MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laser Inter-Satellite Link Setup Delay: Quantification, Impact, and Tolerable Value

2023· article· en· W4376480719 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatelliteLaserLink (geometry)Computer scienceRemote sensingAerospace engineeringComputer networkOpticsPhysicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic laser inter-satellite links (LISLs) provide the flexibility of connecting a pair of satellites as required (dynamically) while static LISLs need to be active continuously between the energy-constrained satellites. However, due to the LISL establishment time (termed herein as LISL setup delay) being in the order of seconds, realizing dynamic LISLs is currently unfeasible. Towards the realization of dynamic LISLs, we first study the quantification of LISL setup delay; then we calculate the end-to-end latency of a free-space optical satellite network (FSOSN) with the LISL setup delay; subsequently, we analyze the impact of LISL setup delay on the end-to-end latency of the FSOSN. We also provide design guidelines for the laser communication terminal manufacturers in the form of maximum tolerable value of LISL setup delay for which the FSOSN based on Starlink’s Phase I satellite constellation will be meaningful to use for low-latency long-distance inter-continental data communications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it