Appearance
Satellite Orbits — At a Glance
A short version, for the room — styled to match State of Geodesy 2026 so it reads as the next chapter of a report you already trust, not a new format to learn. Full evidence, dimension-level scoring, and sourcing are in the detailed walkthrough; this page is the picture, not the proof.
The six guiding principles split naturally into two groups: four come from asking "how mature are the capabilities this product depends on" (the model below), and two come from asking "how is the product's actual physical/political workflow structured" (the flow further down). Grouping them this way — rather than the Terms of Reference's original 1–6 order — makes it obvious which mechanism answers which question.
The Rubric, in One Table
Six principles, six thresholds, one verdict each for Satellite Orbits today.
| Principle | Measured as | Robust Target | Satellite Orbits today |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Centralised accountability | Average of required Governance & Strategy capabilities | 2.5 or better | FAIL — 1.84 |
| 2. Technical interoperability | Average of required Data Management + Data Products capabilities | 2.5 or better | FAIL — 2.39 |
| 3. Visibility (Transparency) | Average of required Engagement & Collaboration capabilities | 2.5 or better | PASS — 3.00* |
| 4. Minimum capability | No required capability below Level 2, any dimension | Level 2 floor | FAIL — 7 of 19 required capabilities have a dimension below 2 |
| 5. Geographic distribution | PPTD Gap (likelihood) × Step Criticality (impact), per tier | 7 or under | FAIL — 4 of 5 tiers exceed 7 (worst: Tier 3 at 18.25) |
| 6. Political resilience | Countries hosting each tier's critical function | 2 or more countries | FLAGGED — Tier 1 sits exactly at the floor (2); Tier 3's actual bottleneck, SPOCC, runs in 1 |
*Principle 3 currently rests on a single confirmed capability (Standards Development and Promotion) — a real pass, but on thin evidence. Not yet a reason to treat it as fully settled.
One-line verdict: Satellite Orbits is not robust today. Five of six principles fail or are flagged — only Visibility clears its bar, and even that's on one data point. This table is the answer to "robust or not, prioritise what" in one screen; everything below is where these numbers actually come from.
The Capability Model
Every box below is one of the 58 capabilities in the official State of Geodesy model. White boxes aren't used by Satellite Orbits, or haven't been checked yet. Coloured boxes have real evidence behind them, using the same Level 0–5 maturity scale as the published report — Level 0 = no evidence, Level 5 = a highly mature, fully optimised state.
Principle 1 — Governance
Principle 2 — Interoperability
Principle 3 — Visibility
Principle 4 — Minimum Capability (applies across every domain, all six columns)
Governance and Strategy
Financial Management
Budgeting
Cost Management
Funding and Investment
Policy and Regulation
Legal Framework
Mandate †
Policy Formulation
Regulatory Compliance
Risk and Security Management
Cyber Security Mgmt
Disaster Recovery & Continuity
Physical Security Mgmt
Risk Management
Strategy and Planning
Performance Management
Strategic Planning
Vision and Strategy
Data Management
Data Acquisition and Storage
DORIS Data Acquisition
GNSS Data Acquisition
Gravity Data Acquisition
Local Tie
SLR Data Acquisition
VLBI Data Acquisition
Data Dissemination and Access
Data Distribution
Data Preservation †
Data Sharing
Data Governance
Data Architecture Design
Data Lifecycle Mgmt
Data Quality
Metadata Management
Data Processing and Analysis
DORIS Processing
GNSS Processing †
Gravity Processing
Local Tie Processing
SLR Processing
VLBI Processing
Data Products & Software
Delivery and Support
Geodetic Services
Training and Education
Product Development and Maintenance
Geodetic Data Products
Geodetic Software & Tools
Reference Frames
Asset & Infrastructure
Calibration and Maintenance
Equipment Calibration
System Testing & Validation
Geodetic Infrastructure Management
Ground-Based Asset Mgmt
Model of the GGSC
Network Operations
Innovation & Development
Innovation Management
Innovation Project Mgmt
Innovation Strategy
Research and Development
Knowledge Management
R&D Execution
R&D Planning
R&D Prototyping
Technology Adoption and Integration
Technology Assessment
Technology Integration
Technology Scouting
Engagement & Collaboration
Education and Outreach
Curriculum & Education
Outreach & Public Awareness
Govt, Science, Academic & Private Sector Collaboration
Partnership & Collaboration
Standards Development
Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder Comms
Stakeholder ID & Analysis
Stakeholder Disclosure & Public Reporting (proposed — Nick-endorsed 14 Aug)
Level 1 — Ad hoc / undefined Level 2 — Initial Level 3 — Repeatable Level 4–5 — Managed / OptimisedWhite / no dot = not used by Satellite Orbits, or not yet checked
Read this in one sentence: the worst colours cluster in Governance and Strategy — Risk Management, Disaster Recovery, and Mandate are all Level 1 — which is exactly where Principle 1 says the weakness needs fixing first.
