#FightTonight
I want to provide thoughts on the value of #SDA sensors and their measurements. This may perhaps inform cost models. I welcome inputs since this is hard.
First, (IMAGE) there are a finite set of remote sensors. Only some of those are economically viable (EO, Radar)...but many others exist which either are viable but have not been explored, or are impractical. A typical visible telescope would function like remote sensor "1" in the image.
Next, not all of the measurements are of equal value. Some considerations for the relative value of tracks might include:
--Relative measurement accuracy. That is, if 2 companies provide measurements, is one set of measurements more accurate generally?
--Gain in % of orbit measured (U degrees). That is, if 2 company's measurements are of equal accuracy, perhaps one measures/samples the distribution of a satellite's orbit uniformly while the other continues to track the same PART of the orbit which has less value in orbit determination.
--Relative mix of measurement errors vs other tracks in the orbit? That is, perhaps two companies have different categories of remote sensors (radar and EO), and all else being equal, a radar tends to have better accuracy in RANGE while optical has better accuracy in ANGLES. There is some shared value between them. Too much of either is less valuable.
--Minimum detection threshold. That is, all else being equal, perhaps you care more about detecting and tracking smaller or dimmer targets. This would be more valuable.
--Search capacity. That is, all else being equal, perhaps you care more about reacquiring satellites with highly uncertain orbits (or no known orbit!) more than keeping custody. This would be more valuable.
--Additional features/signatures that accompany the track (RCS, brightness, center freq). If you value identification, then you should care whether additional features are provided and whether those are calibrated in some way.
SDA TAP Lab