Communication Link Budget Estimation between
Ground IoT Terminal and Cubesat 3U ’s SDR
1st Nabil EL HASSAINATE
Smart Communications Team (ERSC)
Mohammadia School of Engineers
University Center for Research in Space Technologies
Rabat, Morocco
elhassainate123@gmail.com
3nd Zouhair GUENNOUN
Smart Communications Team (ERSC)
Mohammadia School of Engineers
University Center for Research in Space Technologies
Rabat, Morocco
zouhair@emi.ac.ma
Abstract—This paper reports the study and analysis of the
link budget for uplink and downlink communication between
the 3U university nano-satellite using Software-defined radio
(SDR) and the ground IoT terminals. The aim of such study
is to ensure that the playload of the 3U-CubeSat receives
and processes correctly data sent by ground IoT terminals.
The calculation of the link budget allows the determination
of attenuation parameters such as atmospheric losses, free
space path losses, antenna polarization losses. The analysis of
the link budget enables finding the adequate elevation angle
to ensure that the communication link and synchronization
can be performed correctly. For this purpose, the link margin
for three different elevation angles is calculated. It has been
shown that 30° elevation angle is the optimal elevation for a
favorable communication link between the 3U university nano-
satellite and the ground IoT terminals.The original idea in
this work is to provide a detailed overview of the architecture
communication between 3U cubesat and ground IoT terminal
and to analyze the link budget requirements to successfully
establish this communication.
Index Terms—Nano-satellite, CubeSat, Internet of Thing
(IoT), Link budget, Satellite communications, Software Defined
Radio (SDR)
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, several countries and worldwide uni-
versities have been able to integrate the space commu-
nity through the design and development of their own
nanosatellites thanks to the CubeSat standard [1]. The
cost of cubeSat is low compared to traditional satellites
because very often cubeSat are built from components
available commercially on the shelf (COTS). These uni-
versities are seeking to master space technologies by de-
velopping several projects based on the design of cubesats
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
In general, a CubeSat is composed of several sub-
systems such as the on-board computer for Command and
Data Processing (OBC), the power supply system (EPS),
2rd Ahmed OULAD SAID
Electronics and Telecommunications Department
Royal Air Academy
Marrakech, Morocco
ahmed.ouladsaid@gmail.com
the Communication system (COM), the thermal System,
the payload and others.
The University Center for Research in Space Technolo-
gies is in the stage of an ongoing 3U-cubeSat project with
a telecommunication mission. This concerns the develop-
ment of a payload application able to collect information
from IoT terminals and M2M using ground sensors. These
IoT Terminals will be spread over remote Moroccan
sites not covered by terrestrial networks, to collect and
gather data measured by the sensors about different
Moroccan sites parameters such as temperature,humidityl,
concentration of CO2 and water level . During the cubeSat
visibility, these collected data will be sent to the cubeSat
that will be forwarding such data to the graound station
in Rabat for archiving, processing and analysing.
The remaining sections of this article are organized as
follows: the architecture system under study is presented
in the section 2. The used parameters of the link budget
and their calculations are exposed in section 3. The cal-
culation of the down/up link budget and their discussions
are reported in section 4.
II. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
The system under study must provide a communication
service for the terminals deployed on the ground to
respond to the main objective of the mission. Indeed,
the ground IoT terminal sends data to the satellite in
a UHF frequency band, after synchronization. The nano
satellite receives the message and performs the processing
and storage before sending it to the ground station for
operation.
The system architecture is composed of a 3U nano
satellite using a circular LEO orbit at an altitude about
525 km and has an inclination of 97°. The ground station
is located at the city of Rabat and ground terminals (IoT
modem and M2M) are spread over three different regions
(Nord, East and South) of Morocco to ensure the three
applications namely detection fire alarm, smart irrigation
and weather station. The Figure 1 shows the architecture
of the system under study.

Fig. 3. Front End UHF Block diagram.

Fig. 1. Architecture of the System Under Study.

A. University 3U nano satellite segment

The 3U university nano-satellite has two main parts,
namely the platform and the payload. The Functionalities
carried out by the two subsystems are :
At the level of the platform: The messages received by
the payload TOTEM SDR board [7] are sent via the CAN
bus using the CSP protocol to the PlayLoad Controller.
The PlayLoad Controller routes the information received
to the S-band transceiver for sending them to the ground
station. Figure 2 shows the routing of data from the
TOTEM SDR card to the ground station via the 3U
CubeSat platform. .
