Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 77 references

On the viability of Transatlantic Quantum Entanglement Distribution using Combined Satellite and Stratospheric Relay Nodes

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid LEO satellite with two stratospheric relays outperforms single-satellite designs for 6500 km entanglement distribution.

desk verdict The hybrid LEO-plus-HAP link budget claims a clear rate win over single MEO, but that win depends on HAP pointing and loss numbers that are taken from separate literature values rather than measured together. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.09805 v1 pith:MI4JZCD2 submitted 2026-06-08 quant-ph

Kimia Mohammadi , Paul J. Godin , Thomas Jennewein This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumentanglementdistributionsatellitecommunicationhighaltitudeplatformskeyfree-spaceopticallinkshybridarchitecturetransatlanticlink
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 compares several free-space architectures for distributing entangled photons across a 6500 km transatlantic ground distance using only current technology and no quantum memories or repeaters. It identifies the combination of an entangled-photon source on a low-Earth-orbit satellite plus two passive optical relays on high-altitude platforms as the configuration that maximizes the delivered rate while also simplifying payload and launch requirements. A reader would care because the result indicates a concrete route to long-range quantum links that relies on smaller ground receivers and tolerates weather interruptions better than alternatives. The calculations show this hybrid approach produces roughly 5 million secure key bits per year, nearly two orders of magnitude above a single medium-Earth-orbit satellite with larger receivers.

What carries the argument

The hybrid architecture of an entangled-photon source on an LEO satellite plus two passive optical relays on HAPs, which optimizes link budgets, radiation effects, orbital constraints and system complexity to maximize the secure key rate.

What would settle it

A stratospheric or orbital measurement campaign that finds the combined pointing accuracy and loss values produce fewer than 10^5 secure key bits per year in the hybrid configuration would falsify the reported rate advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A hybrid architecture consisting of an entangled photon source located on a low Earth orbit satellite supported by two passive optical relays located on high altitude platforms provides the overall highest entanglement distribution rate. In addition the satellite HAP architecture offers practical advantages in payload design and launch requirements and the ability to lower weather-related link interruptions assuming some maneuverability of HAPs. Overall this hybrid configuration yields on the order of 5 times 10 to the 6 secure key bits per year using 30 cm aperture ground receivers nearly two orders of magnitude higher than achievable with a single MEO satellite and 1 m aperture ground rece

Load-bearing premise

The link-budget calculations assume that passive optical relays on HAPs can maintain the required pointing accuracy and that atmospheric and radiation losses can be modeled accurately enough to predict the final key rate without additional experimental validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hybrid setup reduces overall system complexity compared with single-satellite or multi-satellite alternatives.
  • It enables scalable long-range quantum networks while using smaller 30 cm ground receivers.
  • Payload design and launch requirements become simpler because the source flies on LEO and the relays are passive.
  • Weather-related interruptions can be reduced by maneuvering the HAP relays.
  • The architecture delivers nearly two orders of magnitude more secure key bits per year than a single MEO satellite with 1 m receivers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The viability of smaller ground stations could expand the number of locations that can participate in long-distance quantum links.
  • Similar hybrid relay patterns might be examined for other intercontinental distances or for daytime operation.
  • The modeling framework used for radiation and atmospheric losses could be applied to evaluate relay chains that incorporate additional HAP nodes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates free-space optical architectures for transatlantic entanglement distribution over 6500 km using LEO/MEO satellites and stratospheric HAP relays, without quantum memories or repeaters. It concludes that a hybrid LEO entangled-photon source with two passive HAP optical relays yields the highest rate, on the order of 5×10^6 secure key bits per year with 30 cm ground receivers—nearly two orders of magnitude above a single MEO satellite with 1 m receivers—while offering advantages in payload design, launch requirements, and weather resilience via HAP maneuverability.

