MEDIUM EARTH ORBIT (MEO) AS A VENUE FOR

FUTURE NOAA SATELLITE SYSTEMS

Gerald J. Dittberner1, Andrew J. Gerber, jr.2, David M. Tralli2, and Shyam N. Bajpai1
1
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

ABSTRACT
Low Earth orbits (LEO) and Geostationary Earth orbits (GEO) orbits have traditionally been the venues of
choice for observations, albeit for very different reasons. LEO provides high spatial resolution with low
temporal resolution while GEO provides for low spatial resolution, but high temporal resolution. NOAA utilizes
both venues for their environmental satellites. The NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites
(POES) reside in LEO Sun synchronous orbits at approximately 830 km in altitude, as do the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites of the Department of Defense. In the near future the
POES and DMSP satellites will be merged into a new satellite system referred to as the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). The NOAA Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES) system, as the name specifies, resides at the other preferred observational
venue of GEO. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), under contract to NOAA, has been studying the
characteristics of medium Earth orbits (MEO), at altitudes between 1000 and 35,800 km, as an observation
venue to answer the question as to whether MEO might capture the attributes of the two traditional venues.
This on-going study initially focused on determining the optimal altitude for MEO observations, through
numerous trade studies involving altitude, instrument complexity, coverage, radiation environment, coverage,
spatial and temporal resolution, revisit time, data rates, data latency, downlink requirements and other
parameters including cost and launch complexity. Once the optimal altitude of 10,400 km had been
determined, the study proceeded to explore single and multiple MEO satellite constellation performance
capabilities using two instrument types, a visible through infrared (IR) imager and IR sounder as the satellites’
payload. MEO performance capabilities were compared to comparable LEO and GEO satellite constellation
capabilities. This portion of the study concluded that indeed for global coverage a constellation of satellites
operating in the MEO venue could capture the attributes of those operating in the LEO and GEO venues.
Three 8-satellite constellations configurations – Walker, ICO, and Equatorial-Polar (EP) – then were studied
to develop more constellation coverage statistics including robustness to individual satellite failure. That
study phase concluded that the EP constellation was superior to both the ICO and Walker configurations.

1. INTRODUCTION: THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operational environmental satellite
system is comprised of geostationary satellites for short-range warning and polar-orbiting satellites for longer-
term forecasting. The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) system maintains a
continuous data stream from two satellites, one located at 75 West latitude and the other at 135 W latitude, in
support of National Weather Service (NWS) requirements, transmitting weather data, and visible and infrared
images covering the regions of the world from approximately 20 W longitude to 165 East longitude. Each
satellite’s imagers have the additional capability to focus on narrow regions of the globe, such as to obtain
maximum coverage of a hurricane. The Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) system provides
daily global coverage, with morning and afternoon low earth orbits that deliver data such as cloud cover,

1
storm location, temperature, and atmospheric heat balance for improved weather forecasting. Additionally,
the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), run by the Air Force Space and Mission Systems
Center, is used for monitoring meteorological, oceanographic, and solar-terrestrial physics environments. The
future National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and its managing
Integrated Program Office (IPO) were established in 1994 to converge existing multi-agency polar-orbiting
satellites (POES and DMSP) into an integrated national program that will be used to monitor global
environmental conditions, collect and disseminate data related to weather, atmosphere, oceans, land and the
near-space environment. NPOESS launch readiness is scheduled for 2009, with launches for a fully
operational system planned through about 2016.

2. AN ALTERNATE VIEW

As part of an ongoing system architecture study, the NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service (NESDIS) Office of Systems Development (OSD) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) are providing input to the NOAA development process for an environmental observing system that
would potentially follow the GOES-R series, scheduled for launch readiness in 2012. OSD manages the
NOAA operational geostationary and polar-orbiting environmental satellite programs, provides spacecraft,
launch services, and ground systems, and is responsible for defining user requirements and developing
designs of future satellite systems to meet those requirements (Gerber, et al., 2004; Kidder and Vonder Haar,
2005). A long-term goal of the relationship between NESDIS and JPL is the investigation of the merits of
combining the capabilities of the low earth orbit (LEO) and geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellite systems
into a consolidated medium earth orbit (MEO) system, which would provide global near real time weather
data everywhere, anywhere, all the time.
The study suggests that a MEO satellite constellation may afford the greatest potential for providing
NOAA with the most cost-effective path to the high spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution environmental
data it needs to achieve its 21st century strategic plan. The plan recognizes the increasing linkages between
the environment, the economy and public safety with an implementation goal of transitioning from individual
polar and geostationary observational programs to an integrated system that meets current and future
observational, processing and communications requirements. MEO architecture provides advantages in
spatial coverage, global temporal revisit times and communications infrastructure. The continued optimization
of the MEO architecture includes consideration of the data collected by other Earth observing systems and
platforms, both nationally and internationally, and recognizes the increased widespread interest in
implementing an integrated global earth observation strategy.
Furthermore, the architecture study is driving the need to understand more comprehensively the science
requirements from the broader ocean and atmosphere communities, towards providing a complete global
weather monitoring system for long-term climate and environmental observations and contributing to the
international Global Earth Observation System of System (GEOSS). These requirements are being used to
define instrument suite options for a potential MEO demonstration mission in the 2012-2013 timeframe. The
study process also identifies new sensor needs that would drive technology planning, investment and
development.

