Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONTEXTUALIZING HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SYSTEMS
OF THE UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND ECONOMY
ON TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
by
EMILY MEGAN SNOW
(Under the Direction of Thomas R. Jordan)
ABSTRACT
Satellite remote sensing continues to be refined at an incredible pace, yielding imagery
with previously unimaginable spatial resolution. As this causes security and privacy concerns,
an estimation of imaging capabilities for current classified and future commercial high resolution
systems could aid policymakers in preparing for changes to come. To provide this estimation,
this thesis traces the technological advancement of U.S. satellite remote sensing, incorporating
both film photography and digital imaging systems, and places this information in its historical,
political, and economic context. Based on historical trends, a formula has been calculated that
estimates future capabilities, according to spatial resolution achieved. The resulting formula,
y = 1E + 149e-0.171x
, estimates that high resolution satellite systems in 2020 could yield imagery
with 0.10 m resolution. This projection, along with advancements in international remote
sensing programs, indicates major policy changes for high resolution imagery in the near future.
INDEX WORDS: Remote sensing, Satellite, High resolution, Film photography, Digital
imaging, KEYHOLE, GeoEye, DigitalGlobe, Geography
CONTEXTUALIZING HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SYSTEMS
OF THE UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND ECONOMY
ON TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
by
EMILY MEGAN SNOW
B.A., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2012
© 2012
Emily Megan Snow
All Rights Reserved
CONTEXTUALIZING HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SYSTEMS
OF THE UNITED STATES: THE ROLE OF HISTORY, POLITICS, AND ECONOMY
ON TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
by
EMILY MEGAN SNOW
Major Professor: Thomas R. Jordan
Committee: Marguerite Madden
Lan Mu
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso
Dean of the Graduate School
The University of Georgia
August 2012
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Background .......................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3
Approach ............................................................................................................. 3
2 HIGH RESOLUTION FILM PHOTOGRAPHY ........................................................ 8
Film Satellite Remote Sensing before Digital Imagery ......................................... 8
Declassified Film-Return KEYHOLE .................................................................. 9
Slowly Making Changes in the 1970s ................................................................. 23
3 LOW RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY ........................................................... 25
Early Alternative to Film Photography ............................................................... 25
Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) ........................................... 26
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)............................................ 37
Leading the Way to New Frontiers ..................................................................... 48
4 MODERATE RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY .............................................. 50
Studying Human Impact on the Environment ..................................................... 50
Landsat, a Civilian Program for Earth Observation............................................. 51
v
Breaking the Monopoly: Landsat-Like Systems ................................................. 59
Expansion of Satellite Remote Sensing across the Globe .................................... 65
5 HIGH RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY .......................................................... 67
Becoming an Integral Component of the Information Age .................................. 67
Commercialization: GeoEye and DigitalGlobe ................................................... 68
Classified Digital KEYHOLE ............................................................................ 74
Reaching a State of Equilibrium ......................................................................... 77
6 DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE ................................................................................. 78
Synthesis of Results ........................................................................................... 78
Discussion of Results ......................................................................................... 84
7 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 88
International Remote Sensing and Future Declassifications ................................ 88
Possible Directions for Future Research ............................................................. 90
Closing Thoughts ............................................................................................... 92
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. 98
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Numbers of classified film-return launches (successful and unsuccessful both
included). ...................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2.2: KEYHOLE details. ................................................................................................... 22
Table 3.1: Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) details. ....................................... 30
Table 3.2: Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) details. .............................. 31
Table 3.3: Improved TIROS Operational System (ITOS) details. .............................................. 32
Table 3.4: TIROS-N details. ...................................................................................................... 35
Table 3.5: Imagery resolution of POES satellites. ...................................................................... 36
Table 3.6: DMSP Block 1 details. ............................................................................................. 40
Table 3.7: DMSP Block 2 and Block 3 details. .......................................................................... 41
Table 3.8: DMSP Block 4 details. ............................................................................................. 42
Table 3.9: DMSP Block 5A, 5B, and 5C details. ....................................................................... 43
Table 3.10: DMSP Block 5D details. ......................................................................................... 46
Table 3.11: Imagery resolution of DMSP satellites. ................................................................... 48
Table 4.1: Landsat details. ......................................................................................................... 57
Table 4.2: Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) details. ............................................ 60
