin as evaluated by the French, Spanish and UK
|
|
GEOLUTs are provided at Table 3.1 below. The detailed results are provided at Annex A.
|
|
Table 3.1: Processing Threshold and System Margin
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
THRESHOLD
|
|
EIRP
|
|
(dBm)
|
|
THRESHOLD
|
|
GEOLUT C/N0
|
|
(dB-Hz)
|
|
SYSTEM
|
|
MARGIN
|
|
(dB)
|
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
BEACON
|
|
EVENTS USED
|
|
France
|
|
|
|
26.4\*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spain
|
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK
|
|
|
|
26.9\*
|
|
|
|
|
|
\*
|
|
During the test period, the French and UK GEOLUTs had an error with their C/N0
|
|
calculations that caused them to systematically report C/N0 4 dB too low. When this
|
|
anomaly is taken into account all three GEOLUTs had very similar processing
|
|
performance.
|
|
The results indicated that beacon signals greater than 31 dBm will be reliably detected by the
|
|
MSG GEOSAR system. Below the threshold of 31 dBm the system performance degrades
|
|
rapidly, with only a small percentage of the signals being detected with uplink EIRP values
|
|
less than 30 dBm.
|
|
3.1.3 Valid Message Processing Performance
|
|
The valid message processing performance is a measure of the GEOSAR system's ability to
|
|
provide a valid message within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95% of the time.
|
|
The minimum uplink EIRP required for the GEOLUTs to provide valid messages within 5
|
|
minutes is provided at Table 3.2 below. The detailed results are provided at Annex B.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 3
|
|
|
|
Table 3.2: Valid Message Processing Performance
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
THRESHOLD
|
|
EIRP
|
|
(dBm)
|
|
THRESHOLD
|
|
GEOLUT C/N0
|
|
(dB-Hz)
|
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
BEACON
|
|
EVENTS USED
|
|
France
|
|
|
|
27.0
|
|
|
|
Spain
|
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
|
|
UK
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
|
|
|
The 3 GEOLUTs satisfied the message processing requirement for uplink signals with an
|
|
EIRP of 31 dBm. The results for the Toulouse GEOLUT dropped slightly below the 95th
|
|
percentile (i.e. 93%) for the test signals at 32 dBm. However, subsequent tests confirmed the
|
|
GEOLUT message processing performance at this level. This seems to indicate that the
|
|
anomaly, which was experienced to a lesser degree by the Maspalomas GEOLUT, was
|
|
probably caused by interference during the test.
|
|
3.1.4 Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Performance
|
|
The performance of the French, Spanish and UK GEOLUTs to produce complete and
|
|
confirmed complete messages for beacons with uplink signals at the system threshold level of
|
|
30 dBm is provided at Table 3.3 below. The detailed performance of each GEOLUT at all
|
|
measured uplink signals is provided at Annex C.
|
|
Table 3.3:
|
|
Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Performance at Processing
|
|
Threshold (31 dBm Uplink)
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
CONFIRMED
|
|
COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
BEACON
|
|
EVENTS USED
|
|
France
|
|
0.99
|
|
0.96
|
|
|
|
Spain
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
UK
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.97
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
T-2: Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Messages
|
|
This test assesses how long it takes GEOLUTs operating with the MSG satellite to produce
|
|
valid beacon messages, complete long messages, and confirmed complete long messages.
|
|
3.2.1
|
|
Methodology and Data Collection
|
|
For simplicity this test was conducted by analysing the data collected for test T-1
|
|
(Threshold). Note that the T-1 test scenario is specifically designed not to generate beacon
|
|
bursts which overlap in time and frequency. Consequently, for operational beacon events, the
|
|
times to produce valid, complete, and the time to confirm complete messages may differ from
|
|
those determined during this test.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 4
|
|
|
|
3.2.2 Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Messages at
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Table 3.4 provides statistics in respect of the average time required for the French, Spanish
|
|
and UK GEOLUTs to produce valid, complete and confirmed complete messages for beacon
|
|
signals at threshold.
|
|
Table 3.4:
|
|
Time to Produce Messages at Processing Threshold (31 dBm Uplink)
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
VALID MESSAGES
|
|
Avg / Standard Deviation
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
COMPLETE MESSAGES
|
|
Avg / Standard Deviation
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
CONFIRMED COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGES
|
|
Avg / Standard Deviation
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
France
|
|
67 / 106\*
|
|
166 / 189\*
|
|
376 / 217\*
|
|
Spain
|
|
36 / 55
|
|
97 / 143
|
|
223 / 198
|
|
UK
|
|
29.3 / 50.7
|
|
70.3 / 184.5
|
|
300.7 / 204.9
|
|
* Statistics calculated from 50 beacon events (not 100 as reported at tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3)
|
|
Table 3.5 provides statistics in respect of the time required to produce valid, complete and
|
|
confirmed complete messages for the 95th percentile, in respect of beacon signals that
|
|
transmit at the processing threshold of 30 dBm.
|
|
Table 3.5:
|
|
Time to Produce Messages at Processing Threshold for the 95th Percentile
|
|
(31 dBm Uplink)
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
VALID MESSAGES
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
COMPLETE MESSAGES
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
CONFIRMED COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGES
|
|
(Seconds)
|
|
France
|
|
252\*
|
|
552\*
|
|
852\*
|
|
Spain
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Statistics calculated from 50 beacon events (not 100 as reported at tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3)
|
|
The detailed data providing the time required for the GEOLUTs to produce valid, complete
|
|
and confirmed complete messages for signals with different transmit EIRPs are provided at
|
|
Annex D.
|
|
3.3
|
|
T-3: Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy
|
|
This test assessed how accurately MSG GEOSAR / GEOLUTs could measure the beacon
|
|
transmit frequency. For each valid message produced by the GEOLUT the frequency
|
|
measured was compared against the known transmit frequency provided by the beacon
|
|
simulator operator.
|
|
3.3.1
|
|
Methodology and Data Collection
|
|
For simplicity, this test was conducted by analysing the data collected for test T-1. For each
|
|
beacon event the frequency measurement provided by the GEOLUT for the first valid
|
|
message produced was recorded.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 5
|
|
|
|
The GEOLUT measured frequency included any calibration that would normally be
|
|
performed during actual GEOLUT operations (e.g. if the GEOLUT includes features for
|
|
assessing and correcting frequency measurements by applying calibration correction factors
|
|
and using reference beacons, these features should be activated).
|
|
3.3.2 Frequency Measurement Accuracy Results
|
|
The detailed results for the frequency measurement accuracy testing is provided at Annex E.
|
|
In summary the French, Spanish and UK GEOLUTs reliably measured the frequency to
|
|
within the Cospas-Sarsat GEOLUT specification of 2 Hz for all signals at or above the
|
|
processing threshold. However, given the impact that periods of solar eclipse has on the
|
|
satellite frequency stability, this level of performance might not be experienced at all times.
|
|
All the GEOLUTs needed at least two reference beacons in the MSG satellite footprint for
|
|
frequency measurement calibration to accommodate frequency variations during the eclipse
|
|
period. At other times the Toulouse reference beacon alone was sufficient for frequency
|
|
calibration. Since both the Toulouse time calibration beacon and the UK reference beacon
|
|
are within the MSG satellite footprint, no additional reference beacons are required for this
|
|
function.
|
|
3.4
|
|
T-4: MSG GEOLUT Channel Capacity
|
|
The definition of capacity in Cospas-Sarsat GEOSAR systems is the number of 406 MHz
|
|
distress beacons operating simultaneously in the field of view of a GEOSAR satellite that can
|
|
be successfully processed by the System to provide a valid beacon message, under nominal
|
|
conditions, within 5 minutes of beacon activation 95% of the time.
|
|
3.4.1
|
|
Methodology and Data Collection
|
|
The MSG GEOSAR channel capacity was assessed by generating traffic loads equivalent to
|
|
known numbers of simultaneously active long format beacons in a Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz
|
|
channel. The time required for the GEOLUT to produce a valid beacon message, complete
|
|
message and confirm a complete message for each beacon event was recorded. The number
|
|
of simultaneously active beacon events was changed and the time required for the GEOLUT
|
|
to produce valid, complete and complete confirmed messages was calculated and recorded
|
|
for the new 406 MHz traffic load.