Fig. 2. Routing of data from the TOTEM SDR card to the ground
station via the 3U CubeSat platform diagram.
At the payload level: It is composed of a TOTEM SDR
board and a UHF Front End (as illustrated in figure 3)
for receiving, processing and storing messages from ground
IoT terminals.
Figure 4 shows the processing process for messages
received bythe TOTEM SDR board of the 3U nano-
satellite.
Fig. 4. The processing of IoT messages received by the TOTEM
SDR board of the 3U nanosatellite Diagram.
B. Ground IoT terminal segment
The ground IoT terminals used for this study are
composed of a IoT UHF-modem terminal, a processing
unit and sensors as shown in figure 5. The processing unit
is responsible of calculating the position of the satellite,
the doppler shift and generating the message to be sent .
The IoT UHF modem terminal is a communication USB
radio device for transmitting and receiving messages under
the KISS protocol. It is composed of a control module, a
transmitter/receiver connected to a Font End.
In addition, the Front End connecting the Turnstile
Antenna to the transceiver via an RF (SMA) connector is
split into two blocks. The first has a power amplifier that
amplifies the signal to the power of desired output while
the second has an LNA. The two blocks are connected to
the antenna switch which allows switching from transmis-
sion mode to reception mode. The characteristics of the
IoT UHF modem terminal are presented in Table 1.
TABLE I
IoT Terminal UHF modem characteristics
Parametre Value
TX power up to 31dBm
Data rate 1.2 kbps, 2.4 kbps or 4.8 lbps
Modulation GMSK
Sensitivity -123 dBm

Fig. 5. Block Diagram of Ground IoT Terminal.
C. Communication Link Requirement
To enable reliable communication between the ground
IoT terminal and the 3U-CubeSat, a study of the KISS
communication protocol and Doppler effect is performed.
The KISS protocol [8] is designed to be easy to
implement in terminals, capable of asynchronous serial
communications. It operates by delimiting the frame at the
beginning by a FEND (Frame END) and at the end of the
frame by FEND (Frame END) for the sake of performance
improvement in the presence of noise on the asynchronous
line as shown in figure 6.
Fig. 6. KISS Frame Structure.
Furthermore, the FEND at the beginning of each frame
serves to ”eliminate” any waste accumulated in a separate
frame (which will be rejected by the upper layer protocol).
In addition, the frames are transmitted in 8 bits; the
link asynchronous is set to 8 data bits, 1 stop bit and
no parity bit.If a FEND character appears in the data, it
is translated into the sequence of two characters Frame
Escape (FESC) and Transposed Frame End (TFEND).
Similarly, if the FESC character appears in the user data,
it is replaced by the sequence of two bytes Frame Escape
(FESC) and Transposed Frame End (TFEND). See table
III of the special characteristics of kiss protocol.
TABLE II
KISS special characters
Description Hex value
Frame END (FEND) 0xC0
Frame Escape (FESC) 0xDB
Transposed Frame END (TFEND) 0xDC
Frame Escape (TFESC ) 0xDD
The Doppler effect is defined as the frequency shift of a
electromagnetic wave between the emission measurement
and the reception measurement when the distance between
the transmitter and the receiver varies over time implying
that one of the two elements (or both) is in motion.
The variation of frequency depends on the relative speed
or distance between the CubeSat and the ground IoT
terminal [9].
The speed of satellites in low earth orbit is quite
significant resulting in a severe Doppler shift. When the
satellite has a relative speed of Vc along the line of sight,
then the received signal has an offset frequency given by:
Vc f R cos(α)
fdoppler = ( )× (1)
c R+h
Where f is the carrier signal frequency, α is the elevation
angle, h is the orbit altitude and R is the earth radius
(6378 km).
As an example, for an elevation angle of 0°, the Doppler
shift is around 9.64 kHz for a UHF frequency of 401.6
MHz. When the elevation angle changes to 30°, the
offset Doppler is about 8.29 kHz. To compensate for the
Doppler shift two strategies can be considered: either the
compensation will be performed at CubeSat level or it
may be carried out at the level of the IoT terminal on the
ground.
The retained choice is made towards a compensation at
the level of the ground IoT terminal by the reception of
Two-Line Elements (TLE) information from the CubeSat.
The TLE data will be used by the Ground IoT terminal
program to calculate the Doppler shift in order to send
the packet with the compensated frequency.
