Remote sensing satellite task planning application performance evaluation method

Abstract

The invention relates to a remote sensing satellite task planning application performance evaluation method. The method comprises the following steps: establishing a hierarchical evaluation index system; definition and quantification of task completion capability indexes are completed; defining and quantifying resource utilization efficiency indexes; defining and quantifying a resource collaboration efficiency index; performing quantitative evaluation on the relative importance degree of each index element in the same level in the hierarchical structure and constructing a judgment matrix; checking the consistency of the judgment matrix; according to the judgment matrix, the proportion of elements in the hierarchical structure in the decision is calculated, and parameter weights including hierarchical single sorting and hierarchical total sorting are determined; and calculating a comprehensive efficiency evaluation value according to each index numerical value and the parameter weight. According to the method, quantitative evaluation of the application efficiency of satellite task planning can be realized, and closed-loop optimization of a task planning function in a remote sensing satellite management and control system is supported.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of remote sensing satellite mission planning technology, and in particular to a method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning. Background Technology

[0002] As a major national space infrastructure, remote sensing satellite systems are widely used in key national fields such as environmental monitoring, resource exploration, agricultural management, urban planning, and national security, leveraging their advantages of wide coverage, lack of terrain limitations, and all-weather, all-time operation.

[0003] Currently, the vast majority of remote sensing satellite resources operate in a serial resource management mode with the ground as the absolute control entity. Users submit their remote sensing needs to the ground satellite control system. After completing the mission planning phase, the control system uploads the generated mission instructions to the remote sensing satellite. The satellite passively receives various control instructions generated by the ground system and executes the remote sensing mission and transmits data according to the mission instructions planned by the ground. The transmitted raw data is then processed to generate remote sensing products and finally fed back to the user.

[0004] In the application of remote sensing satellites, satellites are high-value assets, and their mission planning capabilities directly affect the efficiency of satellite use and mission execution, as well as the quality of remote sensing products, thus influencing user satisfaction. Therefore, how to develop targeted methods for evaluating the effectiveness of remote sensing satellite applications, and how to quantitatively assess the application effectiveness of satellite mission planning to support the efficient provision of remote sensing product services, has become an urgent problem to be solved. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the technical problems existing in the prior art, the present invention aims to provide a method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning, thereby enabling a quantitative evaluation of the application effectiveness of satellite mission planning and supporting closed-loop optimization of mission planning functions in remote sensing satellite management and control systems.

[0006] To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, this invention provides a method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning, comprising the following steps:

[0007] Step S1: Establish a hierarchical evaluation index system; the evaluation index system includes a criterion layer and its subordinate index layers, the criterion layer includes task completion capability index, resource utilization efficiency index, and resource coordination efficiency index.

[0008] Step S2: Define and quantify the task completion capability indicators; the task completion capability indicators include target coverage, task completion rate, emergency task response time, and emergency task product timeliness.

[0009] Step S3: Define and quantify the resource utilization efficiency indicators; the resource utilization efficiency indicators include regional target coverage redundancy rate, multi-satellite load balancing degree, and satellite usage time percentage.

[0010] Step S4: Define and quantify the resource collaboration efficiency indicators; the resource collaboration efficiency indicators include target collaboration coverage, collaboration coverage redundancy, and payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio.

[0011] Step S5: Quantitatively evaluate the relative importance of each indicator element within the same level of the criterion layer and indicator layer, and construct a judgment matrix;

[0012] Step S6: Perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix;

[0013] Step S7: Based on the judgment matrix, calculate the parameter weights of each indicator element in the evaluation index system in the decision-making process; the parameter weight calculation includes hierarchical single sorting and hierarchical overall sorting.

[0014] Step S8: Calculate the comprehensive performance evaluation value based on the values ​​of each indicator and the weights of the parameters.

[0015] According to one technical solution of the present invention, step S2 specifically includes:

[0016] Step S21: Define the target coverage;

[0017] Target coverage rate represents the proportion of the scanned strip relative to the observed target within the mission planning period;

[0018] For point targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0019] The formula for calculating the coverage of a single observation target in a region is as follows:

[0020] The area representing the observed target represents the area of ​​the intersection region between the observed target and the corresponding scan strip.