|
|
The test scripts transmitted by the beacon simulator conformed to the nominal conditions
|
|
detailed in the Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz frequency management plan (document C/S T.012),
|
|
with the exception that the uplink EIRP was selected to be 35 dBm rather than 32 dBm. The
|
|
test replicated a number of beacon messages overlapping in time and frequency
|
|
commensurate with the number of simultaneously active beacons. Further, the beacon events
|
|
used in the test script also replicated the beacon burst repetition period defined in document
|
|
C/S T.001 (406 MHz beacon specification). The test was scheduled to avoid any potential
|
|
interference caused by Cospas-Sarsat LEOSAR satellite downlink transmissions.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 6
|
|
|
|
To obtain a sufficient sample size 10 different test scripts were transmitted for each simulated
|
|
beacon traffic load. For example 10 scripts simulating 15 simultaneously active beacons
|
|
were transmitted, which resulted in a sample size of 150 active beacons for this traffic load.
|
|
3.4.2 Capacity Results
|
|
This test was performed by the French and the Spanish GEOLUTs, and the resulting
|
|
performance statistics are provided at Tables 3.6 and 3.7 respectively.
|
|
Table 3.6:
|
|
Capacity Performance Results Measured by French GEOLUT
|
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
ACTIVE
|
|
BEACONS
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 5 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 10 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 15 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF CONFIRMED
|
|
COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 15 MIN
|
|
|
|
0.98
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.99
|
|
|
|
0.97
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.98
|
|
|
|
0.87
|
|
0.98
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.94
|
|
|
|
0.93
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.98
|
|
Table 3.7:
|
|
Capacity Performance Results Measured by Spanish GEOLUT
|
|
NUMBER OF
|
|
ACTIVE
|
|
BEACONS
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 5 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 10 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF VALID
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 15 MIN
|
|
PROBABILITY
|
|
OF CONFIRMED
|
|
COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGE
|
|
WITHIN 15 MIN
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.95
|
|
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
1.00
|
|
0.99
|
|
The results indicate that for beacon populations with uplink EIRP values exceeding 35 dBm,
|
|
the capacity would exceed 20 simultaneously active beacons, and that at this load the MSG
|
|
GEOSAR system would reliably provide complete confirmed beacon messages.
|
|
3.5
|
|
T-8: Processing Anomaly Performance
|
|
A processing anomaly is an alert generated by the system that does not correspond to a real
|
|
beacon. Processing anomalies may occur when bit errors cause a real beacon transmission to
|
|
be received garbled in a manner such that the corrupted message passes BCH error checking.
|
|
The beacon message content validation checks at the MCC are able to identify most
|
|
processing anomalies, thereby preventing their further distribution as false alerts.
|
|
Two different tests were conducted to evaluate the processing anomaly characteristics of the
|
|
MSG system. One test measured the processing anomaly rate as a function of the number of
|
|
beacon bursts seen by the satellite, and the other test evaluated a processing anomaly rate as a
|
|
ratio of the number of processing anomalies sent to the MCC in comparison to the total
|
|
number of alerts transmitted by the GEOLUT.
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 7
|
|
|
|
3.5.1
|
|
Processing Anomaly as a Function of Number of Beacon Bursts
|
|
This test was conducted by monitoring the 406 MHz channel (406.022 MHz) used by
|
|
Cospas-Sarsat reference beacons, and noting instances where the GEOLUT produced valid
|
|
beacon messages which did not correspond to any of the reference beacons in the coverage
|
|
area of the MSG satellite. Since the identification (IDs) of all reference beacons in view of
|
|
the MSG satellite are known, it was inferred that beacons detected in the 406.022 MHz
|
|
channel that did not correspond to known reference beacons were processing anomalies.
|
|
The time of each processing anomaly was noted and correlated against LEOSAR passes over
|
|
the GEOLUT to determine whether interference from LEOSAR satellite downlinks
|
|
influenced the processing anomaly performance. The testing took place over 30 days and the
|
|
results are summarised in the table below.
|
|
Table 3.8:
|
|
Processing Anomaly Performance as Function of Received Beacon Bursts
|
|
(Measured by Maspalomas GEOLUT)
|
|
Number of Bursts
|
|
Number of
|
|
Processing
|
|
Anomalies
|
|
Processing
|
|
Anomaly Rate
|
|
All Data
|
|
224,640
|
|
|
|
0.030%
|
|
GEOLUT in LEOSAR Footprint
|
|
56,160
|
|
|
|
0.030%
|
|
The results provided by the Spanish GEOLUT indicate that that 3 processing anomalies were
|
|
produced for every 10,000 beacon bursts, and that possible interference from LEOSAR
|
|
satellite downlinks did not appear to affect performance in respect of processing anomalies.