Significance. If the underlying link-budget models prove robust, the result would indicate that hybrid satellite-HAP configurations can materially improve the practicality of long-distance quantum networks by trading orbital altitude for relay-assisted loss reduction and smaller ground apertures, thereby lowering barriers to scalable entanglement distribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Link budget calculations] Link-budget section: transmission probabilities for the two-hop LEO-HAP path are obtained by multiplying source brightness, individual-segment losses, and post-processing efficiency using literature values for HAP pointing accuracy (< few µrad), stratospheric turbulence/aerosol loss, and LEO radiation degradation; no combined Monte-Carlo propagation or sensitivity analysis is supplied to demonstrate that a plausible 3–4 dB excess loss (from wind-shear jitter or unmodeled combined effects) would not erase the reported rate advantage over the MEO baseline.
  2. [Results and comparison] Rate comparison (results section): the headline factor of ~100× improvement is stated for 30 cm versus 1 m ground apertures, yet the manuscript does not tabulate the separate contributions of aperture size, altitude-dependent loss, and relay gain, leaving unclear whether the comparison holds under identical ground-station assumptions or whether other parameters were adjusted.
  3. [System complexity and radiation effects] Orbital and radiation modeling: the claim that the hybrid architecture reduces system complexity rests on the assumption that passive HAP relays maintain the required pointing without active quantum hardware; the paper provides no quantitative error budget showing that radiation-induced source degradation plus HAP jitter remains within the modeled margin for the quoted 5×10^6 bit/year figure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The rate is written as '5X10^6' in the abstract; consistent scientific notation (5 × 10^6) should be used throughout.
  2. [Link budget calculations] Explicit citations are needed for each adopted loss coefficient (pointing jitter, stratospheric aerosol, radiation damage) rather than generic 'literature values'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate sensitivity analyses, a breakdown table, and an error budget as suggested. Our responses to each major comment are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Link budget calculations] Link-budget section: transmission probabilities for the two-hop LEO-HAP path are obtained by multiplying source brightness, individual-segment losses, and post-processing efficiency using literature values for HAP pointing accuracy (< few µrad), stratospheric turbulence/aerosol loss, and LEO radiation degradation; no combined Monte-Carlo propagation or sensitivity analysis is supplied to demonstrate that a plausible 3–4 dB excess loss (from wind-shear jitter or unmodeled combined effects) would not erase the reported rate advantage over the MEO baseline.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of a sensitivity analysis for unmodeled combined losses. The original calculations used conservative, independent literature values for each segment. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated sensitivity study showing that the hybrid architecture retains at least a 10× rate advantage over the MEO baseline even after an additional 4 dB excess loss. While a full correlated Monte-Carlo propagation was not performed, the added analysis directly addresses the concern that plausible excess loss would eliminate the reported advantage. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and comparison] Rate comparison (results section): the headline factor of ~100× improvement is stated for 30 cm versus 1 m ground apertures, yet the manuscript does not tabulate the separate contributions of aperture size, altitude-dependent loss, and relay gain, leaving unclear whether the comparison holds under identical ground-station assumptions or whether other parameters were adjusted.

    Authors: The comparison intentionally uses aperture sizes matched to each architecture’s loss budget (30 cm for the lower-loss hybrid path, 1 m for the higher-loss MEO path). To clarify the contributions, the revised results section now includes a table that decomposes the rate into the separate effects of ground-aperture size, altitude-dependent free-space loss, and relay-assisted path shortening. The table confirms that the factor of ~100× arises under the stated ground-station assumptions without hidden parameter adjustments. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [System complexity and radiation effects] Orbital and radiation modeling: the claim that the hybrid architecture reduces system complexity rests on the assumption that passive HAP relays maintain the required pointing without active quantum hardware; the paper provides no quantitative error budget showing that radiation-induced source degradation plus HAP jitter remains within the modeled margin for the quoted 5×10^6 bit/year figure.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit error budget strengthens the complexity argument. The revised manuscript adds a quantitative error-budget subsection that combines (i) modeled radiation degradation of the LEO source using standard LEO radiation models and (ii) HAP pointing jitter drawn from the same literature values already cited (< few µrad). The budget confirms that the combined effects remain within the margin required to achieve the quoted 5×10^6 secure key bits per year, thereby supporting the claim that passive HAP relays reduce overall system complexity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: rates derived from external link-budget models

full rationale

The paper computes secure key rates by applying standard link-budget formulas (source brightness, transmission probabilities, post-processing efficiency) to parameter values drawn from separate literature sources for HAP pointing jitter, stratospheric losses, and radiation effects. No equation reduces to a self-definition, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The hybrid-architecture comparison therefore remains an independent calculation against external benchmarks rather than a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard free-space optical link equations, orbital geometry, and radiation models drawn from prior literature. No new entities are postulated. Free parameters include aperture diameters (30 cm, 1 m) and assumed platform maneuverability.