[0021] The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is:

[0022]

[0023] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights;

[0024] Step S22: Define the emergency response time;

[0025] Emergency mission response time refers to the time from receiving an emergency mission order to the satellite beginning to execute the reconnaissance mission;

[0026] Single observation target The formula for calculating the emergency response time is:

[0027]

[0028] in, Indicates the observation target The time when the imaging payload starts working. This indicates that the ground system has received confirmation of the observed target. Order time;

[0029] The formula for calculating the emergency response time within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0030]

[0031] in, Indicates the number of emergency observation targets. Indicates the observation target The weights;

[0032] Step S23: Define the timeliness of emergency task products;

[0033] Emergency task product timeliness refers to the time from receiving an emergency task order to the user receiving the image product.

[0034] The formula for calculating the timeliness of a single observed target i is:

[0035]

[0036] in, Indicates the response time of the target i-imaging product. This indicates the time when the ground system receives and confirms the order for target i;

[0037] The formula for calculating the timeliness of emergency mission products within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0038]

[0039] Where n represents the number of emergency observation targets, This represents the weight of the observed target i. It needs to be normalized using a linear normalization method.

[0040] Step S24: Define the task completion rate;

[0041] Task completion rate refers to the percentage of tasks completed in the scheduling results.

[0042] The formula for calculating the task completion rate within the task planning period is:

[0043]

[0044] in, Indicates the number of tasks completed. This indicates the total number of tasks.

[0045] According to one technical solution of the present invention, step S3 specifically includes:

[0046] Step S31: Define multi-star load balancing degree;

[0047] Multi-satellite load balancing indicates the degree to which tasks are balanced across satellite data centers during the mission planning period;

[0048] single satellite The amount of work undertaken is expressed as follows:

[0049]

[0050] in, Indicates satellite The number of tasks undertaken Indicates satellite The first The weights of each task;

[0051] The formula for calculating load balancing within the task planning cycle is:

[0052]

[0053] in, Indicates the number of satellites. Indicates satellite The amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite during the mission planning period, while u represents the average amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite during the mission planning period.

[0054] Step S32: Define the target coverage redundancy rate of the region;

[0055] Regional target coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of the scan strip relative to the observed target within the mission planning cycle;

[0056] For regional targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is:

[0057]

[0058] in, Indicates the observation target area, Indicates the observation target and the total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips;

[0059] The formula for calculating the target coverage redundancy rate within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0060]

[0061] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights;

[0062] Step S33: Define the percentage of satellite usage time;

[0063] Satellite usage time percentage represents the percentage of time the satellite is operational to the available time.

[0064] For the mission planning result p, the formula for calculating the satellite resource utilization rate is:

[0065]

[0066] in, This indicates the planned operating time of the satellite. Indicates the available time of a satellite in orbit;

[0067] The formula for calculating the percentage of satellite usage time within the mission planning period is as follows:

[0068]

[0069] Where q represents the number of task planning results. This represents the weight of the task planning request corresponding to the task planning result.

[0070] According to one technical solution of the present invention, step S4 specifically includes:

[0071] Step S41: Define the target collaborative coverage rate;

[0072] Target collaborative coverage rate represents the coverage ratio of multiple satellite scan strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning period;

[0073] For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0074]

[0075] in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For the observed target The area of ​​the intersection region with the corresponding scan strip;

[0076] For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0077]

[0078] The formula for calculating the target coverage of each satellite during the mission planning period is as follows:

[0079]

[0080] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights;

[0081] Step S42: Define the collaborative coverage redundancy rate;

[0082] Cooperative coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of multi-satellite cooperative scanning strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning period.

[0083] For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is:

[0084]

[0085] For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is:

[0086]

[0087] in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For regional observation targets and the total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips;

[0088] The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is:

[0089]

[0090] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target weights

[0091] Step S43: Define the payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio;

[0092] The payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio represents the ratio of payload data to data generated by the payload task for planned data transmission within the mission planning cycle.

[0093] The formula for calculating the payload data satellite-to-ground transfer ratio during the mission planning period is:

[0094]

[0095] in, This refers to the payload data transmitted in the data transmission tasks planned within the task planning cycle. Generate the data to be transmitted for the payload task.

[0096] According to one technical solution of the present invention, step S5 specifically includes:

[0097] The relative importance of indicator elements at the same level in the hierarchical structure is compared pairwise, and the comparison scaling method is used for quantitative representation, and multiple judgment matrices are constructed.

