Optimal design of small aperture optical

terminals for free-space links

A LEX M. F ROST, 1,* B ENJAMIN P. D IX -M ATTHEWS , 1 , S HANE M.
WALSH 1 , D AVID R. G OZZARD 1 , AND S ASCHA W. S CHEDIWY 1
1 International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth 6009,
Western Australia, Australia
* [email protected]
arXiv:2407.04745v1 [physics.ins-det] 4 Jul 2024

Abstract: We present the generalised design of low-complexity, small aperture optical terminals
intended for kilometre-scale, terrestrial, free-space laser links between fixed and dynamic targets.
The design features single-mode fibre coupling of the free-space beam, assisted by a fast-steering,
tip/tilt mirror that enables first-order turbulence suppression and fine target tracking. The total
power throughput over the free-space link and the scintillation index in fibre are optimised. The
optimal tip/tilt correction bandwidth and range, aperture size, and focal length for a given link
are derived using analytical atmospheric turbulence modelling and numerical simulations.

1. Introduction
The use of optical frequencies for free-space signal transfer has become desirable in the pursuit
of wireless high-speed communications and stable frequency transfer, where the bandwidth and
stability of current radio- and microwave-frequency techniques are now major bottlenecks [1, 2].
Free-space optical (FSO) signal transfer generally consists of transmitter and receiver terminals
separated by some amount of atmosphere, through which a laser beam propagates. The terminals
will often be in relative motion, such as a link between a fixed ground-station and an aircraft or
sea vessel. Furthermore, atmospheric beam propagation is hindered by turbulence, which imparts
deflections on the beam, and perturbs its wavefront. These effects scale with frequency [3]
and are detrimental to the applications of FSO links, stemming from the large power losses
and fluctuations they cause. If the beam must be coupled into single-mode fibre (SMF) – a
requirement for coherent data communications and metrology applications [4, 5] – these power
fluctuations are exacerbated. Hence, the design of optical terminals for operation over FSO links
involves analysis of the expected turbulence conditions, the power losses they will incur, and the
means available to suppress them.
This paper describes the optimal design of an SMF-coupled optical terminal for a range of FSO
link lengths and turbulence conditions. An embedded, fast-steering, tip/tilt (TT) mirror corrects
for any angular offsets in the beam, providing first-order atmospheric turbulence suppression
and fine target tracking. The design enables terrestrial FSO links of up to 10 km in a low
complexity and cost effective manner, and is intended for sub-0.2 m diameter apertures. This
work has informed the design of optical terminals used by our research group to demonstrate
FSO communications and frequency transfer to stationary [6, 7] and dynamic targets [5, 8].

2. Theoretical background
2.1. Atmospheric turbulence
The design process begins by quantifying the turbulence of the free-space link. Local temperature
and pressure variations in the atmosphere occur down to millisecond timescales. These variations
create turbulent cells known as eddies with varying refractive indices [3]. As a laser beam
propagates through the atmosphere, it interacts with these eddies and experiences wavefront
perturbations. Changes in the gradient of the wavefront is called wavefront TT. Wavefront
perturbations are quantified through the Fried parameter, 𝑟 0 , which describes the spatial coherence
diameter of the beam after propagation over a given FSO link. The larger a beam is relative to 𝑟 0 ,
the more perturbed its wavefront will be. The simplest approximation of a propagating beam is a
plane-wave, which has a Fried parameter given by 𝑟 0 = 2.1𝜌0, 𝑝𝑙 , where 𝜌0, 𝑝𝑙 is the plane-wave
spatial coherence radius given by
"  2 Z 𝐿 # −3/5
2𝜋
𝜌0, 𝑝𝑙 = 1.46 𝑑𝑧 𝐶𝑛2 (𝑧) . (1)
𝜆 0

Here 𝑧 is line-of-sight position along the link, 𝐿 is the link length, 𝜆 is the beam’s wavelength,
and 𝐶𝑛2 (𝑧) is the refractive index structure parameter. For simplicity, this paper assumes a uniform
distribution, 𝐶𝑛2 (𝑧) = 𝐶𝑛2 . This is a suitable simplification for horizontal links, but for significantly
inclined links, 𝐶𝑛2 (𝑧) distributions such as the Hufnagel-Valley model [9] should be used.
Note that Equation 1 is only applicable to approximately plane-wave beams under weak
turbulence conditions. However, this paper considers Gaussian beams over a range of turbulence
conditions. For general turbulence conditions, the Fried parameter of a Gaussian beam is given by
3/5
© 8 ª
𝑟 0 = 2.1𝜌0, 𝑝𝑙 ­­   ®® , (2)
3 𝑎 𝑒 + 0.62Λ11/6
𝑒
« ¬
where Λ𝑒 is the effective fresnel ratio beam parameter, 𝑎 𝑒 is given by
 1−Θ8/3
Θ𝑒 ≥ 0


