## 3 Proposed Approach: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD)
Additionally, receiver parameters such as the detection efficiency and dark count rates significantly influence the error probability within the quantum channel. The simulation results indicate that a 10% enhancement in detection efficiency yields an approximate 8% reduction in quantum channel error rates, whereas dark count rates exceeding 50 Hz lead to a 20% increase in errors. Table 2 provides a comparative analysis of traditional encryption methods (AES, RSA) and the proposed QKD approach, considering the operational factors relevant to low Earth orbit scenarios. Comparison parameters:  
Rate: Measured in Mbps, reflects the amount of data that can be encrypted/decrypted per unit of time. Computational complexity: Measured in CPU (central processing unit) cycles per byte, reflects computational resource requirements. Resilience to attacks: Scored qualitatively (low/medium/high), reflects the ability of the algorithm to resist different types of attacks. Impact of LEO conditions: Describes the main problems that arise when using the algorithm under LEO conditions. Justification for the selection of algorithms and parameters  
AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is chosen as a representative of symmetric encryption algorithms due to its high speed and wide distribution. AES-128 uses a key length of 128 bits, which provides a sufficient level of security for most applications while maintaining a relatively low computational complexity [31]. RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) is chosen as a representative of asymmetric encryption algorithms due to its high degree of security and wide application in systems requiring authentication and digital signatures. RSA-2048 uses a key length of 2048 bits, which provides a high level of security but requires significant computational resources [32]. The QKD (BB84) protocol is selected as the basis for the proposed QKD method due to its relative ease of implementation and proven efficiency [5]. The expected key generation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Speed (Mbps)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Computational Complexity**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resistance to Attacks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Effect of LEO Conditions**} \\  & & **(CPU Cycles per byte)** & & & \\ \hline AES & 100–200 & 20–40 & High (with sufficient key length, e.g., AES-256) & Reduced data rate due to packet loss \\ \hline RSA & 1–5 & 5000–10,000 & High (vulnerable to third-party channel attacks) & Increased encryption/decryption time due to high latency \\ \hline QKD (BB84) & 10–100 (expected) & \(\sim\)100 (expected) & Very high (information-theoretic security) & Depending on atmospheric conditions and receiver characteristics, error correction and information reconciliation may be required \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of traditional encryption methods (AES, RSA) and proposed QKD method considering low earth orbit factors. rate of 10-100 Mbps is based on current advances in quantum communications and assumes the use of compact and energy-efficient components [16]. The expected computational complexity of ~100 CPU cycles per byte is based on an estimate of the complexity of post-processing algorithms such as error correction and information reconciliation.