## 4 Results
### Alternative Scenarios  
To further demonstrate the applicability of the Pyminisat module and assess the power requirements for minisat OILs, we explore the two alternative scenarios, B and  
Figure 11: Required transmission power, \(P_{\rm I}\), for establishing links between satellite \((0,0)\) and its adjacent neighbors in the (**left**) upper orbit and (**right**) lower orbit, observed over one orbital period.  
Figure 12: Maximum transmission power required to maintain connectivity between adjacent satellites as a function of the data rate, for Scenario A.  
Figure 10: Channel gain for links established between satellite \((0,0)\) and its adjacent neighbors in the (**left**) upper orbit and (**right**) lower orbit, observed over one orbital period.  
C, outlined in Table 3. For these constellations, we first need to estimate the optimal \(F\) parameters to reduce the risk of collisions, which turns out to be \(F=6\) for Scenario B and \(F=19\) for Scenario C. Note that the values of the minimum distances \(r_{\rm min}\) are now 207.6 Km and 12.4 Km for Scenarios B and C, respectively. This is in accordance with the fact that constellation B is thinner than A while C is denser than A.  
After determining the optimal \(F\) value, we applied the model to determine the link budget conditions and power requirements. Figure 13 depicts the required power to maintain the adjacent satellite links within one orbital period for both Scenarios B and C. We again assume a target data rate of \(R_{\rm b}=10\) Gbps. In Scenario B, the optical power ranges from \(\approx\)400 mW to \(\approx\)1.7 W. For Scenario C, the range of the required power decreases significantly due to the higher constellation density, from \(\approx\)20 mW to \(\approx\)100 mW, respectively. The power levels of the latter scenario can, in principle, be supported using commercial high-power DFB lasers without optical amplification. This can simplify optical terminal implementation and improve power consumption.  
In Figure 14, we show how the maximum required power varies with the data rate for both scenarios. The figure is indicative of the bearing of constellation density in transceiver design. For Scenario B, the optical power ranges above 1 W for \(R_{\rm b}\) larger than 2.5 Gbps, reaching more than 5 W at 100 Gbps. This can pose some strict requirements at the transmitter side and especially the optical amplifier stage. Restrictions are significantly relaxed for the denser constellation of Scenario C where the transmission power reaches \(\approx\)300 mW at 100 Gbps. Such optical power levels can be supported with specially designed DFB lasers [25], thereby mitigating the need for optical amplification. The figure suggests that for this constellation, maintaining OILs at tenths of Gbps is practically feasible without excessive power requirements. One can extend the inter-satellite connection data rate using wavelength and/or polarization multiplexing to reach capacities in the Tbps realm.  
Figure 13: Transmission power required, \(P_{\rm T}\), for establishing links between satellite \((0,0)\) and its adjacent neighbors over one orbital period: (**left**) neighbors in the upper orbit and (**right**) neighbors in the lower orbit, for scenarios B and C.