High-altitude platforms for wireless communications

By T. Tozer, D. Grace. 2001

377 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Optimal LAP Altitude for Maximum Coverage (2014, background): “In contrary to High Altitude Platforms (HAP) [3] that can reach the upper layers of the stratosphere.”
A Survey of Air-to-Ground Propagation Channel Modeling for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (2018, background): “Overall, both satellite and UAV communication links have higher probability of LOS than terrestrial cellular links [153].”
Broadband communications via high-altitude platforms: a survey (2005, background): “Another possible architecture discussed in the HeliNet Network [4, 11–13] is presented in Fig.”
A Vision and Framework for the High Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) Networks of the Future (2020, background): “aerodynamic HAPS might be more preferable for disaster or emergency situations due to their reduced deployment costs [17], flexibility in take-off/landing and mobility control, while an aerostatic HAPS seems to be more appropriate for longer-term scenarios due to their large payload capacity and hig”
Modeling air-to-ground path loss for low altitude platforms in urban environments (2014, background): “Low Altitude Platforms (LAP) [16] [17] are quasi-stationary aerial platforms (Quadcopters, UAVs or Balloons) with an altitude below the stratosphere (10,000 m), in contrary to High Altitude Platforms (Above 10,000 m) [18].”
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): A Survey on Civil Applications and Key Research Challenges (2018, neutral): “HAP High Altitude Platform.”