Space Map Projections #
One of the most recent developments in map projections has been that involving a time factor, relating a mapping satellite revolving in an orbit about a rotating Earth. With the advent of automated continuous mapping in the near future, the static projections previously available are not sufficient to provide the accuracy merited by the imagery, without frequent readjustment of projection parameters and discontinuity at each adjustment. Projections appropriate for such satellite mapping are much more complicated mathematically, but, once derived, can be handled by computer.
Several such space map projections have been conceived, and all but one have been mathematically developed. The Space Oblique Mercator projection, suitable for mapping imagery from Landsat and other vertically scanning satellites, is described below, and is followed by a discussion of Satellite-Tracking projections. The Space Oblique Conformal Conic is a still more complex projection, currently only in conception, but for which mathematical development will be required if satellite side-looking imagery has been developed to an extent sufficient to encourage its use.
27. SPACE OBLIQUE MERCATOR PROJECTION #
SUMMARY #
- Modified cylindrical projection with map surface defined by satellite orbit.
- Designed especially for continuous mapping of satellite imagery.
- Basically conformal, especially in region of satellite scanning.
- Groundtrack of satellite, a curved line on the globe, is shown as a curved line on the map and is continuously true to scale as orbiting continues.
- All meridians and parallels are curved lines, except meridian at each polar approach.
- Recommended only for a relatively narrow band along the groundtrack.
- Developed 1973-79 by Colvocoresses, Snyder, and Junkins.
HISTORY #
The launching of an Earth-sensing satellite by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1972 led to a new era of mapping on a continuous basis from space. This satellite, first called ERTS-1 and renamed Landsat 1 in 1975, was followed by two others, all of which circled the Earth in a nearly circular orbit inclined about 99° to the Equator and scanning a swath about 185 km (officially 100 nautical miles) wide from an altitude of about 919 km. The fourth and fifth Landsat satellites involved circular orbits inclined about 98° and scanning from an altitude of about 705 km.
Continuous mapping of this band required a new map projection. Although conformal mapping was desired, the normal choice, the Oblique Mercator projection, is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, the Earth is rotating at the same time the satellite is moving in an orbit which lies in a plane almost at a right angle to the plane of the Equator, with the double-motion effect producing a curved groundtrack, rather than one formed by the intersection of the Earth’s surface with a plane passing through the center of the Earth. Second, the only available Oblique Mercator projections for the ellipsoid are for limited coverage near the chosen central point.
What was needed was a map projection on which the groundtrack remained true-to-scale throughout its course. This course did not, in the case of Landsat 1,2, or 3, return to the same point for 251 revolutions. (For Landsat 4 and 5, the cycle is 233 revolutions.) It was also felt necessary that conformality be closely maintained within the range of the swath mapped by the satellite.
Alden P. Colvocoresses of the Geological Survey was the first to realize not only that such a projection was needed, but also that it was mathematically feasible. He defined it geometrically (Colvocoresses, 1974) and immediately began to appeal for the development of formulas. The following formulas resulted from the writer’s response to Colvocoresses’ appeal made at a geodetic conference at The Ohio State University in 1976. While the formulas were derived (1977-79) for Landsat, they are applicable to any satellite orbiting the Earth in a circular or elliptical orbit and at any inclination. Less complete formulas were also developed in 1977 by John L. Junkins, then of the University of Virginia. The following formulas are limited to nearly circular orbits. A complete derivation for orbits of any ellipticity is given by Snyder (1981b) and another summary by Snyder (1978b).