[0098] According to one technical solution of the present invention, step S6 specifically includes:

[0099] Calculate the consistency index and random consistency ratio of multiple judgment matrices, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrices based on the calculation results:

[0100] when When the decision matrices are completely consistent and pass the consistency test;

[0101] when Then, the random consistency ratio CR is judged: when When the decision matrix passes the consistency test, it is considered to have passed the consistency test; if... Then adjust the judgment matrix until it satisfies... ;

[0102] The formulas for calculating the consistency index (CI) and the random consistency ratio (CR) are as follows:

[0103]

[0104] in, represents the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, n represents the order of the judgment matrix, and RI represents the average consistency index.

[0105] According to a technical solution of the present invention, in step S7, the hierarchical single sorting includes: solving for the judgment matrix C obtained in step S6 that has passed the consistency test, and determining whether it satisfies... eigenvectors and the obtained feature vector The intermediate components are normalized.

[0106] The hierarchical overall sorting includes: calculating the weight coefficients of the indicator elements in the indicator layer relative to the criterion layer, and multiplying them layer by layer in order from the bottom-level indicator to the top-level indicator.

[0107] According to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic device is provided, comprising: one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more computer programs; wherein the processor is connected to the memory, and the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory; when the electronic device is running, the processor executes the one or more computer programs stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the aforementioned remote sensing satellite mission planning application performance evaluation method.

[0108] According to one aspect of the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium is provided for storing computer instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implement the above-described method for evaluating the effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning.

[0109] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0110] This invention proposes a method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning. Through a hierarchical evaluation index system, and by defining and quantifying the weights of each index element, it achieves a quantitative evaluation of the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning in terms of mission completion capability, resource utilization efficiency, and resource coordination efficiency. This supports the closed-loop optimization of mission planning functions in the remote sensing satellite management system. This invention evaluates remote sensing satellites not only from the perspective of mission completion capability and resource utilization efficiency, but also from the perspective of multi-satellite resource coordination efficiency. This is beneficial for improving overall system performance, enhancing resource optimization and allocation capabilities, strengthening mission completion capabilities, promoting multi-satellite collaborative work to leverage constellation advantages, improving the ability to respond to complex mission requirements, and enhancing the system's adaptability and flexibility. Attached Figure Description

[0112] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the accompanying drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly described below. Obviously, the drawings described below are merely some embodiments of the present invention, and those skilled in the art can obtain other drawings based on these drawings without any creative effort.

[0113] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating the remote sensing satellite mission planning application effectiveness evaluation method according to the present invention is shown in the figure.

[0114] Figure 2 This diagram illustrates a radar chart illustrating the task planning application performance and task completion capability according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0115] Figure 3 This illustration shows a radar chart illustrating the resource utilization efficiency of task planning applications according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0116] Figure 4 This illustration shows a radar chart illustrating the resource coordination efficiency of task planning applications according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0117] Figure 5 The diagram illustrates a radar chart for comprehensive evaluation of the performance of task planning applications according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0119] The description of the embodiments in this specification should be taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, which should form part of the complete specification. In the drawings, the shape or thickness of the embodiments may be exaggerated and may be indicated in a simplified or convenient manner. Furthermore, parts of the various structures in the drawings will be described separately; it is worth noting that elements not shown in the figures or not described in words are in a form known to those skilled in the art.

[0120] The descriptions of the embodiments herein, including any references to directions and orientations, are for ease of description only and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. The following description of preferred embodiments involves combinations of features, which may exist independently or in combination; the invention is not particularly limited to the preferred embodiments. The scope of the invention is defined by the claims.

[0121] like Figure 1 As shown, this invention provides a method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning, thereby achieving a quantitative evaluation of the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning and supporting closed-loop optimization of mission planning functions in remote sensing satellite management and control systems. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning provided by this invention specifically includes:

[0122] Step S1: Establish a hierarchical evaluation indicator system

[0123] Based on the principles of systematicity, measurability, consistency, simplicity, and independence, a hierarchical evaluation index system is constructed. This system includes a criteria layer and its subordinate index layers. The criteria layer comprises task completion capability indicators, resource utilization efficiency indicators, and resource coordination efficiency indicators. Task completion capability includes four indicators: task completion rate, target coverage rate, emergency task response time, and emergency task product timeliness. Resource utilization rate includes three indicators: regional target coverage redundancy rate, multi-satellite load balancing, and satellite usage time percentage. Resource coordination efficiency includes three indicators: target coordination coverage rate, coordination coverage redundancy, and payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio.

[0124] Step S2: Definition and Quantification of Task Completion Ability Indicators

[0125] Task completion capability includes four indicators: target coverage, task completion rate, emergency task response time, and the timeliness of emergency task products.

