IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v20y2017i5p432-446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sealed‐Bid Reverse Auction Pricing Mechanisms for Federated Satellite Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Udrivolf Pica
  • Alessandro Golkar

Abstract

This paper develops a framework to simulate and evaluate pricing policies of spacecraft trading commodities, such as data routing, in a federated satellite network. Federated satellite systems allow the reallocation of underutilized assets, enabling their use as services between owners and third parties. The paper, by means of game theory, focuses on sealed‐bid reverse auction pricing schemes, benchmarks first‐price and second‐price auction strategies, and evaluates the associated trade‐offs in terms of performance and cost, and losses in Pareto efficiency introduced by system‐level operation constraints. The analysis considers an application case study for federated satellite systems operating in Low Earth Orbit for commercial purposes. Satellite federations are a novel paradigm envisioning on‐orbit opportunistic sharing of resources through an ad hoc mobile satellite network. The architecture creates the basis for the realization of a commercial cloud computing environment in orbit, with spacecraft establishing communications links between each other leveraging on system design margins. The results of the case study in space provide new insights on the design of federated satellites and their operations while characterizing emergent behaviors and efficient trade‐offs on the Pareto front of the cost–performance curve.

Suggested Citation

  • Udrivolf Pica & Alessandro Golkar, 2017. "Sealed‐Bid Reverse Auction Pricing Mechanisms for Federated Satellite Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 432-446, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:5:p:432-446
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21395
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krawczyk, Jacek B., 2005. "Coupled constraint Nash equilibria in environmental games," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 157-181, June.
    2. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    3. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Fay & Robert Zeithammer, 2017. "Bidding for Bidders? How the Format for Soliciting Supplier Participation in NYOP Auctions Impacts Channel Profit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4324-4344, December.
    2. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    4. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    5. Kos, Nenad & Messner, Matthias, 2013. "Extremal incentive compatible transfers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 134-164.
    6. Pablo Guillen & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2021. "Strategy-proofness in experimental matching markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 650-668, June.
    7. Frank Kelly & Peter Key & Neil Walton, 2016. "Efficient Advert Assignment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 822-837, August.
    8. Loertscher, Simon & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2021. "A dominant strategy, double clock auction with estimation-based tatonnement," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    9. Otto, Steven & Poe, Gregory L. & Just, David R., 2017. "Formulating and Testing a New Conservation Auction Mechanism in an Experimental Setting," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258476, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Walter Beckert, 2004. "Dynamic Monopolies with Stochastic Demand," Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics and Finance 0404, Birkbeck, Department of Economics, Mathematics & Statistics.
    11. Hu, Audrey & Offerman, Theo & Zou, Liang, 2011. "Premium auctions and risk preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2420-2439.
    12. Groves, Vivienne, 2011. "Charity auctions with multiple goods: Bidding behavior and revenue," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 166-169, May.
    13. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    14. Song, Yangwei, 2018. "Efficient Implementation with Interdependent Valuations and Maxmin Agents," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 92, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Marc S. Robinson, 1984. "Oil Lease Auctions: Reconciling Economic Theory with Practice," UCLA Economics Working Papers 292, UCLA Department of Economics.
    16. Irene Ng & Nick K.T. Yip, 2009. "Mechanism design in an integrated approach towards revenue management: the case of Empress Cruise Lines," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 469-482, February.
    17. Jesse A. Schwartz & Quan Wen, 2008. "A Revelation Principle for Dominant Strategy Implementation," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0819, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    18. Marek Pycia & Peter Troyan, 2021. "A theory of simplicity in games and mechanism design," ECON - Working Papers 393, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Drake, Samielle & Xu, Fei, 2023. "Regulation and Competition in Public Procurement," Umeå Economic Studies 1013, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    20. Kazumura, Tomoya & Mishra, Debasis & Serizawa, Shigehiro, 2020. "Mechanism design without quasilinearity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:20:y:2017:i:5:p:432-446. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.