III. LINK BUDGET PARAMETERS
Considering the satellite communication link shown in
figure 1. We propose to determine the power of a signal
received from the satellite knowing that the signal is
transmitted by a ground IoT terminal. The part of the
transmission link from the ground IoT terminal to the
satellite is called an uplink and that of the satellite to the
ground IoT terminal is called a downlink.
Let us consider the transmit power from the ground IoT
terminal to satellite to be Pt, the power, Pr, received at
the level of the satellite is given by the following FRIIS
equation :
1 1
Pr = Pt Gt Gr × × (2)
LF S L
where :
Pt is the power delivered to the transmitting antenna in
watts (W) ,
Pr is the power delivered by the receiving antenna in watts
(W),
Gt is the transmit antenna gain,
Gr is the receiving antenna gain,
LF S is the free space path loss,
L expresses the overall effect of atmospheric losses other
than free space losses.
The global effect of the losses in the atmosphere can
be expressed depending on the various attenuation coeffi-
cients such as :
L = Lem × Lprop × Lpol × Lpoint × Lrec (3)
where: which gives up all or part of its energy, leading conse-
Lem : losses between the transmitter output and the quently to an attenuation of the signal in the direction of
transmitting antenna, spread.
Lprop : propagation losses in the atmosphere and the *The ionosphere contains mainly ionized particles. Its
ionosphere, main effect is scintillation which is the result of rapid
Lpol : losses resulting from a poor adaptation of the fluctuations in amplitude, phase and angle of arrival of
polarization of the two antennas, the signals received after crossing the atmosphere. These
Lpoint : losses due to the depointing of the two antennas, fluctuations are due either to the variation of the refrac-
Lrec : losses between the reception antenna and the input tive index caused either by the presence of atmospheric
of the receiver. turbulence, or by irregularities in the ionization within the
ionosphere caused by the solar activities.
The losses due to the ionosphere layer are of the order of
A. Free-Space Path Loss Calculation 0.4 dB using AMSAT-IARU Link Spreadsheet Model Rev
The free space propagation losses are the most impor- 2.5.5. Regarding gas atmospherics losses, they are given
tant losses in satellite communications. They depend on according to the elevation in Table IV.
the distance between the transmitter and the receiver, of
TABLE IV
the frequency used. They can be expressed as: Loss due to atmosphere gases
4πd 2
LF S = ( ) (4) Elevation angle (Degree) Loss (dB)
λ
0° 10.2
Where d is the slant range in meters (m) between the 10° 1.1
30° 0.4
3U-CubeSat and the ground IoT terminal, λ is the 60° 0.3
wavelength in meters (m) corresponding to the working 90° 0
frequency.

The slant distance d is calculated using the AMSAT- C. Antenna Polarization Loss Calculation
IARU Link Template Rev 2.5.5 spreadsheet [10]. The The communication link between the 3U-CubeSat and
result is integrated into the calculation of losses LF S for the IoT terminal on the ground uses two antennas at
different elevation angles from 0° to 90° with a step of 10°. both ends for the establishment of communication. To
Table III presents the free space path losses as a function guarantee the reliability of this link, the chosen antennas
of the slant distance between the 3U-CubeSat and the IoT must have characteristics that meet requirements in terms
terminal on the ground and the elevation angle. of gain, polarization and pointing angle to minimize
pointing losses and compensate for polarization changes
TABLE III induced by Faraday’s rotation.
Free Space Path Loss PER Elevation Angle The ideal configuration for the two antennas for re-
ceiving ption and transmitting is that their polarization
Elevation angle Slant range Free-space path loss is the same. As a result, the incoming wave received by
(Degree) (km) (dB) the antenna at maximum power extracted therefore there
0° 2640.8 153.0
10° 1755.9 149.4 will be no loss of polarization. Table V lists the different
20° 1234 146.4 antenna polarization configurations with the value of the
30° 951 144.1 corresponding polarization losses.
40° 777 142.3
50° 668 141.0
60° 599 140.1 TABLE V
70° 556 139.4 Antenna Polarization configurations and Polarization Loss
80° 532 139.1
90° 525 138.9
Antenna Polarization combination Polarization loss
(dB)
Circular (Right or Left) - Linear -3
B. Atmospheric Loss Calculation Vertical - Vertical 0
Horizontal -Horizontal 0
A radio link between the ground IoT terminal and a Vertical - Horizontal -∞
Circular right hand -Circular right hand 0
satellite passes through the earth’s atmosphere and enters Circular left hand - Circular left hand 0
collision with the molecules and particles that compose it. Circular right hand -Circular left hand -∞
We then distinguish two regions likely to infuence wave
propagation: We opted to use a circularly polarized antenna on the
*The troposphere composed of gaseous particles which side ground IoT terminal and in the other side a linear
cause a transfer of energy and the absorption of radiation polarization antenna, even if it causes a loss of 3 dB.
