Open Access Paper
12 July 2023 Hyperspectral cameras designs and constraints for small satellite private EO missions: perspectives for coastal water quality monitoring applications and markets, the ENTRUST mission case
Y.-R. Nowicki-Bringuier, L. Jalba, D. Grigoriadis, T. Valsamidis
Author Affiliations +
Proceedings Volume 12777, International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2022; 127777L (2023) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2691449
Event: International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2022, 2022, Dubrovnik, Croatia
Abstract
Hyperspectral cameras and sensors have recently matured a lot and nowadays are widely used in monitoring the Earth for private industrial purposes. Fields of interest include agriculture and forestry monitoring, food control, medicine, mineralogy, environmental surveillance etc. However, even though in space this technique has been developed and tested from the late 80s to 2000, commercial satellites embarking Hyperspectral cameras for monitoring purposes are still in their infancy. This paper presents and analyses the ENTRUST project which aims to address the feasibility of an operational downstream service, which exploits Copernicus services and Hyperspectral data from a small satellite in providing robust monitoring and analysis of the coastal water quality parameters, as they are defined in the Art. 2 of the Water Framework Directive from the European Commission (WFD; Directive, 2000/60/EC). The current study investigates the main trade-offs and constraints in terms of hyperspectral instrumentation as well as market considerations, as both are strongly interrelated in the case of a privately owned mission.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Coastal zones serve as the interface between the land and marine environments. The length of the world’s coasts exceeds 1,6 million kilometers, and 84 percent of the world’s countries have a coastline.

Globally, coastal zones are more densely inhabited than inland regions, have faster rates of population increase and urbanization, and accumulate economic assets along with essential infrastructures1. The low-elevation coastal zone, which is defined as the continuous and hydrologically linked zone of land along the coast with an elevation above sea level of less than 10 meters, comprises just 2% of the world’s total area, but is home to 10% of the global population2. In response to population expansion and coastward migration linked with the worldwide trend of urbanization, it is expected that the coastal population will continue to increase in the future years. The global population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion in 20503, and the majority of the world’s megacities are located in the coastal zone, the majority of them in river deltas4. In addition to unique economic, physical, and historical variables, the concentration of densely occupied agricultural regions in well-watered, productive deltas and coastal plains drives coastal migration5.

Coastal zones provide a considerable economic worth. For example, marine transport is vital to the global economy since more than 90 percent of global trade is handled by water, with a significant percentage of maritime routes in the coastal ocean. In 2010, the global ocean economy was worth 1.5 trillion dollars, with a significant contribution from oil and gas companies, ports and marine equipment, and ocean-based sectors dominated by fisheries and tourism6. In addition to these well-established activities, other ones, such as marine aquaculture, ocean renewable energy, and maritime safety and surveillance, are expected to see growth in the future decades6.

The ocean economy is expected to rise to more than three trillion dollars by the year 2030, according to conservative forecasts. A significant portion of this figure will come from coastal tourism, offshore oil and gas, and port operations. Between the years 2010 and 2030, it is anticipated that marine aquaculture would expand at a pace of 5.7 percent on a yearly basis.

Coastal environments are home to a diverse array of plant and animal life, both on land and in the water. Marine coastal habitats are among the most productive ecosystems on the planet, and they offer people a wide variety of social as well as economic benefits. They are responsible for producing ninety percent of the world’s fisheries and roughly eighty percent of the marine fish species that are known7. Reefs, mangroves, and sand dunes all play a part in controlling the environment and protecting the coastline8. One way in which they do this is by significantly reducing the force of wind-driven waves. Coral reefs and river estuaries both have a high biomass production, making them two of the most biodiverse and species-rich environments on the planet.

As a result, coastal zones have a significant amount of value from a social, economic, and ecological perspective9. They are contributing to human society in a variety of ways, including the provision of food, energy, and other resources; the protection of coastlines; the promotion of ocean recreation, tourism, and coastal livelihoods; the upkeep of water quality; the treatment of waste; the promotion of biogeochemical cycling and regulatory services; the support of both the green and blue economies; and, most importantly, the upkeep of the fundamental global life support systems.

However, coastal areas are vulnerable to a variety of threats, some of which originate naturally and others are the result of human activity. Extreme conditions in the natural environment can play a role in the development of natural hazards. For example, marine heat waves can lead to coral bleaching and fish mortality, large waves and extreme sea levels can cause coastal flooding, erosion can degrade ecosystems and habitats. Several of these problems are made worse by climate change and the resulting warming, as well as the rise in sea level and an increase in hazardous algal blooms10. On the other hand, coastal hazards that are caused by human activity include maritime pollution, unsafe maritime conditions, poor water quality, eutrophication, overfishing, degradation or loss of marine and coastal ecosystems11. Maritime pollution is the discharge of pollutant substances into the ocean from ships. Therefore, the variables that cause maritime and coastal dangers may be found anywhere.

So, several steps must be made in order to maintain the health of coastal systems and rich ecosystems that can support the local species and meet human needs and services. The activities consist of better judgments about the regulation and protection of the use of ecosystem services, as well as enhanced efforts designed to minimize negative impacts and the magnitude of changes, such as the overexploitation of ecosystems. Information of the systems and the changes inside are crucial for managing coastal zones, as is the transfer of this knowledge to decision makers.

