## 4 Experimental Results
### Equivalent Experiment with GF-3 Transmitter and Stationary Receiver
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{System Parameters} & \\ \hline Carrier frequency & 5.4 GHz & Data take duration & 6 s \\ \hline Signal bandwidth & 240 MHz & PRF & 3714 Hz \\ \hline Pulse width & 45 \(\upmu\)s & Rotation distance & 1091.1 km \\ \hline Azimuth beam rotation rate & 0.387\({}^{\circ}\)/s & GF-3 slant range & 844.4 km \\ \hline GF-3 azimuth beamwidth & 0.678\({}^{\circ}\) & Bistatic angle & 23.2\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Plarform Parameters} & \\ \hline Platform & GF-3 & Stationary receiver & \\ \hline Platform altitude & 754 km & 69 m & \\ \hline Incidence angle & 28.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 86.6\({}^{\circ}\) & \\ \hline Initial position & (73.8, 39.3, 74.3) km & (\(-\)155, 693, 69) m & \\ \hline speed & (7434, \(-\)1463, \(-\)5) km & (0, 0, 0) m & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Isolated strong target location} & \\ \hline location & (0, 0, 0) m & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Parameters of the equivalent experiment. Figure 10: Azimuth resolution of GEO-LEO bistatic SAR and the equivalent experiment. characteristics. It can be observed that the spatial variance of the azimuth phase of the equivalent experiment has a similar pattern to that of GEO-LEO BiSAR. However, the spatial variance of the equivalent experiment is more significant. This is because the stationary receiver is closer to the imaging scene and will have a greater influence on the spatial variance than GEO-SAR. The performance of the proposed imaging method can be tested in a more difficult scenario. The real data-processing result is shown in Figure 11(a), with 1.1 km \(\times\) 1 km scene size. The corresponding optical image is captured from Google Earth for comparison in Figure 11(b). In contrast, the imaging result of the 'non-stop-and-go' is illustrated in Figure 11(b). In contrast, the imaging result of the 'non-stop-and-go' RMOSE method is illustrated in Figure 13. An isolated strong target in the imaging result is further investigated to roughly evaluate the imaging performance. The azimuth and range profiles of the selected target by the proposed method are shown in Figure 13(a) and in Figure 13(b), respectively. The measured azimuth resolution is 0.99 m, and the measured range resolution is 0.81 m, which are close to the theoretical values. The corresponding profiles of the selected target in the imaging result of the 'non-stop-and-go' RMOSE method are given in Figure 13(c) and Figure 13(d), respectively. The quantitative results in terms of peak sidelobe ratio (PSLR), integrated sidelobe ratio (ISLR), and impulse response width (IRW) are listed in Table 5. It can be observed that the azimuth IRW of the selected isolated target is significantly coarsened, which causes defocusing in the imaging result. Please note that the selected target is a non-cooperative target. Therefore, the above measured metric is only a rough estimate of the spatial resolution. Figure 11. Spatial variance of GEO-LEO bistatic SAR and the equivalent experiment. Figure 12. Imaging result and corresponding optical image of the equivalent experiment by the proposed method. The imaging swath width is 1.1 km \(\times\) 1 km. (**a**) Imaging result of the equivalent experiment. (**b**) Optical image of the scene.