What the dots actually mean: a coloured dot means there's real evidence behind that score for Satellite Orbits — it does not mean the score has been specifically adjusted for this product. Most coloured capabilities are simply confirmed at the shared survey baseline. Only three (marked †) are genuine Satellite-Orbits-specific departures from that baseline, each backed by its own reasoning:
- Mandate is red (Level 1–2) because it's split. A named, staffed role really does exist — Salim Masoumi and Tom Herring are the actual, working ACC Co-Leads, not a hypothetical committee. But there's no formal charter establishing that role at all — no backup has ever been formalised, contracted, or rehearsed. People-in-the-job pulls the score up; no-paper-behind-them pulls it back down, and the second problem dominates.
- Regulatory Compliance is green because it's genuinely working. Per State of Geodesy 2026's own evidence: "Member States adhere to laws, regulations, and standards required for the [operation of their observatories]... currently done reasonably well." Unlike Mandate, this one isn't a Satellite-Orbits-specific finding — it's the general survey baseline, and nothing in this product's own evidence suggests otherwise.
A note on the "not checked" boxes: State of Geodesy 2026 itself explains why some capabilities show no score at all rather than a low one — Not Applicable (NA) is used "where assigning a numerical value is not meaningful," not as a stand-in for "bad." A white box here means the same thing: either it doesn't apply to this product, or nobody has looked yet — never that it's known to be failing.
The Product Workflow
How a satellite orbit product actually gets made, start to finish. Grey = outside our control (the satellites themselves). Coloured bands = the five stages this supply chain runs. Boxes are connected using a reusable diagram component — the same one will drive ITRF, EOP, ICRF, and Gravity once their data is ready, rather than a one-off diagram rebuilt from scratch per product.
Pre-Tier — outside our controlSpace Segment · Satellite Constellations
GPSUS Space Force
GalileoESA / EUSPA
GLONASSRoscosmos
BeiDouChina
Tier 0 — acquireData Acquisition & First-Mile Telemetry
106 of 107 Core Sites (GNSS)553 Std Observation Sites
Operational Data Centers ×3GFZ · CNES REGINA · NGS/NOAA
Capabilities used here:
Ground-Based Asset Mgmt
Equipment Calibration
Network Operations
Tier 1 — storeGlobal Archiving & Data Hierarchy
Regional Data Centers ×4BKG · GA · KASI · SOPAC
Global Data Centers ×3CDDIS · IGN · SIO
Capabilities used here:
GNSS Data Acquisition
Data Quality & Preservation †
Metadata Management
Tier 2 — analyseAnalysis Centres & Software Ecosystem
13 Global Analysis CentresJPL · CODE · ESA/ESOC · GFZ · Wuhan +8
Individual Orbit SolutionsUncombined .sp3 & .clk Files
Capabilities used here:
GNSS Processing †
Geodetic Software & Tools
Knowledge Management
Tier 3 — combineCRITICAL BOTTLENECK (HIGH RISK)
ACCGA + NASA GSFC
SPOCC EngineGFZ PotsdamSINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
Combined Orbit ProductsUltra-Rapid · Rapid · Final
Capabilities used here:
Geodetic Data Products
Performance & Risk Mgmt
Disaster Recovery
Tier 4 — distributeValidation & Global Service Delivery
IERS ValidationQuality & Frame Consistency
IGS DistributionGlobal Open Dissemination
Capabilities used here:
Geodetic Services
Regulatory Compliance
Standards Development
† = a genuine Satellite-Orbits-specific departure from the shared baseline score, not just a confirmed baseline reading.
Principle 5 — Geographic Distribution
Rated by how replaceable each stage is (1 = many alternatives, 5 = none). Tier 3 scores 5 — the only true single point of failure in the pipeline. Every other stage scores 2–3.Principle 6 — Political Resilience
Flagged twice: Tier 1's Global Data Centers sit in only 2 countries (USA, France), and Tier 3's ACC is transitioning into US federal jurisdiction with no formal backup outside it.Step Criticality scale
5Single point of failure
4Dominant path
3Important, substitutable
2Supported
1Fully redundant
The Bottom Line
Tier 3 — the combination step — is the one place in this whole pipeline that's both irreplaceable (Step Criticality 5) and not well run (three of its four governance capabilities are Level 1). Neither problem backs up the other: there's no automatic warning if something breaks, and no tested plan to recover if it does.
Two fixes, not one: automated monitoring where data flows into the archive (Tier 1), and real risk management, performance tracking, and a tested disaster recovery plan at the combination step itself (Tier 3). Full reasoning: wa5_satellite_orbits_priority_example.md.
This is Satellite Orbits' own top priority — confirming it's the top priority across the whole supply chain needs the same look at ITRF, EOP, ICRF, and Gravity first.