FEATURES AND USAGE #
The Space Oblique Mercator (SOM) projection visually differs from the Oblique Mercator projection in that the central line (the groundtrack of the orbiting satellite) is slightly curved, rather than straight. For Landsat, this groundtrack appears as a nearly sinusoidal curve crossing the X axis at an angle of about 8°. The scanlines, perpendicular to the orbit in space, are slightly skewed with respect to the perpendicular to the groundtrack when plotted on the sphere or ellipsoid. Due to Earth rotation, the scanlines on the Earth (or map) intersect the groundtrack at about 86° near the Equator, but at 90° when the groundtrack makes its closest approach to either pole. With the curved groundtrack, the scanlines generally are skewed with respect to the X and Y axes, inclined about 4° to the Y axis at the Equator, and not at all at the polar approaches.
The orbit for Landsat 1, 2, and 3 intersected the plane of the Equator at an inclination of about 99°, measured as the angle between the direction of satellite revolution and the direction of Earth rotation. Thus the groundtrack reached limits of about lat. 81° N. and S. (180° minus 99°). The 185-km swath scanned by Landsat, about 0.83° on either side of the groundtrack, led to complete coverage of the Earth from about lat. 82° N. to 82° S. in the course of the 251 revolutions. With a nominal altitude of about 919 km, the time of one revolution was 103.267 minutes, and the orbit was designed to complete the 251 revolutions in exactly 18 days. Landsat 4 and 5, launched in 1982 and 1984, respectively, scanned the same width, but with an orbit of different radius and inclination, as stated above.
As on the normal Oblique Mercator, all meridians and parallels are curved lines, except for the meridian crossed by the groundtrack at each polar approach. While the straight meridians are 180° apart on the normal Oblique Mercator, they are about 167° apart on the SOM for Landsat 1, 2, and 3, since the Earth advanced about 26° in longitude for each revolution of the satellite.
As developed, the SOM is not perfectly conformal for either the sphere or ellipsoid, although the error is negligible within the scanning range for either. Along the groundtrack, scale in the direction of the groundtrack is correct for sphere or ellipsoid, while conformality is correct for the sphere and within 0.0005 percent of correct for the ellipsoid. At l° away from the groundtrack, the Tissot Indicatrix (the ellipse of distortion) is flattened a maximum of 0.001 percent for the sphere and a maximum of 0.006 percent for the ellipsoid (this would be zero if conformal). The scale l° away from the groundtrack averages 0.015 percent greater than that at the groundtrack, a value which is fundamental to projection. As a result of the slight nonconformality, the scale l° away from the groundtrack on the ellipsoid then varies from 0.012 to 0.018 percent more than the scale along the groundtrack.
A prototype version of the SOM was used by NASA with a geometric analogy proposed by Colvocoresses (1974) while he was seeking the more rigorous mathematical development. This consisted basically of moving an obliquely tangent cylinder back and forth on the sphere so that a circle around it which would normally be tangent shifted to follow the groundtrack. This is suitable near the Equator but leads to errors of about 0. l percent near the poles, even for the sphere. In 1977, John B. Rowland of the USGS applied the Hotine Oblique Mercator (described previously) to Landsat 1, 2, and 3 orbits in five stationary zones, with smaller but significant errors (up to twice the scale variation of the SOM) resulting from the fact that the groundtrack cannot follow the straight central line of the HOM. In addition, there are discontinuities at the zone changes. This was done to fill the void resulting from the lack of SOM formulas.
For Landsat 4 and 5, the final SOM equations replaced the HOM for mapping. Figures 46 and 47 show the SOM extended to two orbits with a 30° graticule and for one-fourth of an orbit with a 10° graticule, respectively. The progressive advance of meridians may be seen in figure 46. Both views are for Landsat 4 and 5 constants.