 𝑒
1−Θ𝑒
𝑎𝑒 = , (3)
1+|Θ𝑒 | 8/3

 Θ𝑒 < 01−Θ𝑒

and Θ𝑒 is the effective curvature beam parameter. Λ𝑒 and Θ𝑒 are modifications of the standard
beam parameters, Λ and Θ, as defined in [10] to account for how the turbulent atmosphere
impacts beam propagation. The effective beam parameters are functions of 𝐶𝑛2 , 𝑧 and 𝑤 0 , the
waist size of the transmitted beam, and equations for them can be found in [10].
Wavefront perturbations may be represented through the Zernike modes. Compensation
of a beam’s perturbed wavefront up to the jth Zernike mode, 𝑍 𝑗 , will increase the beam’s
spatial coherence length. This compensation can be quantified through the generalised Fried
parameter, 𝑟 0, 𝑗 [11]
 3/5
3.44
𝑟 0, 𝑗 = 0.286 𝑗 −0.362 𝑟 0 , (4)
coef(j)
where coef( 𝑗) is the coefficient of residual wavefront distortion after partial compensation given
by [12]. Of interest to this paper are the second term 𝑍2 and third term 𝑍3 , which represent
wavefront tip and tilt. Equation 4 can be used to give the TT-compensated Fried parameter,
𝑟 0,3 = 1.347𝑟 0 , which is key in determining the improvements offered by TT compensation.

2.2. Fibre-optic coupling

Ultimately, wavefront perturbations will cause a loss in optical power when coupling a beam into
SMF. For an incoming beam, the coupling efficiency, 𝜂 𝑐 , is the time-averaged fraction of incident
power that is coupled into optical fibre. It is calculated from the overlap integral of the beam’s
field with the fibre’s propagation mode. For a perturbed beam being focused onto an optical fibre
which has fully filled some aperture diameter, 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 , the coupling efficiency is given by [13]

Z1 Z1 "  2! #  2 !
2 2 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 𝐷 𝑅𝑋
𝜂 𝑐 = 8𝑎 exp − 𝑎 + 1.1 (𝑥12 + 𝑥22 ) 𝐽1 2.2 𝑥1 𝑥 2 𝑥1 𝑥 2 𝑑𝑥 1 𝑑𝑥 2 , (5)
0 0 𝑟0 𝑟0
where 𝐽1 is the first order Bessel function of the first kind, and 𝑥 1 and 𝑥2 are normalised distances
from the centre of the aperture stop. The parameter a is determined by the geometry of the optics
𝐷 𝑅𝑋 𝜋𝑊𝑚
𝑎= , (6)
2 𝜆 𝑓eff
where 𝑊𝑚 is the mode field radius of the fibre, 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 is the diameter of the aperture stop, and 𝑓eff
is the effective focal length of the optical system [13].
In the absence of turbulence (where 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 → 0), 𝜂 𝑐 is maximised to 0.81 when 𝑎 = 1.12.
In the presence of turbulence, 𝜂 𝑐 will decrease with increasing 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 , shown as the blue
curve in Figure 1. For any value of 𝑟 0 , setting 𝑎 = 1.12 will yield a near maximum value of 𝜂 𝑐 ,
showcasing how useful a is as a design parameter. The Fried parameter can be substituted with
𝑟 0,3 in Equation 5 to find the TT-compensated 𝜂 𝑐 , plotted in orange in Figure 1. The fractional
improvement in 𝜂 𝑐 from TT compensation increases with increasing turbulence strength, up to a
value of 1.7.

TT compensated
Uncompensated

Fig. 1. Coupling efficiency, 𝜂 𝑐 , versus turbulence strength, 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 . The orange

curve is for an uncompensated wavefront, and the blue is for a wavefront with TT
compensation. Both curves are evaluated for a = 1.12. The diamonds correspond to
values of 𝑎 which maximise 𝜂 𝑐 for a specific 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 . The black dashed curve is the
factor of improvement gained by TT compensation.