Table 4.3: Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) details......................................................................... 62
Table 4.4: Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)
details.. .......................................................................................................................... 63
vii
Table 4.5: Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) details. .................................................... 64
Table 4.6: RapidEye details. ...................................................................................................... 64
Table 5.1: GeoEye details.......................................................................................................... 70
Table 5.2: DigitalGlobe details. ................................................................................................. 73
Table 6.1: The estimated resolution, in meters, for different years according to the formula:
y = 1E + 149e-0.171x
. ....................................................................................................... 81
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1: Demonstration of expected results, not including real data values, showing the
relationship between time and increasing resolution. ........................................................ 6
Figure 2.1: Seal and motto of the 6594th Test Group, whose mission was to capture film capsules
from classified satellite reconnaissance missions in mid-air (6594th Test Group, 2009). . 11
Figure 2.2: Successful launch of Discoverer-14 on August 18, 1960 (Space Medicine
Association, 2012). ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2.3: Successful recovery of the CORONA payload from the Discoverer-14 mission in
1960 (White, 2011). ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.4: Photograph of the Pentagon in Washington, DC captured by a KH-4B CORONA
satellite on September 25, 1967 (NRO, 2012b).. ............................................................ 16
Figure 2.5: Photograph of the Capitol in Washington, DC captured by a KH-7 GAMBIT satellite
on February 19, 1966 (NRO, 2012c). ............................................................................. 18
Figure 2.6: KH-9, HEXAGON, or “Big Bird” sitting on the launch pad in 1971 (Day, 2009). ... 19
Figure 2.7: Resolution in meters of KEYHOLE satellites according to series. This excludes
ARGON (KH-5), the mapping satellite with a resolution of 140 m from 1961 to 1964. .. 23
Figure 3.1: Illustration of a satellite in polar orbit and the direction of planetary movement
(Ahrens, 2009, p. 133). .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 3.2: Artistic rendition of TIROS-1 in space (SpacePlex, 2010). ...................................... 27
Figure 3.3: First television image from space, captured from TIROS-1 (Davis, 2011, p. 5). ....... 29
ix
Figure 3.4: First image captured from NOAA-19, the most recently launched U.S. satellite of the
POES program. From the AVHRR sensor, the left side is Channel 1, 0.58 - 0.68
micrometers (µm), and the right side is Channel 2, 0.725 - 1.00 µm (NASA, 2009). ...... 34
Figure 3.5: Resolutions (in kilometers) and time frames/duration of POES according to series. . 37
Figure 3.6: Artistic rendition of Block 5D-3 DMSP satellite in space (Hall, 2001, p. 33). .......... 45
Figure 3.7: An image of hurricane Fran in 1996, obtained with DMSP’s Operational Line
Scanner (OLS) (NOAA, 2012)....................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.8: Range of resolutions (in kilometers) and program time frames/duration of DMSP
according to Block. ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 4.1: Panchromatic image of Cape Canaveral, FL from Landsat-3’s RBV sensor
(Federation of American Scientists [FAS], 1999; Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 404)..... ....... 54
Figure 4.2: Rendition of Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) in space (NASA, 2011). ... 56
Figure 4.3: Resolution of Landsat satellites’ multispectral bands over time. .............................. 58
Figure 4.4: Resolution of Landsat satellites’ panchromatic bands over time. .............................. 58
Figure 4.5: Resolution of Landsat satellites’ thermal bands over time. ....................................... 59
Figure 5.1: Resolutions of GeoEye’s high resolution commercial satellites................................ 71
Figure 5.2: Panchromatic image of the Washington Monument captured via the WorldView-1
satellite in 2009 (Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC], 2012)… ....... 72
Figure 5.3: Resolutions of DigitalGlobe’s high resolution commercial satellites. ....................... 74
Figure 5.4: A “Soviet naval shipbuilding facility” submitted to Jane’s Defence Weekly by the
Naval Intelligence Support Center in 1984 (Richelson, 1999). ....................................... 76
Figure 6.1: Curve of best fit, an exponential decay curve, over achieved resolutions by digital
satellite systems. ............................................................................................................ 79
x
Figure 6.2: Achieved resolutions of digital satellite systems displayed on a logarithmic scale by a
power of 10. .................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 6.3: Resolutions achieved by the most recent high resolution satellite remote sensing
systems. ......................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 6.4: Resolutions achieved by the high resolution film-return systems of the U.S.
government. The trend line shown in this graph for film-return satellite systems is very
similar to the one for digital satellite systems. ................................................................ 84
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
In the past century, incredible advancements have been accomplished in the realm of
science and technology. Not the least of these is the ability to create and launch satellites
capable of collecting and distributing remotely sensed information to people and places all over
the world. There is nothing like the bird’s eye view that satellites can provide, and to capture
this, satellites have been equipped with cameras for more than fifty years, about as long as
satellites have been launched. In the 1950s, scientists studying the weather very quickly
recognized the benefit of viewing the earth from high above ground, and it did not take long for
the U.S. government to realize that more than just the weather could be seen from space. Amidst
the tensions of the Cold War, astronauts aboard manned missions such as Mercury and Gemini
would take pictures of the earth with handheld cameras. Before this, however, unmanned
satellites were recognized as a potential platform for photographic reconnaissance over the
denied territories in Asia. Pursuing both of these ideas, gaining a better knowledge of weather
and collecting intelligence for military purposes, two entirely different satellite systems were
imagined in the 1950s. These systems came to fruition in the 1960s in the TIROS satellites and
the classified CORONA project. These two systems, one for weather and one for the military,
respectively, were the first satellite systems of what eventually evolved into modern satellite
remote sensing.