|
|
3.5.2
|
|
Processing Anomaly as Percentage of Alerts Transmitted by GEOLUT
|
|
This test was conducted by monitoring the alert messages sent by the Toulouse GEOLUT to
|
|
the French MCC, and noting those alerts that failed message validation checks at the MCC.
|
|
It was assumed that:
|
|
a.
|
|
the alerts failing beacon message validation were processing anomalies; and
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 8
|
|
|
|
b.
|
|
given the robust validation checks at the MCC for most beacon message protocols,
|
|
very few processing anomalies were not detected by the MCC checks. The data was
|
|
collected over a two month period from 27 March 2004 to 27 May 2004. For
|
|
comparison purposes processing anomaly data was also collected from the two
|
|
Toulouse LEOLUTs.
|
|
Table 3.9:
|
|
Processing Anomaly Performance as Function of Number of Alert
|
|
Messages Sent to MCC
|
|
(Measured by Toulouse GEOLUT)
|
|
Alerts
|
|
Transmitted to
|
|
MCC
|
|
Processing
|
|
Anomalies
|
|
Transmitted to
|
|
MCC
|
|
Processing
|
|
Anomaly Rate
|
|
Toulouse MSG GEOLUT 2273
|
|
6,904
|
|
|
|
3.04%
|
|
LEOLUT 2271
|
|
7,352
|
|
|
|
1.28%
|
|
LEOLUT 2272
|
|
7,605
|
|
|
|
1.33%
|
|
3.6
|
|
T-9: MSG Coverage
|
|
Two methods were used to evaluate the coverage of the MSG satellite. One method involved
|
|
plotting the location of alerts received by the MSG system. The location information was
|
|
provided in most cases by the LEOSAR system. The second method involved placing
|
|
beacons on ships that were travelling through the MSG coverage boundaries.
|
|
The location of alerts that were detected by the MSG system over a 101 day period is
|
|
provided at Figure 3.1 below. The footprint circle indicated on Figure 3.1 represents a 0°
|
|
elevation from the earth to the satellite.
|
|
Figure 3.1:
|
|
Location of MSG Alerts
|
|
MSG-1 GEOSAR Coverage
|
|
27 Jan. - 7 May 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 9
|
|
|
|
The location of the alerts in Figure 3.1 indicates that the System detects alerts throughout its
|
|
coverage area.
|
|
The results of a test with a beacon mounted on a ship travelling around the world are
|
|
provided at Figure 3.2. The findings demonstrate reception throughout the MSG satellite
|
|
footprint for elevation angles greater than 7.7, except for a gap between 37 and 52 East.
|
|
Investigation into this gap revealed the presence of a strong interfering signal, which
|
|
disrupted reception. As indicated at Figure 3.3 the MSG was able to detect the beacon down
|
|
to the horizon, although reliable coverage at the Eastern boundary was achieved for elevation
|
|
angles greater than 7.7.
|
|
Figure 3.2:
|
|
MSG Footprint Boundary
|
|
MSG-1 GEO COVERAGE - GEOLUT 2273 TOULOUSE
|
|
|
|
|
|
-180 -165 -150 -135 -120 -105
|
|
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 10
|
|
|
|
Figure 3.3:
|
|
Eastern Footprint Boundary
|
|
The receptions received from a beacon mounted on a vessel operating at the northern limits
|
|
of the MSG coverage are depicted below at Figure 3.4. The results confirmed that the MSG
|
|
system could reliably detect transmission at latitudes of 79.229N.
|
|
Figure 3.4:
|
|
Northern Footprint Boundary
|
|
79.229 N
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 11
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
Complementarity and Effectiveness of the GEOSAR/LEOSAR Systems
|
|
The complementarity and effectiveness of GEOSAR/LEOSAR systems is an assessment of
|
|
the percentage of 406 MHz beacon transmissions, within the coverage area of a particular
|
|
geostationary satellite, that are detected by only the GEOSAR system, only the LEOSAR
|
|
System, or by both systems. This analysis measures the ability of the GEOSAR system to
|
|
detect beacons within the satellite coverage area using confirmed detections by the LEOSAR
|
|
System as a reference. GEOSAR data for this analysis was provided from the Toulouse MSG
|
|
GEOLUT.
|
|
Table 3.10: Complementarity and Effectiveness of MSG GEOSAR/LEOSAR Systems
|
|
Feb.