3. CONSTELLATION ARCHITECTURE STUDY

Three different constellations were selected for this study. The

Equatorial-Polar (EP) constellation configuration (Figure 1) was
selected for its ability to support ease of migrating the GOES GEO
equatorial satellites and NPOESS LEO polar satellites into a MEO EP
configuration. The Walker (Figure 2) was selected because of
experience with the Global Positioning System (GPS) and ICO (i.e.
Intermediate Circular Orbit, as for communications satellites), (Figure
3), was selected because of its excellent communications coverage.
Numerous tradeoff studies were performed to evaluate each
constellation with respect to its imaging and sounding coverage,

Figure 1. Equatorial-Polar
(EP) Constellation
2
coverage robustness (primarily for CONUS) under satellite failure conditions and inter-satellite and downlink
communications complexity.

3.1. Orbit Altitude and Inclination Selection

For years MEO orbits have been, for the most part, unattractive due to the belief that the Van Allen radiation
belts create a radiation
environment unsuitable for
satellites. As part of this study
JPL revisited this issue and
performed extensive analyses of
this radiation and the effects of
shielding. Figure 4 summarizes
our analyses of the radiation
environment and Figure 5 shows
the effects of shielding. The GPS
constellation, at an altitude of
20,200 km, was selected to
represent the MEO radiation
Figure 2. Walker Constellation Figure 3. ICO Constellation environmental limit not-to-be-
1.4E+5 exceeded. The analysis shows
With a X15 reduction resulting from 400 mils
(10 mm) of Al shielding and a RDM of 2, the that the environment is altitude
1.2E+5 TID for a 8year mission @ 11K km Altitude, dependent as well as inclination
0/90 deg. Inclination, is 24k RADs
TID, radiation / year

1.0E+5 dependent. Trade studies were

GPS
directed at maximizing coverage and
8.0E+4 spatial and temporal resolution while
minimizing the yearly total dose.
6.0E+4
Studies concluded that the optimum
4.0E+4 altitude was 10,400 km, and that
inclinations between approximately
2.0E+4 20 and 50 degrees should be
avoided. The EP has two obit plane
0.0E+0
inclinations, namely 0 and 90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degree degrees, thus producing the lowest
Altitude, km Æ 9k 10k 11k 12k 13k 14k radiation environment for that
Satellite Locations Æ GOES 75W GOES 135W GPS constellation when compared to the
Walker and ICO, which are both at
Figure 4. Annual TID received by a silicon chip with 5mm aluminum 57degrees, the traditional inclination
shielding (calculations based on solar maximum conditions). of choice for these two
constellations. This puts the Total 1.0E+07
Integrated Dose (TID) for the
Walker and the ICO constellations
TID, radiation / year

at approximately 3.7E+4 RADs 1.0E+06

(radiation) behind 5mm of

aluminum shielding. Shielding ray 1.0E+05
trace analysis, which takes into
account all the aluminum between
the electronic component and the 1.0E+04

outside environment, generally X 15 Reduction

shows that there is at least 7.5mm 1.0E+03

of aluminum shielding. If we
extend that in the satellite design to
1.0E+02
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
mm Al
11k 0deg Inclination 11k 50 deg Inclination 11k 90 deg Inclination

Figure 5. TID attenuation

3 vs. aluminum (Al) shielding
 achieve 10mm, Figure 5 shows that a reduction of 15 in TID can be achieved. For any of the constellations
studied, if 3.7E+4 TID per year from Figure 5 is used as the maximum TID behind 5mm of aluminum then
applying a radiation dose margin (RDM) of two, 3.7E+4 TID becomes 7.4E+4 per year to shield against. 8
years of satellite operation in this environment raising the TID to 5.9E+5. If an additional 5 mm of shielding is
added to the 5 mm we already have, the 5.9E+5 TID is reduced by a factor of 15 or 39.3E+3 TID, not an
unreasonable number since many LEO satellites using Mil Std 883B and screened commercial parts achieve
30E+3 RADs TID capability. The equivalent TID for the EP constellation is 24E+3 TID. To summarize, MEO
satellites with a planned 8-year operational life must be designed such that their electronic parts, at the silicon
level, have at least 400 mils (10mm) of Al between them and the natural environment.