2.3. Link power loss and fluctuations

Only the fraction of power that makes it into the optical terminal can be coupled into fibre. For
a given FSO link, this fraction is determined from the geometric loss associated with beam
truncation at any aperture along the optical path. Geometric losses can be calculated by using link
budget analysis. The net gain from transmitter to receiver, 𝐺 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 , can be expressed through [14]
𝐺 𝑇 𝑋 𝐺 𝑅𝑋
𝐺 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 = , (7)
𝐿 𝐹𝑆
where 𝐺 𝑇 𝑋 is the transmitter gain, 𝐺 𝑅𝑋 is the receiver gain, and 𝐿 𝐹𝑆 is the free-space loss. For
a transmitted Gaussian beam with a 1/𝑒 2 diameter of 𝐷 𝑇 𝑋 that diverges by its diffraction limit,
being received by a circular aperture of diameter 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 after propagating over a distance L, these
three gain parameters are given by
 2  2  2
𝜋𝐷 𝑇 𝑋 𝜋𝐷 𝑅𝑋 4𝜋𝐿
𝐺𝑇 𝑋 =2 , 𝐺 𝑅𝑋 = , and 𝐿 𝐹𝑆 = . (8)
𝜆 𝜆 𝜆
 Additionally to time-averaged power losses, the power received by the optical terminal will
scintillate due to self-interference of the perturbed beam. These fluctuations are often quantified
by the log-amplitude scintillation index
!
2
𝜎𝐼2
𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼 = ln 1 + 2 , (9)
𝜇𝐼

where 𝜎𝐼2 is the variance of the irradiance and 𝜇 𝐼 is the mean irradiance. In general, 𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼
2 will
increase with increasing turbulence strength, reaching its maximum value when the beam has
been perturbed to the point that it is fully incoherent at the receiver [15].
The ratio 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 has a strong effect on the scintillation at the receiver. If the aperture size
spans multiple Fried parameters, the receiver will average the power fluctuations of each coherent
patch, resulting in a lower scintillation index. This is termed aperture averaging [16]. We are
further interested in how a varying aperture size affects the scintillation index of the power
coupled into SMF. Given their analytical complexity [10], we use numerical beam propagation
simulations to obtain these scintillation indices.

3. Numerical simulation
We model the turbulent atmosphere with the AOtools Python package [17] using the equivalent
layer method [18], where the volume of atmosphere over a FSO link is reduced to a series of
thin phase screens, with Fresnel beam propagation between them. We use seven equivalent
layers to model every turbulent link. This spacing yields a maximum error of 15% compared
to analytical solutions for scintillation of an unbounded plane-wave [10] under the strongest
turbulence conditions and longest distances simulated.
The simulation parameters are chosen using the procedure detailed in [19]. The pixel scale is
set small enough to ensure adequate sampling of the phase screens and of the beam scintillation.
The grid size is set to minimise edge effects and allow for accurate Fresnel propagation. We
note that after beam propagation, only a smaller central portion of the grid will contain valid
results [19].

4. Terminal design
The generalised optical terminal is shown in Figure 2. It receives a beam from free-space and
focuses it down onto an optical fibre tip. A fast-steering mirror is used to keep the beam on the
centre of the fibre tip, providing TT compensation. The design is done in two stages. First is
a maximisation of the total power throughput (i.e., the combination of coupling efficiency and
geometric loss) and minimisation of scintillation assuming a perfectly centred beam. Second
is an optimisation of the TT compensation system to keep the coupling efficiency above some
threshold value. Measurement of wavefront TT to provide error signals for the steering control
loop is not discussed. This is already well understood and detailed in publications such as [20,21].

Fig. 2. Generalised optical terminal diagram. D is the aperture stop, 𝑓eff is the effective
focal length, and 𝑊𝑚 is the mode field radius of the fibre.
4.1. Power throughput optimisation
The total power throughput, 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 , depends both on the coupling and geometric power losses
of the FSO link through 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐺 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝜂 𝑐 . For a given link, as 𝐷 𝑇 𝑋 increases, the divergence
of the transmitted beam decreases, and so geometric losses decrease. As 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 increases, the
ratio 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 /𝑟 0 increases, implying more wavefront perturbations and hence a higher coupling
loss. This paper considers the case where 𝐷 𝑅𝑋 = 𝐷 𝑇 𝑋 = 𝐷, representative of bidirectional FSO
terminals. In this case, there will be a common aperture diameter which will maximise 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 . This
is plotted in Figure 3A, showing 𝜂 𝑐 , 𝐺 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 , and 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 for a range of link lengths and 𝐶𝑛2 values.