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
Total number of C/S 406 MHz Beacon Activations (BA)
|
|
within the FMCC Service Area of the MSG-1 footprint
|
|
(Position confirmed by LEO satellite passes, or by RCC
|
|
feedback):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of BA that were detected using the MSG-1 SAR
|
|
signal:
|
|
|
|
76 %
|
|
|
|
73 %
|
|
Number of BA for which the MSG-1 detection was the
|
|
only means of alert:
|
|
|
|
10 %
|
|
|
|
13 %
|
|
Number of BA for which the MSG-1 detection was the
|
|
first means of alert:
|
|
|
|
54 %
|
|
|
|
41 %
|
|
Number of BA for which the MSG-1 detection was the
|
|
first OR only Alert:
|
|
|
|
64 %
|
|
|
|
54 %
|
|
Number of BA not detected by the MSG-1 GEOLUT 2273:
|
|
|
|
24 %
|
|
|
|
26 %
|
|
- END OF SECTION 3 -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT06
|
|
3 - 12
|
|
|
|
page left blank
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
4 - 1
|
|
|
|
4.
|
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
|
The MSG GEOSAR performance evaluation test results show that the MSG GEOSAR
|
|
system reliably detects beacons with uplink EIRPs greater than 30 dBm. Furthermore at the
|
|
31 dBm threshold the system also reliably provides confirmed complete beacon messages.
|
|
The ability to provide confirmed complete messages indicates that the MSG GEOSAR
|
|
system will effectively provide MCCs with precise encoded location information when this
|
|
data is transmitted in location protocol beacons.
|
|
The results achieved by the French, Spanish and United Kingdom GEOLUTs were consistent
|
|
with each other. Prior to conducting the testing the design and configuration of the MSG
|
|
GEOLUTs had been optimised for overall system performance. Consequently, further major
|
|
improvements to GEOLUT performance should not be expected, and the results obtained
|
|
during the system evaluation were suitable for developing MSG GEOLUT specification and
|
|
commissioning requirements.
|
|
- END OF SECTION 4 -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
4 - 2
|
|
|
|
page left blank
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________
|
|
ANNEXES TO THE
|
|
COSPAS-SARSAT
|
|
METEOSAT SECOND GENERATION (MSG)
|
|
GEOSAR PERFORMANCE
|
|
EVALUATION REPORT
|
|
_________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
|
|
page left blank
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
A - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX A
|
|
PROCESSING THRESHOLD AND SYSTEM MARGIN TEST RESULTS
|
|
1.0
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin Test Results Measured by France's GEOLUT
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.90
|
|
0.91
|
|
0.92
|
|
0.93
|
|
0.94
|
|
0.95
|
|
0.96
|
|
0.97
|
|
0.98
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
Probability of Valid Message
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Processing
|
|
Threshold
|
|
= 30 dBm
|
|
37 dBm
|
|
System Margin = 7 dB .
|
|
2.0
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin Test Results Measured by Spain's GEOLUT
|
|
Processing Threshold
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
0.00%
|
|
10.00%
|
|
20.00%
|
|
30.00%
|
|
40.00%
|
|
50.00%
|
|
60.00%
|
|
70.00%
|
|
80.00%
|
|
90.00%
|
|
100.00%
|
|
Probability of Valid Message
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Systen
|
|
Margin
|
|
6 dB
|
|
.
