Thomas M. Wallett

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Brief Survey of Media Access Control, 

Data Link Layer, and Protocol Technologies

for Lunar Surface Communications

NASA/TM—2009-215295

April 2009
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 301–621–0134

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 301–621–0390

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Thomas M. Wallett

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Brief Survey of Media Access Control, 

Data Link Layer, and Protocol Technologies

for Lunar Surface Communications

NASA/TM—2009-215295

April 2009

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Kul B. Bhasin and Mr. Lawrence Wald in the Communications,

 Computing, and Electronic Imaging (CCEI) program for their fi nancial support.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfi eld, VA 22161

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
A Brief Survey of Media Access Control, Data Link Layer, and 

Protocol Technologies for Lunar Surface Communications 

Thomas M. Wallett 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

NASA/TM—2009-215295 1

Abstract 

 This paper surveys and describes some of the 

existing media access control and data link layer 

technologies for possible application in lunar surface 

communications and the advanced wideband Direct 

Sequence – Code Division Multiple Access (DSCDMA) conceptual systems utilizing phased-array 

technology that will evolve in the next decade. Time 

Domain Multiple Access (TDMA) and Code 

Division Multiple Access (CDMA) are standard 

Media Access Control (MAC) techniques that can be 

incorporated into lunar surface communications 

architectures. Another novel hybrid technique that is 

recently being developed for use with smart antenna 

technology combines the advantages of CDMA with 

those of TDMA. The relatively new and sundry 

wireless LAN data link layer protocols that are 

continually under development offer distinct 

advantages for lunar surface applications over the 

legacy protocols which are not wireless. Also several 

communication transport and routing protocols can 

be chosen with characteristics commensurate with 

smart antenna systems to provide spacecraft 

communications for links exhibiting high capacity on 

the surface of the Moon. The proper choices depend 

on the specific communication requirements. 

I. Introduction 

The current U.S. vision to return to the Moon and 

then explore Mars will require extensive planning for 

all aspects of the mission including communications.1

 

As newer technological advances in communication 

methods appear, decisions into those planning stages 

will be affected and modifications will be 

incorporated. Media Access Control schemes and the 

data link layer technologies are beneficial to 

terrestrial surface communications and can be used in 

lunar surface communications applications. 

II. Media Access Control (MAC) 

 The development of a conceptual MAC layer 

protocol will be critical in enabling physical and 

MAC layer technologies with sub-network level 

protocols to support flexible (e.g., formation, cluster, 

constellation, “ad hoc”) spacecraft communications 

for networking among various satellite constellations. 

A simulation model is needed which uses 

“abstractions” of the physical layer mechanisms to 

demonstrate protocol scalability and performance to 

assess the connectivity and throughput comparisons 

between alternative MAC layer technologies (i.e., 

TDMA and TCeMA). The two most common access 

schemes utilizing digital technology to support 

multiple links on the same channel are Time Division 

Multiple Access (TDMA) and Code Division 

Multiple Access (CDMA). One other interesting 

scheme incorporates the prominent features of 

TDMA and CDMA. This recently developed 

technology is called Time Domain with CDMAencoding Multiple Access (TCeMA).2

A. Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) 

 Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) is a 

technology for digital transmission of radio signals. 

In TDMA, the frequency band is separated 

temporally so that several users can share a single 

channel without interfering with one another. TDMA 

is a growing technology. It is one of the most widely 

deployed digital wireless systems in the world. The 

technology is also known as D-AMPS (Digital 

Advanced Mobile Phone Service). In this system, 

three time slots are utilized. Another TDMA system 

which uses eight such time slots is the Global System 

for Mobile Communications (GSM). 

B. Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) 

 Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is, 

alternatively, a “spread spectrum” digital technology. 

By spreading information contained in a particular 

signal over a much greater bandwidth than the 

original signal, it offers significant increases in 

coverage. Multiple signals can utilize the same 

frequency. The advantages of spread spectrum are 

security due to the difficulty in signal detection and 

interception by alien entities, protection against 

jamming, and the accommodation of multiple users 

in a single channel. It is also beneficial for ranging 

and radar applications. Signal capacity can be 

enlarged by up to eight to ten times that of TDMA 

and offer better reception quality with CDMA. 