(A) (B)

Fig. 3. (A) 𝐺 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘 (black curve), uncompensated 𝜂 𝑐 (dashed curves) and 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 (solid
curves) for three point-to-point links of length 750 m, 2,400 m, and 10,600 m between a
transmitter and receiver of equal aperture diameter. Three 𝐶𝑛2 values of 1×10 −15 𝑚 −2/3
(blue), 5 × 10 −15 𝑚 −2/3 (orange) and 1 × 10 −14 𝑚 −2/3 (green) are used. The upper
and lower throughput curves correspond to the TT-compensated and uncompensated
cases, and the filled region represents the range for imperfect TT compensation. (B)
Simulation results of the scintillation indices for free-space (dashed curve), and fibre
(solid curves). The lower and upper fibre curves correspond to the TT-compensated
and uncompensated cases.

Three chosen values of 𝐶𝑛2 representing the low, medium, and high turbulence conditions
expected over each link are chosen based on the 𝐶𝑛2 values our research group has observed
over the specified link lengths in Perth, Western Australia. The total throughput in Figure 3 is
given by a band, with the lower and upper bounds corresponding to the uncompensated and
TT-compensated cases. Each 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 band has a peak value corresponding to an ideal choice for the
aperture diameter, 𝐷. These peaks correspond to the minimum aperture size required for the
beam to be minimally truncated at the receiver. The optimal 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 ranges between −1 dB to −9 dB
for the link lengths and turbulence strengths being analysed. In general, geometric losses are
seen to have more impact on the 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 than coupling losses do. As a result, the ideal 𝐷 is strongly
dependent on the FSO link length. For lengths on the order of a kilometre, 𝐷 of less than 30 mm
will incur significant throughput losses. The ideal 𝐷 varies from 30 to 120 mm over this range.
With the aperture size set, Equation 6 can be used to set the terminal’s effective focal length,
resulting in a value between 152 to 574 mm. The optimal aperture size and the resulting 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 for
each link and turbulence condition are summarised in Table 1.
Beyond a link length of 10 km, the optimal aperture sizes of >0.12 m become inappropriate for
a ‘small aperture’ optical terminal. On telescopes this large, implementing only TT compensation
has diminishing improvements on the coupling efficiency, since wavefront perturbations are
distributed into higher-order Zernike modes [22]. As such, large aperture terminals generally
require higher order compensation systems to improve coupling efficiency. This analysis does
not consider higher order compensation, focusing on a lower cost and more simple design.

Table 1. Optimal aperture diameter, D, corresponding required focal length, 𝑓eff , and
resulting throughput 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 for a given link length and turbulence condition. The range
of 𝑟 0 values from Equation 4 for the transmit beam sizes considered are also included.

L [m] 𝐶𝑛2 [m −2/3 ] 𝑟 0 [mm] D [mm] 𝑓eff [mm] 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 [dB]

1 × 10 −15 410 − 371 -0.899
750 5 × 10 −15 158 − 141 32.4 152 -0.948
1 × 10 −14 107 − 93.5 -1.02
1 × 10 −15 280 − 187 -0.994
2,400 5 × 10 −15 117 − 74.8 57.9 272 -1.43
1 × 10 −14 8.42 − 5.27 -1.85
1 × 10 −15 144 − 125 -2.24
10,600 5 × 10 −15 5.98 122 574 -5.90
1 × 10 −14 3.99 − 4.00 -8.69