free parameters (2)
  • ground receiver aperture
    30 cm and 1 m diameters are chosen as representative values that directly scale the collected photon rate.
  • HAP maneuverability
    Assumed ability to reposition to reduce weather outages is introduced without quantified probability distribution.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Passive optical relays on HAPs incur only geometric and atmospheric loss with no additional quantum decoherence.
    Invoked when stating that the architecture works without quantum memories or repeaters.
  • domain assumption Link budgets can be computed from distance, aperture, and radiation models without experimental calibration of the full chain.
    Underlies the claim that the hybrid configuration is highest-rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the viability of Transatlantic Quantum Entanglement Distribution using Combined Satellite and Stratospheric Relay Nodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MI4JZCD2

@misc{pith2026260609805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the viability of Transatlantic Quantum Entanglement Distribution using Combined Satellite and Stratospheric Relay Nodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MI4JZCD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.09805}
}
read the original abstract

To explore the pathways toward establishing a global quantum network, we investigate several link architectures for transatlantic quantum entanglement distribution over a 6,500 km ground distance. We define free-space link configurations involving satellites and stratospheric high altitude platforms (HAPs), using today's technology and without relying on quantum memories and repeaters. Considering link budgets, space radiation, orbital characteristics, and system complexity we find that a hybrid architecture consisting of an entangled photon source located on a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite supported by two passive optical relays located on HAPs provides the overall highest entanglement distribution rate. In addition, the satellite HAP architecture offers practical advantages in payload design and launch requirements, and the ability to lower the weather-related link interruptions assuming some maneuverability of HAPs. Overall, this hybrid configuration yields on the order of 5X10^6 secure key bits per year using 30 cm aperture ground receivers, nearly two orders of magnitude higher than achievable with a single MEO satellite and 1 m aperture ground receivers. Our results highlight the major benefits of hybrid satellite HAP architectures by reducing system complexity while enabling scalable and more accessible long-range quantum communication networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Considered link configurations for entanglement distribution between the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ground stations in Waterloo, Canada and Berlin, Germany with a 60-degree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Three-satellite link configurations where (a),(b) three satellites are located in three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Possible scenario for transatlantic entanglement distribution. A LEO satellite at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Annual radiation dose for circular orbits from 500 km to 35,000 km altitude, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of link loss and elevation angle at both ground stations for (a)-(c) single MEO satellite at 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Estimated pair-detection requirements for (a) entanglement-based QKD and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) Aperture collected photon pair number over one year, for a MEO satellite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Fried parameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Estimated QBER of an SPDC entangled-photon source in the absence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2 The right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN) is an angle from the vernal equinox direction to the 5

    3 LEO satellites, 3 orbits: three satellites placed in 3 orbits with 55 degrees inclination and 50 degrees separation (50 degrees difference in the RAAN of the orbits2), Figure 3a. 2 The right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN) is an angle from the vernal equinox direction to the 5

  2. [2]

    These orbits are simulated in STK and numerically investigated to achieve the orbital parameters corresponding to the maximum number of received photon pairs over a year

    3 LEO satellites, 1 orbit: three chasing satellites in one orbit with 60 degrees incli- nation, maintaining 30 degrees spacing (30 degrees difference in the mean anomaly of the orbits3), Figure 3c. These orbits are simulated in STK and numerically investigated to achieve the orbital parameters corresponding to the maximum number of received photon pairs o...

  3. [3]

    + 2.7×10 −16 exp( −h 1500) +C2 n(0)exp( −h 100)]( h−h 0 L−h 0 )5/3 dh. (4) T represents the turbulence effect and is estimated based onH/V 5/7 atmospheric model for a downlink, whereC 2 n(0), the nominal ground atmosphere structure parameter, is 1.7× 10−14 m−2/3 for wind speed of 21m/s, [39].Lis the orbital altitude,h 0 is the ground station height above ...

    2015

  4. [4]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. Jennewein, M. Pfennigbauer, W. Leeb, and A. Zeilinger, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics9, 1541 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    K´ om´ ar, E

    P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014), duplicate of komar quantum 2014 – consider consolidating

    2014

  6. [6]

    Liao, Physical Review Letters120(2018), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.030501

    S.-K. Liao, Physical Review Letters120(2018), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.030501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.030501 2018

  7. [7]

