Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Assessing Ionospheric Scintillation Risk for Direct-to-Cellular Satellite Communications using Frequency-Scaled GNSS Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read L-band satellite-scintillation observations can be frequency-scaled to predict direct-to-cellular link outages, with the low band seeing more than twice the occurrence of higher bands.

desk verdict A modest, honest proof of concept: known L-band scaling applied to D2C bands with real validation data, but the headline ratio is model-imposed and the exponent is extrapolated beyond its validated range. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.17143 v2 pith:22EUXIAC submitted 2026-02-19 eess.SP physics.ao-phphysics.space-ph

Abdollah Masoud Darya , Muhammad Mubasshir Shaikh This is my paper
classification eess.SPphysics.ao-phphysics.space-ph
keywords ionosphericscintillationdirect-to-cellularfrequencyscalingS4indexGNSSradiooccultationN255/N256low-band
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the risk of ionospheric amplitude scintillation on direct-to-cellular (D2C) satellite links can be estimated by frequency-scaling existing GNSS L-band scintillation observations to D2C bands around 800 MHz, 1.6 GHz, and 2.0 GHz, using a frequency exponent n that starts at 1.5 for weak scintillation and falls linearly to 0 as S4 approaches 1. Analyzing five years of ground-based and two years of radio-occultation data over the same region, the authors find a consistent diurnal peak at 20–22 local time, equinox maxima, rising occurrence with solar activity, a strong southward azimuth dependence, and that strong-scintillation occurrences in the low band are more than twice those in the higher D2C bands. The significance is that networks of existing GNSS receivers and radio-occultation satellites could characterize and anticipate D2C link impairments without a dedicated D2C monitoring infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The key object is the S4 amplitude scintillation index and the frequency-scaling relation Eq. (2), where the frequency exponent n is taken from the DNA wideband satellite experiment: n = 1.5 at S4 = 0.3 decreasing linearly to n = 0 at S4 = 1. The paper validates this DNA-derived n against its own multi-frequency L1/L2/L5 observations (ground-based and radio-occultation) and then uses it to scale L1 S4 values to 800 MHz (low band), 1.6 GHz (N255), and 2.0 GHz (N256). The scaling law is the mechanism that converts widely available GNSS measurements into D2C-band risk estimates.

What would settle it

Collocate a D2C-band receiver (for example an 800 MHz beacon) with a GNSS L1 scintillation receiver at the same mid-latitude site, observe simultaneous S4, and compare the measured 800 MHz S4 to the value predicted by Eq. (2) with the DNA-derived n. If the measured low-band S4 exceeds the predicted value by more than the scaling's RMSE (about 0.085 in S4), the extrapolation fails. Alternately, a direct test of the linear n vs S4 relationship below 1 GHz would falsify the assumed exponent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a standard frequency-scaling law for amplitude scintillation, S4(f2) = S4(f1)·(f2/f1)^{-n}, with the DNA-derived linear exponent n (1.5 at S4=0.3, decreasing to 0 at S4=1), matches the empirically measured L1→L2 and L1→L5 frequency dependence closely enough (RMSE and R² nearly identical to a least-squares fit) to be applied to D2C frequencies. Applying this scaling to five years of ground-based L1 scintillation measurements and two years of radio-occultation amplitude observations over the same region, the paper derives quantitative occurrence statistics for strong scintillation (S4 > 0.6) at the low band, N255, and N256, and reports that the low band shows

