What you're asking:
Can I get a schematic of a transceiver that I can just drop into my satellite and it'll work?
What you should be asking is:
How can I define the requirements for a transceiver, so that someone designing transceiver systems can design one, and then someone designing transceiver hardware can draw a schematic fit for my application?
In the context of commmunications, requirements engineering start with a link budget. That's basically.
- How much data do I need to exchange, at which rate, with which probability of it failing?
- What are the regulatory constraints (power, frequency, ...) I'm subject to?
- What are the physical and cost constraints I'm under (size of antenna, power usage, latency, weight, vibration safety, space radiation hardness...)
Based on 1-3 you then either
- Find an off-the-shelf system that fulfills these requirements (and if this is a control modem: DO THAT. You don't want to not have control of your satellite simply because someone inexperienced designed the modem.)
- Design something based on these requirements.
This will include, among a lot of other things:
- Required output power
- Oscillator frequency accuracy and stability
- Linear/acceptable dynamic range for transmitter
- Required sensitivity of the satellite-side receiver
- from that, a maximum noise figure
- Correction for Doppler (you're building a LEO... you do realize you have Doppler?) and symbol clock offset in general
From these you can then define requirements on:
and the transmission scheme you want to use.
I can work with 10kbps and modulation ASK or OOK.
... red flag, neither are usually used in space comms, for good reason. (OOK also is never as spectral efficient as BPSK, and ASK is usually less spectrally efficient but in a few very specific corner cases, but requires a much higher power / lower noise for the same performance).
Really, wrong proposition.
You're putting something into space that isn't exactly cheap, and that you can't fix tomorrow morning if your transceiver doesn't work. You haven't even been able to write down requirements for a transceiver.
There's more than [one smallsat] and certainly a couple N·$10⁸-satellites that failed because there was a mistake in their communications design. You're very much setting yourself up for one. (Example - KRAKsat, though that failed on multiple fronts. Seriously, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but reading that report just screams "maybe getting someone with experience wouldn't have been a bad idea and saved a lot of money" at every other sentence. But, you really want to read section 1.8. Inaccurate analysis of the missions requirements.).