Thereby, a dipole antenna with a length of 17 cm operating
in UHF was installed at the playload of the 3U-CubeSat.
The antenna used for the ground IoT terminal is a UHF
Turnstile antenna operating in frequency range 350 MHz
to 500 MHz and offering a gain of around 1.37 dB [11]. It
is circularly polarized with an omnidirectional radiation
pattern to avoid the installation of a 3U-CubeSat tracking
system.
D. Cable and Connector Loss Calculation
The ground IoT terminal uses a TMS coaxial cable
LMR-400 to connect the UHF Turnstile antenna to the
IoT Terminal UHF modem. The total cable length is 10
meters with two connectors.
The online calculator [12] was chosen to calculate the
cable losses. Cable losses are estimated to contribute
approximately 0.83 dB for a power of 5 W. For the losses
of the two connectors, they are estimated on the basis of
the model AMSAT to be 0.05 dB.
E. Noise system temperature
The received signal is still affected by undesirable noise.
Noise degrades the ability to interpret correctly the useful
signal. The main sources of noise are: cosmic noise, atmo-
spheric noise from rain, fog. and enlightening artificial
noises and finally thermal noise in all the electronic
appliances. To determine the noise power, Pn, produced
in the reception chain, the formula from [13] is used:
Pn = K × Ts × B (5)
where Pn is noise power (W), k is Boltzman constant
(1.3806×10−23 j.K −1 ), B is noise bandwidth interval (Hz)
and Ts is effective noise temperature ( deg K).
The temperature noise level of a receiver-antenna sys-
tem is the sum of the effective antenna noise temperature,
the noise temperature of the transmission cable and the
effective noise temperature of the receiver:
Ts = Tant + Tcab + Trec . (6)
The effective temperature of the receiver is calculated
from its noise factor that is measured at the input of the
receiver: T e = T0 (F − 1) . Hence, the noise temperature
of the overall system is:
Ta Lc − 1
Ts = + Tt × + T0 × (F − 1) (7)
LC Lc
where : Ts is effective system temperature (K),
Ta is effective antenna temperature including all external
noise ( K)
,Tt is thermodynamic temperature of the cable (K),
Lc is cable loss,
F is the noise figure for the receiver defined at the
terminals.
The calculation of the system noise temperature for the
uplink and downlink was performed using the AMSAT
model.
F. Signal to noise ratio
The adequate signal-to-noise ratio for transferring the
desired data with success using the selected binary rate
can be achieved from the parameters calculated in the
prrevious sections and the N Eb
ratio required to ensure
0
a certain bit error rate (BER) for a specific modulation
scheme.
The study conducted from several publications on the
modulation techniques adopted and used in the commu-
nication subsystem of nano satellites [14] [15] leads to the
choice of GMSK modulation, the N Eb
ratio required to
−4
0
ensure a 10 bit error rate is the order of 8.4 dB.
To calculate the signal to noise ratio required, we use
the following relationship:
S Eb Rb
= × (8)
N N0 B
where N is the noise power referred to the input of the
receiver, Rb is the bitrate and B is the bandwidth.
IV. LINK BUDGET CALCULATION
The university 3U-Cubesat is deployed at 525 km
altitude, transmitting at the frequency of 401.6 MHz
with transmission power of 0.5 W and using GMSK
modulation. To see what angle of elevation best adapts to
the communication link between the 3U-CubeSat and the
ground IoT terminal, link margin for uplink and downlink
of the system must be calculated.
The conducted study of several publications and
projects [5][16] on communication between 3U-CubeSat
and ground IoT terminals led to the choice of three
elevation angles (90°, 30° and 10°) for the calculation of
uplink and downlink margins.
Table VI shows the result of the link budget rising
for the three elevation angles. Using AMSAT/IARU
Annotated Link Model System [10], all the parameters
associated with the ground IoT terminal and the CubeSat
3U universities have integrated into this model and the
link margin for each of the elevation angles was calculated.
By analyzing the result, the uplink has a high link margin
of 28.2 dB at 90° elevation compared to 10° and 30° which
have a link margin of 16.6 dB and 22.7 dB respectively.