2
Over the years, these remote sensing systems were refined, and as new technology
developed, old systems were retired and replaced by new technology, most notably digital
technology. Aside from meteorological and reconnaissance satellites, other types of remote
sensing satellites, such as Landsat, were developed and deployed beginning in the 1970s for
learning more about earth resources for agricultural applications and natural resource
management. More recently in the 1990s, satellite remote sensing developed into an integral part
of the modern economy, and digital imagery from commercial satellites became a highly
profitable commodity on the market from companies such as GeoEye and DigitalGlobe. As the
U.S. has transitioned into an information economy, remotely sensed images and the information
that they contain are in demand, not only by scientists and casual viewers but by the government
as well. As commercial companies that specialize in high resolution satellite imagery provide
increasingly high resolution products, U.S. government organizations, such as the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), formerly the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
(NIMA), have become major investors and consumers of this imagery.
Despite this investment and reliance upon commercial sources, the U.S. government still
continues its own classified satellite remote sensing programs. Although the CORONA satellites
and their contemporaries have been discontinued and declassified, the government created its
own line of high resolution digital imaging satellite systems, which were first launched in the
middle to late 1970s. This series, known as KENNAN/CRYSTAL, remains classified and is still
in use. Some parameters are known about the satellite, but exactly what kind of imagery the
satellite acquires and what the spatial resolution of that resulting imagery is remains a mystery.
Spatial resolution, however, is a quantifiable variable, and spatial resolution data for unclassified
or declassified satellite systems is available. Understanding the temporal and technological
3
development trend of unclassified and declassified satellite systems may yield information about
the current and future capabilities of existing classified programs.
Objectives
This project aims to estimate and discuss future capabilities of high resolution satellite remote
sensing. To accomplish this, the following objectives must be addressed:
1. Determining the major satellite remote sensing systems of the U.S. and tracing the
development of these systems over time;
2. Gaining an understanding of the historical, political, and/or economic context
surrounding the selected satellite systems;
3. Creating parallel timelines of declassified and unclassified satellite development to show
when and how much spatial resolution capabilities improved in the selected satellite
systems; and
4. Synthesizing an aggregate timeline with a calculated trend line that can be used in
conjunction with contextual information to discuss the future of high resolution satellite
remote sensing and predict future capabilities.
Approach
To accomplish these objectives, this thesis begins by gathering information about major
satellite systems of the U.S. in an organized and systematic way. Major U.S. satellite systems
are divided into two categories in this thesis: film and digital. Satellites systems that utilized
film, although not continued today, were a major part of the history of satellite remote sensing.
These classified systems obtained high resolution photographs at low altitudes (~100 – 200 km),
yet their unclassified contemporaries were early digital systems, gathering low resolution
imagery at higher altitudes (~600 – 900 km). The digital systems discussed in this thesis are
4
divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high resolution. As shown in this study, low
spatial resolution imaging systems acquire imagery with pixels sizes generally >250 m; moderate
spatial resolution imaging systems acquire imagery with pixels sizes on the order of 10 – 250 m,
and high spatial resolution imaging systems acquire imagery with pixels sizes generally <10 m.
Each of these groups roughly corresponds with certain applications.
For example, low resolution digital systems are well suited for meteorological studies;
therefore, the section of this thesis that covers low resolution digital systems discusses the Polar
Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) and the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
(DMSP). Moderate resolution digital systems are commonly used to study urban landscapes, but
they were originally applied to studying earth resources, taking a closer look at forests,
agriculture, and natural resources. Landsat, a series of earth observation satellites with sensors
that capture data with resolutions an order of magnitude finer than meteorological satellites, is
discussed in the section of this thesis that covers moderate resolution digital systems. Landsat-
like systems, both U.S. and international, are also mentioned in this section as they illustrate the
evolution of satellite remote sensing towards commercialization. High resolution digital systems
are suited for a variety of applications, yet like their film predecessors, the imagery of these
systems is primarily consumed by the U.S. government. Where this thesis covers high resolution
digital systems, the commercial companies known as GeoEye and DigitalGlobe are discussed.
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) of the U.S. government has their own high
resolution digital system, which is also outlined in this section.