 Typically cellular systems with 1200 channels for 

each cell exist with 1.25 MHz bandwidth for each 

channel. IS-95 which uses 64 bit codes is one such 

system. 
NASA/TM—2009-215295 2

C. Time Division with CDMA-encoding Multiple 

Access (TCeMA) 

Integration of TCeMA and spatial multiplexing 

enables closing the link at varying rates, meeting QoS 

requirements while also maximizing spacecraft 

throughput. The primary reason for the superior 

performance of TCeMA is that TDMA only provides 

a fixed data rate while the TCeMA is able to provide 

variable data rates depending on the signal-to-noise 

ratio between two nodes. Thus, in many situations, 

TDMA is not able to establish a link at all, whereas 

TCeMA establishes one at a lower data rate. The 

nodes for 36 LEO satellites were created in OPNET 

as shown in Fig. 1. 

Figure 1. OPNET LEO satellite network model. 

Figure 2. Simulated TDMA Connectivity Results

Figure 3. Simulated TCeMA Connectivity Results. 

 The OPNET simulation showing the results for 

connectivity are depicted using NetViz in Fig. 2 and 

Fig. 3 for TDMA and TCeMA, respectively. It was 

found through simulation that a TCeMA node 

outperforms a TDMA node by a factor of five and is 

able to achieve throughput at greater than three times 

that of a TDMA node.3

III. Data Link Layer Schemes 

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 Wireless Local Area 

Network (WLAN) standard was created in 1997.*

 

This preliminary standard supported only a maximum 

bandwidth of 2 Mbps which is slow for most 

applications. Extensions to the 802.11 standard were 

subsequently added and are still being incorporated 

into the standard. The current standards being used 

in WLANs are IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 

Bluetooth. Each of these technologies has relative 

advantages and disadvantages depending on the 

network specifications. 

D. IEEE 802.11a 

The IEEE 802.11a and IEEE 802.11b extensions 

were created at approximately the same time. The 

IEEE 802.11b gained in popularity much faster than 

did 802.11a, perhaps due to its lower cost or its lower 

frequency of operation at 2.4 GHz. IEEE 802.11a is 

predominately used in the business market, whereas 

802.11b better serves the home market. IEEE 

802.11a supports bandwidth up to 54 Mbps and 

signals in a regulated 5 GHz range. This higher 

frequency limits the range of 802.11a as compared to 

802.11b. Also, the attenuation due to buildings and 

obstructions is higher at the 802.11a frequency. 

 Because 802.11a and 802.11b utilize different 

frequencies, the two technologies are incompatible 

with each other. Extant hybrid 802.11a/b network 

components are simply the implementation of the two 

standards side by side. 

 Some of the advantages in choosing 802.11a over 

the other technologies are the capability of the fastest 

maximum speed, supporting more simultaneous 

users, and the use of regulated frequencies to prevent 

signal interference from other devices. The 

disadvantages, again, are the highest cost and a 

shorter range for a signal that is more easily 

attenuated or obstructed. 

 

*

Bradley Mitchell, 

http://compnetworking.about.com/

cs/wirelessproducts/g/bldef_wlan.htm
NASA/TM—2009-215295 3

E. IEEE 802.11b 

The IEEE expanded on the original 802.11 

standard in July 1999 and created the IEEE 802.11b 

specification. The IEEE 802.11b supports bandwidth 

up to 11 Mbps which is comparable to the traditional 

Ethernet. Also, the 802.11b uses the same radio 

signaling frequency, 2.4 GHz, as the original IEEE 

802.11 standard. Since this is an unregulated 

frequency, 802.11b devices can incur interference 

from microwave ovens, cordless phones, and other 

appliances which use the same 2.4 GHz range. 

However, interference can easily be avoided by 

installing the 802.11b network devices a reasonable 

distance from other appliances. 

 Unregulated frequencies of operation for wireless 

communications networks are often preferred since 

no licensing is required and production costs for 

components are lowered. The important advantages 

in choosing 802.11b are the lowest cost and a higher 

range signal with less obstruction. The disadvantages 

are the slowest maximum speed, supports fewer 

simultaneous users, and the interference that is 

possible on the unregulated frequency band. 