2.

REMOTE SENSING AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Today, several directives linked to European Union are existing which work toward the goal of ensuring the ecological integrity of Europe’s waterways via effective management. However, most of statistical analysis and outputs have been based on in-situ measurements. The network from which these metrics derived have approximately 13000 sites across Europe, the number may seem high but it cannot cover all the different coastal environments of Europe. Although in-situ measurement may offer high accuracies, it is a time-consuming process, and hence it is not feasible to provide a simultaneous water quality metrics on a regional scale12. Moreover, conventional sampling methods are not easily able to identify the spatial or temporal variations in water quality which is vital for comprehensive assessment and management of waterbodies13. For example, in situ sampling has the advantage of measuring with high accuracy Chlorophyll-a but is limited regarding the spatial and temporal coverage. Chlorophyll-a concentration is recorded as little as 3–20 times per year in coastal waterbodies, with sampling frequencies varying widely between member states (Figure 2). Such sparse information will likely fail to accurately represent the dynamic nature of many waterbodies.

Therefore, these difficulties of successive and integrated sampling become a significant obstacle to the monitoring and management of water quality. Remote sensing, for monitoring coastal waters, have given a new perspective and important understanding of the global systems and the dynamics within. For coastal observations high-resolution sensors are needed. Using them, it is feasible to analyze the impact of transports of dissolved and suspended matter from both terrestrial run-off and river inputs on water clarity and surface chlorophyll-a concentrations in coastal zones using remote sensing and bio-optical data.

With the evolution of space science and the increasing use of computer applications, earth observation techniques have become useful tools in achieving water monitoring. Earth observation derived metrics can help fill the gaps that were previously mentioned. It can also improve the understanding of temporal and spatial variability of several quality elements within water and above the sediment surface in intertidal and shallow areas help define environmental reference status of some quality elements using historical satellite data and also provide a harmonized approach for monitoring water quality across Member States with a cost efficiency approach. Generally, Remote Sensing is the gathering of data without direct physical interaction with the assessed objects, regions, or phenomena14. Sensors on satellites and airplanes collect data remotely by detecting and measuring electromagnetic energy reflected off the earth’s surface characteristics15. These features have unique spectral characteristics because the structure, physics, and chemistry of the observed surface affect the spectrum of the reflected radiant energy. Radiant energy’s qualities rely on parameters such as its intensity, wavelength, and angle of incidence16. Optical remote sensing systems are split into two categories: multispectral systems, which detect and record between one and approximately ten spectral channels, and hyperspectral systems, which detect and record between tens and hundreds of spectral channels.

Recent studies have reported that remote sensing methods may provide comprehensive views of vast aquatic habitats. In addition to sampling, remote sensing provides a cost-effective alternative for monitoring changes in aquatic habitats. On the basis of the link between water’s optical qualities and electromagnetic radiation, water quality may be determined using remote sensing14. Due to the fact that the backscattering properties of water are affected by the types and concentrations of components, electromagnetic radiation may be used to evaluate surface water quality17. Thus, a body of water’s radiative upwelling may be utilized to detect the existence of water elements and measure their concentration. One of the advantages of employing remote sensing in assessing water quality is the ability to cover vast areas of water bodies spatially. In addition, the repeated gathering of remotely sensed data permits the periodic monitoring of water quality and the identification of trends. In addition, remote sensing is typically a cost-effective alternative to in-situ measurements since it does not need extensive field sampling. Consequently, remote sensing techniques have been implemented in a variety of water quality applications18.

Specifically, Earth Observation has contributed massively to the monitoring of coastal zones and provided estimates of alteration in coastal ecosystems. Given the advances in the design of sensors and data analysis techniques, remote sensing has been capable to evaluate the quality of waters in coastal environments. Multispectral and hyperspectral sensors are used to monitor coastal water dissolved substances, and biotic/abiotic suspended particle concentrations. Remote sensing sensors can vary from aircraft of low and medium altitudes to satellites in space, depending on the requirements of resolution and cost limitations19. Many research studies have used satellite imagery in their methodology to obtain robust correlations between the waters’ spectral value and physical and biogeochemical constituents, such as transparency, chlorophyll concentration20.

Recent advances in sensor technology have led to the development of hyperspectral sensors (also known as imaging spectrometers) capable of collecting imagery containing several hundred bands over the electromagnetic spectrum. The concept of hyperspectral remote sensing began in the mid-1980s and has been used most widely by geologists for identification and mapping of minerals. Spectroscopy can be used to detect individual absorption features due to specific chemical bonds in a solid, liquid, or gas. Today, these sensors greatly expand the potential of remote sensing to assess, map, and monitor the characteristics of all natural resources including marine coastal zones. Hyperspectral data are particularly useful in marine coastal zones because of the spectral complexity of suspended as well as benthic features found in these environments. The very high spectral resolution of hyperspectral sensors gives them the advantage over multispectral sensors in facilitating exceptional differentiation of objects based on their spectral response in the narrow bands. The application of hyperspectral remote sensing techniques to water resource problems is proving to be the most in-depth way of examining spatial, spectral, and temporal variations to derive more accurate estimates of information required for water resource applications21. The most commonly used hyperspectral sensors currently in space can be found in the following table:

Table 1.