Analyses of GOES instruments very much like the Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) Sounder were performed
by Gerber, et al. (2004). Table 1 summarizes, in a qualitative form, the results of these analyses with the
conclusion that the EP constellation provides the most robustness of the 3 constellations studied.

Inter-Sat & Ease of Migrating

Constellation Coverage Coverage Robustness
D/L Comms From GEO-LEO
Configuration Imaging/Comms Sounder (CONUS)
Complexity Configurations

EP - 8 Excellent Fair Very Good Moderate Excellent

Walker - 8 Good Very Good Good Difficult Poor

ICO - 8 Excellent Very Good Very Good Moderate Poor

Table 1. MEO implementation of GOES auxiliary communications,

imaging, sounding, and robustness analysis summary and ranking.

3.2. Communications
Broader bandwidth communications are needed as a result of higher resolution global coverage and
temporal availability, with an approach that reduces the resource load on satellites in order to support the
primary function of data collection. Three options for MEO communications architectures were evaluated.
Option 1 consists of a distributed high-speed ground network with commercial rebroadcast, with
upgraded SafetyNet sites and ground network, and with medium data rate rebroadcast. Option 1 is namely a
modified NPOESS SafetyNet (see Figure 6) with commercial rebroadcast, using Ka-band downlinks from the
individual satellites using mechanically steered parabolic antennas. This option calls for much higher data
rates and extensive network upgrades. Commercial satellites would be used for data rebroadcast (e.g.
AWIPS-like broadcast), recognizing that commercial GEO satellite transponders provide regional coverage
but such coverage is satellite specific and limited for oceanic and low population regions. The rebroadcast
data rate is limited, albeit about 25 times higher than the current GOES rebroadcast network, but orders of
magnitude lower than the instrument data collection rate. Option 2 comprises optical satellite crosslinks to a
downlink satellite with a Ka-band data downlink to a single ground node and a client-server data redistribution
network (e.g. no network of ground stations). Onboard processing for routing data satellite-to-satellite would
be needed, increasing satellite
resources (e.g. power and mass).
The satellites would exchange
their observational data and
satellite health and safety data
with each other and with ground-
based receiving stations in real-
time. The data rates for ground
redistribution are limited, but each
user gets data as requested; cost
scales with the number of GOES

Figure 6. NPOESS Ground Network Map.

rebroadcast clients. Option 3 consisted of optical satellite cross link with hybrid data redistribution, using
medium data rate rebroadcast and a client-server ground network. The constellation of satellites would be
capable of broadcasting data to system customers, including both data that have been processed on the
ground and data that originate at the satellites.

4. PATHWAY TO THE FUTURE

A pathway to a full EP constellation can be viewed in three steps. Beginning with the present constellation,
the first step is to launch a demonstration mission into an over-the-pole orbit. The next is to fill out the polar
plane by adding three more MEO satellite and spacing them equally. The final step is to place four MEO
satellites in the equatorial plane to complete the full EP constellation.

The demonstration mission would place one MEO satellite in a 90 degree inclination over-the-pole orbit.
Such an orbit offers a number of opportunities to demonstrate the concept, perform risk reduction, check out
instrument concepts and data flow issues, and test and validate instrument scanning strategies.
Instrumentation would consist of an imager and infrared and microwave sounders.

For the North and South Poles and

parts of Northern Europe the MEO
would be available to take data
continuously for 2 to 2 ½ hours (the
higher number would be for a point
exactly under the orbit track) out of
every 6 hour orbit, giving four data
periods of perhaps 15 minute interval
data throughout the day. Figure 7
shows coverage for a one polar MEO
demonstration. Numerical models
would be able to test the advantages
and benefits of having high fidelity,
rapid-repeat vertical profiles of winds,
Figure 7. Coverage from a single MEO satellite temperatures, and moisture in cloudy
complementing the International Geosynchronous satellite and clear areas during four periods
systems. Elevation angles are shown for 0 degrees (red)
and 5 degrees (white).

daily. Data from the demonstration mission would be very

useful for examining varying look angles and resolutions at a
point, and providing polar wind demonstration. Further, such a
data stream would compliment data from existing and planned
international geostationary systems by filling in the gap over
the poles.

