Why are polar codes not being used in space communications (error correction)?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From what I have read, satellite communications work mostly using turbo codes since the 90s, but most recently (2009) the polar codes were developed, which seem to be also faster and easier to implement.
These are being used by Huawei's 5G network. But I don't seem to find any good case where this new type of error correction is being applied to space communications. Why?
communication
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From what I have read, satellite communications work mostly using turbo codes since the 90s, but most recently (2009) the polar codes were developed, which seem to be also faster and easier to implement.
These are being used by Huawei's 5G network. But I don't seem to find any good case where this new type of error correction is being applied to space communications. Why?
communication
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
1
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From what I have read, satellite communications work mostly using turbo codes since the 90s, but most recently (2009) the polar codes were developed, which seem to be also faster and easier to implement.
These are being used by Huawei's 5G network. But I don't seem to find any good case where this new type of error correction is being applied to space communications. Why?
communication
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
From what I have read, satellite communications work mostly using turbo codes since the 90s, but most recently (2009) the polar codes were developed, which seem to be also faster and easier to implement.
These are being used by Huawei's 5G network. But I don't seem to find any good case where this new type of error correction is being applied to space communications. Why?
communication
communication
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
edited Aug 11 at 16:45
Russell Borogove
70.7k2219301
70.7k2219301
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
asked Aug 11 at 10:37
Ediolot
182
182
1
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08
add a comment |Â
1
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08
1
1
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Return on Investment: it's an improvement if a channel code is better, but convert the code improvement into money saved, and put it into perspective with the overall system costs, it's suddenly not that pressing anymore
Time Scale: if you put something on a satellite, it better be
proven, because you won't be able to repair it once it's in space.
2009–2018 isn't really long on the time scale for aerospace
components. There's no immediate need (see previous point), so why
switch to new codes?
"They seem to be easier to implement": as someone who maintains an implementation (didn't write that myself, a very talented friend of mine did), I don't know if I agree to the "easier to implement" at all. That thing is complex. Anyway, that's a false benefit. Other codes were already implemented and tested, and not something easy is still easier than implementing it
Polar codes are cool because they are rate-achieving. But in many cases of satellite communications, we can use pretty long block lengths, and that makes classical codes relatively good! So, for those links, the benefits of theoretically better codes is smaller than for let's say highly multipath highly changing channels like the one you'd see in a mobile cellular terrestial system.
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Return on Investment: it's an improvement if a channel code is better, but convert the code improvement into money saved, and put it into perspective with the overall system costs, it's suddenly not that pressing anymore
Time Scale: if you put something on a satellite, it better be
proven, because you won't be able to repair it once it's in space.
2009–2018 isn't really long on the time scale for aerospace
components. There's no immediate need (see previous point), so why
switch to new codes?
"They seem to be easier to implement": as someone who maintains an implementation (didn't write that myself, a very talented friend of mine did), I don't know if I agree to the "easier to implement" at all. That thing is complex. Anyway, that's a false benefit. Other codes were already implemented and tested, and not something easy is still easier than implementing it
Polar codes are cool because they are rate-achieving. But in many cases of satellite communications, we can use pretty long block lengths, and that makes classical codes relatively good! So, for those links, the benefits of theoretically better codes is smaller than for let's say highly multipath highly changing channels like the one you'd see in a mobile cellular terrestial system.
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Return on Investment: it's an improvement if a channel code is better, but convert the code improvement into money saved, and put it into perspective with the overall system costs, it's suddenly not that pressing anymore
Time Scale: if you put something on a satellite, it better be
proven, because you won't be able to repair it once it's in space.
2009–2018 isn't really long on the time scale for aerospace
components. There's no immediate need (see previous point), so why
switch to new codes?
"They seem to be easier to implement": as someone who maintains an implementation (didn't write that myself, a very talented friend of mine did), I don't know if I agree to the "easier to implement" at all. That thing is complex. Anyway, that's a false benefit. Other codes were already implemented and tested, and not something easy is still easier than implementing it
Polar codes are cool because they are rate-achieving. But in many cases of satellite communications, we can use pretty long block lengths, and that makes classical codes relatively good! So, for those links, the benefits of theoretically better codes is smaller than for let's say highly multipath highly changing channels like the one you'd see in a mobile cellular terrestial system.
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
Return on Investment: it's an improvement if a channel code is better, but convert the code improvement into money saved, and put it into perspective with the overall system costs, it's suddenly not that pressing anymore
Time Scale: if you put something on a satellite, it better be
proven, because you won't be able to repair it once it's in space.
2009–2018 isn't really long on the time scale for aerospace
components. There's no immediate need (see previous point), so why
switch to new codes?
"They seem to be easier to implement": as someone who maintains an implementation (didn't write that myself, a very talented friend of mine did), I don't know if I agree to the "easier to implement" at all. That thing is complex. Anyway, that's a false benefit. Other codes were already implemented and tested, and not something easy is still easier than implementing it
Polar codes are cool because they are rate-achieving. But in many cases of satellite communications, we can use pretty long block lengths, and that makes classical codes relatively good! So, for those links, the benefits of theoretically better codes is smaller than for let's say highly multipath highly changing channels like the one you'd see in a mobile cellular terrestial system.
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
Return on Investment: it's an improvement if a channel code is better, but convert the code improvement into money saved, and put it into perspective with the overall system costs, it's suddenly not that pressing anymore
Time Scale: if you put something on a satellite, it better be
proven, because you won't be able to repair it once it's in space.
2009–2018 isn't really long on the time scale for aerospace
components. There's no immediate need (see previous point), so why
switch to new codes?
"They seem to be easier to implement": as someone who maintains an implementation (didn't write that myself, a very talented friend of mine did), I don't know if I agree to the "easier to implement" at all. That thing is complex. Anyway, that's a false benefit. Other codes were already implemented and tested, and not something easy is still easier than implementing it
Polar codes are cool because they are rate-achieving. But in many cases of satellite communications, we can use pretty long block lengths, and that makes classical codes relatively good! So, for those links, the benefits of theoretically better codes is smaller than for let's say highly multipath highly changing channels like the one you'd see in a mobile cellular terrestial system.
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
answered Aug 11 at 11:21
Marcus Müller
71928
71928
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
add a comment |Â
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
1
1
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
Nice and complete answer, thank you very much :)
– Ediolot
Aug 11 at 11:39
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30043%2fwhy-are-polar-codes-not-being-used-in-space-communications-error-correction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Given the development, build, test, and integration times for a satellite, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any satellites that were developed significantly after 2009, actually.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 11 at 20:08