This shows that when the 3U-CubeSat is located
vertically to the ground IoT terminal, the 3U-CubeSat
receiver will receive a powerful signal Communication. In
conclusion, the greater the slant distance d is shorter, the
communication link between the 3U-CubeSat and the IoT
terminal on the ground is favorable.
The level of the signal received at the antenna of
the 3U-CubeSat is -177.4 dBW for an elevation angle
of 30 degrees considered as the optimal elevation from
which the ground IoT terminal can start receiving TLE
packets from 3U-CubeSat and transmitting the useful
information. Thus, the link margin estimate corresponding
to an elevation angle of 10° satisfies the minimum ground-
space communication requirement. Thus, in order to avoid
 TABLE VI provess that the link margin is strongly affected by the
Uplink Budget Estimation attenuation in the free space.
Indeed, when transmitting TLE data from the 3U-
Ground IoT Terminal
TX power (W) 5 5 5
CubeSat to the ground IoT terminal, the signal has
Transmission line losses (dB) 1.6 1.6 1.6 to pass through the atmosphere and experience higher
Antenna gain (dBi) 1.4 1.4 1.4 attenuation, which lead to signal losses. Moreover, the
Ground IoT Terminal EIRP (dBW) 6.7 6.7 6.7 low power offered by the 3U-CubeSat for transmitting
Channel/Medium Losses
Elevation angle (Degree) 10 30 90 the packets to the IoT terminal on the ground is also one
Ground pointing loss (dB) 0.5 0.5 0.5 of the reasons for the low link margin. However, since the
Polarization loss (dB) 3 3 3 link margin corresponding to an elevation angle of 30° is
Free space loss (dB) 149.4 144.1 138.9
Atmospheric attenuations (dB) 1.1 0.4 0
greater than 3 dB, it is suitable for the transmission of
Ionosphere loss (dB) 0.4 0.4 0.4 TLE information from the CubeSat to the IoT terminal
Rain loss (dB) 0 0 0 on the ground.
Total attenuation (dB) 153 150 144.4
Isotropic received power (dBW) -147.7 -141.7 -136.1
CubeSat
V. CONCLUSION
CubeSat pointing loss (dB) 0.5 0.5 0.5
TX power (W) 0.5 0.5 0.5
In this paper, a detailed study of the radio link budgets
Line losses (dB) 0.8 0.8 0.8 between the ground IoT terminal and the 3U Cubesat has
CubeSat Antenna gain (dBi) 2.2 2.2 2.2 been carried out. Link and device parameters have been
Noise temperature (K) 309 309 309 designed to ensure reliable communication. This study
Figure of merit (G/T) (dB/K) -23.6 -23.6 -23.6
Signal-to-Noise Power Density 56.8 62.8 68.4 shows that from an elevation of 30°, the two uplink and
Data rate in dBHz 1200 1200 1200 downlink communication links are favorable. And that
Command system Eb/No (dB) 26 32.1 37.6 free space attenuation is the only parameter that has a
Modulation methode selected GMSK
significant influence on the link margin.
Required Eb/No for BER = 10−4 8.4 8.4 8.4
Link margin (dB) 16.6 22.7 28.2 In addition, to allow synchronization between the 3U
Cubesat and ground IoT terminal, 30° elevation is ade-
quate to receive TLE information from Cubesat so that
the effects of natural or artificial obstacles at too low an the ground IoT terminal compensates for the Doppler
elevation, we choose 30° as the optimal elevation angle. effect and then transmit the useful information to the
3U-Cubesat.
TABLE VII For future work, we expect the implementation of this
Downlink Budget Estimation application on the Totem SDR board, then the test of
proper functioning in the laboratory and finally, upload
CubeSat the application in the flight model of the University 3U-
TX power (W) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Transmission line losses (dB) 1 1 1 Cubesat.
CubeSat Antenna gain (dBi) 2.2 2.2 2.2
CubeSat EIRP (dBW) -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Channel/Medium Losses
Elevation angle (Degree) 10 30 90 This work was carried out in the frame of the cooper-
CubeSat pointing loss (dB) 0.5 0.5 0.5 ation between the Royal Centre for Space Research and
Polarization loss (dB) 3 3 3
Free space loss (dB) 149.4 141.1 138.9 Studies (CRERS) and the Mohammed V University in
Atmospheric attenuations (dB) 1.1 0.4 0 Rabat (UM5R).