FIGURE 46.— Two orbits of the Space Oblique Mercator projection, shown for Landsat 5, paths 15 (left) and 31. Designed for a narrow band along groundtrack, which remains true to scale. Note the rotation of the Earth with successive orbits. Scan lines extended 15° from groundtrack are short lines nearly perpendicular to it.

FIGURE 47.— One quadrant of the Space Oblique Mercator projection for Landsat 5, path 15. An “enlargment” of part of figure 46 beginning at the North Pole.
FORMULAS FOR THE SPHERE #
Both iteration and numerical integration are involved in the formulas as presented for sphere or ellipsoid. The iteration is quite rapid (three to five iterations required for ten-place accuracy), and the numerical integration is greatly simplified by the use of rapidly converging Fourier series. The coefficients for the Fourier series may be calculated once for a given satellite orbit. [Some formulas below are slightly simplified from those first published (Snyder, 1978b).]
For the forward equations, for the sphere and circular orbit, to find
radius of the globe at the scale of the map. | |
angle of inclination between the plane of the Earth’s Equator and the plane of the satellite orbit, measured counterclockwise from the Equator to the orbital plane at the ascending node (99.092° for Landsat l, 2, 3; 98.20° for Landsat 4, 5). | |
time required for revolution of the satellite (103.267 min for Landsat 1, 2, 3; 98.884 min. for Landsat 4, 5). | |
length of Earth’s rotation with respect to the precessed ascending node. For Landsat, the satellite orbit is Sun-synchronous; that is, it is always the same with respect to the Sun, equating |
|
geodetic longitude of the ascending node at time |
|
geodetic latitude and longitude of point to be plotted on map. | |
time elapsed since the satellite crossed the ascending node for the orbit considered to be the initial one. This may be the current orbit or any earlier one, as long as the proper |
First, various constants applying to the entire map for all the satellite’s orbits should be calculated a single time (see p. 347 for numerical examples):
For calculating
The closed forms of equations (27-6) and (27-7) are as follows:
For inverse formulas for the sphere, given
The closed form of equation (27-15) given below involves repeated numerical integration as well as iteration, making its use almost prohibitive:
The values of coefficients for Landsat 1,2, and 3 (
The formulas for scale factors

TABLE 36.— Scale factors for the spherical Space Oblique Mercator projection using Landsat 1, 2, and 3 constants
FORMULAS FOR THE ELLIPSOID AND CIRCULAR ORBIT #
Since the SOM is intended to be used only for the mapping of relatively narrow strips, it is highly recommended that the ellipsoidal form be used to take advantage of the high accuracy of scale available, especially as the imagery is further developed and used for more precise measurement. In addition to the normal modifications to the above spherical formulas for ellipsoidal equivalents, an additional element is introduced by the fact that Landsat is designed to scan vertically, rather than in a geocentric direction. Therefore, “pseudotransformed” latitude
If the eccentricity of the ellipsoid is made zero, the formulas reduce to the spherical formulas above. These formulas vary slightly, but not significantly, from those published in Snyder (1978b, 1981b). In practice, the coordinates for each picture element (pixel) should not be calculated because of computer time required. Linear interpolation between occasional calculated points can be developed with adequate accuracy.
For the forward formulas, given
To calculate
The closed forms of equations (27-32) and (27-33) are given below, but the repeated numerical integration necessitates replacement by the series forms.
The equations for functions of the satellite groundtrack, both forward and inverse, are given here, since some are used in calculating
If
Inverse formulas for the ellipsoidal form of the SOM projection, with circular orbit, follow: Given:
Iteration is required to find
For
The closed forms of equations (27-51) and (27-52) involve both iteration and repeated numerical integration and are impractical:
The following values of Fourier coefficients for the ellipsoidal SOM are listed for Landsat orbits, using the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid (
Additional Fourier constants have been developed in the published literature for other functions of circular orbits. They add to the complication of the equations, but not to the accuracy, and only slightly to continuous mapping efficiency. A further simplification from published formulas is the elimination of a function F, which nearly cancels out in the range involved in imaging.
As in the spherical form of SOM, the formulas for scale factors