    Y.-A. Chen, Q. Zhang, T.-Y. Chen, W.-Q. Cai, S.-K. Liao, J. Zhang, K. Chen, J. Yin, J.- G. Ren, Z. Chen, S.-L. Han, Q. Yu, K. Liang, F. Zhou, X. Yuan, M.-S. Zhao, T.-Y. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Zhang, W.-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, J.-Y. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F. Xu, X.-B. Wang, C.-Z. Peng, and J.-W. Pan, Nature589, 214 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Satellites promise global-scale quantum networks,

    S. Goswami, S. Dhara, N. Sinclair, M. Mohageg, J. S. Sidhu, S. Mukhopadhyay, M. Krutzik, J. R. Lowell, D. K. L. Oi, M. Gundogan, Y.-C. Chen, H.-H. Jen, and C. Simon, “Satellites promise global-scale quantum networks,” (2025), arXiv:2505.06693 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai,et al., Science356, 1140 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Scalability bottlenecks in entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution: downlink asymmetry, orbit dependence and finite-key effects,

    “Scalability bottlenecks in entanglement-based satellite quantum key distribution: downlink asymmetry, orbit dependence and finite-key effects,” (2026)

    2026

  3. [11]

    Gottesman, T

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Physical review letters109, 070503 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Zhang and Q

    Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Quantum Science and Technology6, 043001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Y. Xu, T. Wang, P. Huang, and G. Zeng, Research7, 0416 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    K´ om´ ar, E

    P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Krˇ co and P

    M. Krˇ co and P. Paul, Physical Review A66, 024305 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Shi and S

    J. Shi and S. Shen, Scientific Reports12, 10185 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    McKenzie, A

    W. McKenzie, A. M. Richards, Y.-S. Li-Baboud, I. A. Burenkov, A. Rahmouni, T. Gerrits, A. T. Black, D. E. Jones, A. R. Perez, and T. G. Akin, inQuantum Computing, Communi- cation, and Simulation V, Vol. 13391 (SPIE, 2025) pp. 33–38

    2025

  10. [18]

    S. P. Neumann, A. Buchner, L. Bulla, M. Bohmann, and R. Ursin, Nature Communications 13, 6134 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Yin, T.-Y

    H.-L. Yin, T.-Y. Chen, Z.-W. Yu, H. Liu, L.-X. You, Y.-H. Zhou, S.-J. Chen, Y. Mao, M.-Q. 23 Huang, W.-J. Zhang,et al., Physical review letters117, 190501 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Petrovich, E

    M. Petrovich, E. Numkam Fokoua, Y. Chen, H. Sakr, A. I. Adamu, R. Hassan, D. Wu, R. Fatobene Ando, A. Papadimopoulos, S. R. Sandoghchi, G. Jasion, and F. Poletti, Nature Photonics19, 1203 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Boone, J.-P

    K. Boone, J.-P. Bourgoin, E. Meyer-Scott, K. Heshami, T. Jennewein, and C. Simon, Physical Review A91, 052325 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Global-scale quantum networking using hybrid-channel quantum repeaters with relays based on a chain of balloons,

    P.-X. Liu, Y.-P. Lin, Z.-Q. Zhou, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, “Global-scale quantum networking using hybrid-channel quantum repeaters with relays based on a chain of balloons,” (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Zhong, M

    M. Zhong, M. P. Hedges, R. L. Ahlefeldt, J. G. Bartholomew, S. E. Beavan, S. M. Wittig, J. J. Longdell, and M. J. Sellars, Nature517, 177 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Y. Chu, R. Donaldson, R. Kumar, and D. Grace, Quantum Science and Technology6, 035009 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Drone- and Vehicle-Based Quantum Key Distribution,

    A. Conrad, R. Cochran, D. Sanchez-Rosales, S. Isaac, T. Javid, T. Rezaei, A. J. Schroeder, G. Golba, A. Gutha, B. Wilens, K. Herndon, A. Hill, J. Chapman, I. Call, J. Szabo, A. Corri- gan, L. Kamin, N. L¨ utkenhaus, D. J. Gauthier, and P. G. Kwiat, “Drone- and Vehicle-Based Qu...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Karakosta-Amarantidou, R

    I. Karakosta-Amarantidou, R. Yehia, and M. Schiavon, Physical Review Research7, 023199 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Karabulut Kurt, m

    G. Karabulut Kurt, m. g. khoshkholgh dashtaki, S. Alfattani, A. Ibrahim, T. Darwish, M. S. Alam, and A. Yongacoglu, IEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsPP, 1 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Meister, P

    J. Meister, P. Kleinpaß, and D. Orsucci, EPJ Quantum Technology12, 1 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Orsucci, P