F. IEEE 802.11g 

In 2002 and 2003, WLAN products supporting a 

new standard, the IEEE 802.11g, were being 

developed. The 802.11g attempts to combine the 

advantages of both 802.11a and 802.11b. The 

802.11g supports bandwidth up to 54 Mbps and it 

uses the 2.4 GHz frequency for greater range. The 

802.11g networks are compatible with 802.11b 

networks since both standards use the same 

frequency of operation, 2.4 GHz. 

 The advantages of 802.11g consist of having the 

fastest maximum speed, supporting more 

simultaneous users, and having a high signal range 

that is not easily obstructed. The disadvantages 

include a somewhat higher cost that 802.11b and the 

possible interference issue on the unregulated signal 

frequency. 

G. IEEE 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) 

 Bluetooth is an alternative wireless network 

technology developed entirely different than the 

802.11 family. Bluetooth supports a very short range 

of approximately ten meters and relatively low 

bandwidth (1 Mbps). It operates in the 2.4 GHz band 

with antenna power up to 20 dBm. Realistically, 

Bluetooth will network PDAs or cell phones with 

PCs but does not offer much value for generalpurpose WLAN networking. The very low 

manufacturing cost of Bluetooth, however, is 

appealing. Bluetooth wireless network technology 

may offer distinct advantages for data 

communications in a space vehicle or lunar habitat. 

For the lunar surface network WLAN, the choice of 

technology depends on the lunar surface 

communications requirements and environmental 

issues for each aspect of the system. 

H. IEEE 802.15.4 (ZigBee) 

 The ZigBee protocol is a wireless standard for 

communications which is inexpensive, bidirectional, 

and exhibits very low power consumption. It is of 

short range in application and can be adapted into a 

mesh network. This type of protocol would be ideal 

for lunar surface communications in or near a central 

habitat where astronauts must communicate with 

other astronauts in close proximity. ZigBee is an 

extension to the IEEE 802.15.4 standard which 

defines the protocol and interconnection of devices 

using radio communication in a personal area 

network (PAN). It is based on the standard Open 

Systems Interconnection (OSI) seven-layer model 

and provides the network layer and the framework 

for the application layer above IEEE 802.15.4. The 

application layer framework is comprised of the 

application support sub-layer, the ZigBee device 

objects, and the manufacturer-defined application 

objects. 

 The IEEE 802.15.4-2003 standard defines the two 

lower layers: the physical (PHY) layer and the 

medium access control (MAC) sub-layer. IEEE 

802.15.4 has two PHY layers that operate in two 

separate frequency ranges: 868/915 MHz and 2.45 

GHz. The standard also includes two optional 

physical layers (PHYs) in the lower frequency bands, 

yielding higher data rates. The following four PHYs 

are specified as an 868/915 MHz direct sequence 

spread spectrum (DSSS) PHY employing binary 

phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation, an 868/915 

MHz DSSS PHY employing offset quadrature phaseshift keying (O-QPSK) modulation, an 868/915 MHz 

parallel sequence spread spectrum (PSSS) PHY 

employing BPSK and amplitude shift keying (ASK) 

modulation, and a 2.450 GHz DSSS PHY employing 

O-QPSK modulation. 

 The lower frequency PHY layer covers both the 

868 MHz European band and the 915 MHz band, 

used in countries such as the United States and 

Australia. The higher frequency PHY layer is used 

virtually worldwide.4

 The 868/915 MHz PHYs 

support wireless data rates of 20 kb/s, 40 kb/s, and 

optionally 100kb/s and 250kb/s. The 2450 MHz 

PHY supports a wireless data rate of 250 kb/s. 

 The IEEE 802.15.4 MAC sub-layer controls 

access to the radio channel using a carrier sense 

multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMACA) mechanism. Its responsibilities may also 

include transmitting beacon frames, synchronization 

and providing a reliable transmission mechanism. 
NASA/TM—2009-215295 4

 The standard supports star as well as peer-to-peer 

topologies which would be present in a lunar surface 

environment. The media access is contention based; 

