ISO/TC 20/SC 14/WG1 has discussed on the needfulness of space-based services, and has been developing such standards.
In this subcommittee (SC 14), “space-based service working group” (maybe WG9) is proposed by France.
The WG 1 convener has officially reported the above issue at ISO/TC 20/SC 14 annual meeting in May 2021.
For establishment of the new working group, contents and varieties of services as scope should be fulfilled much more. For example, we can include the traveling and staying in space in the WG. As a result, the WG may be merged into the same category as the manned WG.
It is an interesting idea to merge manned WG with space-based service. I think, however, both areas become huge markets in the future.
Considering the huge potential of the optical remote-sensor images from space, this standard will be referred widely once it is published. Then would you think about providing use cases of this standard to representative markets such as meteorology, agriculture, fishery, transportation, etc.?
The scope reads that it defines “Pointing Management” of optical remote-sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft. Could the scope be wider?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of non-optical remote sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft, eg. radar remote sensing?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of radio wave transmission to the earth’s surface from the spacecraft, eg, communication or broadcasting?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of optical observation of the stars from the spacecraft, eg. astronomy?
I’d like to add one more item to the scope.
How about pointing management for the inter-satellite communication? It will become very popular in Starlink and other mega-constellations for communication.
The spacecraft image in the figure of page 2 carries a long antenna along the flight direction. It looks like a SAR (Sympathetic Aperture Radar) antenna. This is confusing because this image is used to describe the notion of optical remote-sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft. The satellite may be ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) that carries both a SAR antenna and the optical remote sensor.
In our committee, there is an opinion which this standard may cover optical and SAR, because the original JAXA standard covers both optical and SAR. Let us discuss on this point. This is relevant to the scope of a new standard.
Thank you for the reply.
It is well known that the optical images*1 and the SAR images*2 are complementary, I hope the new standard will cover both optical and SAR.
*1 Optical images are usually higher resolution but can be taken during the daytime and under the good weather.
*2 SAR images are not as high in resolution as optical images but can be taken 24/7 under any weather conditions.
I think there is the relationship with UAV’s imagery, both as the use of collaboration and as the competition in business. A space-based service has pros and cons. We should see such a point of view.
In addition, if the space systems community makes a good standard, the satellite utilization will be promoted.
It is a very good point. Studying and comparing UAV’s imagery as well as Aircraft’s, we should establish the space-based standard.
In addition to UAV and Aircraft, please also include HAPS (High Altitude Platform Station) for comparative study. HAPS
floats at an altitude of 20-25 kilometers and operates continually for several months.
I think HAPS will become an important infrastructure.
We can use an Ion Engine for a HAPS aircraft, can’t we?
In an actual work, users download the imagery from cloud servers. Should we consider how pointing specifications influence into the work of cloud servers ?
I think we should consider that it is one system from a satellite to cloud servers, which is the entrance to users.
I agree. Additionally, pointing specifications help users to analyze the data easily in the geometrical standing-points.
Do you have any ideas about what are the major specifications for the users? When I bought a SAR imagery, I provided the image provider the preferred dates and the target area, then the image provider suggested a list of candidate date and times and the image areas for each candidate. I had a limited choices. Also, there was no direct mentioning about the pointing itself (it was indirectly specified). Will the way to order an image be changed if I use the cloud servers instead of a single image provider?
For the satellite image users, it may be sufficient to know when the image was taken and what are the longitude/latitude of the four corners of the image. But it is not easy to determine the longitude/latitude of the four corners of the image accurately only from the information that satellite can get in orbit. Then for the operators of the earth observation satellites, calibration method to improve the accuracy of the pointing information is also important. I hope such information will be included in the standard. (Or should it be a separate standard?)
Thank you for pointing an important matter.
We would like to reflect to staring the project.
ISO/TC 20/SC 14/WG1 has discussed on the needfulness of space-based services, and has been developing such standards.
