## 3 Results
### Satellite Resource Allocation  
During the simulation period (from 2018/08/24 00:00 to 2018/08/24 14:00), the satellite parameters were imported from STK, and the visible time window can be obtained by visibility analysis (Table 10). For the initial scheduling plan, the priority of each initial mission was calculated. Then, to maximize the objective function in Section 2.3.2, the hybrid genetic tabu search algorithm was used to solve the problem. By comparing several experimental results, we choose the following settings for this scenario. The population size of genetic algorithm was set to 50, the crossover probability was 0.6, the mutation probability was 0.1, the maximum number of iterations of genetic algorithm was 300; the length of tabu table was 10, the neighborhood size was 10, and the maximum number of iterations of tabu search was 200. Then, the initial scheduling plan was obtained, as shown in Table 11.  
Before releasing the initial scheduling plan, five newly arrived emergency missions to be allocated were added before the missions were executed. After the priority calculation, the insertion, reallocation, replacement and deletion for newly arrived missions were performed. The scheduling plan of newly arrived missions was then obtained, as shown in Table 12. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mission ID** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F5** & **F6** & **F7** \\ \hline T26 & 0.50 & infrared & 0.50 & 0.228 & land static target & 1 & 485 \\ T27 & 1.00 & visible light & 1.00 & 1 & maritime moving target & 0 & 1250 \\ T28 & 0.25 & microwave & 0.50 & 0.698 & land static target & 1 & 357 \\ T29 & 1.00 & visible light & 0.33 & 0.417 & land moving target & 2 & 714 \\ T30 & 0.33 & visible light & 0.50 & 0.742 & maritime moving target & 1 & 1100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Information of priority impact factors for newly arrived missions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mission ID** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** & **F5** & **F6** & **F7** \\ \hline T26 & 0.333 & 0.000 & 0.254 & 1.000 & 0.000 & 0.500 & 0.143 \\ T27 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.000 & 1.000 & 0.000 & 1.000 \\ T28 & 0.000 & 0.254 & 0.254 & 0.128 & 0.000 & 0.500 & 0.000 \\ T29 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.000 & 0.413 & 0.107 & 1 & 0.400 \\ T30 & 0.107 & 1.000 & 0.254 & 0.103 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 0.832 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Standard matrix of priority impact factors for newly arrived missions. In the initial scheduling plan, missions T4 and T17 were not allocated satellite resources due to the limitation of the time window, objective function maximization or some other constraints. After the new missions were added, the scheduling plan shows that mission T27 was directly inserted into the initial scheduling plan of satellite S3, mission T26 was inserted into the initial scheduling plan of satellite S3 through the reallocation operation, the affected mission T10 was scheduled again by satellite S3, and the scheduling time was from 12:18:23 to 12:19:38. Missions T29 and T30 were respectively scheduled by satellites S2 and S1 through the replacement operation, and the affected missions T21 and T15 were deleted. Mission T28 has a small mission priority and was not allocated satellite resources under the condition that the global objective was maximized.