TABLE 37.— Scale factors for the ellipsoidal Space Oblique Mercator projection using Landsat 1, 2, and 3 constants
FORMULAS FOR THE ELLIPSOID AND NONCIRCULAR ORBIT #
The following formulas accommodate a slight ellipticity in the satellite orbit. They provide a true-to-scale groundtrack for an orbit of any eccentricity, if the orbital motion follows Kepler’s laws for two-bodied systems, but the areas scanned by the satellite as shown on the map are distorted beyond the accuracy desired if the eccentricity of the orbit exceeds about 0.05, well above the maximum reported eccentricity of Landsat orbits (about 0.002). For greater eccentricities, more complex formulas (Snyder, 1981b) are recommended. If the orbital eccentricity is made zero, these formulas readily reduce to those for a circular orbit.
For the forward formulas, given
To calculate
These constants may be determined from numerical integration, using Simpson’s rule with 9° intervals. Unlike the case for circular orbits, integration must occur through the 360° or
Equation
(27-67) is used to find
The closed forms of equations (27-72) and (27-73) are (27-32a) and (27-33a), respectively, in which the repeated numerical integration necessitates replacement by the series forms.
As in the case of the circular orbit, it is also desirable to relate these points to the true vertical groundtrack. To find
The equations for functions of the satellite groundtrack, both forward and inverse, are given here, since some are used in calculating
These equations are solved as a group by iteration, inserting a trial
If
If
Inverse formulas for the ellipsoidal form of the SOM projection, with an orbit of 0.05 eccentricity or less, follow: Given
Iteration is required to find
For
28. SATELLITE-TRACKING PROJECTIONS #
SUMMARY #
- All groundtracks for satellites orbiting the Earth with the same orbital parameters are shown as straight lines on the map. Cylindrical or conical form available.
- Neither conformal nor equal-area. All meridians are equally spaced straight lines, parallel on cylindrical form and
- converging to a common point on conical form. All parallels are straight and parallel on cylindrical form and are concentric circular arcs on conical form. Parallels are unequally spaced.
- Conformality occurs along two chosen parallels. Scale is correct along one of these parallels on the conical form and along both on the cylindrical form.
- Developed 1977 by Snyder.
HISTORY, FEATURES, AND USAGE #
The Landsat mapping system which inspired the development of the Space Oblique Mercator (SOM) projection also inspired the development of a simpler type of projection with a different purpose. While the SOM is used for low-distortion mapping of the strips scanned by the satellite, the Satellite-Tracking projections are designed solely to show the groundtracks for these or other satellites as straight lines, thus facilitating their plotting on a map. As a result, the other features of such maps are minimal, although they may be designed to reduce overall distortion in particular regions.
The writer developed the formulas in 1977 after essentially completing the mathematical development of the formulas for the SOM. The formulas for the Satellite-Tracking projections, with derivations, were published later (Snyder, 1981a). Arnold (1984) further analyzed the distortion. These formulas are confined to circular orbits and the spherical Earth. Because of the small-scale maps resulting, the ellipsoidal forms are hardly justified.
Charts of groundtracks have to date continued to employ the Lambert Conformal Conic projection, on which the groundtracks are slightly curved. The writer is not aware of any use of the new projection, except that a Chinese map of about 1982 claims this feature.
The projections were developed in two basic forms, the cylindrical and the conic, with variations of features within the latter category. The cylindrical form (fig. 48) has straight parallel equidistant meridians and straight parallels of latitude which are perpendicular to the meridians. The parallels of latitude are increasingly spaced away from the Equator, and for Landsat orbits the spacing changes more rapidly than it does on the Mercator projection. The Equator or two parallels of latitude equidistant from the Equator may be made standard, without shape or scale distortion, as on several other cylindrical projections.