[0126] Step S21: Define the target coverage rate.

[0127] Target coverage rate represents the proportion of the scanned strip relative to the observed target within the mission planning period;

[0128] For point targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0129]

[0130] For regional targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0131]

[0132] in, Indicates the observation target area, Indicates the observation target The area of ​​the intersection region with the corresponding scan strip;

[0133] The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is:

[0134]

[0135] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights.

[0136] Step S22: Define the emergency response time (ImergeResponseTime)

[0137] Emergency mission response time refers to the time from receiving an emergency mission order to the satellite beginning to execute the reconnaissance mission;

[0138] Single observation target The formula for calculating the emergency response time is:

[0139]

[0140] in, Indicates the observation target The time when the imaging payload starts working. This indicates that the ground system has received confirmation of the observed target. Order time;

[0141] The formula for calculating the emergency response time within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0142]

[0143] in, Indicates the number of emergency observation targets. Indicates the observation target The weights.

[0144] Step S23: Define the product timeliness of emergency tasks (ImergeProductTime)

[0145] Emergency task product timeliness refers to the time from receiving an emergency task order to the user receiving the image product.

[0146] The formula for calculating the product timeliness of a single observation target i is:

[0147]

[0148] in, Indicates the response time of the target i-imaging product. This indicates the time when the ground system receives and confirms the order for target i;

[0149] The formula for calculating the timeliness of emergency mission products within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0150]

[0151] Where n represents the number of emergency observation targets, This represents the weight of the observed target i. It needs to be normalized using a linear normalization method.

[0152] Step S24: Define the task completion rate (MissionCompleteRate)

[0153] The mission completion rate refers to the percentage of missions completed in the scheduling results. It is the ratio between the number of completed missions and the total number of missions, and is a key indicator for evaluating the satellite system's ability to meet observation mission requirements. If the mission completion rate is low, it may indicate either an excessive workload requiring adjustments by the user, or a deficiency in the satellite system's application capabilities, necessitating compensation through methods such as satellite replacement or orbital maneuvers.

[0154] The formula for calculating the task completion rate within the task planning period is:

[0155]

[0156] in, Indicates the number of tasks completed. This indicates the total number of tasks.

[0157] Step S3: Define and quantify resource utilization efficiency indicators.

[0158] Resource utilization efficiency includes three indicators: regional target coverage redundancy rate, multi-satellite load balancing degree, and satellite usage time percentage.

[0159] Step S31: Define the multi-star load balancing rate (LoadBalanceRate).

[0160] Load balancing refers to the degree to which tasks are distributed evenly among the various satellite data centers during the mission planning period.

[0161] single satellite The amount of work undertaken is expressed as follows:

[0162]

[0163] in, Indicates satellite The number of tasks undertaken Indicates satellite The first The weights of each task;

[0164] The formula for calculating load balancing within the task planning cycle is:

[0165]

[0166] in, Indicates the number of satellites. Indicates satellite The amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite within the mission planning period, where u represents the average amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite within the mission planning period. Normalization calculations are required using a linear normalization method.

[0167] Step S32: Define the Area Coverage Redundancy Rate.

[0168] Regional target coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of the scan strip relative to the observed targets within the mission planning period. Calculating target coverage rate first requires calculating the coverage redundancy rate of individual observed targets, and then obtaining the overall target coverage redundancy rate for the mission planning period through comprehensive calculation.

[0169] For regional targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is:

[0170]

[0171] in, Indicates the observation target area, Indicates the observation target The total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips.

[0172] Each observation target within the mission planning cycle has a different priority. Therefore, when calculating the comprehensive evaluation results based on multiple observation targets, different weights need to be assigned to different observation targets. The weights of different observation targets can be set according to their priority.

[0173] The formula for calculating the target coverage redundancy rate within the mission planning cycle is as follows:

[0174]

[0175] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights.

[0176] Step S33: Define the percentage of satellite usage time (SatUtilityRate)

[0177] Satellite usage time percentage represents the percentage of satellite operating time to available time, and assesses the utilization efficiency of satellite resources.

[0178] For the mission planning result p, the formula for calculating the satellite resource utilization rate is:

[0179]

[0180] in, This indicates the planned operating time of the satellite. This indicates the available time of a satellite in orbit.

[0181] The formula for calculating the percentage of satellite usage time within the mission planning period is as follows:

[0182]

[0183] Where q represents the number of task planning results. This represents the weight of the task planning request corresponding to the task planning result.