    D. Orsucci, P. Kleinpaß, J. Meister, I. De Marco, S. H¨ ausler, T. Strang, N. Walenta, and F. Moll, International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking43, 164 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Bourgoin, E

    J.-P. Bourgoin, E. Meyer-Scott, B. L. Higgins, B. Helou, C. Erven, H. H¨ ubel, B. Kumar, D. Hudson, I. D’Souza, R. Girard, R. Laflamme, and T. Jennewein, New Journal of Physics 15, 023006 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Link Budget Analysis for Free-Space Optical Satellite Networks,

    J. Liang, A. U. Chaudhry, E. Erdogan, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Link Budget Analysis for Free-Space Optical Satellite Networks,” (2022), arXiv:2204.13177

    2022

  24. [32]

    Fidler, M

    F. Fidler, M. Knapek, J. Horwath, and W. R. Leeb, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics16, 1058 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    inAIAA International Air and Space Symposium(2002) author names not available in source 24 record

    2002

  26. [35]

    M. Yang, F. Xu, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Y. Li, Y. Cao, Q. Shen, H.-L. Yong, L. Zhang, S.-K. Liao, J.-W. Pan, and C.-Z. Peng, Optics Express27, 36114 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Chen, Y.-F

    Z.-Y. Chen, Y.-F. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Gao, and H. Zheng, Optics Express32, 2015 (2024)

    2015

  28. [37]

    M. Alam, J. Abramczyk, U. Manyam, J. Farroni, and D. Guertin, International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 200610567(2017), 10.1117/12.2308184

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    J. Li, Q. Chen, J. Zhou, Z. Cao, T. Li, F. Liu, Z. Yang, S. Chang, K. Zhou, Y. Ming, T. Yan, and W. Zheng, Sensors24, 3235 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Anisimova, B

    E. Anisimova, B. L. Higgins, J.-P. Bourgoin, M. Cranmer, E. Choi, D. Hudson, L. P. Piche, A. Scott, V. Makarov, and T. Jennewein, EPJ Quantum Technology4, UNSP 10 (2017)

    2017

  31. [40]

    Union of concerned scientists satellite database,

    “Union of concerned scientists satellite database,”

  32. [41]

    C. A. Balanis,Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design(John Wiley & Sons, 2012)

    2012

  33. [42]

    L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips,Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, 2nd ed. (SPIE Press, 2005)

    2005

  34. [43]

    Shaklan and F

    S. Shaklan and F. Roddier, Appl. Opt.27, 2334 (1988)

    1988

  35. [44]

    R. J. Noll, JOSA66, 207 (1976)

    1976

  36. [45]

    Canuet, N

    L. Canuet, N. V´ edrenne, J.-M. Conan, C. Petit, G. Artaud, A. Rissons, and J. Lacan, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A35, 148 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    Y. Wang, C. Jin, R. Wang, X. Yin, Z. Cao, D. Li, Q. Mu, and L. Xuan, Journal of Optics 23, 105701 (2021)

    2021

  38. [47]

    Data provided by www.meteoblue.com,

    “Data provided by www.meteoblue.com,”

  39. [48]

    Ma, C.-H

    X. Ma, C.-H. F. Fung, and H.-K. Lo, Physical Review A76, 012307 (2007)

    2007

  40. [49]

    M. T. Gruneisen, M. B. Flanagan, and B. A. Sickmiller, Optical Engineering56, 126111 (2017)

    2017

  41. [50]

    M. T. Gruneisen, M. B. Flanagan, B. A. Sickmiller, J. P. Black, K. E. Stoltenberg, and A. W. Duchane, Optics Express23, 23924 (2015)

    2015

  42. [51]

    Er-long, H

    M. Er-long, H. Zheng-fu, G. Shun-sheng, Z. Tao, D. Da-sheng, and G. Guang-can, New Journal of Physics7, 215 (2005)

    2005

  43. [52]

    M. T. Gruneisen, M. L. Eickhoff, S. C. Newey, K. E. Stoltenberg, J. F. Morris, M. Bareian, 25 M. A. Harris, D. W. Oesch, M. D. Oliker, M. B. Flanagan, B. T. Kay, J. D. Schiller, and R. N. Lanning, Physical Review Applied16, 014067 (2021)

    2021

  44. [53]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  45. [54]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 557 (1992)

    1992

  46. [55]

