Assessment of Commercial Space
Platforms for Earth Science
Instruments
Report Series—Committee on Earth Science and Applications
from Space
_____
Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space
Space Studies Board
Division on Engineering and
Physical Sciences
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract 80HQTR22DA001/80HQTR22FA019 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-70294-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-70294-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27019
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Assessment of Commercial Space Platforms for Earth Science Instruments: Report Series—Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27019.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE
EVERETTE JOSEPH, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Co-Chair
STEVEN W. RUNNING, University of Montana (emeritus), Co-Chair
NANCY L. BAKER, Naval Research Laboratory
ELIZABETH A. BARNES, Colorado State University
ANA P. BARROS (NAE), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
IVONA CETINIĆ, Morgan State University and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
DON P. CHAMBERS, University of South Florida
WILLIAM E. DIETRICH (NAS), University of California, Berkeley
RILEY DUREN, University of Arizona
KASS O’NEILL GREEN, Kass Green and Associates
GEORGE J. KOMAR, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired)
ANNA M. MICHALAK, Carnegie Institution for Science and Stanford University
ANNE W. NOLIN, University of Nevada, Reno
PETER A. PILEWSKIE, University of Colorado Boulder
DAVID T. SANDWELL (NAS), Scripps Institution of Oceanography
DUANE E. WALISER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Staff
ARTHUR A. CHARO, Study Director
GAYBRIELLE HOLBERT, Program Coordinator
COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director, Space Studies Board
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
MARGARET G. KIVELSON (NAS), University of California, Los Angeles (emerita), Chair
JAMES H. CROCKER (NAE), Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (retired), Vice Chair
ADAM S. BURROWS (NAS), Princeton University
DANIELA CALZETTI (NAS), University of Massachusetts Amherst
JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara
MELINDA D. DYAR, Mount Holyoke College
ANTONIO ELIAS (NAE), Orbital ATK, Inc. (retired)
STEPHEN J. MACKWELL, National Science Foundation
NELSON PEDREIRO (NAE), Lockheed Martin Corporation
MARK P. SAUNDERS, Independent Consultant
J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD (NAS/NAE), University of Georgia
HOWARD J. SINGER, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Weather Prediction Center
ERIKA B. WAGNER, Blue Origin, LLC
PAUL D. WOOSTER, SpaceX
EDWARD L. WRIGHT (NAS), University of California, Los Angeles
ENDAWOKE YIZENGAW, The Aerospace Corporation
Staff
COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director
TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate
MARGARET A. KNEMEYER, Senior Finance Business Partner
ALEXIS BHADHA, Financial Associate
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Waleed Abdalati, University of Colorado Boulder
Jeff Dozier, University of California, Santa Barbara
Sarah T. Gille, University of California, San Diego
Dennis P. Lettenmaier (NAE), University of California, Los Angeles
Christopher Ruf, University of Michigan
Susan L. Ustin, University of California, Davis
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Steven J. Battel (NAE), Battel Engineering, Inc., and University of Michigan. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Characteristics of the Notional Platform
Sun-Synchronous and Other Orbits for Earth Observations from Space
2 SUITABILITY OF THE LARGE PLATFORM FOR EARTH SYSTEM EXPLORERS
Ocean Surface Winds and Currents
Snow Depth and Snow Water Equivalent
Terrestrial Ecosystem Structure
3 EARTH VENTURE—CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NOTIONAL PLATFORM
Opportunity for Maintaining Data Record Continuity
4 ADDRESSING DECADAL SURVEY PRIORITIES WITH THE NOTIONAL PLATFORM: A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
Space-based Earth observations enable global observations of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth, atmosphere, cryosphere, and oceans. Earth observations from space, combined with data acquired from in situ and ground-based instruments, help scientists understand the components of the Earth system and their interactions and enable wide-ranging applications, including forecasts of weather and air quality, projections of future climate, management of natural resources, ecological forecasting, disaster management, drought and wildfire prediction, and the mapping and prediction of vector-borne/animal diseases.
In late summer 2022, officials at NASA’s Earth Science Division began discussions with the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space (CESAS) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Space Studies Board for a short study that would assess the potential use of a proposed multi-user, robot-tended, uncrewed commercial space platform as a potential host for a large number of Earth remote sensing instruments. In making their request for the present study, NASA noted the following:
- Most of NASA’s Earth Science missions are conducted from satellites located in scientifically optimized orbits for each mission and for a system of measurements across multiple satellites.