[0184] Step S4: Definition and Quantification of Resource Coordination Efficiency Indicators

[0185] Resource collaboration efficiency includes three indicators: target collaboration coverage rate, collaboration coverage redundancy, and payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio.

[0186] Step S41: Define the target collaborative coverage rate.

[0187] Target collaborative coverage rate represents the coverage ratio of multiple satellite scan strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning period.

[0188] To calculate target coverage, it is first necessary to calculate the coverage of a single satellite over a single observation target, and then obtain the target coverage within the mission planning period through comprehensive calculation.

[0189] For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is:

[0190]

[0191] in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For the observed target The area of ​​the intersection region with the corresponding scan strip.

[0192] For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating coverage is:

[0193]

[0194] Each observation target within the mission planning cycle has a different priority. Therefore, when calculating the comprehensive evaluation results based on multiple observation targets, different weights need to be assigned to different observation targets. The weights of different observation targets can be set according to their priority.

[0195] The formula for calculating the target coverage of each satellite during the mission planning period is as follows:

[0196]

[0197] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights.

[0198] Step S42: Define the Collaborative Coverage Redundancy Rate.

[0199] Cooperative coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of multi-satellite cooperative scanning strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning cycle.

[0200] To calculate target coverage, it is first necessary to calculate the coverage redundancy rate of individual observation targets across multiple satellites, and then obtain the target coverage redundancy rate within the mission planning period through comprehensive calculation.

[0201] For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating coverage redundancy rate is:

[0202]

[0203] For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating coverage redundancy rate is:

[0204]

[0205] in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For regional observation targets The total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips.

[0206] Each observation target within the mission planning cycle has a different priority. Therefore, when calculating the comprehensive evaluation results based on multiple observation targets, different weights need to be assigned to different observation targets. The weights of different observation targets can be set according to their priority.

[0207] The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is:

[0208]

[0209] in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights.

[0210] Step S43: Define the payload data satellite-to-ground transmission rate.

[0211] The payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio represents the ratio of payload data to data generated by the payload task and intended to be transmitted during the planned data transmission task within the mission planning cycle.

[0212] Calculate the satellite-to-ground data transmission ratio of the payload, which is the ratio of the amount of satellite-to-ground data transmitted within the planned data transmission window in each planning cycle to the amount of data generated by payload imaging.

[0213]

[0214] in, This refers to the payload data transmitted in the data transmission tasks planned within the task planning cycle. Generate the data to be transmitted for the payload task.

[0215] Step S5: Determine the matrix construction

[0216] The relative importance of each indicator element at the same level in the hierarchical structure is quantitatively evaluated using expert experience, and multiple judgment matrices are constructed. The evaluation results are quantitatively represented using the "1~9" comparison scale method, as shown in the table below.

[0217]

[0218] Table 1

[0219] The quantitative values ​​of the importance of indicators at the same level constitute a judgment matrix expressed in numerical form. As shown in the table below:

[0220]

[0221] Table 2

[0222] In the judgment matrix, This is an indicator of the influence of a certain identical element B at the higher level. Indicators For indicators The quantified values ​​of relative importance satisfy the following relationship:

[0223]

[0224] Step S6: Check the consistency of the judgment matrix.

[0225] Since the judgment matrix is ​​derived based on expert experience and not strictly calculated using mathematical formulas, it may fail to meet consistency requirements. Therefore, a consistency check must be performed on the judgment matrix before hierarchical single sorting. Specifically, the consistency index and random consistency ratio of multiple judgment matrices are calculated, and the consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​verified based on the calculation results.

[0226] Calculate the consistency index and random consistency ratio of multiple judgment matrices, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrices based on the calculation results:

[0227]

[0228] In the formula, represents the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, n represents the order of the judgment matrix, and RI represents the average consistency index. The values ​​of RI can be found in the table as follows: when n=1 or 2, RI=0; when n=3, RI=0.52; when N=4, RI=0.89; and when N=5, RI=1.12.

[0229] Step S7: Based on the judgment matrix, calculate the parameter weights of each indicator element in the evaluation indicator system in the decision-making process; the parameter weight calculation includes hierarchical single ranking and hierarchical overall ranking.

[0230] Weight calculation involves calculating the proportion of each element in the hierarchical structure in the decision-making process, including hierarchical single ranking and hierarchical overall ranking.