Each link length and 𝐶𝑛2 value is numerically simulated to obtain the free-space and fibre
scintillation indices which are plotted in Figure 3B. The free-space scintillation index is shown
by a dashed line. As in the throughput plots, a band gives the upper and lower limits on the fibre
scintillation index without and with TT compensation, respectively. The uncompensated fibre
2
𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼 is calculated from the fibre-coupled power, which is found by convolving the aperture-plane
free-space power with the back-propagated fibre mode [22]. The TT-compensated fibre 𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼 2

is found by centering the Fourier transform of the incident beam prior to convolution. This
is equivalent to suppressing the G tilt of the beam, representative of how TT compensation is
performed when using a camera or quadrant photodetector [23].
Assuming the free-space detector can see the entire aperture of the receiver, TT compensation
2 . Observing Figure 3B, as the turbulence strength increases, all
has no effect on the free-space 𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼
three scintillation indices increase, and when 𝐷 increases, aperture averaging effects predictably
reduce the free-space scintillation. However, the scintillation in fibre is not as straightforward,
since it depends on the scintillation of the incident beam and also on its wavefront perturbations.
So, the net trend of fibre scintillation with aperture diameter depends on the balance of these
two effects. We see that the scintillation index increases with increasing 𝐷 for lower turbulence
strengths and this trend becomes weaker eventually changes sign as the turbulence strength
increases. Compared to shorter links, the fibre and free-space scintillation indices of the 10,600 m
link do not change as much when 𝐶𝑛2 increases. This is attributed to being close to/within the
scintillation saturation regime [15].
 Looking at the improvements offered by TT compensation, we see in Figure 3B that TT
compensation has the largest improvement on fibre scintillation for lower turbulence strengths.
This is because of how Zernike modes are distributed over different turbulence strengths. In
weak turbulence, TT is the dominant mode [22] and so TT compensation will remove a majority
of perturbations from the beam, resulting in large improvements in the scintillation index. In
stronger turbulence conditions, wavefront perturbations excite higher order Zernike modes, so
only compensating for TT has less of an impact. Additionally, as the free-space detector is
assumed to be insensitive to TT, weak turbulence conditions yield the biggest difference between
2 .
the fibre and free-space 𝜎𝑙𝑛,𝐼
Note that the 𝐷 is already constrained to maximise the power throughput. However, using
these 𝐷 values in Figure 3B does not lead to a minimised fibre scintillation index. Minimising
the fibre scintillation index requires 𝐷 in the range of 0.10 − 0.15 m, which would result in
a lower throughput. Improved scintillation may be favoured over a reduction in throughput,
though the overall power distribution in fibre is ultimately the most important metric when
considering the operation of fibre-based FSO components such as detectors or amplifiers. The
throughput distributions are presented in Figure 4 with the inclusion of the upper and lower
quartile of the total throughput from each simulation. The effect of TT compensation is better
highlighted here, showing significant reduction of throughput distribution’s interquartile range for
all turbulence strengths over the 750 and 2,400 m links. As discussed previously, the 10,600 m
link causes predominantly non-TT wavefront perturbations, and so TT compensation does little
to the throughput distribution, except at sufficiently low 𝐶𝑛2 values.
Most importantly, Figure 4 shows that the TT-compensated interquartile ranges are not strongly
dependent on 𝐷. This confirms that choosing 𝐷 to optimise 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 does not come at the cost of a
sub-optimal fibre power distribution. Figure 4 also reinforces that proper operation of the TT
compensation system is critical in achieving optimal fibre power distributions.

Fig. 4. Upper and lower quartiles of 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 for each link length and turbulence condition
from Figure 3A, for three different aperture diameters. Three 𝐶𝑛2 values of 1 × 10 −15 ,
5 × 10 −15 and 1 × 10 −14 𝑚 −2/3 are used, coloured blue, orange and green respectively.
The light and solid bars correspond to the TT uncompensated and compensated cases,
respectively. The white dashes within each bar correspond to 𝜂 𝑛𝑒𝑡 from Figure 3.

4.2. Tip-tilt bandwidth optimisation

With all the passive optical elements from Figure 2 now chosen, the design of the TT compensation
system may be examined. The system must suppress the wavefront TT so the scintillation and
total throughput can match the TT-compensated cases. The two parameters of interest are the
mirror’s maximum angular range and the frequency response of the overall steering control loop.
To constrain these parameters, the effect of beam misalignment on fibre coupling efficiency
should be isolated. For the configuration shown in Figure 2, any angular offset in the incoming
beam of 𝜃 will result in a translation of the focused beam along the fibre tip equal to 𝑓eff 𝜃. By
treating the incoming beam and propagation mode of the fibre as Gaussian, the resulting TT-only
coupling efficiency is given by [24]
!2 " #
2𝜔21 𝜔22 2 ( 𝑓 𝜃) 2
𝜂 𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜃) = exp − 2 , (10)
𝜔21 + 𝜔22 𝜔1 + 𝜔22