By adding three more MEO satellite to the same 90 degree

orbit plane and spacing them equal distances apart,
continuous polar data would be available as a point is viewed
first by one MEO satellite, then by the next one, then the next
Figure 8. Diagram of four MEO satellites in an
one, and so forth, all with overlap (Figure 8). For the first time,
over-the-pole plane along with two of the
there would be full global coverage, meaning the full four-pi
nearly half dozen international
steradians of the globe. There would be a continuous data from
Geosynchronous systems.
anywhere, all the time, in real time – a substantial contribution to
the Global Earth Observation Systems of Systems (GEOSS).

5
If one of the four satellites should fail, the remaining three could be re-phased to a spacing of 120 degrees
apart and still acquire almost continuous data until a replacement MEO can be launched.

5. DEMONSTRATION MISSION

5.1. Rationale
The rationale for a MEO demonstration mission is to validate that basic imaging, temperature sounding,
and wind and liquid/solid water profile measurement requirements can be met from 10,400 km MEO altitude
and provide a communications backbone for a variety of NASA, NOAA, and NPOESS IPO missions. The
overarching purpose of such a mission would be to demonstrate a sustainable, extremely capable system
that is superior to current implementations and affords significantly reduced long-term costs compared to
other implementations that could deliver similar data products and capabilities. Recognizing that
observational requirements dictate temporal resolution, spectral coverage and resolution, spatial resolution
and radiometric performance, an objective of the study is to provide definitive studies and trades as input to
roadmaps for MEO and other satellite constellation options for NESDIS OSD.
An evolutionary MEO road map to a post-GOES-R observational capability must support continually
improving weather predictions, plus climate and environmental assessments and forecasts, with near real-
time data availability, total global coverage, 0.5 km at 0.5 microns instantaneous geometric field of view or
better spatial resolution, improved spectral coverage (including microwave for cloudy weather conditions) and
globally consistent, long-term accurate and stable data collection. Based on architecture studies performed by
JPL to-date, an EP MEO demonstration system could be developed to serve three functions: (1) to
demonstrate MEO-observing capabilities with GOES-like instrumentation, (2) to provide an operational
communications system, and (3) to provide a risk retirement test bed for evaluating new instruments
developed to exploit MEO opportunities and provide NOAA a cost-effective, risk-reduction path for developing
environmental observation instruments for future orbital and ground systems architectures.
The MEO demonstration plan calls for launching a satellite augmenting the capabilities of GOES-R, other
meteorological satellites and NPOESS while continuing the usage of NPOESS for the Polar Regions.
Furthermore, it provides a platform for validating/demonstrating new instruments to substantially improve the
environmental data collection and weather prediction capabilities of NPOESS and GOES-R, such as an
advanced optical and infrared imaging and sounding and a high-performance microwave radiometer/sounder
with spatial resolution of the order of 1 km at 15 microns and 50 km respectively.

5.2. Instruments

5.2.1. Imager And Sounder

Numerical weather prediction and forecasting models are moving towards improved spatial and temporal
resolution for a variety of models. One instrument option for MEO is based on combining the capabilities of
two NASA-developed instruments – the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) with those
of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). The MODIS instrument is aboard both the NASA Earth
Observation System (EOS) Terra and Aqua environmental, weather and climate research satellites. The
MODIS instrument provides high radiometric sensitivity in 36 spectral bands ranging in wavelength from 0.37
µm to 14.4 µm. The AIRS instrument, with spectral coverage from 3.7 to 15.4 µm, is the first high-spectral-
resolution infrared sounder developed by NASA in support of operational weather forecasting by NOAA.
Design studies are in progress for development of such an integrated instrument with capabilities that exceed
those of both the ABI and HES instruments planned for GOES-R.

5.2.2. Microwave Radiometer

Microwave sounding radiometers historically have been designed as real aperture systems, where the
narrow receiving “beam” required for high resolution sounding as well as imaging applications is achieved
with an antenna subsystem that typically uses a parabolic reflector to focus the beam. Diffraction effects in
the effective aperture formed by the reflector limit the spatial resolution. Aperture synthesis, however, is an
approach that does not suffer from the limitations of a real aperture system; it uses an array of receivers to