- Valuable science observations and demonstrations of new sensor deployment approaches have been conducted using:
- Instruments mounted on the International Space Station (ISS); and
- Constellations of small spacecraft and CubeSats in multiple orbits.
- As the commercial space market expands, there is the possibility that industry will establish new platforms that can support Earth-observing instruments:
- Robotically tended multi-instrument platforms dedicated to remote sensing could be placed in the Sun-synchronous orbits which have been used to make many important long-term Earth science observations.
- Crewed commercial platforms with external mounting points could be considered as a follow-on to ISS.
- The need to be ready to engage with the commercial entities that may be offering Earth science platform services models in the future.
- Congressional direction provided in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and FY 2023 appropriation report language on potential use by NASA of a Robotically Assembled Earth Science Platform.
In its request to CESAS (Appendix A, Statement of Task), NASA asked the committee to:
- Consider a notional platform in a Sun-synchronous orbit (nominally 600-800 km) capable of hosting 20 or more instruments;1 and
___________________
1 The assumption of 20 or more instruments was made by NASA to distinguish the notional platform from multi-instrument platforms already developed. For example, NASA’s Aqua satellite carries eight instruments with a total mass of 1,082 kg. The European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite carried 10 instruments whose mass including interfacing hardware totaled to 2,050 kg.
- Consider the impacts of the notional platform on NASA’s ability to achieve Recommendation 3.2 from the 2017 decadal survey2 regarding the recommended additional observations classified within the Designated Observables, Earth System Explorer, Incubation, and Earth Venture elements, as described in Table 3.3, Observing System Priorities.3
To assist in its information gathering, CESAS invited a number of experts to its October 17–18, 2022, hybrid meeting that was held in Washington, DC. The agenda for that meeting and a list of speakers is shown in Appendix B. The committee also held several teleconferences prior to and after the October meeting to assist with information gathering and to review the short report that is presented here.
The committee emphasizes that its evaluation of the utility and practicality of the proposed platform is, by necessity, limited by the short duration of the study and the absence of a baseline concept that might undergo a detailed technical evaluation. An assessment of the “business model” for the persistent platform, including its cost-effectiveness, as well as an evaluation of various space architecture options utilizing the platform, were also outside of the scope of the committee’s statement of task.
Given the findings of the report, it is particularly important to note that the committee’s scope did not include consideration of space architectures consisting of more than one of the proposed platforms, which could be placed in low Earth orbits tailored to measurement requirements. Such an architecture might also lend itself to platforms of different capabilities, including the number of instruments that are hosted. The committee also did not evaluate potential mixed-use, commercially developed replacements for the International Space Station, such as Orbital Reef4 and Axiom Station,5 neither of which would be available during the 2025–2027 period envisioned for launch of the notional platform.
CESAS is a standing discipline committee of the National Academies’ Space Studies Board. Unlike National Academies’ ad hoc committees, a standing committee is permitted to issue reports only in particular circumstances. While these reports can contain committee conclusions, they are not permitted to issue recommendations to the study sponsor.
Finally, a note about terminology:
- The Earth sciences and applications from space (ESAS) decadal survey report Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space6 was delivered to agency sponsors as a pre-publication in 2017. Tables in this publication refer to the study as “ESAS 2017,” the working title of the survey activity that was in common use while the study was under way. NASA has also adopted this terminology and it remains in common use today; this report also uses this convention while noting that the edited version of the report was published in 2018.
- The notional large platform that is the subject of this report is often referred to as the “large platform,” reflecting the platform’s assumed capability to host 20 or more instruments.
___________________
2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2018, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24938, p. 11.
3 Other instructions to the committee included, “Potential impacts on the existing Program of Record are not within the scope of this assessment; however, the committee may comment in general terms on considerations for the use of the notional platform versus existing plans to accomplish survey priorities. The committee may also comment on how the use of the notional platform would compare with the deployment of its instrument complement via multiple free-flyers in different orbits, the impacts of possible consolidation of a platform at a single nodal crossing time, and how well any single orbit could satisfy the survey priorities.”
4 See the Orbital Reef website at https://www.orbitalreef.com.
5 See the Axiom Space website at https://www.axiomspace.com.
6 NASEM, 2018, Thriving on Our Changing Planet.