[0231] Hierarchical single sorting includes: for the judgment matrix C that passed the consistency test obtained in step S6, solving for its satisfaction... eigenvectors and the obtained feature vector The components are normalized, and the resulting feature vector components are the weight vectors W corresponding to each index.

[0232] The hierarchical ranking includes: calculating the weight coefficients of indicator elements in the indicator layer relative to the criterion layer, and multiplying them layer by layer in order from the bottom-level indicator to the top-level indicator. Specifically, assuming the weight of a certain indicator in the (k-1)th layer relative to the target layer is... The weight vector of the k-th layer relative to the (k-1)-th layer is Then the weight vector of the k-th layer relative to the target layer is:

[0233]

[0234] Similarly, the overall hierarchical ranking also requires a consistency check on the results.

[0235] Step S8: Calculate the comprehensive performance evaluation value based on the values ​​of each indicator and the weights of the parameters.

[0236] The overall performance evaluation value is calculated based on the values ​​of each indicator and the weights of the parameters.

[0237] The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to specific embodiments thereof.

[0238] Assuming a planning outcome for a ground control system, relevant data is collected, various indicator parameters are calculated, and the overall application effectiveness is obtained by configuring the weights of each indicator. The details are as follows:

[0239] Step 1: Establish a hierarchical evaluation indicator system

[0240] The criteria layer includes indicators for task completion capability, resource utilization efficiency, and resource coordination efficiency. Task completion capability includes four indicators: task completion rate, target coverage rate, emergency task response time, and emergency task product timeliness. Resource utilization rate includes three indicators: regional target coverage redundancy rate, multi-satellite load balancing, and satellite usage time ratio. Resource system efficiency includes three indicators: target coordination coverage rate, coordination coverage redundancy, and data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio.

[0241] Step Two: Definition and Quantification of Task Completion Capability Indicators

[0242] Based on the data collected by the control system, the task completion rate is calculated to be 0.9, the target coverage rate is 0.85, the emergency task response time is 0.75, and the emergency task product timeliness is 0.68.

[0243] Step 3: Definition and Quantification of Resource Utilization Efficiency Indicators

[0244] Based on data collected by the control system, the multi-satellite load balancing index is calculated to be 0.69, the regional target coverage redundancy rate index is 0.58, and the satellite usage time ratio index is 0.47.

[0245] Step 4: Definition and Quantification of Resource Coordination Efficiency Indicators

[0246] Based on the data collected by the control system, the target collaborative coverage rate index is calculated to be 0.26, the payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio index is 0.36, and the collaborative coverage redundancy rate index is 0.94.

[0247] Step 5: Determine the matrix construction

[0248] The criterion-level judgment matrix is ​​shown in Table 3.

[0249]

[0250] Table 3

[0251] The judgment matrix for task completion capability at the criterion level is shown in Table 4.

[0252]

[0253] Table 4

[0254] The criterion-level resource utilization efficiency judgment matrix is ​​shown in Table 5.

[0255]

[0256] Table 5

[0257] The criteria layer resource collaboration efficiency judgment matrix is ​​shown in Table 6.

[0258]

[0259] Table 6

[0260] Step Six: Perform a matrix consistency check.

[0261] Calculate the consistency of each of the above judgment matrices to obtain each matrix. The matrix is ​​completely consistent and passes the consistency test.

[0262] Step 7: Weight Calculation

[0263] The weight vector of the criteria layer indicators relative to the target layer is w = (0.5000, 0.1667, 0.3333). Based on the mission completion capability assessment judgment matrix, the weight vector of the reconnaissance mission angle criteria layer indicators is calculated as w = (0.0862, 0.1780, 0.4620, 0.2739). Based on the resource utilization efficiency assessment judgment matrix, the weight vector of the satellite resource utilization angle criteria layer indicators is w = (0.157, 0.249, 0.594). Based on the resource coordination efficiency assessment judgment matrix, the weight vector of the multi-satellite and satellite-to-ground cooperation efficiency criteria layer indicators is w = (0.379, 0.331, 0.289).

[0264] Step 8: Calculate the overall performance evaluation value

[0265] The overall performance evaluation value, calculated based on the values ​​of each indicator and the weights of the parameters, is 63.28.

[0266]

[0267] Table 7

[0268] According to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic device is provided, comprising: one or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more computer programs; wherein the processor is connected to the memory, and the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory; when the electronic device is running, the processor executes the one or more computer programs stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform a remote sensing satellite mission planning application performance evaluation method as described in any of the above technical solutions.