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the frequency exponent n, validated here only for scaling L1 to L2/L5, remains valid when extrapolated down to 800 MHz and up to 2 GHz; if n differs outside the tested L-band range, all scaled S4 values, occurrence counts, and the 'more than twice' conclusion change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing GNSS ground and radio-occultation scintillation data can be repurposed to estimate D2C link-impairment risk without building dedicated D2C monitors.
  • Low-band D2C systems will see more than twice as many strong-scintillation events as N255/N256 links, so they require stronger mitigation or link-budget margins.
  • Temporal patterns (20–22 local time peak, equinox maxima, solar-cycle scaling) allow operators to schedule adaptive measures proactively.
  • Azimuthal anisotropy means operators can favor less-affected link geometries, e.g., northern links in this region.
  • Even the higher N256 band remains subject to substantial strong-scintillation occurrences, so no D2C band in this frequency range is immune.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The validity of the n-vs-S4 linear relationship below 1.575 GHz is untested; the method's transferability to 800 MHz depends on the irregularity spectrum remaining weak-scattering-like at those lower frequencies.
  • A direct validation with a D2C-band beacon co-located with an L1 receiver would settle the scaling error; if the observed 800 MHz S4 deviates from the scaled L1 value by more than the reported RMSE, the method needs a revised exponent.
  • The occurrence-rate ratios (2.68×, 3.61×, etc.) are site-specific; similar scaling applied to equatorial or high-latitude stations may show different azimuth and seasonal patterns.
  • The same frequency-scaling logic could be used to generate global D2C scintillation maps from existing radio-occultation climatologies, but only if the RO S4 scaling behaves like ground-based S4 at D2C frequencies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a proof-of-concept method for assessing ionospheric scintillation risk at direct-to-cellular (D2C) satellite bands by scaling L1 amplitude-scintillation (S4) observations from a GNSS receiver in Sharjah, UAE (2020–2024) and from FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2 radio occultation over the same region (2023–2024) to three D2C frequencies: low-band (800 MHz), 3GPP N255 (1600 MHz), and N256 (2000 MHz). The scaling uses the standard power-law relation with the frequency exponent n taken from a linear fit to DNA multi-band observations, after an internal validation against simultaneous L1/L2/L5 fits. The resulting strong-scintillation occurrence counts are analyzed as functions of local time, month, year, and azimuth. The central quantitative claim is that the low-band occurrence rate is more than twice that at N255 and N256 (Table III), suggesting higher robustness of the higher D2C bands.