where 𝜔1 and 𝜔2 are the 1/𝑒 2 spot radius and mode field radius of the focused beam and fibre tip
respectively.
Equation 10 can be simplified noting the following: the spot size of the focused Gaussian beam
is 𝜔1 = 2𝜆 𝑓 /𝜋𝐷 from ray analysis; and the effective focal length 𝑓eff is constrained via the a
parameter from Equation 6. With this in mind, the isolated effect of TT on coupling efficiency can
be expressed through the normalised TT-only coupling efficiency, 𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜃) = 𝜂 𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜃)/𝜂 𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (0)
"  2#
𝜋𝐷𝜃
𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜃) = exp −0.22 . (11)
𝜆
We now obtain the expected atmospheric TT variation, referred to as jitter, to use with
Equation 11 to specify the TT compensation system’s required range and bandwidth. Jitter is
determined by the TT component of the overall atmospheric noise power spectral density (PSD),
𝑆𝑇𝑇 ( 𝑓 ). This is approximated by [23] to be
Z
𝑆𝑇𝑇 ( 𝑓 ) = 0.31𝐷 −2 𝑓 −8/3 𝑑𝑧 𝐶𝑛 2 (𝑧)𝑉(𝑧)5/3 𝐹𝐺 ( 𝑓 𝐷/𝑉(𝑧)) , (12)
𝐿
where 𝑉(𝑧) is the perpendicular wind speed and
Z1
𝑥 5/3
𝐹𝐺 (𝑦) = 𝑑𝑥 √ 𝐽1 2 (𝜋𝑦/𝑥) . (13)
0 1 − 𝑥2
Equation 12 can be integrated to find the jitter variance, 𝜎 2𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 [23]. The designed maximum
optical range of the fast-steering mirror is then set based on the square root of this value. We
choose a range of 3𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 , corresponding to 5 to 75 𝜇rad for the range of turbulence strengths
and optimal aperture sizes being analysed.
The bandwidth of the steering control loop dictates its frequency response, 𝐻( 𝑓 ). In the
simplest approximation, 𝐻( 𝑓 ) is given by
1
𝐻( 𝑓 ) = , (14)
1 + 𝑖 𝑓 / 𝑓3𝑑𝐵
where 𝑓3𝑑𝐵 is the bandwidth, imposed by processing delays and actuator dynamics. The residual
TT spectrum is then given by |1 − 𝐻( 𝑓 )| 2 𝑆𝑇𝑇 ( 𝑓 ), which can be integrated to give the residual
jitter variance, 𝜎 2𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑠 .
Figure 5 shows an example of uncompensated and residual TT spectra for a control loop
bandwidth of 10 Hz. The fast-steering mirror is characterised by diminishing suppression as
the bandwidth of the control loop is approached. The uncompensated spectrum shifts from an
𝑓 −2/3 to 𝑓 −11/3 frequency dependence past the frequency 𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑒 = 𝑉/𝐷, due to the effects of
aperture averaging [23]. Hence, to suppress most of the jitter in a FSO link, the bandwidth of
the control loop should at least be equal to 𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑒 . Figure 5 also shows the effect of aperture size
and turbulence strength on the TT spectrum through the dashed and dot-dashed orange curves
respectively. An increase in aperture size will decrease 𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑒 , reducing the uncompensated jitter,
whereas an increase in turbulence strength will uniformly increase the magnitude of the entire
TT spectrum.

Fig. 5. Uncompensated (orange) and residual (blue) atmospheric TT spectra for a

suppression bandwidth of 10 Hz. The orange dot-dashed and dashed curves show
the effect of increasing the aperture size and turbulence strength respectively. The
fast-steering mirror’s residual transfer function is shown as a black, dotted curve. The
integrated residual jitter spectra gives the residual jitter variance, 𝜎 2𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑠 .

To quantify the actual TT suppression required, the residual jitter should keep the normalised
TT-only coupling efficiency above 90%, a choice inline with that presented in [23]. This constraint
will bring the total throughput and scintillation close to the TT-compensated case from Figure 3.
Using Equation 11, this requirement constrains the bandwidth like so:
Z  1/2
2 𝜆
𝑑𝑓 |1 − 𝐻( 𝑓 )| 𝑆𝑇𝑇 ( 𝑓 ) < 0.22
. (15)
𝐷
Figure 6 shows how 𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑠 varies with the control loop bandwidth. It highlights the
minimum bandwidth needed to meet the specified value of 𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑠 ) for a range of practical
aperture sizes and fried parameters. The required bandwidth ranges from 1 to 70 Hz across all
configurations, and particularly weak turbulence strengths do not require TT compensation at
all. In general, a larger aperture size will lead to less residual jitter but also make 𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜃) more
sensitive to jitter. The net result is that the required bandwidth increases with increasing aperture
size. This behaviour opposes what Figure 5 suggests and highlights the importance of using the
normalised TT-only coupling efficiency to inform the steering control loop bandwidth.
Table 2 shows the required TT compensation bandwidth and range for each link when using
the optimal aperture diameter, 𝐷, identified in Figure 3A. Note that being passively below the
𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡 ,𝑟 𝑒𝑠 requirement does not suggest that TT compensation is not required, but rather that a low
(∼ 1 Hz) bandwidth will suffice. In practice TT compensation is always needed to correct for
long-term path varying effects. As such, any sub-1 Hz bandwidths have been entered as <1 Hz in
Table 2.
For the case of dynamic FSO links, residual jitter arising from imperfect target tracking via a
telescope mount or similar is typically much larger than that due to atmospheric turbulence [5, 8].
As a result, the modest improvement in coupling efficiency after TT compensation shown in
Figure 1 will be much more substantial for dynamic links, but also require a greater fast-steering
mirror range. The required bandwidth should not change significantly as tracking errors are
typically lower-frequency than atmospheric TT. The TT spectrum of a dynamic link can be
obtained using a quadrant photodetector or camera [20, 21]. Once this is done, the preceding
 Fig. 6. Residual jitter values as a function of TT suppression bandwidth for different
aperture diameters. Three blue curves for difference turbulence conditions (Fried
parameters) are shown. The dashed black curves correspond to the maximum residual
jitter permitted for different 𝐷 so that 𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 remains above 90%.

Table 2. Required TT bandwidth, 𝑓3𝑑𝐵 , and range, 3𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 , for a given link length
and turbulence condition based on the optimal aperture size, 𝐷, from Table 1.

L [m] 𝐶𝑛2 [m −2/3 ] D [mm] 𝑓3𝑑𝐵 [Hz] 3𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 [𝜇𝑟𝑎𝑑]

1 × 10 −15 <1 7.68
750 5 × 10 −15 32.4 <1 17.2
1 × 10 −14 <1 24.2
1 × 10 −15 <1 12.5
2,400 5 × 10 −15 57.9 4.74 17.8
1 × 10 −14 15.8 39.4
1 × 10 −15 11.9 23.0
10,600 5 × 10 −15 122 42.3 51.5
1 × 10 −14 63.1 72.9