Specification of the most commonly used Hyperspectral sensors in water quality assessment.

Type of sensorNumber of BandsSpectral range(μm)Resolution (m)Imaging Swath
AVIRIS2240.40-2.501712 km and 614 pixels per scanline
HYDICE2100.40-2.500.8 to 4270 m at the lowest altitude
HyMap1280.40-2.503 to 10512 pixels
APEXUp to 300 VIS/NIR (114), SWIR (199)VIS/NIR (0.38-0.97), SWIR1 (0.97–2.50)2 to 52.5–5 km
CASI-1500Up to 2280.40-1.000.5 to 3512 pixels per scanline
EPS-HVIS/NIR (76), SWIR1 (32), SWIR2 (32), TIR (12)VIS/NIR (0.43-1.05), SWIR1 (1.50–1.80), SWIR2 (2.00–2.50), TIR (8–12.50)Dependent upon flight (min 1 m)89°
DAIS 7915VIS/NIR (32), SWIR1 (8), SWIR2 (32), MIR (1), TIR (12)VIS/NIR (0.43-1.05), SWIR1 (1.50–1.80), SWIR2 (2.00–2.50), MIR (3.00–5.00), TIR (8.70–12.30)3 to 20 depending on altitude512 pixels per scanline
AISAUp to 2280.43-0.901364 pixels per scanline
HySpex ODIN-1024VIS/NIR1 (128), VIS/NIR2 (160), SWIR1 (160), SWIR2(256)0.40-2.500.5 m at 2000 m altitude500 m

The process of assessing the chemical, physical, and biological features of waterbodies and identifying potential pollution sources that decrease water quality is known as water quality study. It is possible for waste discharges, pesticides, heavy metals, minerals, bacteria, and sediments to degrade water quality. Diverse water quality standards have been devised to help in determining the level of water contamination and, subsequently, to uphold these requirements. For the present study, we have concentrated over most common parameters to be monitored for water quality assessment: Chlorophyll-a, Total Suspended Matter (TSM), Turbidity and Water transparency.

3.

MAIN DRIVERS AND CHALLENGES

Up to know, the missions mentioned previously have provided important benefit to scientific community to assess and model different parameters in order to derive water quality from satellite remote sensing data. However, for a commercial service adapted to the monitoring of man-linked activities such as aquaculture, fisheries, coastal tourism, harbors, there is a strong need of additional data in order to provide an efficient service. In particular the main drivers for complementary data are:

  • - A Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) and Global Coverage (SWATH) more adapted to the human-based activities, able to provide sufficient resolution one hand, but not too resolved on the other hand which would make more complex the process of downscaling other satellite data: in the range of 10 to 20m GSD and 50 to 100km SWATH

  • - A high revisit time of minimum one/day to get daily data surveillance

  • - A high Dynamic range and sufficient SNR on the overall spectrum for the instrument to cope for the small-scale phenomenon to be observed

  • - A cost-efficient remote sensing instrument in order to allow proper commercial operation and sufficient market perspectives

Additionally, it is important to take into account that most end-users are new to this kind of technics and therefore the final service will need to be user friendly, enabling both economical actors, regional and public stakeholders and potentially the general public to derive easily the main information needed. In addition, this service could also in a second time be extended to inland water monitoring, which would extend the benefit to more population and ecosystems.

At the moment, no such a service exists. The closest services existing are either the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMES), Rheticus™ Marine22, developed by Planetek, or the WaterMonitor23 application developed by VITO. However, none of them are able to provide the necessary information for the above-mentioned applications, either because of insufficient Ground resolution, strong dependance to 3rd party microwave missions or in situ data, or limited zone coverage.

To fill this observational gap, the consortium composed of SAT4SPACE (France), Planetek Hellas (Greece), and Microelectronica SAS (Romania) has teamed together in order to propose a specific mission called ENTRUST. Its aim is to provide the necessary system to allow to monitor and control European coastal water quality and alert users of these areas with a local/regional scale with high revisit time. This mission, in its feasibility assessment stage, is complementary to the Copernicus satellite data, and would enable to take benefit from the 2 worlds: high end and very performing missions like the Sentinels, complemented by lower and smaller missions or systems, to provide very practical services to European end users. For this mission, two different kinds of systems were traded: drones on one hand, and nanosatellites on the other hand. The main first level specifications for the hyperspectral instrument are summarized in the table below (Table 2). The paradigm shift in this study is the switch from a very wide mission definition as it is performed usually for conventional scientific satellites, to a more narrow and focused mission, which allows the relaxation of a lot of constraints at instrument level, as well as a more agile and low-cost setup, which is highly desirable for the application.

Table 2.

Preliminary main parameters for the overall hyperspectral payload

Type of SpecificationInstrument SpecificationUnit
Ground Sampling Distance10 - 20m
Swath50x50km
Revisit Time1 to 2 days minimumdays
Spectral Range430-865nm
Number of bands37-54N/A
Resolution on each band11-16nm
Mean SNR50-100 
Radiometric Resolution (Bit Depth)12bit
Mass5 maximumkg
Volume20x20x20 maximumcmxcmxcm
Power15 maximumW
PlateformDrone or Cubesat compatibility 

4.

CAMERA AND MISSION CONSTRAINTS

At camera level, the main differences between the different hyperspectral cameras’ configuration relies on the following parameters:

  • 1) Type of acquisition: push-broom versus whisk-broom versus snapshot like type of operation. In push broom of whiskbroom mode, the detection is made on a linear detector, and the motion of an element enables the wavelength dispersion (usually a prism or a grating, or the spacecraft movement in itself). On the other hand, “snapshot like” operation exploits a 2D array with filters enabling the spectral differentiation. The filter can be either placed in front of the detector or directly integrated onto the detector itself. Both cases require less volume for the complete instrument compared to dispersive element spectrometry, but in the meantime requires important design considerations prior to the mission launch.

  • 2) Type of dispersive element

    Mainly two types of wavelength retrieval techniques can be used: either a dispersive element, which can be mainly a prism (PRISMA mission case24) or a grating (OLCI case25), or a filter technic approach, in that case the filter lies either in front of the detector (stripe filters such as Sentinel 2 case26) or directly deposited onto the detector (CHIEM case with linear variable filters directly deposited onto the detector27). Various technics derived from this technic are nowadays being developed, combining filter technologies with image processing capabilities.

  • 3) Type of detector technology

    The number of pixels of the detector, its pixel size, as well as is global SNR performances, depending greatly on the wavelength range covered, has an important influence on both SNR features of the final application. The pixel size and pixel pitch directly relate to the Ground Sampling Distance and the SWATH of the instrument. This is why in some case several channels covering several wavebands are selected, having a drawback on the complexity of the instrument (channels, co-registration questions) as well as the mass, volume and power consumption. In most of current missions, the main waveband covers at least the VNIR band, this being the cheapest and most important database in terms of spectrum analysis. The detector is most of the time a CMOS Silicon detector, the technology being nowadays easily available and as features such as windowing capabilities or snapshot operation which are very suitable for this type of operation, compared to CCD. SWIR and bands above in the Infra-Red are more expensive and more complex to implement, as the camera needs special design features this being either cooling requirements for the detector or specific shielded thermal design to enable proper measurement. This is why most of camera manufacturers for drones are targeting primarily the VNIR band.

At system level, being given the main requirements listed in table 2, one of the most constraintfull trade-off to be made is the type of platform to be used, the most adapted to the service needs. Indeed, the choice of the platform has important constraints on the type of Hardware (camera choice, detector choice etc.) to be selected, and needs to be chosen as early as possible.

Two types of platforms are considered for the ENTRUST project, because they answer to the need of regularity of measurements to be performed for the service: drones on one hand, cubesat on the other hand.

Drones considerations and operational constraints

Drones were developed starting from the early 20th century for military purposes. Known also as “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” (UAV) they enable to remotely have operations in difficultly accessible or dangerous zones, without human intervention. Progressively, they have been transferred to civilian world, being used now for lots of purposes, from aerial photography, product deliveries, agriculture, science, leisure etc. Hyperspectral systems developments compatible with drones are relatively recent, and started in the late 2000. Most of systems were initially developed in the fields of agriculture, forestry, and mining28. Due to the recent and important development of this technique, a lot of systems are existing which are compatible with drones28. Most of the companies providing these instruments are from the US. All these cameras have different performances, wavelength range, resolution, as well as spatial resolution; for ENTRUST, the idea with this solution is to provide a low cost, easily operable system: no launch, few or even no authorization nor very specific competences to be operated. High altitude drones (eg 5-10km altitude range) are discarded since they tend to be high cost, difficult to operate and tend to be comparable in that sense with nanosatellites, with the drawback of needing a very qualified operator systematically present for operation. ENTRUST has concentrated mainly on the solution of low altitude (50-100m-commercially available) and low cost drones maximum few k€ such as Freefly plateforms or Nordic Unmanned UAVs.

The main constraints for the payload in case of drones choice are:

  • - Volume: as small as possible : typical: 20cmx20cmx20cm

  • - Mass: as small as possible : range 1 to 5 kg, varies from one drone to another and impacts the flight time)

  • - Operational flight time: 15min to 50min (depends on payload weight). Depending on operation, to cover a full field, several drones need to be used

  • - Cost of the total system (plateform + instrument): Max around 10k€-20k€, to be paid by the end user. Operator cost to be added.

  • - Cost of the camera: lower cost as possible, to be in line with the business model associated, eg price max around the platform cost, few k€

  • - Operational model: End User operated for image retrieval or service to be put in place in local EU: network of operators to be developed

Nanosatellites considerations and operational constraints

Nanosatellites development has increased dramatically in the early 21st century thanks to the rapid evolution and commercial development of the space industry together with electronic miniaturization. Most are placed in Low Earth Orbit and enable various operational work from science, student work up to commercial service developments in various fields (telecommunications, Earth Observation and alert purposes etc.). Beside the low cost advantage of such a solution, one of the important asset of nanosatellites is the possibility, for a relatively low cost compared to standard mission, to get high revisit time thanks to the use of constellation strategies (ex. RapidEye constellation covering the total Earth with a 3.5 hours revisit time instead of 1 or 2 days revisit time for standard satellites29). Several nanosatellites commercial developers and manufacturers includes: Endurosat, Gomspace, Nanoavionics, Nanospace, Surrey Satellite Technology, NovaWurks, Dauria aeropsapce etc. and this field tends to develop more and more.

In Europe, several missions have been encompassing Hyperspectral instruments30, however, none are compatible with the aforementioned needs. Regular missions are too heavy and expensive, with most of the time insufficient revisit time.

For ENTRUST, the idea behind this solution, compared to the previous one, is to be closest to the service already developed by Planetek, Rheticus Marine, by exploiting similar source of data. The advantages being that once the satellite is launched it requires few maintenances and operation compared to drone usage (no need for an operator on the site). The drawback being the higher cost, with typical costs ranging from few hundred of k€ for students like grades nanosats, not adapted to the current commercial need in terms of performances and reliability, up to a few M€ total cost for manufacturing and launch, for regular nanosatellite mission.

The main constraints in case of nanosatellite choice are:

  • - Mass: 5 to 20kg acceptable depending on the platform

  • - Volume: to be minimized, depends also strongly on the platform. 3U to 6U maximum to minimize cost and enable a constellation strategy

  • - Cost of the mission: maximum 1M€, to be minimized

  • - Cost of the camera: maximum 1/10th of the total budget can be acceptable; the minimization of this cost enables the minimization of the complete mission coast which will raise the acceptability of this solution with respect to the market

  • - Operational model: Two options: Option 1: totally private mission; end user buys the mission and operation and data analysis and support is provided by Planetek for the end user, as a supplementary service. In case of non specialist end user (ex. Fishery association), the operation of the satellite needs to be provided by a third party; Option 2 : development of Planetek competences’, who takes the role of service provider and satellite operator

  • - Mission duration: as long as possible. Typical Cubesat missions are nowadays quite short time, typically a couple of years, and one of the challenges would be to increase as much as possible the mission duration, to decrease the total cost of the mission for the service to be economically viable. Increase to mission lifetime >4years is the target

Trade off discussion

Based on preliminary service specifications (Table 2), the Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) together with the SWATH are the first main parameters to be taken into account. Both have impacts on the possibility to downstream the Copernicus data, as well as importance on the overall coverage linked to the targeted applications.

By taking into consideration, performances, ease of operation the table 3 below summarizes main advantages and disadvantages of each solution.

According to this table, the nanosatellite solution is more compatible with the current service needs, both because of simpler operational model, as well as because of GSD compatibility. Indeed, the typical GSD with drones is in the cm range, which changes drastically the data retrieval strategy and in particular limits strongly the synergy with the Copernicus system, for the time being.

Therefore, ENTRUST will concentrate on the nanosatellite case, with the aim of finding as much as possible strategies to minimize the mission price, this being by hardware price strategies (NewSpace and COTS components use) or by finding acceptable solutions for end users to share common prices.

Table 3.

Trade off table drones versus nanosatellite. With respect to the current application needs, nanosatellite is recommended

 Drone caseNanosatellite case
Mass available for Payload1 to 5kg5 to 20kg
Volume available for Payload20x20x20cm maximumAdjustable depending on plateform-
Total targeted Cost10-20k€<1M€
Operational modelOperator needed on terrain for each measurementOperatorless once launched
Mission DurationAs long as needed (easily duplicable)2 years-typical
Technical Performances for the serviceGSD (cm range) : not compatible with downstream needGSD compatible (m range)

Nanosatellite Instrument Feasibility

Several aspects were checked in order to assess more in details the constraints at camera level. In particular a first simplified radiometric model has been implemented in order to derive important camera parameters such as:

  • - Camera focal length

  • - Number of pixels across track

  • - Type of detector

  • - Full Well Capacitance of the detector

  • - Typical integration time scenario

This first evaluation has been done with some assumptions that will most probably be refined in a demonstrator phase, in particular regarding:

  • - The 600km orbit,

  • - The hypothesis on maximum/minimum radiances values, taken from Sentinel 2; while the mission could most probably restrict this range due to the restriction of observation over coastal areas and/or restrict the observational range and thus relax the constraints on the camera level.

Based on these assumptions, the following preliminary parameters have been derived (Table 4), in order to allow the scan of the market in terms of available cameras:

Table 4.

First iteration of camera parameters. The radiance range can be covered with a single capacitance, however the linearity range for the detector as well as SNR will be strongly degraded in Low Flux cases; the best option is to have a second “small” Full Well Capacitance of about 1 order of magnitude below.

ParameterUnitValue
Flight Altitudem600000
GSD accross trackm16
SWATHkm68
Aperture diameterm1,00E-01
Entrance pupil aream20,007853982
Pixel view solid anglesr7,5625E-10
Instrument optics mean transmission (including gratings or filter T)N/A60%
Camera focal lengthcm20
Pixel pitchμm5,5
Detector number of pixels X (accross track)N/A4096
Detector number of Pixels Y (Wavelegnht)N/A1000
Detector Quantum EfficiencyN/A50%
Detector Integration times0,005
ADC converterbits12
Signal level due to the Scene L MiniLrefL Max
Typical Scene radiances, ToAW.m-2μm-1sr-1190615,5
Wavelengthnm865444490
Spectral resolutionμm0,0110,0110,011
Photon Energy at wavelengthJ2,29595E-194,47297E-194,05306E-19
Number of electrons created on the spectral bandwidthe-4,27E+021,97E+041,49E+05
  Big capacitanceSmall Capacitance 
Full Well Capacitance (FWC) needede-1,64E+052,85E+04 
%FWC in ideal case (big capacitance)%0,26%12%91%
%FWC in ideal case (small capacitance)%1,50%69%523%

The radiances values can be almost appropriately covered with one Full Well Capacitance of about 160ke-, and one reasonable integration time of 5ms, however, to enable proper measurements and spectrum comparison, in particular at low radiances, it is recommended to use either 2 integration times or 2 full well capacitances. The solution with 2 Full Well Capacitances is preferred for reasons linked to calibration: the best option would be 160ke- and 30ke-.

Three manufacturers were identified as best option for this application; they were selected on the criteria of:

  • - the industrial capacity of the partner in order to enable regular commercial delivery of satellites

  • - the information available on the closest performances to the requirements

From these 3 manufacturers, the camera performances were more deeply investigated and compared to the specification needed; Unfortunately, only little technical information is available from Dragonfly aerospace, beside several contact attempts to get more information. The table below compares the available information.

Table 5.

Comparison of 3 off the shelves hyperspectral cameras, at 3 different manufacturers. Cosine is the closest to the requirements for the ENTRUST mission. Note that Media Lario (Streego) has also been considered in a first instance but disregarded as the proposed camera is too heavy and thus does not ensure high compatibility with nanosat constraints.

 RequirementSimera Sense Hyperscape 100Cosine Hyperscout-SDragon Fly Chameleon-HS
SWATH (km)68 (equivalent to 57km@500km)19,4 @500km115 @500 km20
GSD (m)17 (equivalent to 14m@500km)4,75@500km28 @500km20
Orbit600kmN/A(mission dependant)N/A(mission dependant)N/A (mission dependant)
Camera focal lenght (cm)205810Not disclosed
Aperture diameter (entrance pupil) (m)1,00E-010,0950,025Not disclosed
total optics mean transmission (including filters/dispersive element)60%Not disclosedNot disclosedNot disclosed
Pixel pitch (μm)5,55,55,5Not disclosed
Number of pixels (accross track)409640964096Not disclosed
Numer of pixels (along track)1000Not disclosedNot disclosedNot disclosed
Spectral Range (nm)400-860442-884 (Option 4)450-950Not disclosed
Numer of bands543250 nominal (up to 120)148
Bandwidth resolution (nm)0,0110,0190,016Not disclosed
Detector Quantum efficiency50%Not disclosedNot disclosedNot disclosed
Full Well Capacitance : Big Capacitance (High Flux) (e-)1640001350013500Not disclosed
Full Well Capacitance : Small Capacitance (Low Flux) (e-)28000NANANot disclosed
ADC converter (bits)1212128 or 16
SNR100 over all bands15 to 8050 to 100Not disclosed
Type of detectorCMOSCMOS Global ShutterCMOSNot disclosed
Dimensions3U to 6U cubesat compatible98x98x176mm1,6U10x10x21.5 cm
Type of dispersive element cameraLVF preferredNot disclosedLVFNot disclosed
Mass (kg)1,51,11,31,6
Data transfer and processingas much as possible Processing on boardNot disclosedL0 to L2A available on boardNot disclosed
Power consumption (W)107910
Space heritageTBDTID up to 15kradPartially (TBC)TID 30krad

From the table, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • - the closest camera for ENTRUST mission is the Hyperscout-S from Cosine, being the closest in terms of GSD and SWATH, SNR and bandwidth; as well as encompassing onboard processing

  • - However, the use of a very small Full Well Capacitance (13,5ke-) does not enable to cover the full dynamic range with a single integration time, and implies a very small integration time for the high flux range which feasibility will have to be checked; Note that the same detector is used by most of hyperspectral camera manufacturers, which shows a room for improvement for market needs

  • - The price of the camera still needs to be refined and discussed with the suppliers as most of them are above the 100k€ limit price set for the mission in order to allow a constellation strategy, in a Low cost-Newspace model. This will have to be refined in a future phase

To deal with the technical limitations linked to the detector FWC in particular, a second option has been studied: the use of a specific detector as close as possible to the requirements, to be integrated in either an existing of custom camera in link with the application. The main parameter investigated in this respect is the Full Well Capacitance requirement that would enable to cope with the large Dynamic Range.

We have investigated the following possibilities with two very different strategies in mind:

  • - Pyxalis with its GIGAPYX detector, tailored for space use, with a rad hard design

  • - G-Pixel with its GSENS400 BSI, scientific grade detector not space qualified but closest to our need on the market

Investigation is currently on-going with e2V with a potential supplementary alternative.

The 2 possibilities offer a wider dynamic range. The table below (table 6) compares the different possibilities with the requirements at service level.

Table 6.

Detectors customization options. Pyxalis is the closest to the current need, with improved FWC and dual FWC possibilities which matches the mission scenario needs (see Table 4).

 RequirementPyxalis-GigaPixG-Pixel-GSENS400BSI
SWATH (km) @600km Orbit6810967
GSD (m) @600km Orbit171333
Pixel pitch5,54,411
Number of pixels (accross track)409683202048
Numer of pixels (along track)100054652048
Spectral Range (nm)400-860350-950nm300-900nm
Numer of bands54TBD (LVF-feasible)TBD - LVF to be discussed
Bandwidth resolution0,011TBDTBD
Detector Quantum efficiency50%>50% on [450-650] / 25% [650-850]>50% [350-850nm]
Full Well Capacitance : Big Capacitance (High Flux)1640005000090000
Full Well Capacitance : Small Capacitance (Low Flux)280005000NA
ADC converter (bits)1212 
SNR100 over all bandsTBDTBD
Type of detectorCMOSCMOS Rolling ShutterCMOS Rolling Shutter
Power consumption10W<6W (without cooling)3,5W (without cooling)
Space heritage RadHard DesignNo heritage, Scientific grade detector, to be qualified

Pyxalis GigaPyx is the closest to our requirements, both in terms of Higher Dynamic range, as well as multiple capacitance and low noise; in addition, the manufacturer has already worked on the possible integration of Linear Variable Filters suitable for the application, which is a plus. However, at the moment, no hyperspectral camera incorporates such detector which means that either a camera should be specifically developed or a discussion should be started with current hyperspectral camera manufacturers to evaluate whether the detector can be integrated in one of their camera, with little adaptation. Nevertheless, it confirms the importance of the detector as a Key Enabling Technology for such application, and the possibility to open new markets for hyperspectral camera manufacturers for similar applications.

5.

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

In conclusion, different system hypothesis were investigated in order to match the needs of water quality service feasibility. In summary, it was shown that:

  • - the hardware related to a water quality monitoring service is feasible

  • - A nanosatellite solution is more adapted than a drone solution in the short term for the application

  • - Three cameras off the shelves have been identified, with Cosine Hypercout-S being the closest to the requirements, with however a question mark on the High Dynamic Range needed to accommodate the full flux

  • - A better solution with respect to technical feasibility would be to integrate the Pyxalis GIGAPYX 4600, which, in the case of a specific camera integration, would match most of the requirements to be compatible with the water quality monitoring application; however, a custom or tailored camera would have to be manufactured, and the question remains about the targeted price range

From a market perspective, it is important to highlight that the use of nanosatellites today is primarily for large companies that may afford paying this service; to enable a wider spread of this technology three possibilities were identified, such as:

  • - using and sharing an existing nanosatellite together with others, that is less costs, but waiting for a common launching and sharing the data that the nanosatellite camera is providing with possible limitation on performances; Synergy could be looked at from a Scientific perspective

  • - launching a specific nanosatellite for the service, by teaming with a specific nanosatellite operator; the cost would be higher however, the nano satellite may be equipped with the necessary camera; precise business model has to be refined

Concerning drones, their use can still be interesting for local/regional, small companies that need a random service, or a regulate one, fully decided by its own management. Nevertheless, there is still technical work to be endorsed to see how to maintain high performances in water quality retrieval, specially at data treatment level.

The next step for the ENTRUST project is to go towards practical demonstration, to validate not only the hardware configuration, but also to validate the data treatment scheme, that was not exposed within this paper. This demonstration would enable not only to be at the forefront of water quality management and monitoring for Europe, with innovative technologies and services, but could also be a first step to define better what type of information would be more relevant in the frame of the future upcoming missions such as the Copernicus future Sentinels.

The research and development leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 Program “UFO project” under Grant Agreement 873411.

The authors would like to thanks the UFO consortium for its active support, as well as detector manufacturers and camera vendors for fruitful discussions on their available products.

REFERENCES

[1] 

Small, C., & Nicholls, R. J, “A Global Analysis of Human Settlement in Coastal Zones,” Journal of Coastal Research, 19 (3), 584 –599 (2003). Google Scholar

[2] 

Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J., “Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding—A Global Assessment,” PLOS ONE, 10 (3), e0118571 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571 Google Scholar

[3] 

Environment, U. N., “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UNEP,” UN Environment Programme, (2017). Google Scholar

[4] 

McGranahan, G., Balk, D., & Anderson, B., “The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones,” Environment and Urbanization, 19 (1), 17 –37 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247807076960 Google Scholar

[5] 

Hugo, G., “Future demographic change and its interactions with migration and climate change,” Global Environmental Change, 21 S21 –S33 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.008 Google Scholar

[6] 

OECD, “The Ocean Economy in 2030,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2016). Google Scholar

[7] 

Vandeweerd, V., Bernal, P., Belfiore, S., Goldstein, K., & Cicin-Sain, B., “A Guide to Oceans, Coasts, and Islands at the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” [Working Paper]. Center for the Study of Marine Policy, (2002). Google Scholar

[8] 

Environment, U. N., “In the front line: Shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral reefs,” UNEP - UN Environment Programme, (2017). Google Scholar

[9] 

Martínez, M. L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., & Landgrave, R., “The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance,” Ecological Economics, 63 (2), 254 –272 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022 Google Scholar

[10] 

Gattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A., Billé, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Howes, E. L., Joos, F., Allemand, D., Bopp, L., Cooley, S. R., Eakin, C. M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kelly, R. P., Pörtner, H.-O., Rogers, A. D., Baxter, J. M., Laffoley, D., Osborn, D., Rankovic, A., Rochette, J., … Turley, C., “Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios,” OCEANOGRAPHYScience (New York, N.Y.), 349 (6243), aac4722 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4722 Google Scholar

[11] 

Andreeva, E., Arthurton, R., Baird, D., Behrendt, H., Bokuniewicz, H., Buddemeier, R., Burbridge, P., Burnett, W., Camacho-Ibar, V., Campbell, J., Chen, C.-T. A., Cooper, L., Costanza, R., Crossland, C., David, L., Dennison, W., Ducrotoy, J.-P., Denton, K., Dupra, V., & Yim, W., Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene, (2005). Google Scholar

[12] 

Luo, P., Kang, S., Apip, Zhou, M., Lyu, J., Aisyah, S., Binaya, M., Regmi, R. K., & Nover, D., Water quality trend assessment in Jakarta: A rapidly growing Asian megacity, PLoS ONE, 14 (7), e0219009 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219009 Google Scholar

[13] 

Gholizadeh, M. H., Melesse, A. M., & Reddi, L., “A Comprehensive Review on Water Quality Parameters Estimation Using Remote Sensing Techniques,” Sensors, 16 (8), 1298 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/s16081298 Google Scholar

[14] 

Lillesand, T., Kiefer, R. W., & Chipman, J., “Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation,” 7thWiley(2015). Google Scholar

[15] 

Heywood, I., Cornelius, S., & Carver, S., An Introduction to Geographical Information Systems, 4thPearson(2012). Google Scholar

[16] 

Rees, W. G., Physical Principles of Remote Sensing, Cambridge University Press(2013). Google Scholar

[17] 

Sathyendranath, S., & IOCCG, “Remote sensing of ocean colour in coastal, and other optically-complex, waters,” [Report], International Ocean Colour Coordinating Group (IOCCG), (2000). https://doi.org/10.25607/OBP-95 Google Scholar

[18] 

Palacios, S., Kudela, R., Guild, L., Negrey, K., Torres, J., & Schulien, J., “Remote sensing of phytoplankton functional types in the coastal ocean from the HyspIRI Preparatory Flight Campaign,” Remote Sensing of Environment, 167 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.05.014 Google Scholar

[19] 

Klemas, V., “Coastal and Environmental Remote Sensing from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: An Overview,” Journal of Coastal Research, 315 1260 –1267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00005.1 Google Scholar

[20] 

Abbas, M. M., Melesse, A. M., Scinto, L. J., & Rehage, J. S., “Satellite Estimation of Chlorophyll-a Using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Sensor in Shallow Coastal Water Bodies: Validation and Improvement,” Water, 11 (8), 1621 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081621 Google Scholar

[21] 

Govender, M., Chetty, K., & Bulcock, H., “A review of hyperspectral remote sensing and its application in vegetation and water resource studies,” Water SA, 33 (2), 145 –151 (2007). https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC116430 Google Scholar

[24] 

D. Labate, M. Ceccherini, A. Cisbani, V. De Cosmo, C. Galeazzi, L. Giunti, M. Melozzi, S. Pieraccini, M. Stagi, “The PRISMA payload optomechanical design, a high performance instrument for a new hyperspectral mission,” Acta Astronautica, 65 (9–10), 1429 –1436 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.077 0094-5765 Google Scholar

[25] 

J. Nieke, F. Borde, C. Mavrocordatos, B. Berruti, Y. Delclaud, J-B. Riti, T. Garnier, “The Ocean and Land Colour Imager (OLCI) for the Sentinel 3 GMES Mission: status and first test results,” Proc. SPIEEarth Observing Missions and Sensors: Development, Implementation, and Characterization II, 8528 85280C (2012). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.977247 Google Scholar

[26] 

Vincent Chorvalli, Vincent Cazaubiel, Stefan Bursch, Mario Welsch, Heinz Sontag, Philippe Martimort, Umberto Del Bello, Omar Sy, Paolo Laberinti, François Spoto, “Design and development of the Sentinel-2 Multi Spectral Instrument and satellite system,” Proc. SPIESensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XIV, 7826 78260J (2010). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.865749 Google Scholar

[27] 

A. Zuccaro Marchi, L. Maresi, M. Taccola, “Technologies and designs for small optical missions,” in International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2018, 111801Z (2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2535990 Google Scholar

[28] 

Adao T., Hruska J., Padua L. Bessa J., Peres E., Morais R., Sousa J.J., “Hyperspectral Imaging : a review on UAV-Based Sensors,” Data Processing and Applications for Agriculture and Forestry, Remote Sens, 9 1110 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs911110 Google Scholar

[30] 

Strese H., Ribes-Pleguezuelo P., Zuccaro Marchi A., Maresi L., “Hyperspectral innovation on instruments and technologies at the European Space Agency,” Proc. SPIEICSO 2020, 11852 1185269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2600234 Google Scholar
© (2023) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Y.-R. Nowicki-Bringuier, L. Jalba, D. Grigoriadis, and T. Valsamidis "Hyperspectral cameras designs and constraints for small satellite private EO missions: perspectives for coastal water quality monitoring applications and markets, the ENTRUST mission case", Proc. SPIE 12777, International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2022, 127777L (12 July 2023); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2691449
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Cameras

Water quality

Satellites

Capacitance

Remote sensing

Astronomical imaging

Sensors

Back to Top