however, using the optional super frame structure, 

time slots can be allocated by the PAN coordinator to 

devices with time critical data. Connectivity to 

higher performance networks is provided through a 

PAN coordinator. This 2006 revision was initiated to 

incorporate additional features and enhancements as 

well as some simplifications to the 2003 edition of 

this standard.5

I. IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) 

 Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave 

Access or WiMAX is a subset of the IEEE 802.16 

specifications. It is envisioned to support wireless 

communications for many entities over a wide range 

of area. The IEEE 802.16d subset specifications 

provide for a fixed wireless communications network 

operating in the 2 GHz to 11 GHz frequency band 

while there is also a 10 GHz to 66 GHz frequency 

band for line-of-sight applications. Under the IEEE 

802.16e subset specifications, Mobile WiMAX 

would operate in the 2 GHz to 6 GHz frequency 

band. WiMAX would also provide a 4 mile to 6 mile 

radius of non-line-of-sight communications from a 

base tower, similar to the current PCS range, and a 30 

mile radius at somewhat less than 70 Mbps using 

outdoor line-of-sight. The modulation and the 

channel rate adapt to the link quality.6

 The WiMAX protocol is designed to 

accommodate several different methods of data 

transmission, including the Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP).†

 Anyone with a laptop computer on 

the lunar surface in the future could make a phone 

call using VoIP on a lunar WiMAX network. The 

most common WiMAX licensed frequency bands 

operate at 2.3 GHz, 2.5/2.6 GHz, 3.4/3.5 GHz, and 

3.6 GHz. There are other licensed bands including 

one at 5 GHz. A 3.8 GHz band is under 

consideration for the lunar surface network. 

Emphasis on using WiMAX for lunar surface 

communications would not be valid until an 

extensive lunar colonization occurs. 

IV. Protocol Technologies 

J. Transport Control Protocol/Internet Protocol 

(TCP/IP) 

The Transport Control Protocol (TCP) and the 

Internet Protocol (IP) are the de facto standards for 

terrestrial and, possibly, lunar communications. 

 

† How WiMAX Works by Edward Grabianowski and 

Marshall Brain, URL: 

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wimax.htm 

These protocols will find efficacy for reliable lunar 

surface communication for large networks. For 

communication between the Earth and the Moon, a 

better choice of protocols is required since the long 

time delay is detrimental to the TCP/IP efficiency. 

The TCP requires a three-way “handshake” in order 

to initiate a session. This can require nearly 1.8 

seconds for terrestrial to lunar session initiation. 

Here, extensive coding can be applied. 

K. Space Communications Protocol Standards 

(SCPS) 

The Space Communications Protocol Standards 

(SCPS) are actually a suite of standard data handling 

protocols which provide connections appearing to be 

“transparent” or “seamless” from some user to a 

remote space vehicle which resembles just another 

“node on the Internet.”‡

 A file handling protocol, the 

SCPS File Protocol or SCPS-FP, is included in this 

suite of protocols and is optimized towards the uploading of spacecraft commands and software and the 

downloading of collections of telemetry data. The 

SCPS-FP is based on the well-known Internet File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP). 

 The SCPS also include an underlying 

retransmission control protocol, the SCPS Transport 

Protocol or SCPS-TP, which is optimized to provide 

reliable end-to-end delivery of spacecraft command 

and telemetry messages between computers that are 

communicating over a network containing one or 

more potentially unreliable space data transmission 

paths. The SCPS-TP is based on the well-known 

Internet Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). The 

SCPS-TP extensions to TCP will solve similar 

problems in other environments, such as those of the 

mobile/wireless and tactical communications 

communities. A data protection mechanism, the 

SCPS Security Protocol or SCPS-SP, provides the 

end-to-end security and integrity of such message 

exchange. The SCPS-SP is derived from the Secure 

Data Network (SDNS) "SP3" protocol, the ISO 

Network Layer Security Protocol (NLSP), the 

Integrated Network Layer Security Protocol (INLSP), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 

Internet Protocol Security (IPSEC) Encapsulating 

Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header 

(AH) protocols. There exists a networking protocol, 

the SCPS Network Protocol or SCPS-NP that 

supports both connectionless and connection-oriented 

routing of these messages through networks 

containing space or other wireless data links. The 

SCPS-NP is based on the standard Internet Protocol 

(IP) with modifications to support new space routing 

needs and increased communications efficiency. 