6
form an equivalent aperture – typically only sparsely filled array of receivers and uses on-board signal
processing to measure the phase properties of the radiometric field.
As an extension of a GEO microwave synthetic thinned aperture radiometer (GeoSTAR) sounder study
performed by JPL under contract to NOAA, an initial assessment for aperture synthesis in MEO was
performed. The objective is to add microwave sounding capabilities to future systems such as GOES-R, both
to complement GOES infrared sounding systems (such as the Hyperspectral Environmental Suite – HES) and
to provide all-weather standalone microwave soundings (Dittberner, et al., 2004). For a standalone capability,
GeoSTAR can be deployed on a separate platform, but to complement an IR sounder it is important to have
the same field of regard, preferably on the same platform; this is the option that the study is proposing, if at all
tenable at the current stage of GOES-R.
At MEO, although it would be possible to implement a two-dimensional (i.e. synthetically thinned aperture
radiometer) system such as GeoSTAR, there are aliasing issues due to the large solid angle subtended by
the Earth as seen from MEO. Instead, one-dimensional approaches were considered – where along-track
coverage is obtained through orbital motion (something not available in GEO). Two concepts were
considered. One uses a waveguide antenna for each receiver in a rectangular array and another uses a large
common cylindrical-parabolic offset reflector. Many details remain to be worked out and evaluated before
definitive recommendations can be made. However, early indications are that MeoSTAR is much less
complex than GeoSTAR, requires significantly less resources (i.e. mass and power) and is expected to cost
significantly less and therefore may be an ideal application for MEO.

5.3. Requirements
MEO mission requirements are derived from requirements in the GOES-R Preliminary Requirements
Document. The constellation of four satellites would make observations over the entire range within 60
degrees of the ground track, and include interleaving hemispheric (full disk), synoptic (regional CONUS) and
mesoscale (rapid-scan) imaging. Full disc imagery data would be taken every 15 minutes, and CONUS
imagery data taken every 5 minutes – an equivalent GOES-R “full disc” as seen by the MEO constellation
being a composite image from sensors on the multiple satellites. For severe weather activity, updated satellite
imagery data covering areas at least 1000 km square area would be taken every 30 sec.
Mesoscale measurements would provide imaging and derived high-density wind products. Data bands
would include visible and long- and short-wave infrared (IR) and IR water vapor (300-500 hPa) essential for
NWS forecast operations, and to meet future NWS cloud, moisture, and surface observation and liquid-solid
profiling requirements. Visible imagery data would have a spatial resolution of 0.5 km or better, and IR
imagery data a spatial resolution of 2 km or better for all bands. IR soundings would have a spatial resolution
of 10 km or smaller, with an objective of 2 km. Temperature and moisture soundings would be made over an
area of 12,000 km x 12,000 km within each hour. The accuracy of Earth-location sounding data would be 2.5
km or better in both normal and rapid scan modes. The precision of temperature soundings would be within
2°C per 3 to 5 km layer or better. The precision of moisture soundings would be within 20% of the nominal
reading. The four-satellite constellation would be expected to have an operational availability of at least 98%.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This MEO architecture provides the potential to provide high spatial, temporal and spectral resolution
environmental data comparable to or exceeding that of NPOESS and GOES-R. MEO architecture offers
several advantages for sounding; microwave is more feasible than at GEO, with better spatial resolution and
better coverage. Furthermore, launch costs may be less than for GEO and revisit times are better than from
LEO. However, LEO and GEO have some other advantages – namely, LEO is more suited for high spatial
resolution microwave instruments, but not for requisite temporal resolution and GEO provides excellent revisit
time over field of regard, but not the MEO global. The architecture study is ongoing, as the opportunities for
visible/IR imaging and sounding and microwave radiometry, and a global communications backbone are
considered. A draft Program Plan has been developed, and a Program Implementation Plan that would help
NOAA transition into an integrated environmental system that meets current and future observational,
processing and communications requirements is in progress.

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was performed by JPL as a member of the NOAA advanced architecture team under a contract to
from NOAA NESDIS. JPL is a Federally Funded Research and Development Center managed by the
California Institute of Technology under contract to NASA. We thank Richard Baron, the technical lead of this
study, Francois Rogez, Robert Carnright, and Casey Heeg who performed the STK and SOAP orbit and
coverage analyses. Tom Pagano and Bjorn Lambrigtsen for analyses and discussions related to AIRS and
GeoSTAR, respectively, and David Oh for the communications architecture; their contributions are integral to
the MEO study.

REFERENCES

Dittberner, G., S. Bajpai, B. Diedrich, L. Key, and M. Madden (2004) Advanced technology opportunities for
future environmental satellite systems, 2004 EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite Conference, May 31-June
4, Prague, Czech Republic.

Gerber, A., D. Tralli, and S. Bajpai (2004), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) as an operational observation venue
for NOAA’s post GOES-R environmental satellites. Presented at the SPIE Fourth International Asia-Pacific
Environmental Remote Sensing Symposium, November 9-10, Honolulu, HI.

Kidder, S. and T. Vonder Haar (2005), Satellite constellations to observe the spectral radiance shell of the
Earth. Submitted to: J. Atmos. and Oceanic Tech.