Significance. If the frequency-scaling exponent is valid at D2C frequencies, the proposed approach would be a low-cost way to use existing GNSS and radio-occultation networks to map D2C link-impairment risk without dedicated D2C monitoring stations. The paper has clear strengths: the scaling machinery is transparent and easily reproducible; the internal validation against observed L2/L5 data (Table I: RMSE 0.074–0.087, R² 0.72–0.82) is a genuine check; and the five-year, ascending-solar-cycle dataset including both ground and space-based observations is valuable. However, as discussed below, the headline low-band result is a model-imposed consequence of an extrapolated exponent rather than a directly measured occurrence rate, and the paper should be revised to frame the results accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (2), Fig. 1, Table I] The validation of the DNA exponent n_DNA is performed only for L1→L2 and L1→L5, i.e. frequency ratios of about 1.28–1.34, and only for S4_L1 in the range 0.3–1. The same n_DNA is then applied to scale to 800 MHz (ratio ≈1.97) and, apparently, to S4_L1 values below 0.3. For example, with Eq. (2) and n_DNA linear in S4, an L1 S4 of about 0.18 is mapped to low-band S4 > 0.6. This is an extrapolation in both frequency ratio and S4 range, and the claim in §II that Table I 'proves the suitability' of n_DNA at D2C frequencies is not supported. Please limit the claim to the validated range, or provide direct validation at D2C bands, or at a minimum present a sensitivity analysis over a plausible range of n.
  2. [Abstract and §III, Table III] The statement that the scintillation occurrence rate at low-band is 'more than twice' that at N255/N256 is presented as an observed result, but it is a consequence of the chosen power-law scaling and threshold applied to L1 data. Table III counts are modeled counts, not measured D2C scintillation counts. A different but still plausible exponent would change the ratios substantially. The paper should explicitly label Table III and Figs. 3–6 as model-based scaled estimates and should include a sensitivity test (e.g., n = 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or an alternative inverse-diffraction scaling such as refs. [15,16]) so readers can see how much of the 'more than twice' conclusion is due to the model assumption.
  3. [§IV, Conclusion] The Conclusion states that 'Future work will focus on validating these findings using measurements from D2C ground-based monitoring stations.' This is an honest and important caveat, but it conflicts with the unqualified wording in the Abstract and §III. The paper should consistently describe the low-band occurrence ratio as a model-based prediction under the DNA scaling assumption, not as an empirical finding. This distinction is load-bearing for the central claim and should be reflected throughout.
  4. [§II, n_DNA saturation regime] The linear n_DNA model, n = −2.14 S4_L1 + 2.14, sets n = 1.5 at S4 = 0.3 and n = 0 at S4 = 1. For low-band scaling, the model maps a large portion of the S4_L1 distribution into the saturation regime (S4_LB > 0.6 and sometimes > 1), where the linear relationship is least reliable and where the underlying weak-scattering derivation of n = 1.5 is no longer valid. The paper should either restrict attention to the regime where the scaling model is derived or explicitly discuss the saturation-induced uncertainty in the low-band counts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III caption] The header 'Number of S4>0.6 observations' should read 'Number of modeled S4>0.6 observations' (or 'scaled') to make the distinction between measured and derived counts clear.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Please specify that the plotted S4_LB values are computed with Eq. (2) using the DNA linear n(S4) model; otherwise the reader cannot tell whether a constant or varying exponent was used.
  3. [Figs. 3–5 captions] Typo: 'Occurences' should be 'Occurrences'.
  4. [§II, F7/C2 setup] For the F7/C2 radio-occultation data, it would be helpful to state whether the longitude/latitude filtering is applied to the tangent point or to some other point along the ray path, since this affects the comparability with ground-based receiver measurements.
  5. [§II, Eq. (1)–(2)] Equation (2) is standard but the notation S4f2 is ambiguous; parentheses or a subscript would improve readability. Also, the paper could clarify whether n is meant to be the same for weak and strong scintillation or is a function of S4 in all calculations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the D2C occurrence ratios are deterministic outputs of the externally sourced DNA frequency-scaling law, cross-checked on L1-to-L2/L5 data rather than fitted to the D2C claims.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: take observed L1 S4 values, apply Eq. (2) with n_DNA(S4_L1) = -2.14 S4_L1 + 2.14 from [20], and count S4 > 0.6 at 800/1600/2000 MHz. These counts and the 'low-band >2x' comparison are model outputs of an externally published scaling relation, not parameters fitted to the D2C occurrence rates. The paper cross-checks n_DNA against its own L1-to-L2/L5 fits (Fig. 1, Table I), with RMSE and R^2 essentially equal to the least-squares fits; this is a genuine validation at the tested frequency ratios, not a self-citation. The only load-bearing self-citation, [24], supports a secondary-peak interpretation and is not required for the main scaling result. The extrapolation from ~1.34 frequency ratio (L1-to-L2/L5) to ~1.97 (L1-to-800 MHz) is untested and could change the magnitudes, but that is a validity/regime risk, not circularity: the predicted quantity is not used to define or fit the model. The conclusion's statement that future work will validate with D2C measurements acknowledges this without retrofitting the model. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central conclusions depend on the weak-scattering frequency-scaling relation and on the DNA exponent; neither is re-derived in this paper. The fitted nL2/nL5 values are validation artifacts, not inputs to the final D2C scaling. Data-selection choices (frequency representatives, elevation mask, region box, observation window) shape every occurrence count. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Frequency-scaling exponent n (DNA linear model) = n = 1.5 at S4 = 0.3; n = 0 at S4 = 1
    Adopted from the DNA wideband experiment [20]; used in Eq. (2) for all L1-to-D2C scaling. Validated against L1→L2/L5 (Table I) but not at D2C frequencies; central claim depends on this choice.
  • LS best-fit nL2 (ground-based) = n = -2.08·S4_L1 + 2.06
    Fitted to five years of ground-based L1/L2 data (Fig. 1); validation only, not used for D2C scaling.
  • LS best-fit nL5 (ground-based) = n = -1.90·S4_L1 + 1.89
    Fitted to ground-based L1/L5 data (Fig. 1); validation only.
  • LS best-fit nL2 (F7/C2) = n = -1.99·S4_L1 + 2.11
    Fitted to F7/C2 L1/L2 data (Fig. 1); validation only.
  • Low-band representative frequency = 800 MHz
    Chosen to represent the 698–894 MHz D2C low-band; scaled S4 values and occurrence counts depend on this value through Eq. (2).
  • N255 representative frequency = 1600 MHz
    Chosen to represent 3GPP N255; used as the scaling target frequency.
  • N256 representative frequency = 2000 MHz
    Chosen to represent 3GPP N256 and the PCS G Block; used as the scaling target frequency.
  • Elevation cutoff = 30°
    Chosen to limit multipath contamination; changes the sample of observations and therefore all occurrence counts.
  • F7/C2 region box = lat 23–27°N, lon 54–57°E
    Chosen to match the ground-receiver region; affects the RO sample and the ground-vs-space comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Frequency-scaling law S4_f2 = S4_f1·(f2/f1)^(-n) (Eq. 2) describes amplitude scintillation across 30 MHz to 6 GHz and at D2C bands.
    Invoked in §II without re-derivation; the central scaling procedure depends on it.
  • domain assumption The DNA-derived linear relationship n = 1.5 at S4 = 0.3 and n = 0 at S4 = 1 [20] applies to the Arabian Peninsula and to F7/C2 RO geometries.
    The paper validates this only within GPS L-band; extrapolation to D2C bands is assumed.
  • domain assumption F7/C2 radio-occultation S4 observations can be compared with ground-based S4 and scaled using the same frequency exponent, despite different propagation geometry and altitudes.
    Used throughout §III when ground and space datasets are presented as complementary; no quantitative validation of this equivalence is provided.
  • domain assumption The 2020–2024 window (ascending phase of Solar Cycle 25) is representative enough to derive stable occurrence ratios and diurnal/seasonal patterns.
    All occurrence statistics are drawn from this single solar-cycle phase; the F7/C2 subset is only 2023–2024.
  • domain assumption Elevation >30° sufficiently removes multipath so that observed S4 is attributable to ionospheric scintillation.
    Stated in §II; no multipath validation is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Ionospheric Scintillation Risk for Direct-to-Cellular Satellite Communications using Frequency-Scaled GNSS Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22EUXIAC