In this subcommittee (SC 14), “space-based service working group” (maybe WG9) is proposed by France.
The WG 1 convener has officially reported the above issue at ISO/TC 20/SC 14 annual meeting in May 2021.
For establishment of the new working group, contents and varieties of services as scope should be fulfilled much more. For example, we can include the traveling and staying in space in the WG. As a result, the WG may be merged into the same category as the manned WG.
It is an interesting idea to merge manned WG with space-based service. I think, however, both areas become huge markets in the future.
Considering the huge potential of the optical remote-sensor images from space, this standard will be referred widely once it is published. Then would you think about providing use cases of this standard to representative markets such as meteorology, agriculture, fishery, transportation, etc.?
The scope reads that it defines “Pointing Management” of optical remote-sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft. Could the scope be wider?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of non-optical remote sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft, eg. radar remote sensing?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of radio wave transmission to the earth’s surface from the spacecraft, eg, communication or broadcasting?
How about defining “Pointing Management” of optical observation of the stars from the spacecraft, eg. astronomy?
I’d like to add one more item to the scope.
How about pointing management for the inter-satellite communication? It will become very popular in Starlink and other mega-constellations for communication.
The spacecraft image in the figure of page 2 carries a long antenna along the flight direction. It looks like a SAR (Sympathetic Aperture Radar) antenna. This is confusing because this image is used to describe the notion of optical remote-sensing of the earth’s surface from the spacecraft. The satellite may be ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) that carries both a SAR antenna and the optical remote sensor.
In our committee, there is an opinion which this standard may cover optical and SAR, because the original JAXA standard covers both optical and SAR. Let us discuss on this point. This is relevant to the scope of a new standard.
Thank you for the reply.
It is well known that the optical images*1 and the SAR images*2 are complementary, I hope the new standard will cover both optical and SAR.
*1 Optical images are usually higher resolution but can be taken during the daytime and under the good weather.
*2 SAR images are not as high in resolution as optical images but can be taken 24/7 under any weather conditions.
I think there is the relationship with UAV’s imagery, both as the use of collaboration and as the competition in business. A space-based service has pros and cons. We should see such a point of view.
In addition, if the space systems community makes a good standard, the satellite utilization will be promoted.
It is a very good point. Studying and comparing UAV’s imagery as well as Aircraft’s, we should establish the space-based standard.
In addition to UAV and Aircraft, please also include HAPS (High Altitude Platform Station) for comparative study. HAPS
floats at an altitude of 20-25 kilometers and operates continually for several months.
I think HAPS will become an important infrastructure.
We can use an Ion Engine for a HAPS aircraft, can’t we?
According to the references below, we can use an electric propulsion for a HAPS aircraft.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mse/2020/5459098/
http://www.ijesrt.com/issues%20pdf%20file/Archive-2020/January-2020/5.pdf
In an actual work, users download the imagery from cloud servers. Should we consider how pointing specifications influence into the work of cloud servers ?
I think we should consider that it is one system from a satellite to cloud servers, which is the entrance to users.
I agree. Additionally, pointing specifications help users to analyze the data easily in the geometrical standing-points.
Do you have any ideas about what are the major specifications for the users? When I bought a SAR imagery, I provided the image provider the preferred dates and the target area, then the image provider suggested a list of candidate date and times and the image areas for each candidate. I had a limited choices. Also, there was no direct mentioning about the pointing itself (it was indirectly specified). Will the way to order an image be changed if I use the cloud servers instead of a single image provider?
For the satellite image users, it may be sufficient to know when the image was taken and what are the longitude/latitude of the four corners of the image. But it is not easy to determine the longitude/latitude of the four corners of the image accurately only from the information that satellite can get in orbit. Then for the operators of the earth observation satellites, calibration method to improve the accuracy of the pointing information is also important. I hope such information will be included in the standard. (Or should it be a separate standard?)
Thank you for pointing an important matter.
We would like to reflect to staring the project.