analysis can be used to constrain the TT compensation bandwidth, yielding a coupling efficiency
very close to the TT-compensated curves in Figure 3.
It should be clarified that the value of 𝜂˜𝑐,𝑇𝑇 (𝜎 𝑗𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 ) is not an indication of the achievable
increase in coupling efficiency if all TT is compensated. While 𝜂 𝑐 can be decomposed into
contributions from Zernike modes via Equations 4 and 5, the relationship between the residual
jitter and the corresponding 𝑍2 and 𝑍3 coefficients is unclear. As such, it is difficult to relate an
arbitrary amount of jitter to 𝜂 𝑐 when other wavefront perturbations are present. This means the
uncompensated 𝜂 𝑐 for a dynamic FSO link is not producible with this analysis. However, as the
TT-compensated curves from Figure 3A remains valid, following this analysis for a dynamic FSO
link will still properly constrain the TT compensation system to achieve the optimal throughput.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have outlined the process for designing a low-complexity optical terminal for
fixed or dynamic terrestrial FSO links of lengths on the order of kilometres. The design balances
geometric and fibre coupling losses by constraining the terminal’s aperture size to achieve
maximal power throughput over the link and minimal scintillation. The terminal features TT
compensation through a fast-steering mirror with a constrained range and bandwidth which keeps
the power throughput and scintillation optimised in the presence of atmospheric turbulence and
tracking errors. Optimised terminal parameters – aperture diameter, effective focal length, total
power throughput and TT bandwidth and range – are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for a variety of
link lengths and turbulence strengths. For dynamic links, it is necessary to know the residual TT
due to imperfect target tracking, at which point the analyses presented are immediately applicable.
Funding. SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre (P1-18)
Acknowledgments. This work has been supported by the SmartSat CRC, whose activities are funded
by the Australian Government’s CRC Program. A.F. is supported by an Australian Government Research
Training Program Scholarship and a top-up scholarship funded by the Government of Western Australia.
The authors thank Nicolas Maron and Skevos Karpathakis for manuscript feedback.
Disclosures. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. A. Hauschild, O. Montenbruck, and P. Steigenberger, “Short-term analysis of gnss clocks,” GPS Solutions 17,
295–307 (2012).
2. H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical communication in space: Challenges and mitigation techniques,” IEEE
Commun. Surv. & Tutorials 19, 57–96 (2017).
3. J. W. Strohbehn and S. F. Clifford, Laser beam propagation in the atmosphere (Springer-Verlag, 1978).
4. E. Ip, A. P. T. Lau, D. J. F. Barros, and J. M. Kahn, “Coherent detection in optical fiber systems,” Opt. Express 16,
753 (2008).
5. S. M. P. McSorley, B. P. Dix-Matthews, A. M. Frost, et al., “Free space optical frequency comparison over rapidly
moving links,” (2024).
6. S. F. E. Karpathakis, B. P. Dix-Matthews, D. R. Gozzard, and S. W. Schediwy, “High-bandwidth coherent optical
communication over 10.3 km of turbulent air,” Appl. Opt. 62, G85 (2023).
7. D. Gozzard, L. Howard, B. Dix-Matthews, et al., “Ultrastable free-space laser links for a global network of optical
atomic clocks,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 020801 (2022).
8. S. M. Walsh, S. F. E. Karpathakis, A. S. McCann, et al., “Demonstration of 100 gbps coherent free-space optical
communications at LEO tracking rates,” Sci. Reports 12 (2022).
9. R. R. Beland, “Propagation through atmospheric optical turbulence,” Atmospheric Propag. Radiat. 2, 157–232
(1993).
10. L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media (SPIE, 2005).
11. M. P. Cagigal and V. F. Canales, “Generalized fried parameter after adaptive optics partial wave-front compensation,”
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 903 (2000).
12. R. J. Noll, “Zernike polynomials and atmospheric turbulence*,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 66, 207 (1976).
13. Y. Dikmelik and F. M. Davidson, “Fiber-coupling efficiency for free-space optical communication through atmospheric
turbulence,” Appl. Opt. 44, 4946 (2005).
14. A. Carrasco-Casado and R. Mata-Calvo, “Space optical links for communication networks,” in Springer Handbook
of Optical Networks, (Springer International Publishing, 2020), pp. 1057–1103.
15. S. F. Clifford, G. R. Ochs, and R. S. Lawrence, “Saturation of optical scintillation by strong turbulence*,” J. Opt. Soc.
Am. 64, 148 (1974).
16. J. H. Churnside, “Aperture averaging of optical scintillations in the turbulent atmosphere,” Appl. Opt. 30, 1982
(1991).
17. M. J. Townson, O. J. D. Farley, G. Orban de Xivry, et al., “Aotools: a python package for adaptive optics modelling
and analysis,” Opt. Express 27, 31316 (2019).
18. J. Osborn, M. J. Townson, O. J. D. Farley, et al., “Adaptive optics pre-compensated laser uplink to leo and geo,” Opt.
Express 29, 6113 (2021).
19. R. A. Johnston and R. G. Lane, “Modeling scintillation from an aperiodic kolmogorov phase screen,” Appl. Opt. 39,
4761 (2000).
20. B. Dix-Matthews, S. Karpathakis, and S. Schediwy, “Atmospheric turbulence characterization with simultaneous
measurement of phase, angle-of-arrival, and intensity in a retroreflected optical link,” Opt. Lett. (2023).
21. S. Manning, B. A. Clare, K. J. Grant, and K. A. Mudge, “Development and implementation of a robust angle of
arrival turbulence measurement system,” Opt. Eng. 54, 114104 (2015).
22. M. Chen, C. Liu, and H. Xian, “Experimental demonstration of single-mode fiber coupling over relatively strong
turbulence with adaptive optics,” Appl. Opt. 54, 8722 (2015).
23. G. A. Tyler, “Bandwidth considerations for tracking through turbulence,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 358 (1994).
24. D. Marcuse, “Loss analysis of single-mode fiber splices,” Bell Syst. Tech. J. 56, 703–718 (1977).