|
|
System
|
|
Margin
|
|
6 dB
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
A - 2
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Processing Threshold and System Margin Test Results Measured by UK's GEOLUT
|
|
Processing Threshold
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0%
|
|
10.0%
|
|
20.0%
|
|
30.0%
|
|
40.0%
|
|
50.0%
|
|
60.0%
|
|
70.0%
|
|
80.0%
|
|
90.0%
|
|
100.0%
|
|
Probability of Valid Message
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
- END OF ANNEX A -
|
|
7 dB System
|
|
Margin
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
B - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX B
|
|
VALID MESSAGE PROCESSING PERFORMANCE
|
|
1.0
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance Test Results Measured by France's GEOLUT
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.90
|
|
0.91
|
|
0.92
|
|
0.93
|
|
0.94
|
|
0.95
|
|
0.96
|
|
0.97
|
|
0.98
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
Probability of Valid Message within 5 minutes
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Processing
|
|
Performance
|
|
= 31 dBm
|
|
2.0
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance Test Results Measured by Spain's GEOLUT
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
0%
|
|
10%
|
|
20%
|
|
30%
|
|
40%
|
|
50%
|
|
60%
|
|
70%
|
|
80%
|
|
90%
|
|
100%
|
|
Probability of Valid message within 5 minutes
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
PROCESSING
|
|
PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
B - 2
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance Test Results Measured by UK GEOLUT
|
|
Valid Message Processing Performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0%
|
|
10.0%
|
|
20.0%
|
|
30.0%
|
|
40.0%
|
|
50.0%
|
|
60.0%
|
|
70.0%
|
|
80.0%
|
|
90.0%
|
|
100.0%
|
|
Probability of Valid Message Within 5 Minutes
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
- END OF ANNEX B -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
C - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX C
|
|
COMPLETE AND CONFIRMED COMPLETE MESSAGE
|
|
PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS
|
|
1.0
|
|
Complete and Confirmed Complete Performance Test Results Measured by France's
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.90
|
|
0.91
|
|
0.92
|
|
0.93
|
|
0.94
|
|
0.95
|
|
0.96
|
|
0.97
|
|
0.98
|
|
0.99
|
|
1.00
|
|
Probability of Successful Message Processing
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Confirmed Complete
|
|
Complete
|
|
2.0
|
|
Complete and Confirmed Complete Performance Test Results Measured by Spain's
|
|
GEOLUT
|
|
Long Message Processing Performance
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
0.00%
|
|
10.00%
|
|
20.00%
|
|
30.00%
|
|
40.00%
|
|
50.00%
|
|
60.00%
|
|
70.00%
|
|
80.00%
|
|
90.00%
|
|
100.00%
|
|
Probability of Complete Message
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Probability of Complete Message
|
|
Probability of Confirmed Complete Message
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
C - 2
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Confirmed Complete Performance Test Results Measured by UK's GEOLUT
|
|
Message Performance Test Results
|
|
0%
|
|
10%
|
|
20%
|
|
30%
|
|
40%
|
|
50%
|
|
60%
|
|
70%
|
|
80%
|
|
90%
|
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Probability of Successful Message Processing
|
|
- END OF ANNEX C -
|
|
Complete Messages
|
|
Confirmed Complete Messages
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
D - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX D
|
|
TIME TO PRODUCE VALID, COMPLETE AND CONFIRMED COMPLETE
|
|
MESSAGES TEST RESULTS
|
|
1.0
|
|
Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Test Results
|
|
Measured by France's GEOLUT
|
|
Average Time to Produce Valid, Complete and
|
|
Confirmed Complete Messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seconds
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Confirmed Complete
|
|
Complete
|
|
Valid
|
|
30/04/04
|
|
27/04/04 and
|
|
30/04/04 and
|
|
25/05/04
|
|
2.0
|
|
Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Test Results
|
|
Measured by Spain's GEOLUT
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time (s)
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
ATVM (sec)
|
|
ATCM (sec)
|
|
ATCCM (sec)
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
D - 2
|
|
|
|
95th Percentile
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time (s)
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Valid
|
|
Complete
|
|
Complete Confirmed
|
|
98th Percentile
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
|
30.5
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time (s)