@misc{pith2026260217143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Ionospheric Scintillation Risk for Direct-to-Cellular Satellite Communications using Frequency-Scaled GNSS Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22EUXIAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.17143}
}
read the original abstract

One of the key issues facing Direct-to-Cellular (D2C) satellite communication systems is ionospheric scintillation on the uplink and downlink, which can significantly degrade link quality. This work investigates the spatial and temporal characteristics of amplitude scintillation at D2C frequencies by scaling L-band scintillation observations from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) receivers to bands relevant to D2C operation, including the low-band, and 3GPP's N255 and N256. These observations are then compared to scaled radio-occultation scintillation observations from the FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2 (F7/C2) mission, which can be used in regions that do not possess ground-based scintillation monitoring stations. As a proof of concept, five years of ground-based GNSS scintillation data from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, together with two years of F7/C2 observations over the same region, corresponding to the ascending phase of Solar Cycle 25, are analyzed. Both space-based and ground-based observations indicate a pronounced diurnal scintillation peak between 20--22 local time, particularly during the equinoxes, with occurrence rates increasing with solar activity. Ground-based observations also reveal a strong azimuth dependence, with most scintillation events occurring on southward satellite links. The scintillation occurrence rate at the low-band is more than twice that observed at N255 and N256, highlighting the increased robustness of higher D2C bands to ionospheric scintillation. These results demonstrate how GNSS scintillation observations can be leveraged to characterize and anticipate scintillation-induced D2C link impairments, which help in D2C system design and the implementation of scintillation mitigation strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. frequency exponent n versus S4L1. TABLE I Performance metrics of the LS best-fit and DNA Scaling LS best-fit DNA RMSE R2 RMSE R2 L1 to L5 0.085 0.76 0.086 0.76 L1 to L2 (Ground-based) 0.074 0.82 0.074 0.82 L1 to L2 (F7/C2) 0.087 0.72 0.085 0.73 arrival direction, and solar activity. Here, we provide a proof of concept on how this can be achieved by using data from a multi-frequency GNSS reference receiver located at… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. S4LB values corresponding to S4L1 = 0.3. can be well represented by a linear relationship between moderate and strong values of scintillation, where n = 1.5 at S4 = 0.3 and n = 0 at S4 = 1 [14]. To see if this DNA-derived linear trend is applicable in our scenario, five years of simultaneous observations of GPS-derived S4L1/S4L2/S4L5 from the ground-based receiver and two years of simultaneous observations of S4L1/S… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Monthly trend of strong scintillation occurrences. were lower, at 0.77× and 0.67× of the L1 ground-based and F7/C2 observations, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuth of strong scintillation occurrences. regions is essential for assessing link robustness and planning operational strategies. For example, temporal patterns help identify periods in which the user-satellite links are more likely to degrade, enabling operators to…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Non- terrestrial networks for 6G: Integrated, intelligent, and ubiquitous connectivity,