    F. Xu, X. Ma, Q. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, and J.-W. Pan, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025002 (2020)

    2020

  47. [56]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  48. [57]

    Brassard, N

    G. Brassard, N. L¨ utkenhaus, T. Mor, and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1330 (2000)

    2000

  49. [58]

    Tomamichel, C

    M. Tomamichel, C. C. W. Lim, N. Gisin, and R. Renner, Nature Communications3, 634 (2012)

    2012

  50. [59]

    Tomamichel and A

    M. Tomamichel and A. Leverrier, Quantum1, 14 (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    E. Waks, A. Zeevi, and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review A65, 052310 (2002)

    2002

  52. [61]

    Gittsovich, N

    O. Gittsovich, N. J. Beaudry, V. Narasimhachar, R. R. Alvarez, T. Moroder, and N. L¨ utkenhaus, Physical Review A89, 012325 (2014)

    2014

  53. [62]

    Takesue, K.-i

    H. Takesue, K.-i. Harada, K. Tamaki, H. Fukuda, T. Tsuchizawa, T. Watanabe, K. Yamada, and S.-i. Itabashi, Optics Express18, 16777 (2010)

    2010

  54. [63]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical Review47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  55. [64]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  56. [65]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Physical Review Letters23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  57. [66]

    Fedrizzi, R

    A. Fedrizzi, R. Ursin, T. Herbst, M. Nespoli, R. Prevedel, T. Scheidl, F. Tiefenbacher, T. Jen- newein, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Physics5, 389 (2009)

    2009

  58. [67]

    Bourgoin,Experimental and theoretical demonstration of the feasibility of global quantum cryptography using satellites, Ph.D

    J.-P. Bourgoin,Experimental and theoretical demonstration of the feasibility of global quantum cryptography using satellites, Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2014)

    2014

  59. [68]

    Handbook of Small Satellites: Technology, Design, Manufacture, Applications, Economics and Regulation,

    “Handbook of Small Satellites: Technology, Design, Manufacture, Applications, Economics and Regulation,”

  60. [69]

    Spacex rideshare program,

    “Spacex rideshare program,”

  61. [70]

    Micius quantum communication satellite cost reference,

    “Micius quantum communication satellite cost reference,”

  62. [71]

    Government of canada investment in quantum technology (qeyssat cost reference),

    “Government of canada investment in quantum technology (qeyssat cost reference),”

  63. [72]

    L. Toka, M. Konrad, A. Pekar, and G. Bicz´ ok, IEEE Communications Magazine62, 44 (2024)

    2024

  64. [73]

    Research study on high-altitude pseudo-satellites: First take-aways,

    “Research study on high-altitude pseudo-satellites: First take-aways,” (2023). 26

    2023

  65. [74]

    Brambila, R

    E. Brambila, R. G´ omez, R. Fazili, M. Gr¨ afe, and F. Steinlechner, Opt. Express31, 16107 (2023)

    2023

  66. [75]

    Vinet, M

    S. Vinet, M. Clementi, M. Bacchi, Y. Zhang, M. Giacomin, L. Neal, P. Villoresi, M. Galli, D. Bajoni, and T. Jennewein, npj Quantum Information12, 38 (2026)

    2026

  67. [76]

    Jenneweinet al., HyperSpace Mission Concept: Entanglement Distribution between Europe and Canada, In preparation (2026)

    T. Jenneweinet al., HyperSpace Mission Concept: Entanglement Distribution between Europe and Canada, In preparation (2026)

    2026

  68. [77]

    Korzh, Q

    B. Korzh, Q. Zhao, S. Frasca, J. Allmaras, T. Autry, E. Bersin, M. Colangelo, G. Crouch, A. Dane, T. Gerrits, F. Marsili, G. Moody, E. Ramirez, J. Rezac, M. Stevens, E. Wollman, D. Zhu, P. Hale, K. Silverman, and K. Berggren, (2018), 10.48550/arXiv.1804.06839

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    Esmaeil Zadeh, J

    I. Esmaeil Zadeh, J. Los, R. Gourgues, J. Chang, A. W. Elshaari, J. Zichi, Y. Staaden, J. Swens, N. Kalhor, A. Guardiani, Y. Meng, K. Zou, S. Dobrovolskiy, A. Fognini, D. Schaart, D. Dalacu, P. Poole, M. Reimer, X. Hu, and S. Dorenbos, ACS Photonics (2020), 10.1021/ac- sphoton...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.