## 3 Results
### Evaluation of the Scheduling Plan Result
 } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Scheme** \\ **Crange** \\ **Rate** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Running** \\ **Time(s) of** \\ **Initial** \\ **Scheduling** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Running** \\ **Time(s) of** \\ **Dynamic** \\ **Scheduling** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Evaluation** \\ **Function** \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & 3 & 0.83 & 0.92 & 0.12 & 10.43 & 0.32 & 6.16 \\
25 & 5 & 4 & 0.88 & 0.92 & 0.12 & 10.97 & 0.38 & 6.75 \\  & & 5 & 0.94 & 0.97 & 0.08 & 11.25 & 0.42 & 11.40 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{50} & \multirow{2}{*}{15} & \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.82} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.85} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.18} & \multirow{2}{*}{37.68} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.21} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.87} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 4 & 0.85 & 0.88 & 0.18 & 40.43 & 1.53 & 4.16 \\  & & 5 & 0.92 & 0.94 & 0.14 & 45.97 & 1.88 & 6.18 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{75} & \multirow{2}{*}{25} & \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.82} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.86} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.21} & \multirow{2}{*}{62.06} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.87} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.36} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 4 & 0.87 & 0.91 & 0.16 & 78.32 & 7.00 & 4.95 \\  & & 5 & 0.90 & 0.93 & 0.17 & 86.27 & 7.98 & 4.92 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{100} & \multirow{2}{*}{35} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.81} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.84} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.19} & \multirow{2}{*}{144.14} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.07} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.58} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 4 & 0.83 & 0.85 & 0.16 & 157.93 & 15.05 & 4.41 \\  & & 5 & 0.87 & 0.89 & 0.14 & 173.75 & 17.62 & 5.53 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{125} & \multirow{2}{*}{45} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.79} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.82} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.20} & \multirow{2}{*}{162.67} & \multirow{2}{*}{26.87} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.24} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 5 & 0.80 & 0.82 & 0.14 & 238.45 & 42.65 & 4.69 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{150} & \multirow{2}{*}{55} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.73} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.70} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.22} & \multirow{2}{*}{229.70} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.16} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.32} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 4 & 0.78 & 0.76 & 0.19 & 272.59 & 43.78 & 3.12 \\  & & 5 & 0.81 & 0.80 & 0.20 & 326.01 & 54.59 & 3.24 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{175} & \multirow{2}{*}{65} & \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.64} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.72} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.23} & \multirow{2}{*}{294.24} & \multirow{2}{*}{79.13} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.00} \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & 4 & 0.62 & 0.69 & 0.19 & 360.35 & 93.71 & 2.25 \\  & & 5 & 0.75 & 0.73 & 0.17 & 429.31 & 122.84 & 3.22 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{200} & \multirow{2}{*}{75} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.61} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.71} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.23} & \multirow{2}{*}{371.35} & \multirow{2}{*}{135.37} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.88} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{6-10}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{mission completion rate in Table 13, some missions were delayed the execution process because of their low priority or low revenue, which may lead to the problem of starvation. This situation could be solved by increasing the number of satellite resources, so as to increase the chance of each mission being executed. In addition, it can adjust the weight allocation of the optimization objective function, so that as many missions as possible can be executed before deadline.