    M. A. Jamshed, A. Kaushik, M. Dajer, A. Guidotti, F. Parzysz, E. Lagunas, M. Di Renzo, S. Chatzinotas, and O. A. Dobre, “Non- terrestrial networks for 6G: Integrated, intelligent, and ubiquitous connectivity,”IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 86–93, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    6G takes shape,

    J. G. Andrews, T. E. Humphreys, and T. Ji, “6G takes shape,” IEEE BITS the Information Theory Magazine, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Analysis of diffraction-induced residual errors in GNSS augmentation systems under ionospheric scintillation,

    A. K. Sun, S. Pullen, and J. Lee, “Analysis of diffraction-induced residual errors in GNSS augmentation systems under ionospheric scintillation,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, pp. 1–10, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Ad- vanced warning of threatening equatorial plasma bubbles to sup- port GBAS in low latitudes,

    L. Marini-Pereira, A. de Oliveira Moraes, and S. Pullen, “Ad- vanced warning of threatening equatorial plasma bubbles to sup- port GBAS in low latitudes,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 4858–4869, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Analysis and char- acterization of an unclassified RFI affecting ionospheric amplitude scintillation index over the mediterranean area,

    E. Pica, A. Minetto, C. Cesaroni, and F. Dovis, “Analysis and char- acterization of an unclassified RFI affecting ionospheric amplitude scintillation index over the mediterranean area,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 16, pp. 8230–8248, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Ionospheric propagation data and prediction methods re- quired for the design of satellite networks and systems,

    ITU, “Ionospheric propagation data and prediction methods re- quired for the design of satellite networks and systems,” Inter- national Telecommunication Union, Tech. Rep. Recommendation ITU-R P.531-16, 09 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Impact of ionospheric scintillations on GNSS availability and precise positioning,

    C. R. Aguiar, J. F. G. Monico, and A. O. Moraes, “Impact of ionospheric scintillations on GNSS availability and precise positioning,”Space Weather, vol. 23, no. 2, p. e2024SW004217, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    On the mitigation of ionospheric scintillation in advanced GNSS receivers,

    J. Vil `a-Valls, P. Closas, C. Fern ´andez-Prades, and J. T. Curran, “On the mitigation of ionospheric scintillation in advanced GNSS receivers,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Sys- tems, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1692–1708, 2018

    2018

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Direct-to-cell: A first look into Starlink’s direct satellite-to-device radio access network through crowdsourced measurements,

    J. Garcia-Cabeza, J. Albert-Smet, Z. Frias, L. Mendo, S. A. Azcoitia, and E. Yraola, “Direct-to-cell: A first look into Starlink’s direct satellite-to-device radio access network through crowdsourced measurements,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.00283

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ionospheric scintillation monitoring in northern Europe,

    A. Dodson, T. Moore, M. H. Aquino, and S. Waugh, “Ionospheric scintillation monitoring in northern Europe,” inProceedings of the 14th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GPS 2001), 2001, pp. 2490–2498

    2001

  3. [11]

    Canadian high arctic ionospheric network (CHAIN),

    P. T. Jayachandran, R. B. Langley, J. W. MacDougall, S. C. Mushini, D. Pokhotelov, A. M. Hamza, I. R. Mann, D. K. Milling, Z. C. Kale, R. Chadwick, T. Kelly, D. W. Danskin, and C. S. Carrano, “Canadian high arctic ionospheric network (CHAIN),” Radio Science, vol. 44, no. 01, p...

    2009

  4. [12]

    Chapter 13 - Monitoring iono- spheric scintillations with GNSS in South America: scope, results, and challenges,

    B. C. Vani, A. de Oliveira Moraes, L. A. Salles, V . H. Fernan- des Breder, M. Jos ´e dos Santos Freitas, J. F. Galera Monico, and E. Rodrigues de Paula, “Chapter 13 - Monitoring iono- spheric scintillations with GNSS in South America: scope, results, and challenges,” inGPS an...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Space weather observations by GNSS radio occultation: From FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC to FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2,

    X. Yue, W. S. Schreiner, N. Pedatella, R. A. Anthes, A. J. Mannucci, P. R. Straus, and J.-Y . Liu, “Space weather observations by GNSS radio occultation: From FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC to FORMOSAT-7/COSMIC-2,”Space Weather, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 616–621, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Signal frequency dependence of ionospheric scintillations: An CORRESPONDENCE: 5 indicator of irregularity spectrum characteristics,

    A. Bhattacharyya, P. Gurram, B. Kakad, S. Sripathi, and S. Sunda, “Signal frequency dependence of ionospheric scintillations: An CORRESPONDENCE: 5 indicator of irregularity spectrum characteristics,”Journal of Geo- physical Research: Space Physics, vol. 124, no. 10, pp. 8081– ...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Multifrequency observation of high latitude scintillation: A com- parison with the phase screen model,

    K. Song, K. Meziane, A. Kashcheyev, and P. T. Jayachandran, “Multifrequency observation of high latitude scintillation: A com- parison with the phase screen model,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–9, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    An inverse diffraction technique for scaling measurements of ionospheric scintillations on the GPS L1, L2, and L5 carriers to other frequencies,

    C. S. Carrano, K. M. Groves, S. H. Delay, and P. H. Doherty, “An inverse diffraction technique for scaling measurements of ionospheric scintillations on the GPS L1, L2, and L5 carriers to other frequencies,” inProceedings of the 2014 international technical meeting of the inst...

    2014

  9. [17]

    GPS proxy model for real-time UHF satellite communications scintilla- tion maps from the scintillation network decision aid (SCINDA),

    R. G. Caton, W. J. McNeil, K. M. Groves, and S. Basu, “GPS proxy model for real-time UHF satellite communications scintilla- tion maps from the scintillation network decision aid (SCINDA),” Radio Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks,

    3GPP, “Study on New Radio (NR) to support non-terrestrial networks,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech. Rep. 38.811, 09 2020, version 15.4.0

    2020

  11. [19]

    A. D. Wheelon,Electromagnetic scintillation: volume 2, weak scattering. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Early results from the DNA wideband satellite experiment—complex-signal scintillation,

    E. J. Fremouw, R. L. Leadabrand, R. C. Livingston, M. D. Cousins, C. L. Rino, B. C. Fair, and R. A. Long, “Early results from the DNA wideband satellite experiment—complex-signal scintillation,”Radio Science, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 167–187, 1978

    1978

  13. [21]

    FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 25- 815, 9 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    ——, Federal Communications Commission, Tech. Rep. DA 24- 1193, 11 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Satellite access node radio transmission and reception,

    3GPP, “Satellite access node radio transmission and reception,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Tech. Rep. 38.108, 01 2024, version 17.6.0

    2024

  16. [24]

    Multi-instrument analysis of L-band amplitude scintillation observed over the eastern Arabian Peninsula,

    A. M. Darya, M. M. Shaikh, G. Nykiel, E. Ghamry, and I. Fer- nini, “Multi-instrument analysis of L-band amplitude scintillation observed over the eastern Arabian Peninsula,”Advances in Space Research, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 1856–1867, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Review of the generation mechanisms of post- midnight irregularities in the equatorial and low-latitude iono- sphere,

    Y . Otsuka, “Review of the generation mechanisms of post- midnight irregularities in the equatorial and low-latitude iono- sphere,”Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 57, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Predicting the timing of the solar cycle 25 polar field reversal,

    B. K. Jha and L. A. Upton, “Predicting the timing of the solar cycle 25 polar field reversal,”The Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol. 962, no. 1, p. L15, Feb 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A multifrequency GPS signal strong equatorial ionospheric scintil- lation simulator: Algorithm, performance, and characterization,

    Y . Jiao, D. Xu, C. L. Rino, Y . T. Morton, and C. S. Carrano, “A multifrequency GPS signal strong equatorial ionospheric scintil- lation simulator: Algorithm, performance, and characterization,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1947–1...

    1947

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.