[0269] The processor can be a central processing unit (CPU), but it can also be other general-purpose processors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, discrete hardware components, etc. A general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor or any conventional processor.

[0270] According to one aspect of the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium is provided for storing computer instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implement a remote sensing satellite mission planning application performance evaluation method as described in any of the above technical solutions.

[0271] Computer-readable storage media can include any medium capable of storing or transmitting information. Examples of computer-readable storage media include electronic circuits, semiconductor memory devices, ROM, flash memory, erasable ROM (EROM), floppy disks, CD-ROMs, optical disks, hard disks, fiber optic media, radio frequency (RF) links, and so on. Code segments can be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet and intranets.

[0272] Furthermore, it should be noted that the present invention can be provided as a method, apparatus, or computer program product. Therefore, embodiments of the present invention can take the form of a completely hardware embodiment, a completely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Moreover, embodiments of the present invention can take the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media containing computer-usable program code.

[0273] Embodiments of the present invention are described with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, terminal devices (systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, embedded processor, or other programmable data processing terminal device to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing terminal device, generate instructions for implementing the flowchart illustrations. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in one or more boxes.

[0274] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing terminal device to operate in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction means, which are implemented in a process Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The functions specified in one or more boxes. These computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing terminal equipment to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable terminal equipment to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable terminal equipment for implementing the process. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps of the function specified in one or more boxes.

[0275] It should also be noted that, in this document, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or terminal device that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or terminal device. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or terminal device that includes said element.

[0276] Finally, it should be noted that the above description represents a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be pointed out that although preferred embodiments have been described, those skilled in the art, once they understand the basic inventive concept of the present invention, can make various improvements and modifications without departing from the principles described herein. These improvements and modifications should also be considered within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the appended claims are intended to be interpreted as including both the preferred embodiments and all changes and modifications falling within the scope of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step S1: Establish a hierarchical evaluation index system; the evaluation index system includes a criterion layer and its subordinate index layers, the criterion layer includes task completion capability index, resource utilization efficiency index, and resource coordination efficiency index. Step S2: Define and quantify the task completion capability indicators; the task completion capability indicators include target coverage, task completion rate, emergency task response time, and emergency task product timeliness. Step S3: Define and quantify the resource utilization efficiency indicators; the resource utilization efficiency indicators include regional target coverage redundancy rate, multi-satellite load balancing degree, and satellite usage time percentage. Step S4: Define and quantify the resource collaboration efficiency indicators; the resource collaboration efficiency indicators include target collaboration coverage, collaboration coverage redundancy, and payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio. Step S5: Quantitatively evaluate the relative importance of each indicator element within the same level of the criterion layer and indicator layer, and construct a judgment matrix; Step S6: Perform a consistency check on the judgment matrix; Step S7: Based on the judgment matrix, calculate the parameter weights of each indicator element in the evaluation index system in the decision-making process; the parameter weight calculation includes hierarchical single sorting and hierarchical overall sorting. Step S8: Calculate the comprehensive performance evaluation value based on the values ​​of each indicator and the weights of the parameters.

2. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S2 specifically includes: Step S21: Define the target coverage; Target coverage rate represents the proportion of the scanned strip relative to the observed target within the mission planning period; For point targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is: For regional targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is: in, Indicates the observation target area, Indicates the observation target The area of ​​the intersection region with the corresponding scan strip; The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is: in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights; Step S22: Define the emergency response time; Emergency mission response time refers to the time from receiving an emergency mission order to the satellite beginning to execute the reconnaissance mission; Single observation target The formula for calculating the emergency response time is: in, Indicates the observation target The time when the imaging payload starts working. This indicates that the ground system has received confirmation of the observed target. Order time; The formula for calculating the emergency response time within the mission planning cycle is as follows: in, Indicates the number of emergency observation targets. Indicates the observation target The weights; Step S23: Define the timeliness of emergency task products; Emergency task product timeliness refers to the time from receiving an emergency task order to the user receiving the image product. The formula for calculating the product timeliness of a single observation target i is: in, Indicates the response time of the target i-imaging product. This indicates the time when the ground system receives and confirms the order for target i; The formula for calculating the timeliness of emergency mission products within the mission planning cycle is as follows: Where n represents the number of emergency observation targets, This represents the weight of the observed target i. It needs to be normalized using a linear normalization method. Step S24: Define the task completion rate; Task completion rate refers to the percentage of tasks completed in the scheduling results. The formula for calculating the task completion rate within the task planning period is: in, Indicates the number of tasks completed. This indicates the total number of tasks.

3. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S3 specifically includes: Step S31: Define multi-star load balancing degree; Multi-satellite load balancing indicates the degree to which tasks are balanced across satellite data centers during the mission planning period; single satellite The amount of work undertaken is expressed as follows: in, Indicates satellite The number of tasks undertaken Indicates satellite The first The weights of each task; The formula for calculating load balancing within the task planning cycle is: in, Indicates the number of satellites. Indicates satellite The amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite during the mission planning period, while u represents the average amount of tasks undertaken by the satellite during the mission planning period. Step S32: Define the target coverage redundancy rate of the region; Regional target coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of the scan strip relative to the observed target within the mission planning cycle; For regional targets, a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is: in, Indicates the observation target area, Indicates the observation target and the total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips; The formula for calculating the target coverage redundancy rate within the mission planning cycle is as follows: in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights; Step S33: Define the percentage of satellite usage time; Satellite usage time percentage represents the percentage of time the satellite is operational to the available time. For mission planning result p, the formula for calculating satellite resource utilization rate is: in, This indicates the planned operating time of the satellite. Indicates the available time of a satellite in orbit; The formula for calculating the percentage of satellite usage time within the mission planning period is as follows: Where q represents the number of task planning results. This represents the weight of the task planning request corresponding to the task planning result.

4. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S4 specifically includes: Step S41: Define the target collaborative coverage rate; Target collaborative coverage rate represents the coverage ratio of multiple satellite scan strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning period; For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage rate is: in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For the observed target The area of ​​the intersection region with the corresponding scan strip; For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating the coverage rate is: The formula for calculating the target coverage of each satellite during the mission planning period is as follows: in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights; Step S42: Define the collaborative coverage redundancy rate; Cooperative coverage redundancy rate represents the coverage redundancy ratio of multi-satellite cooperative scanning strips relative to the observed target within the mission planning period. For regional targets, a single satellite For a single observation target The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is: For regional targets, multi-satellite collaboration is used to observe a single target. The formula for calculating the coverage redundancy rate is: in, Indicates satellite For the observed target area, Indicates satellite For regional observation targets and the total area of ​​the corresponding scanned strips; The formula for calculating the target coverage rate within the task planning cycle is: in, Indicates the number of observed targets. Indicates the observation target The weights; Step S43: Define the payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio; The payload data satellite-to-ground transmission ratio represents the ratio of payload data to data generated by the payload task for planned data transmission within the mission planning cycle. The formula for calculating the payload data satellite-to-ground transfer ratio during the mission planning period is: in, This refers to the payload data transmitted in the data transmission tasks planned within the task planning cycle. Generate the data to be transmitted for the payload task.

5. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S5 specifically includes: The relative importance of indicator elements at the same level in the hierarchical structure is compared pairwise, and the comparison scaling method is used for quantitative representation, and multiple judgment matrices are constructed.

6. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S6 specifically includes: Calculate the consistency index and random consistency ratio of multiple judgment matrices, and perform consistency verification on the judgment matrices based on the calculation results: when When the decision matrices are completely consistent and pass the consistency test; when Then, the random consistency ratio CR is judged: when When the decision matrix passes the consistency test, it is considered to have passed the consistency test; if... Then adjust the judgment matrix until it satisfies... ; The formulas for calculating the consistency index (CI) and the random consistency ratio (CR) are as follows: in, represents the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, n represents the order of the judgment matrix, and RI represents the average consistency index.

7. The method for evaluating the application effectiveness of remote sensing satellite mission planning according to claim 6, characterized in that, In step S7, the hierarchical single sorting includes: solving for the judgment matrix C obtained in step S6 that has passed the consistency test, and determining whether it satisfies... eigenvectors and the obtained feature vector The intermediate components are normalized. The hierarchical overall sorting includes: calculating the weight coefficients of the indicator elements in the indicator layer relative to the criterion layer, and multiplying them layer by layer in order from the bottom-level indicator to the top-level indicator.

8. An electronic device, characterized in that, include: One or more processors, one or more memories, and one or more computer programs; wherein the processor is connected to the memory, and the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory, and when the electronic device is running, the processor executes the one or more computer programs stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the remote sensing satellite mission planning application performance evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, Used to store computer instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implement the remote sensing satellite mission planning application effectiveness evaluation method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images