Ionosphere loss (dB) 0.4 0.4 0.4
Rain loss (dB) 0 0 0
Total attenuation (dB) 155.4 146.4 143.8
References
Isotropic received power (dBW) -156.4 -150.4 -144.8
[1] “CubeSat Design Specification Rev 14”, The CubeSat Program,
Ground IoT Terminal Cal Poly SLO,2020. http://www.cubesat.org/.
Pointing loss (dB) 0.5 0.5 0.5 [2] F.Pérez-Lissi, F. Aguado-Agelet, A. Vázquez, P. yañez, P.
Line losses (dB) 1.3 1.3 1.3 Izquierdo, et al. ’FIRE-RS: Integrating land sensors, cubesat
Antenna gain (dBi) 1.4 1.4 1.4 communications, unmanned aerial vehicles and a situation
Noise temperature (K) 382 382 382 assessment software for wildland fire characterization and map-
Figure of merit (G/T) (dB/K) -25.8 -25.8 -25.8 ping’. 69th International Astronautical Congress, Oct 2018,
Data rate in dBHz 1200 1200 1200 Bremen, Germany.
Signal-to-Noise Power Density 46 52 57.6 [3] P. LEPCHA, S. KIM, H. MASUI, M. CHO. ’Application of
Modulation methode selected GMSK Small Satellites for Low-Cost Remote Data Collection Using
Required Eb/No for BER = 10−4 8.4 8.4 8.4 LoRa Transmitters’Trans. JSASS Aerospace Tech. Japan Vol.
Link margin (dB) 6.8 12.8 18.4 19, No. 2, pp. 224-230, 2021.
[4] I. Latachi, M. Karim, A. Hanafi, T. Rachidi, A. Khalayoun, N.
Assem et al.’Link Budget Analysis for a Leo CubeSat Com-
From Table VII, the link margin for 90° is 18.4 dB, for munication Subsystem’. International Conference on Advanced
10° is 6.8 dB while for 30° the link margin is 12.8 dB. It Technologies for Signal and Image Processing (ATSIP), 2017.
 [5] S. Rahim; J. Johari; S. A. Ence Ab Rahim, M. Jusoh et
al.’Estimation of Communication Link on Ground Sensor Ter-
minal (GST) System for Nanosatellite (UiTMSAT-1) Store-and-
Forward Mission’. IEEE 8th International Conference on System
Engineering and Technology (ICSET), Oct 2018.
[6] A. Tokaji et. al, “Global water level monitoring for disaster
mitigation using data collection function of micro-satellites,”
IEEE Aerosp. Conf. Proc., November 21, 2013 [The 5th Nano-
Satellite Symposium, Takeda Hall, University of Tokyo, Tokyo,
Japan, p. 26, 2013].
[7] ”Datasheet TOTEM Motherboard”, Revision 1.3,2019.
https://alen.space/nanosatellite-payloads/form-payloads.
[8] M. Chepponis and P. Karn. The KISS TNC: A simple Host-to-
TNC communications protocol. In 6th Computer Networking
Conference, 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494, USA,
1987. ARRL.
[9] A. Tindemans, “End-to-end analysis and design of the satellite
communication links”, Master thesis, Delft University of tech-
nology, June 2010.
[10] J. King, “Link budget spreadsheet.” [Online]. Available at
http://www.amsatuk.me.uk/iaru/spreadsheet.htm. [Accessed:
15-May-2022].
[11] ”Datasheet UHF Antenna System 1X1U”, 2022.
https://satsearch.co/products/nanoavionics-uhf-antenna-
system-1x1u.
[12] J. Carlos, “Types of Coax Cable and Line Loss Calculator.”
[Online]. Available at http://www.qsl.net/co8tw. [Accessed: 15-
May-2022].
[13] C. D. Brown, ”Elements of Spacecraft Design”, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2002.
[14] A. Munir, N. Febrian, A. Daneraici Setiawan, and Chairunnisa,
“Signal analysis of GMSK modulation-based cubesat automatic
identification system receiver,” in Int.l Conf. on Info. Techno.,
Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE), Oct. 2016,
pp. 439–442.
[15] A. Gaysin; V. Fadeev; M. Hennhöfer,”Survey of modulation
and coding schemes for application in CubeSat systems”, in
Conference Systems of Signal Synchronization, Generating and
Processing in Telecommunications (SINKHROINFO), 03-04
July, 2017.
[16] C. Zhang,S. Cakaj,”The Parameters Comparison of the Starlink
LEO Satellites Constellation for Different Orbital Shells”, in
Journal Frontiers in Communications and Networks, 07 May,
2021.