Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Frequency Shift versus Force Gradient of a Dynamic AFM Quartz Tuning Fork Subject to Lennard-Jones Potential Force
Previous Article in Journal
A Joint Method Based on Time-Frequency Distribution to Detect Time-Varying Interferences for GNSS Receivers with a Single Antenna
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wireless Middleware Solutions for Smart Water Metering
Open AccessReview

Review and Evaluation of MAC Protocols for Satellite IoT Systems Using Nanosatellites

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Av. Tupper 2007, Santiago 8370451, Chile
2
NIC Chile Research Labs, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8370403, Chile
3
Aurora Space, Santiago 7750053, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(8), 1947; https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081947
Received: 16 January 2019 / Revised: 12 February 2019 / Accepted: 14 February 2019 / Published: 25 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Middleware Solutions for Wireless Internet of Things)
Extending the internet of things (IoT) networks to remote areas under extreme conditions or for serving sometimes unpredictable mobile applications has increased the need for satellite technology to provide effective connectivity. However, existent medium access control (MAC) protocols deployed in commercial satellite networks were not designed to offer scalable solutions for the increasing number of devices predicted for IoT in the near future, nor do they consider other specific IoT characteristics. In particular, CubeSats—a low-cost solution for space technology—have the potential to become a wireless access network for the IoT, if additional requirements, including simplicity and low demands in processing, storage, and energy consumption are incorporated into MAC protocol design for satellite IoT systems. Here we review MAC protocols employed or proposed for satellite systems and evaluate their performance considering the IoT scenario along with the trend of using CubeSats for IoT connectivity. Criteria include channel load, throughput, energy efficiency, and complexity. We have found that Aloha-based protocols and interference cancellation-based protocols stand out on some of the performance metrics. However, the tradeoffs among communications performance, energy consumption, and complexity require improvements in future designs, for which we identify specific challenges and open research areas for MAC protocols deployed with next low-cost nanosatellite IoT systems. View Full-Text
Keywords: CubeSats; internet of things; medium access control; nanosatellites; sensor networks; wireless access networks CubeSats; internet of things; medium access control; nanosatellites; sensor networks; wireless access networks
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Ferrer, T.; Céspedes, S.; Becerra, A. Review and Evaluation of MAC Protocols for Satellite IoT Systems Using Nanosatellites. Sensors 2019, 19, 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081947

AMA Style

Ferrer T, Céspedes S, Becerra A. Review and Evaluation of MAC Protocols for Satellite IoT Systems Using Nanosatellites. Sensors. 2019; 19(8):1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081947

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferrer, Tomás; Céspedes, Sandra; Becerra, Alex. 2019. "Review and Evaluation of MAC Protocols for Satellite IoT Systems Using Nanosatellites" Sensors 19, no. 8: 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081947

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop