[HN Gopher] The satellite imagery industry still has no idea wha... ___________________________________________________________________ The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want Author : campchase Score : 209 points Date : 2022-04-18 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (joemorrison.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (joemorrison.substack.com) | joeframbach wrote: | This post seems to begin _in media res_. I feel like I'm missing | a lot of context here. What exactly are we complaining about? Did | some event happen? | campchase wrote: | You are right - I wasn't really writing it for a general | audience, more for the few thousand people that are working | every day in the commercial satellite imagery industry. There's | no specific context to understand (beyond that I repeat myself | constantly, so for regular readers of mine none of what I | outlined in this essay is news). | mmaunder wrote: | I want SpaceX to put cameras on their Starlink fleet and provide | near real-time satellite views via a Google maps interface down | to 30cm resolution across most of the planet. As they phase out | old birds and deploy new ones this is feasible for them. Each | bird already has connectivity. They just need the cameras. | victor22 wrote: | I heard their new feets will be able to charge at a faster | speed when sitting on a compatible pole wire. | campchase wrote: | Unfortunately, physics won't allow for that - with optical | instruments you need a big aperture (lens) or you need to fly | much lower than Starlink, or both. 1 or 2m imagery may | definitely be possible, though! Check out BlackSky for | reference. | Frost1x wrote: | If you can assume the scene you're capturing is fairly static | over time, you can sometimes sort of cheat physics a little | bit (keeping space constant and leveraging time) by | resampling areas multiple times from different perspectives | and cleverly combining that data together | | Problem is that most the interesting bits people want more | data on are quite dynamic in space and time, not just time. | Even when it's not you don't gain linear subsampling | improvements and eventually get diminishing returns with such | approaches. | maxerickson wrote: | Worldview-4 (a commercial 30-cm satellite) had a reasonably | similar orbit and 10 times of the mass of a Starlink satellite. | Even if they are able to significantly improve on that design, | it's still going to be a pretty big "just need the camera". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldView-4 | Eric_WVGG wrote: | > Allow me to put it more succinctly: selling derived data as a | subscription product does. not. work. I don't care what it is. | The juice is never worth the squeeze.1 Count cars. Count | airplanes. Count ships. Segment land cover. Track oil | inventories. Estimate biofuels. Measure water levels. Etc. Etc. | Etc. | | I see that he outlined a few exceptions at the footnote... I'll | also add Plaid. I think this guy is making some huge | generalizations that don't hold up beyond his industry. | | But that said, I recently downgraded two potential startups based | on data feeds to personal projects because I realized that nobody | really pays for data, and if there is any value then the | providers will figure that out inevitably... | | Another recent example: I've been using Deliveries for Mac and | iOS for over fifteen years, a very simple, perfectly-designed, | laser focused app. Both Amazon (not surprising) and Fed Ex (quite | surprising) have decided that freely providing delivery dates to | consumers is too valuable to leave to third parties, so the | beloved app is shuttering sometime this year. | https://junecloud.com/journal/iphone/the-future-of-deliverie... | inglor wrote: | I agree - some more exceptions: Hedge funds and VCs as well as | brokers and other investors definitely _do_ pay for insights on | top of public data feeds. TipRanks (worked there 2012-2017) is | a big'ish (profitable) company doing (mostly) exactly that. | campchase wrote: | I agree-most of my observations here do not apply broadly | beyond the satellite imagery. One of my favorite resources for | learning how "data as a service" businesses work (when they | work) is the "World of DaaS" podcast that Auren Hoffman hosts: | https://www.safegraph.com/podcasts | dmitriid wrote: | I found his own Twitter mini-feed he linked more valuable than | the article: | https://twitter.com/mouthofmorrison/status/15153275070793482... | mikestew wrote: | _Fed Ex (quite surprising) have decided that freely providing | delivery dates to consumers is too value to leave to third | parties..._ | | ...or to leave to the shipping endpoint customer, either. I can | 't tell you how many clicks it takes to determine when a | particular shipment will arrive at my door. Off the top of my | head: | | 0. Email from vendor: "your package has shipped!" | | 1. Log in to the Fedex account. | | 2. One would _think_ that post-login that it would take your | straight away to the "Manage Your Deliveries" page, because | what is the most common action taken by a residential customer | post-login? (My guess is, they want to find out when their | stuff is going t show up.) But alas, no. It just takes you to | the main page, but now you're logged in. | | 3. Search for that deliveries page...what is it called? Oh, | wait, here's a Track button. Nope, that's not the one you want. | Go click some more. | | 4. Finally find the Manage Your Deliveries option in some | buried menu. Click it. It won't take your directly to the | shipment that you originally were looking for, but it's in the | neighborhood. | | 5. Ah, the Manage Your Deliveries page, where I can find out | when the package will arrive. | | 6. "A label has been created, but the shipment hasn't been | dropped off yet, so we haven't the first fucking clue when your | package will arrive. But be sure to come back tomorrow to do | this whole exercise again!" | | I'm almost to the point of preferring vendors that use DHL | instead of FedEx. It's _that_ bad. | molticrystal wrote: | >I can't tell you how many clicks | | I don't know your situation but it always seemed to be | streamline for me to be: | | 0. Email with tracking number 123456789 | | 1. https://www.fedex.com/fedextrack/?trknbr=123456789 into | address bar | bagels wrote: | Just Google search the tracking number. Google will link to | the status. | InCityDreams wrote: | I've no skin in the game but having dealt with tracking a | single fedex today, i found it to be a remarkably ok | experience. No login, though. Their 'notifications by email' | section was pretty messed up. | kccqzy wrote: | You don't need to log in or even create an account at FedEx | just to track deliveries. You just need the tracking number. | It's the first thing you see when you go to the homepage of | fedex.com | tepitoperrito wrote: | You do need to login to see information on individual box | delivery statuses. | | Otherwise, you just get the "master tracking number" | delivery estimate which seems to be based off of the first | box delivery date, not the date all the boxes will have | arrived. | | There's probably a good reason things are that way for | delivery tracking (see chesterson's fence). But the rabbit | hole doesn't end there! Reports generated from their own | customer portal don't include per-box delivery dates. They | all show the delivery date of the FIRST box. This is | extremely frustrating when trying to make accurate models | for forecasting, or even just lead time estimation. | | They do this to make it harder to compare their services to | competitors like DHL (oodles better than FedEX - but there | are risk management considerations and also capacity | issues) and it ends up harming businesses trying to serve | their own customers better. This is especially annoying | since they have really granular data internally that go | into even more detail than just delivery date on a per box | level. | | Attached is a screenshot of a spreadsheet fed by some | internal SQL database and macros that can spit out per box | information including delay reason (weather, transit, act | of God) and even number of hours late. | | https://ibb.co/k3sNxYz macro / control sheet | https://ibb.co/Zzjw8TV selected column titles | | If anyone at FedEX is reading this please consider pushing | the narrative that your business customers aren't the end | of the line for the goods you move. If anyone who DOESN'T | work at FedEX is reading this, I can email you a redacted | copy of the spreadsheet I referenced above (just send it to | tepitoperrito AT 420blaze DOT it). | mikestew wrote: | This is not news to me. But of the four or so commenters | saying basically the same thing (you don't need to log in), | it does not seem odd that the user experience sucks less if | one does NOT establish at the beginning that one has an | account for such things? What the hell is that whole | "Manage Delivers" page for, then? | | But telling me I'm doing it wrong for using an advertised | feature, yeah, that's less than useful. | lupire wrote: | Similarly, if you are not logged into Google, but have a | cookie, and try to view a _public_ user-shared document, | login wall. No cookie? Document just works. | Spooky23 wrote: | Sounds like you're trying to use a delivery portal but didn't | finish setting it up. | | I use the UPS version as I get alot of UPS packages. They | typically email me once the shipment is picked up, typically | before the sender does. They have a dashboard where you can | see all inbound shipments as well. This requires registration | and address validation, but not a UPS "account". | dylan604 wrote: | How many people receiving FedEx packages from online | purchases actually have an account with FedEx to log into? In | the words of Steve Jobs, "You're holding it wrong". | altdataseller wrote: | "recently downgraded two potential startups based on data feeds | to personal projects" | | Do you mean as an investment or place to work? And what type of | data feeds were they, broadly? | theobeers wrote: | I think they were referring to their own startup ideas. (I | was also momentarily confused because "downgrade" tends to be | used in the context of investments.) | delusional wrote: | I think this might be a case of the "grind" mindset, where | ones own time is also seen as an investment. Hence the | investment lingo. | Eric_WVGG wrote: | lol. Was I using investment lingo? How humiliating. | | I managed to put together an MVP of a service that would | push notifications for stuff like "tell me when my | favorite musicians/novelists/artists have new | consumable," all the while thinking "if any of these | people were smart they would have done this a decade | ago." Of course Amazon started pushing out the book | stuff, and Apple Music with music, just a few months | after I got the back-end APIs working. | | uh, so yes... grind, I guess | 0des wrote: | its not the grind minset, thats reality. time has a cost. | altdataseller wrote: | Is this true for all datasets that financial institutions might | want to buy or only satellite imagery? | campchase wrote: | Not broadly true in my opinion. To give an example from the | financial services industry: | | * Satellite provider or analytics firm sells "car counts" for | retail stores | | * Financial institution is intrigued; this must correlate with | sales, right? | | * But..why don't we just buy credit card transaction data and | foot traffic data from clearing houses and GPS trace providers? | | I often liken satellite imagery to salt. It's great to finish a | dish, but should never be consumed alone. If you don't believe | the foot traffic data or credit card transaction data you're | buying, you can use satellite data to check it or refine the | model. But that's a niche within a niche. | | The other issue I pointed out in that article is customer savvy | --if you're a quant fund sophisticated enough to make use of an | arcane data feed, you're very likely sophisticated enough to | generate that feed yourself from raw data. And if you do it | yourself, it's suddenly part of a "proprietary" solution. So | you'd rather just buy images and do the heavy lifting that pay | a premium to buy a data feed that doesn't quite solve your | problem by itself. | [deleted] | [deleted] | ARandumGuy wrote: | I think this applies to a lot of types of data. Selling | "insights" is really just selling a filtered version of the raw | data. If the client's needs match up with your filters, then | you've saved them a lot of work. However, if the filters don't | match up perfectly with the client's needs then they'll need to | do filtering and processing themselves. And in that case, | they'll likely get better results just working with the raw | data, instead of whatever data you think they need. | ska wrote: | I suspect it is at least approximately true of all data sets | that are both broadly applicable and difficult to acquire (i.e. | requires domain expertise to acquire). | annoyingnoob wrote: | I found the animated gifs distracting, it took away from whatever | you are trying to convey (for me). | annoyingnoob wrote: | https://www.cameronsworld.net | WestCoastJustin wrote: | Fan of https://zombo.com/ myself. | campchase wrote: | I don't mind you saying this - I think my style is very off- | putting to some. The same things that disenchant you about the | style are what make others love it. I try to be entertaining | and informative, rather than just informative, because that's | what makes it enjoyable for me. But like all entertainment, | it's stylized, so it will put some people off. Hopefully you | found the content valuable, at least! | annoyingnoob wrote: | For me, its not so much the presence of animated gifs as much | as I wanted to be able to scroll one off of the screen while | I focused on the words. For me, the top 30% of the page had | something moving no matter where I scrolled. I can appreciate | style and levity but for me the busy screen was enough to | drive me away. Looks my Reader mode would have blocked all of | the images and should have just gone with that ;) | campchase wrote: | That's great feedback, I will avoid .gifs in my future blog | posts. I can see how that would be distracting and an | accessibility issue. | vgel wrote: | I appreciated the gifs, personally. Added some humor to | the article. Maybe there's a way to have them not | autoplay or something. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Maybe just space them out more. | bromuro wrote: | Please, think about us living in poor countries with | expensive and slow internet connections. | campchase wrote: | Thank you, I will do that in the future. | woah wrote: | https://makeagif.com/i/RLd9kS | dylan604 wrote: | Yeah, I have decided I'm just too old for this style. Something | wants to be serious, but then it tries to be cute by adding all | of the GIFs that do nothing to enhance. I'm all for adding | media in whatever format that adds to the understanding of the | material. These kinds of garnishes are no better than the | animated backgrounds of MySpace and Web1.0 days. Now, get off | my lawn!!! | retrocryptid wrote: | sure. but working in aeeospace is cool. | countvonbalzac wrote: | I'm confused what the author is trying to argue? | | 1. People don't want satellite data they want their problem to be | solved | | So a company like Planet shouldn't (just) get satellite data they | should solve problems. | | 2. Companies can't do 2 things at once well | | So Planet actually has to choose between solving problems or just | getting satellite data | | 3. Companies like Arturo have good focus and solve the problem of | climate risk for insurance | | So Arturo should stay focused on that, but where do they get the | data from? Planet right? So Planet does have a set of customers | for its data? | | -- | | Edit: I re-read the article and maybe I'm just confused on the | wording. Is he saying that raw data is valuable and worthwhile | for satellite companies to sell but they should not do anything | to the data before try to sell it? | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | I can get not how this might get lost if you are looking at it | from outside the industry. Realistically, Planet should be in | the business of selling pixels in mass. However, Planet has | decided that isn't enough for them, they want more of the value | add. This is built into their licencing/ ToS. However, their | black box analytic solutions simply aren't good enough. They | never have been and if they arent willing to give you a full | chain of custody of every assumption a given algorithm uses, it | never will be. Any solution that isn't completely translucent | isn't good enough. | | If they wanted to be crushing it, lower the cost/ barrier to | entry on the pixels themselves. Get it out into peoples hands | and use more open, easier to build on licenses. Let people | actually use the data. | | I've been on the other side of 5 failed attempts to work with | Planet at large, medium, non-profit and startup scale projects, | as early as 2016 and as late as 2021. They just don't get it. | If your data isn't easy to use, I wont. If your license is | going to prevent me from building what I need to from that | data, I wont use it. | campchase wrote: | That is, indeed, exactly what I am arguing. Either: | | * Just sell data or; | | * Just sell applications powered by your proprietary source of | data | | Do not: | | * Sell derived/refined data as a half-measure | | * Sell both applications and wholesale data at the same time | | If you feel like that doesn't make sense, you are not alone. | Almost everyone in the industry disagrees with my views on this | topic based on how they run their businesses. Satellogic is one | notable exception. But I can't think of a single other provider | that would agree with me. | dylan604 wrote: | Who are you to tell a company what they can sell. If they | want to sell the raw data so people can do whatever they want | with it, then sound reasonable. If they also want to sell | data with some analysis already applied so that other people | can buy that data because they don't have in-house for it and | just want pretty pictures to put in the deck, then why not | sell that too? | | You don't always have to order the biggie fries and drink, | you can just order the standard meal. | altdataseller wrote: | You can do anything you want. | | The OPs point is that it won't be profitable/effective, | that's all. | [deleted] | palata wrote: | Where does a system like https://picterra.ch/ lie? They seem | to provide a way to tune algorithms for your images. Are | those "algorithms nobody want", or is that helping niche use- | cases (by allowing customisation)? | | Disclaimer: never actually used their system, just saw | presentations about it, which show how one can train an | algorithm to count... stuff. | campchase wrote: | Also, full disclosure, I work for a satellite imagery | provider (https://umbra.space/) where we're executing on the | "just sell data" strategy, so I'm fully corrupted as far as | seeing the Truth when my own ego and self interest is | inextricably wrapped up in this debate. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Do yall have any plan to do work in the vis/IR space? | campchase wrote: | No, but I'm close with Albedo who is pursuing the same | strategy in vis and IR: https://albedo.com/ | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | I'm in complete agreement with this point of view, with about | 22 years experience in the remote sensing space, ~10 of that | in private industry. | | And its not just Planet that is hung-up on this same failed | business model. Its also Hexagon, and a myriad of other | earth-observation providers. Some are so difficult to work | with its literally cheaper to go buy an airplane and a wide | format camera and roll your own. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _its not just Planet that is hung-up on this same failed | business model_ | | There's a new one like every picosecond." It's "delivery, | but for dorm rooms" for space tech. | randomluck040 wrote: | I would love to know more about the possibilities of Remote | Sensing in the private industry. I'm working in academia | and have the feeling that I'm in an echo chamber all day | every day and no insights at all. Any chance I can contact | you or can you point me into a direction? | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Sure, check my profile. | countvonbalzac wrote: | Thanks for the reply! I'm curious where you draw the line | between derived data and a full application for something | like modeling climate risk for insurance? | frakkingcylons wrote: | > Sell both applications and wholesale data at the same time | | Bloomberg comes to mind since they offer wholesale access to | data in addition to all the terminal functions. | campchase wrote: | Interesting example! Planet sometimes describes themselves | as "Bloomberg for Earth Observation" or something along | those lines. | _puk wrote: | "Bloomberg for x.." strikes me as just the modern | corporate version of "Uber for x..". | | I've heard so many founders try to describe their | business as "Bloomberg for.." when trying to describe a | mixed focus offering of products that I immediately hear | alarm bells nowadays. | mturmon wrote: | I found the argument(s) interesting although the animations hurt | readability and clarity. | | I've watched the area of commercialized remote sensing products | with some interest, because I'm in the _non-commercial_ remote | sensing line. | | The way NASA handles derived data products is (broadly) through | "levels": L0: measurement, still in instrument | native units (e.g., DN's) L1: calibrated and put into | physical units (e.g., watts/cm2) L2: scientifically-useful | product (surface reflectance at 450nm, CO2 concentration) | L3: L2 that has been aggregated into a map, possibly also across | time or instrument L4: data has been filtered through a | time-stepped physics-based model | | The lowest level that's commonly useful for applications is L2. A | decent-sized satellite might have several L2 data products | serving different user communities, e.g., CO2 concentration, | methane concentration, and photosynthetic activity can all be | recovered from remote-sensing spectroscopy, but they serve | different uses. | | One advantage of the above decomposition is that L2-L4 data can | be validated with in-situ measurements. They are not just indexes | -- they are targeted at a certain physically-measurable quantity. | | This allows judgement whether the intermediate products (L2 CO2) | are actually good, or improving. It also allows combining | intermediate products from different sources (which is a hard | problem). This is because both sources are trying to measure _the | same thing_ by design. | | It is true that (for example) current spectroscopic remote | sensing allows retrieval of a _lot_ of L2 products for diverse | communities -- scores of products, from mineral abundance to | urban land use to agriculture to snow /ice to algae. | | I do agree with OP that it will be impossible for any company to | "cover the waterfront" of even half of these products. The | measurement and each individual product take a lot of effort to | get right. | | But it also seems like there are commercial opportunities for | some _specific_ such products -- e.g., methane concentration | /fluxes, or Evapotranspiration/soil moisture. | | Wouldn't a subscription-based service to these products allow for | continuous improvement of the underlying product, either through | new measurements or through better algorithms? | | So, in a nut, in the context of OP, what's the difference | between: | | -- an always-improving subscription-based "vertical service" for | a L2 product like I just described, | | vs. | | -- a "problem-solving application" like the OP is advocating? | campchase wrote: | Thanks for taking the time to write this out, great info. | | There are two hallmarks of an application that differentiate it | from a data service: | | 1. Earth observation is a minority of the data that it manages | and maintains | | 2. Users are not just presented with information, they are | prompted to take action | | I would argue that levels L3 and L4 are probably falling into | the same trap as the data feeds I described in the blog post. | Do you know if USGS publishes download metrics are available | for each dataset associated with Landsat, for instance? I bet | if you made a ratio of time/investment to downloads, you'd find | L2 outperforms all other categories. But I could be wrong; I | have never seen the download data and don't know the relative | levels of effort to produce each dataset they offer. | terrycrowley wrote: | This is a great example of the end-to-end argument. Putting | smarts in the middle doesn't end up working because you lose the | ability to optimize for the application semantics at the ends. | It's an "argument" so not guaranteed to be true in all cases but | applies here (according to the writer - I know nothing about the | specifics of this technology/industry). But interesting to see | the pattern recreated. | campchase wrote: | Thanks, Terry | waynecochran wrote: | I love this attitude: I am not rooting for | people to fail. We're building an industry together, not playing | a zero-sum game | | Of course this is not the way many folks see industry | competition. I think, for example, Intel, AMD, and nVidia can all | "win." In fact, when one improves they can all move forward. | campchase wrote: | The satellite imagery industry is quite small in terms of the | people who work in it. I love and respect the people who have | built the same products that I am indirectly critiquing in this | piece. | | This is a cool industry, because most of the effort is going | toward things like monitoring the effects of climate change, or | mapping natural disasters in real time to support crisis | response, or illuminating human rights violations around the | world. Rooting against the people working on that is icky. | | In my opinion, we're all competing against obscurity (who buys | satellite data today?!), not each other. | newbamboo wrote: | I predict this changing in 5 years or less, as demand | increases and the profit potential attracts new money. Hope | I'm wrong about that, because as you say there's so much | untapped potential value for a bunch of disparate, but | critically important fields. | lokimedes wrote: | As someone from the industry, all I really want, is a Netflix of | datasets. Planet.com, Capella, Maxar, ICEYE, AIRBUS etc.. I hate | the guts of their B2B business models. I want an aggregator, I | want basemaps that are refreshed on a best-effort basis (not by | me buying km^2 of observations), I want standardized formats and | metadata across vendors. Give me that, with some obscene, but | transparent pricing structure, that lets me explore for | discretionary funds and exploit for less money than triggering | tenders and investment decisions. Then, then you have what will | move the entire commercial earth observation industry out of the | CAPEX-fryer it's in today. For anything less, there's stiff | competition from ESA's free Sentinel satellites. | EugeneOZ wrote: | Impossible to read because of distracting animations. | | The new title of this post is much better, thx - it's kind of | tldr. | campchase wrote: | I agree, the new title is way better. To whoever changed it: | thanks! | nightpool wrote: | A year or so ago there was a long-ish discussion about | countthings.com--technologically, a very simple app that's | seemingly found a lot of value in having a close product-market | fit and being able to (efficiently) sell to customers that don't | have their own ability to build custom CV solutions. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261399 | | I really understand the author's argument that lots of satellite | companies are "doing this wrong", by investing lots and lots of | resources into "new products" that cost a lot of money to produce | but don't have a clear user story, but I wonder if there's a way | to do this "right" by building very simple, customizable software | that lowers the floor in terms of what sorts of customers are | able to purchase satellite data feeds? Maybe even using the same | software the CountThings does? | | This seems to be qualitatively very different from the types of | "data feeds" that OP is talking about that try to measure "useful | analytics", rather than working on a scalable process for | shipping bespoke solutions to customers with turn-key | integration. This is (one way) to tackle the long-tail problem. | But maybe it runs into some other pitfalls | campchase wrote: | Great observation. Check out Descartes Labs (all-purpose | platform) or Picterra (closer to CountThings for sat imagery) | as two examples of companies trying to make it easier to build | personalized models. | GlenTheMachine wrote: | Me: 20 years in the defense space business. Stating my own | opinion. | | This is basically right. The problem with space imagery is that | almost everyone who wants it has a niche use case, and those few | organizations without a niche use case (the US Weather Service, | various militaries, etc) generally want imagery that's so | specialized to their own problem that they have to spec, buy, and | operate their own orbital assets. | | Take Ukraine as an example. Leaving aside the moral question of | whether a satellite imagery company should be profiting off the | Ukrainian war, Ukraine appears to be using commercial orbital | imagery providers to figure out Russian troop movements. That use | case is not one any commercial provider anywhere is going to | build an ML model for. But analysts working on behalf of Ukraine | can absolutely either use raw pixels or develop their own ML | algorithms that run on top of the raw pixels to find Russian | tanks. | | And almost every other potential user is similar. They're all | looking for something different. Oil companies want to pre-screen | drilling locations. NGOs want to look at deforestation in Brazil | or methane leaks in Saudi Arabia. You could even go all the way | down to individuals -- at the right price, individual farms might | want to look at relative growth rates of corn in their fields, or | soil moisture levels, etc. Or they might want to count heads of | cattle or sheep, or... or... or. | | The point being, outside of weather, which we already know how to | get to end users without having them subscribe to an orbital | imagery provider service, every customer is different, and what | they want from the pixels is different. It's basically the long- | tail problem. In order to be profitable you have to fill an | enormous number of niche use cases. | campchase wrote: | Thanks for the perspective, Glen. I've often heard this | referred to as the "long tail" problem for satellite imagery | providers. The area under the curve is enormous, but any one | algorithm only serves an extremely niche audience. | | Another analogy I use a lot: satellite imagery is like salt. | The dish can have lots of ingredients (in a military context: | HUMINT, OSINT, SIGINT, etc.) And the satellite imagery can make | the whole dish. But you never want to consume it in isolation, | that would be disgusting. | GlenTheMachine wrote: | That's a good point: often the data product isn't generated | solely (or even mainly) from orbital imagery. Often it's | provided mainly from data the end user already has, and for | which orbital imagery serves either as a cueing system | (providing candidate locations which the end user will | verify) or a verification system (providing final | verification of locations the end user has already cued). | | Certainly that's true with eg the petroleum industry, and big | ag. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> but any one algorithm only serves an extremely niche | audience. | | Forget the algorithm. They need to fix their customer | service, their sales process. Customers _want_ pixels, but | they _need_ basic services: simple and a predictable price. I | want to give a location (pix+radius, four corners or | whatever) and a delivery schedule (once a week etc). But when | I try to buy that stuff I get package deals, "ask for a | quote", and vague statements about times. That doesn't work. | Normal customers, ie not intelligence agencies, don't want a | drawn-out negotiation process. The first company that can | provide a basic web interface for purchasing imagery quickly | and piecemeal will win the market. | | Top of the list for small customers are probably high-end | real estate agents. They want to monitor their neighborhoods | for houses that are under delayed construction or | backyards/pools that are being neglected (sure signs of | someone ready to sell). | | Civil litigation attorneys: I want everything you have about | this particular intersection. Cops: I want any images you | have of this house between these dates. News agencies: There | is a Russian ship on fire at X location. When can you get us | an image? And a great many other small customers I cannot | think of at the moment. | enriquto wrote: | > The problem with space imagery is that almost everyone who | wants it has a niche use case | | But this is a good problem. It's like saying "the problem with | motors is that everyone who uses them has a niche use case" | (submarines, cars, airplanes, industrial machinery...). Or that | "the problem with microscopy is that everyone who wants it has | a niche use case". And indeed it does! Microscopes for | biologists are different to those for chemists, engineers, | medical doctors, physicists, etc. | | The concept of "space imagery" is extremely wide. It is natural | that earth observation satellites become specialized. I | wouldn't be surprised to see in the near future some "CH4" or | "CO2" satellites that acquire light in a handful of extremely | narrow particular bands on the short wave infrared spectrum | that are useful only for observing plumes of these gases. Right | now, people use hyperspectral imagers (which have a _dense_ | sampling of some parts of the spectrum) and throw away most of | the image data. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _like saying "the problem with motors is that everyone who | uses them has a niche use case" (submarines, cars, airplanes, | industrial machinery...)_ | | This is a good analogy. How many companies say "I'll build a | sweet motor and then find a customer for it"? They don't. | They build the motor for the application. (More often, they | build something close to the final product.) | murderfs wrote: | That's only true in extremis: it's not even completely true | of car/industrial motors! Companies like Cummins design | motors that are used in all sorts of applications, e.g. | https://www.cummins.com/engines/qst30 | | When you look at smaller motors (e.g. DC motors in handheld | consumer products), they're basically jellybean parts | targeted towards the highly specific use case of making a | shaft turn. | Frost1x wrote: | It's only a good problem when your niche customers have deep | pockets to pay for their varied needs and high risk | tolerance. Most variations can't be protyped out by some | engineer on the weekends where they just spin out a startup | with minimal risk to address the gap. | | The false assumption I deal with that drives me insane with | so many individuals is that everyone thinks their specialized | use case is a small variation on the major use case that | already benefits from economies of scale. That often isn't | the case and a significant R&D effort needs to go underway on | just how one can leverage existing technology for their use | case. | | There's very often at least one, if not many, mission | critical functional requirements from existing tech that | require significant effort to make the jump from the existing | tech to the desired use case. And guess what, all the non- | niche users don't want to pay for that, so you need to be | prepared to pony up the capital, accept risk of failure, and | be ready to take the plunge. | | I tell people with this mentality that they need to work in | reverse, first understand the technology they think is close | and find the problem sets that have the best match up and | focus on those. These efforts can costs hundreds of thousands | very easily if not millions to tens of millions if you just | play it by ear that "...this thing is sorta like what we want | so it can't possibly be that difficult to adapt." (Basically | what I hear with technology management, many business people, | and clients) | | Many people pretend software and tech are just Lego blocks | and since it's virtual, there's no capital needed. Good luck, | because the skills needed to deal with this tech isn't cheap | and the complexity often isn't low meaning expensive and | difficult to find labor for long periods of time, often with | a fairly good chance of failure. | GlenTheMachine wrote: | Absolutely. And what you do in that case is to sell motors to | people who want them. If they give you feedback on how to | make better motors, take it and make better motors. | | What you don't do is presume that you know everything about | how people want to use motors, and offer a subscription to a | design service that does all of their engineering design for | them, as a way to sell your motors. | moralestapia wrote: | The problem I have experienced first-hand is basically that | | >individual farms might want to look at relative growth rates | of corn in their fields, or soil moisture levels, etc. | | a LOT of people want this, but they would never pay | $x,xxx/month for that, ever. | n8cpdx wrote: | The imagery is often already captured, so if I want to give | Maxar $250 I don't see why they wouldn't take it. | | Eos (iirc it's been a while) actually let me buy some | imagery, but they would only give me pictures, not actual | georeferenced rasters. | | The actual manipulation and use of the data, even for machine | learning, is pretty straightforward these days with ArcGIS. | So yes, I want pixels. | hammock wrote: | I see a similar thing in the consumer data industry. Everyone | has their own niche case that they want to find (diaper buyers | with 2-2.5 year olds, or Etsy merchants, or flavored whisky | early adopters, or new movers in houses 20-40 years old, or | whatever) and you end up building umpteen custom models with | the raw data that instantly get outdated the moment you use | them. | campchase wrote: | That's very interesting, I don't know anything about the | consumer data industry. | avip wrote: | One company trying to address that is Up42, a subsidiary (hope | that's the appropriate term) of Airbus, building some | marketplace for SAT imaging analysis. | | Interested to hear Mr. glen's opinion about that approach. | soniman wrote: | You don't think the US military is providing for all of | Ukraine's satellite intelligence needs? | [deleted] | lmc wrote: | https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/how-us-intel-worked- | with... | GlenTheMachine wrote: | I think it's very, very unlikely. It would risk giving away | information on the capabilities of US national security | assets. Which is classified literally as highly as it is | possible to classify. We don't even let the Five Eyes know | that stuff, much less hand it to non-aligned militaries who | we can't vet. | | Plus, it doesn't appear to be needed. The Russian military is | proving to be god-awful at even basic field ops like | camouflaging their vehicles. | enriquto wrote: | > It would risk giving away information on the capabilities | of US national security assets. | | But the actual satellites can be seen with the naked eye, | and their orbits are known. The resolution is a linear | function of their height, so it can be easily inferred, or | at least bounded, by that of a "hubble" at a much lower | height. If they are really worried about this scalar piece | of data, they can easily blur the images before | transferring them to ukraine. Not that it makes a lot of | difference to see a column of tanks at 30cm or at 15cm | pixels. | GlenTheMachine wrote: | "The resolution is a linear function of their height..." | | Incorrect. Even in the consumer camera space, resolution | is a function of distance, native sensor resolution, lens | magnification, lens quality, shutter speed (because the | target is moving), stability of the tripod, etc. Same | thing is true of orbital imagery: your effective | resolution is a function of your optics, your sensor, the | ability of your attitude control system to hold a steady | pointing vector, etc. | | Also, "capability" != "resolution". What frequency bands | is that satellite imaging in? Visible, SWIR, LWIR, | ultraviolet? What is the effective magnification of its | optics? Is it an optical system at all, or is it an RF | bird? Is it all of the above? Does it just take top down | snapshots, or can it track moving targets? If the latter | how fast can it track? Fast enough to keep up with a | tank, or fast enough to keep up with a fighter plane? How | many frames per pass can it take? How fast can it slew to | get multiple objects in the same pass? Etc. | nradov wrote: | Too late. President Trump already publicly gave away | information on the capabilities of US spy satellites in | 2019. | | https://news.yahoo.com/trump-tweeted-classified-satellite- | im... | tick_tock_tick wrote: | "gave away" old tech that just confirmed what everyone | assumed. Your article even states it's not our best and | most of the security agencies cared more about the | process of how he did it then the image itself. | speed_spread wrote: | I'd guess the US military would not share their own sat feeds | for fear of revealing their capabilities, they certainly | could share techniques to exploit commercial sats in an | effective manner for military purposes. | egberts1 wrote: | One should be able to want a James Bond-esque tracking of my | stolen car. | | So that one can order a pencil-sized AGM from some nation-state | toward the vicinity of the carjacker or something. | | To just outside the reticular. | teamga wrote: | Weather alerts? | counters wrote: | Even more complicated and less obvious than some of the other | sorts of Earth observations that the author talks about. | | I could write about this all day, but I'll start with the | obvious: you're competing against a forecast that may have been | made 30 minutes ago, an hour ago, 6 hours ago, 24 hours ago, or | sometimes even more. So in some cases, at best you might be | alerting people that something they already expected to happen | is, now, actually happening. How useful that is depends on the | context. Detecting a wildfire as it ignites? Cool - but most | likely, if it's near an urban area, people already saw the | smoke, or people were already ready to react because a Red Flag | warning was posted. Lightning strikes? Folks already heard the | thunder, and hopefully would've seen a risk of thunderstorms in | the forecast earlier in the day or prior. | | Carefully and succinctly incorporating narrow weather | observations into existing forecast and alerting systems as a | way to buttress them, decrease noise/boost signal, or otherwise | capture a tiny bit more value than what was already there might | work. But beyond that I struggle to see massive amounts of | value for most of the use cases that many industries or | communities wrestle with regarding weather alerting. | lmc wrote: | Weather data is usually derived from geostationary satellites | which is sort of an adjacent field to the lower-orbit imagery | the article is based on (i believe?)... but i know of a couple | of projects doing analytics here - not sure about commercial | potential though, they're early stage startups or academia. | pseudostem wrote: | >In my opinion, every supervised machine learning model is | hopelessly biased by the intent of its creator(s). Namely, it | inherits the bias of its training dataset (both geographic and | semantic). | | Profound. And True. Sometimes I wonder whether we can truly call | them learning models at all. | campchase wrote: | Author here - not an original insight, although it's cliched | enough that I can't point you to where I picked it up from. | | I also want to emphasize that I do not view bias as a bad thing | in the context of supervised models. In some ways, I think it's | the whole point of a supervised model (to inherit the judgment | of its creators). If the bias helps filter predictions that are | useful for your goals, it's a good thing. | charcircuit wrote: | It's why they are called models and not just "how it works" or | absolute truth. | Frost1x wrote: | I know several industries filled with questionable | researchers who might disagree with you. For clarity, I agree | with you for most all cases. | bmelton wrote: | Bias is learned behavior, so it seems that "learning models" is | precisely the right name for it despite whether we considered | the ramifications of learning | faldore wrote: | This seems like the kind of insight that is better monetized than | preached - the value will not be perceived until there is a | business success that derived from it. | campchase wrote: | I sell satellite imagery. I want more people to start | application companies, and less people to start data feed | companies. "Preaching" is the most scalable way to try to | convince people to change tack. I can't personally start dozens | of application companies, but I can hopefully help spur the | founding of those firms through my writing. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-18 23:00 UTC)