I still fail to see what data the satellite is providing that decreases time, that can't be replicated by all the stuff aforementioned (you know, the whole reason this was brought up). An image of what is happening does not constitute data used in the prediction model.
How can you say that? Observation is the first and most paramount form of data when available, especially if it precedes data known to be impending because of it.
Just think about what you are saying for a second.
No satellites: We have ground tools (radar, etc.) and spotters. What can you gather from them? Lot's of stuff to be sure, but only what people can see over their heads as far as they can see, and what your instruments report back to you on what's going on with wind directions, and probable development.
With satellites: On top of all of that, you now have overhead live imaging (there is a delay just due to distance called latency however minute, I grant you that it does exist) that gives you a picture of what the fronts are actually doing (in movement and shape) and therefore where it's best to "point" your equipment, your spotters, etc. Cuts down on time wasted scanning for naught. You can't replicate an image (not to mention other types of imaging such as IR and near IR) from that altitude giving you constant updates with any other equipment.
Sort of like aerial surveying for property lines. It's great to go through court records and go out to farms, find markers, and walk out everything on the ground, surveying your way there so to speak once on site. However, it's much easier to lay out new property divisions using an aerial photograph, then just go in knowing your survey points. Cuts way down on your time and expenses.
I hope that helps, but I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. Perhaps someone else can - I'm not the best at doing plain language, but I try.
Take care,
John