4.7 Article

Evaluation Model of Remote Sensing Satellites Cooperative Observation Capability

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13091717

关键词

remote sensing; collaborative application; observation capability; evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper proposed an evaluation model for remote sensing observation capability (RSOCE) based on analytic hierarchy process to quantitatively assess the capability of multi-satellite cooperative remote sensing observation. By decomposing complex problems, comparing factors, and obtaining weights, the model can support the evaluation of resource satellites' observation capability. The results demonstrate that the model can provide quantitative reference and support for assessing the collaborative observation capability of remote sensing satellites.
This paper proposed a new remote sensing observation capability evaluation model (RSOCE) based on analytic hierarchy process to quantitatively evaluate the capability of multi-satellite cooperative remote sensing observation. The analytic hierarchical process model is a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis of systematic decision analysis method. According to the objective of the remote sensing cooperative observation mission, we decompose the complex problem into several levels and a number of factors, compare and calculate various factors in pairs, and obtain the combination weights of different schemes. The model can be used to evaluate the observation capability of resource satellites. Taking the optical remote sensing satellites, such as China's resource satellite series and GF-4, as examples, this paper verifies and evaluates the model for three typical tasks: point target observation, regional target observation, and moving target continuous observation. The results show that the model can provide quantitative reference and model support for comprehensive evaluation of the collaborative observation capability of remote sensing satellites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据