FIGURE 48.— Cylindrical Satellite-Tracking projection (standard parallels 30° N. and S.). Landsat 1, 2, 3 orbits. Groundtracks (paths 15, 30, 45, etc.) are shown as straight diagonal lines. They continue broken at tracking limits (not shown).
The groundtracks for the various orbits are plotted on the cylindrical form as diagonal equidistant straight lines. The descending orbital groundtracks (north to south) are parallel to each other, and the ascending groundtracks (south to north) are parallel to each other but with a direction in mirror image to that of the descending lines. The ascending and descending groundtracks meet at the northern and southern tracking limits, lats. 80.9° N. and S. for Landsat 1, 2, and 3. The map projection does not extend closer to the poles, although the mapmaker can arbitrarily extend the map using any convenient projection. The extension does not affect the purpose of the projection.
The groundtracks are not shown at constant scale, just as the straight great-circle paths on the Gnomonic and straight rhumb lines on the Mercator projection are not at constant scale. The complete tracks appear to be a sequence of zig-zag lines, although for Landsat normally only the descending (daylight) groundtracks should be shown to reduce confusion, since interest is normally confined to them.
While the cylindrical form of the Satellite-Tracking projections is of more interest if much of the world is to be shown, the conic form applies to most continents and countries, just as do the usual cylindrical and conic projections. On each conic Satellite-Tracking projection, the meridians are equally spaced straight lines converging at a common point, and the parallels are unequally spaced circular arcs centered on the same point. There are three types of distortion patterns available with the conic form:
- For the normal map (fig. 49) of a continent or country, there can be conformality or no shape distortion along two chosen parallels, but correct scale at only one of them. The groundtracks break at the closest tracking limit, but the map cannot be extended to the other tracking limit in many cases, since it extends infinitely before reaching that latitude.
- If one of the parallels with conformality is made a tracking limit, the groundtracks do not break at this tracking limit, since there can be no distortion there (fig. 50).
- If both parallels with conformality are made the same, the projection has just one standard parallel. If this parallel is made the tracking limit, the conic projection becomes the closest approximation to an azimuthal projection (fig. 51). For Landsat orbits, the cone constant of such a limiting projection is about 0.96, so the developed cone is about 4 percent less than a full circle, and the projection somewhat resembles a polar Gnomonic projection. With orbits of lower inclination, the approach to azimuthal becomes less.
For each of the conics, the straight groundtracks are equidistant, they have constant inclinations to each meridian being crossed at a given latitude on a given map, and they are not at constant scale. They are also all tangent to a circle slightly smaller than the latitude circle for the tracking limit in case 1 above, and tangent to the tracking limit itself in cases 2 and 3. As in the case of the cylindrical form, any extension of the map from the tracking limit to a pole is cosmetic and arbitrary, since the groundtracks do not pass through this region.

FIGURE 49.— Conic Satellite-Tracking projection (conformality at lats. 45° and 70° N. ) . Landsat 1, 2, 3 orbits. Groundtracks (paths 15, 30, 45, etc.) are shown as diagonal straight lines. They continue broken (not shown) at tracking limit, the smallest incomplete circle. The complete circle is the circle of tangency.

FIGURE 50.— Conic Satellite-Tracking projection (conformality at lats. 45° and 80.9° N.). Landsat 1,2,3 orbits. Diagonal groundtracks (paths 15,60,106,e tc.) are straight, unbroken even at the tracking limit, which is the same as the circle of tangency (inner circle).

FIGURE 51.— Conic Satellite-Tracking projection (standard parallel 80.9° N.). Landsat 1, 2, 3 orbits. Groundtracks are as described on Fig. 50. The nearest approach to an azimuthal projection for these orbits. Inner circle is tracking limit and circle of tangency.
FORMULAS FOR THE SPHERE #
Forward formulas (see p. 360 for numerical examples): For the Cylindrical Satellite-Tracking projection,
For the Conic Satellite-Tracking projection with two parallels having conformality,
In addition,
For the conic projection with one standard parallel,
Inverse Formulas (see p. 362 for numerical examples):
For the cylindrical form, the same constants must be given as those listed for the forward formulas (
A generally faster solution of (28-20) and (28-21) involves the use of a Newton-Raphson iteration in place of those two equations, although equations are longer:
For any of the conic forms, the initial constants

TABLE 38.— Cylindrical Satellite-Tracking projection: Rectangular coordinates

TABLE 39.— Conic Satellite-Tracking projections with Two conformal parallels: Polar coordinates

TABLE 40.— Near-Azimuthal Conic Satellite-Tracking projection: Polar coordinates