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Valid
|
|
Complete
|
|
Complete Confirmed
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
D - 3
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Time to Produce Valid, Complete and Confirmed Complete Message Test Results
|
|
Measured by UK's GEOLUT
|
|
Average Time to Message
|
|
0.0
|
|
100.0
|
|
200.0
|
|
300.0
|
|
400.0
|
|
500.0
|
|
600.0
|
|
700.0
|
|
800.0
|
|
900.0
|
|
1000.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Average Time (Seconds)
|
|
95th Percentile Time to Messages
|
|
-100.0
|
|
0.0
|
|
100.0
|
|
200.0
|
|
300.0
|
|
400.0
|
|
500.0
|
|
600.0
|
|
700.0
|
|
800.0
|
|
900.0
|
|
1000.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
95th Percentile Time (Seconds)
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Valid Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Complete Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Confirmed Complete Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Valid Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Complete Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Confirmed
|
|
Complete Messages
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
D - 4
|
|
|
|
98th Percentile Time to Messages
|
|
-100.0
|
|
0.0
|
|
100.0
|
|
200.0
|
|
300.0
|
|
400.0
|
|
500.0
|
|
600.0
|
|
700.0
|
|
800.0
|
|
900.0
|
|
1000.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
98th Percentile Time (Seconds)
|
|
- END OF ANNEX D -
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Valid Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce Complete Messages
|
|
Avg Time to Produce
|
|
Confirmed Complete
|
|
Messages
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
E - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX E
|
|
FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT ACCURACY TEST RESULTS
|
|
1.0
|
|
Frequency Measurement Accuracy Test Results Measured by France's GEOLUT
|
|
Test T3. Carrier Frequency Measurement
|
|
30.0
|
|
30.5
|
|
31.0
|
|
31.5
|
|
32.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Average (Hz)
|
|
29/03/04
|
|
Test T3. Carrier Frequency Measurement
|
|
0.0
|
|
0.5
|
|
1.0
|
|
1.5
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Standard Deviation Freq.
|
|
Measurement Error (Hz)
|
|
29/03/04
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
E - 2
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Frequency Measurement Accuracy Test Results Measured by Spain's GEOLUT
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Acuraccy
|
|
27.8
|
|
28.8
|
|
29.8
|
|
30.8
|
|
31.8
|
|
32.8
|
|
33.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Avg Freq Measurement Difference (Hz)
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Standard Deviation
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Standard Deviation Measurement Diff (Hz)
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
E - 3
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Frequency Measurement Accuracy Test Results Measured by the UK's GEOLUT
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Accuracy
|
|
-1.0
|
|
-0.8
|
|
-0.6
|
|
-0.4
|
|
-0.2
|
|
0.0
|
|
0.2
|
|
0.4
|
|
0.6
|
|
0.8
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Average Frequency Measurement Difference (Hz)
|
|
Carrier Frequency Measurement Standard Deviation
|
|
0.0
|
|
0.2
|
|
0.4
|
|
0.6
|
|
0.8
|
|
1.0
|
|
1.2
|
|
1.4
|
|
1.6
|
|
1.8
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EIRP (dBm)
|
|
Standard Deviation of Frequency Meassurements (Hz)
|
|
- END OF ANNEX E -
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
E - 4
|
|
|
|
page left blank
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
F - 1
|
|
|
|
ANNEX F
|
|
CAPACITY TEST RESULTS
|
|
1.0
|
|
Capacity Test Results Measured by France's GEOLUT
|
|
2.0
|
|
Capacity Test Results Measured by Spain's GEOLUT
|
|
- END OF ANNEX F -
|
|
- END OF DOCUMENT -
|
|
0.8
|
|
0.85
|
|
0.9
|
|
0.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Active Beacons
|
|
Probability
|
|
Valid Msg in 5 min
|
|
Valid Msg in 10 min
|
|
Valid Msg in 15 min
|
|
Confirmed Complete in
|
|
15 min
|
|
90.0%
|
|
91.0%
|
|
92.0%
|
|
93.0%
|
|
94.0%
|
|
95.0%
|
|
96.0%
|
|
97.0%
|
|
98.0%
|
|
99.0%
|
|
100.0%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beacon Load
|
|
Percentage of Beacons
|
|
Within 5 Min
|
|
Within 10 Min
|
|
Within 15 Min
|
|
Conf-Comp within 15 Min
|
|
|
|
R13OCT04
|
|
F - 2
|
|
|
|
page left blank
|
|
|
|
Cospas-Sarsat Secretariat
|
|
1250 Rene-Levesque Blvd. West, Suite 4215, Montreal (Quebec) H3B 4W8 Canada
|
|
Telephone: +1 514 500 7999
|
|
Fax: +1 514 500 7996
|
|
Email: mail@cospas-sarsat.int
|
|
Website: http://www.cospas-sarsat.int |