 

‡

URL: http://www.scps.org/, JPL 
NASA/TM—2009-215295 5

 The Space Communications Protocol Standards 

(SCPS) exist as full ISO standards and as United 

States Military Standards. They serve as the final 

Recommendations of the International Consultative 

Committee for Space Data Systems.§

L. Simple Automatic File Exchange/User 

Datagram Protocol (SAFE/UDP) 

Another protocol which appears to be efficient in 

the transfer of data files is the Simple Automatic File 

Exchange (SAFE) protocol. This is a recent file 

exchange method that was developed by Global 

Science and Technology for Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC) in order to lower the cost of operation 

for scientific satellite missions. It achieves this 

objective by enabling reliable and automatic file 

exchange even when contact with a spacecraft is 

intermittent. It returns scientific data to the project 

without operator intervention and, moreover, can also 

load command files into the spacecraft automatically. 

The SAFE algorithm can operate with fewer staff and 

one mission can share network-interconnected 

resources with other missions.7

 This protocol operates in the application layer and 

is comparable to the standard FTP/TCP operation. 

The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) or any other 

transport layer protocol such as the TCP can be used 

in conjunction with it. The SAFE protocol provides 

reliable transfer of data over an unreliable network. 

Data is automatically transferred so operator 

intervention is not required. The SAFE protocol also 

functions independently of the transport protocol. 

The advantage is that the SAFE protocol avoids 

associated problems with the TCP over satellite links. 

No time is spent establishing a TCP connection. 

Also, the SAFE protocol can take advantage of other 

enhancements such as SCPS. A disadvantage is that 

reliability and flow control must be provided by the 

SAFE protocol in the higher application layer. The 

SAFE server hosts the source data called the primary 

file. The SAFE client creates a secondary file replica 

of the primary file. The client then sends requests 

while the server waits for requests to arrive. The 

client request initiates the file transfer. 

 The SAFE protocol exhibits through simulation, 

considerably larger throughput than FTP.8

 This is 

because the FTP requires a TCP connection which 

takes 1.5 round-trip times or approximately 3/4 

second to establish or close. This is due to the 

considerable delay of the GEO satellite. The SAFE 

protocol, alternatively, uses the UDP which is 

connectionless and experiences approximately one 

quarter second, one third of the former, delay time. 

 

§

URL: http://www.ccsds.org/, International 

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems 

This is due to the fact that the TCP uses a delayedACK timer which must expire at the initiation of 

slow start before an ACK is sent for the first segment. 

The SAFE protocol, however, does not use a 

delayed-ACK mechanism. 

 The SAFE Protocol was modeled in OPNET 

software and compared to three variations of FTP 

simulation models for the South Pole TDRSS Relay 

(SPTR) system illustrated in Fig. 4: FTP with a 8760 

byte receive window and SACK (Selective 

Acknowledgments) disabled, FTP with a 64 kilobyte 

receive window and SACK disabled, and FTP with a 

64 kilobyte receive window and SACK enabled, as 

implemented in Windows 95/98 which also includes 

the Fast Retransmit/Recovery algorithms and the 

window scaling option. The SAFE protocol exhibits 

a lower throughput for small average file sizes in 

comparison to throughput for large average file sizes 

since more percentage of time is spent in slow start. 

Time is required for the congestion window to 

increase. The SAFE/UDP also provides a higher 

throughput and a greater number of complete files 

received than all three variations of the FTP/TCP for 

file sizes from 1 MB to 50 MB in the SPTR System. 

Network bandwidth is better utilized with the SAFE 

protocol. The SAFE/UDP displays superiority to the 

three variations of the FTP/TCP.9

Figure 4. The SPTR communications system. 

V. Conclusion 

An ordered approach is needed to design lunar 

surface communications architectures. The task 

complexity dictates the requirements. The approach 

must be inherently an iterative process to optimize 

the network performance since no unique architecture 

exists. In order to design and develop protocol 

architectures consistently, a general methodology, 

which is beyond the scope of this paper, is discussed 

in specific detail in the literature.10 11
NASA/TM—2009-215295 6

 An application assessment should be the initial 

step in the design process to identify the specific 

performance, functional, and application objectives. 

An assessment of the media should, then, follow to 

determine the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the 

environment. This will impact the types of extant 

hardware, software, and protocols in need of 

accommodation. Once these requirements and 

characteristics are known, an analysis of the possible 

transmission paths should be conducted to select the 

proper transmission facility. This, in turn, will lead 

to the selection process for the switching technology 

to be employed. The choices for the correct 

protocols, subsequently, will depend on the analysis 

of the protocol requirements, compatibility, and 

functionality. 

VI. Future Prognosis 

 The future lunar surface network architecture 

designs will probably be based on the proven designs 

for terrestrial communications networks using 

specific lunar surface communication requirements. 

The framework for this will, most likely, be 

associated with the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) seven-layer Open Systems 

Interconnection (OSI) protocol reference model. 

Upon completion of this analysis, the process of 

synthesizing the conceptual protocol architecture can 

commence. This process will involve further 

analysis and comparison modeling. Certain protocol 

issues which for the most part are well known in the 

field will lead to various generic solutions to 

extirpate these issues for the amelioration of the 

protocol architecture design. A “trade-off” analysis 

will improve further the architecture design to satisfy 

the performance criteria.12 This type of analysis is 

discussed in detail in the literature. 

References 

 1

New Vision for Space Exploration Program: Remarks by the President on U.S. Space Policy, NASA 

Headquarters, Washington, DC, Jan. 14, 2004. 2

Preuss, R., and Bergamo, M., BBN, Inc., “Data Communications System and Hybrid Time-Code Multiplexing,” 

U.S. Patent No. 6,590,889 B1, Jul. 8, 2003. 3

Hain, Regina R., Ramanathan, Ram, Bergamo, Marcos, and Wallett, Thomas M., “Comparison of TCeMA and 

TDMA for Inter-Satellite Communications using OPNET Simulation,” Proceedings of the 2003 OPNETWORK 

Conference, Washington, DC, August 25-29, 2003. 4

 ZigBee Specification, Document 053474r13, ZigBee Alliance, 1 December 2006. 5

 IEEE Std 802.15.4TM-2006 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2003), IEEE, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 

10016-5997, USA, 8 September 2006. 6

 Mike Cauley, private discussion on 10 April 2008 about the WiMAX World 2007 Conference, 25-27 

September 2007, McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago, Illinois. 7

Baker, Paul, “Guide to the Protocol for Simple Automatic File Exchange (SAFE),” Report to NASA Goddard 

Space Flight Center,” Global Science and Technology, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, Jun. 8, 1999. 8

 Knoblock, Eric J., Konangi, Vijaya K., and Wallett, Thomas M., “Simulation and Evaluation of the SAFE 

Protocol,” OPNETWORKS'2000 Conference, Washington, DC, Aug. 31, 2000. 9

Knoblock, Eric J., Konangi, Vijaya K., and Wallett, Thomas M., “Comparison of SAFE and FTP for the South 

Pole TDRS Relay System,” 18th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference,” Oakland, CA, 

Apr. 13, 2000. 10Dhas, Chris, “Protocol Architecture Model Report,” NASA/CR—2000-209781, Computer Networks and 

Software, Springfield, VA, Jan. 2000. 11Dhas, Chris, “Architectural Methodology Report,” NASA/CR—2000-209783, Computer Networks and 

Software, Springfield, VA, Jan. 2000. 12Dhas, Chris, “Trade-off Analysis Report,” NASA/CR—2000-209785, Computer Networks and Software, 

Springfield, VA, Jan. 2000. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-04-2009 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Brief Survey of Media Access Control, Data Link Layer, and Protocol Technologies for 

Lunar Surface Communications 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Wallett, Thomas, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 645846.02.07.03.05 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-16565 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORS

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2009-215295 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 17 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301-621-0390

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

This paper surveys and describes some of the existing media access control and data link layer technologies for possible application in lunar 

surface communications and the advanced wideband Direct Sequence - Code Division Multiple Access (DS-CDMA) conceptual systems 

utilizing phased-array technology that will evolve in the next decade. Time Domain Multiple Access (TDMA) and Code Division Multiple 

Access (CDMA) are standard Media Access Control (MAC) techniques that can be incorporated into lunar surface communications 

architectures. Another novel hybrid technique that is recently being developed for use with smart antenna technology combines the 

advantages of CDMA with those of TDMA. The relatively new and sundry wireless LAN data link layer protocols that are continually under 

development offer distinct advantages for lunar surface applications over the legacy protocols, which are not wireless. Also several 

communication transport and routing protocols can be chosen with characteristics commensurate with smart antenna systems to provide 

spacecraft communications for links exhibiting high capacity on the surface of the Moon. The proper choices depend on the specific 

communication requirements. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Media access control; Protocol; Data link; Space communications; Lunar surface 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

12 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

301-621-0390 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18