Similar pieces of information are collected for each satellite system, typically divided
into the following three subsections for uniformity: Program Overview, Program Details, and
Program Resolution. Important contextual information, such as the political, historical, or
5
economic atmosphere surrounding development of the specific satellite series, has been gathered
in the Program Overview subsection. Specific technical details are gathered in the Program
Details subsection, such as specific technological advancements relevant to the system,
especially changes in sensors and resulting imagery across the years. In the Program Resolution
subsection, information about sensors and achieved resolutions are gathered into a single place
for comparison. The years each system achieved certain resolutions is gathered in a graph for
visual interpretation, and a table with this information and other relevant details is included for
each system as well.
All systems are discussed in roughly chronological order, maintaining an open discussion
throughout that compares and contrasts the different systems over the years. This weaves a
larger contextual framework of satellite remote sensing development. Once all satellite systems
are individually discussed, they are brought together to synthesize a larger picture of satellite
remote sensing development. This thesis traces technological advancement of satellite remote
sensing as a measure of spatial resolution, utilizing this information to create a development
timeline. Although satellites advance by other means, including spectral and temporal resolution
for example, this thesis focuses on spatial resolution for the sake of comparison between
systems. Measuring technological advancement in this way renders a trend, one that resembles
an exponential decay curve. This curve is calculated from the spatial resolution achieved by
different systems in different years and is utilized for estimating future capabilities. Figure 1.1
demonstrates the expected trend and calculated curve.
6
Figure 1.1 Demonstration of expected results, not including real data values, showing the
relationship between time and increasing resolution.
The data points in Figure 1.1 show resolution doubling every five years over a theoretical 20
year period. This type of behavior appears related to Moore’s Law, which states that computing
capabilities will double every two years. This thesis will address the applicability of Moore’s
Law to increasing spatial resolution of high resolution satellite remote sensing
Using the graphs, trend line, equation, and calculations, this aggregated information is
used to address certain questions, such as:
0
50
100
150
200
250
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Res
olu
tio
n
Year
7
How do the development timelines differ between declassified film systems and
unclassified digital systems?
How can trend lines based on declassified and unclassified information aid in the
estimation of classified imaging capabilities?
What does this development trend, in combination with contextual information, say about
the future of high resolution imaging systems?
What is the relationship between government and commercial high resolution imaging
systems?
The result of this project is largely narrative, discussing specific technological developments of
satellite remote sensing in the larger picture of their historical, political, and economic context.
High resolution film systems are discussed in Chapter 2; low, moderate, and high resolution
digital systems are discussed in Chapters 3-5; and, the development timeline is created and
discussed in Chapter 6.
8
CHAPTER 2
HIGH RESOLUTION FILM PHOTOGRAPHY
Film Satellite Remote Sensing before Digital Imagery
Current satellite remote sensing acquires imagery with digital cameras and transmits
those images to ground receiving stations. Since the development of the charge-coupled device
(CCD) in 1969, the ease of capture, transmission, and processing has become increasingly
streamlined, and it may be difficult to imagine satellite remote sensing in any other way. In
actuality, satellite remote sensing did take place before the digital age, and researchers and
developers had to work with the technology of their time. Film photography and television
existed when satellites were first being successfully launched and orbited, and these were the
technologies researchers and developers attempted to utilize in the early years of satellite remote
sensing. In the 1980s, the Metric Camera (MC) and the Large Format Camera (LFC), both film
cameras, were launched aboard space shuttles to gather photographs of the earth. The MC was
launched by NASA on November 28, 1983 and captured photographs with a resolution of 20 m.
The LFC was launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) on October 5, 1984 and captured
photographs with a resolution of 15 m (Doyle, 1978; Doyle, 1985; Engel, et al., 1984; Konecny,
1984).
Even before the MC and the LFC, there were attempts to apply film photography and
television to satellite remote sensing. These attempts resulted in classified CORONA in 1959,
which became part of the KEYHOLE series, and unclassified TIROS in 1960, which is
considered the earliest predecessor to the modern POES program. These projects, CORONA and
9
TIROS, were entirely different systems. The CORONA project utilized film cameras for the
capture of high resolution photographs (Day, Logsdon, & Latell, 1998, p. 7), and TIROS was the
first attempt to use the technology of television for capturing coarse imagery of the earth’s
surface (Oblack, 2012). CORONA was initially a classified program for reconnaissance and
intelligence gathering. On the other hand, TIROS was never a classified program, instead
capturing imagery of cloud cover to help improve weather forecasting. These two different
programs exemplify the diverse technologies and applications of satellite remote sensing in the
earliest decade of its existence, the 1960s. Unlike the TIROS satellites, however, the CORONA
project and its KEYHOLE contemporaries were so affected by the pressures of the Cold War, an
environment that affected satellite production to such an extent, that the speed and number of
satellites developed in the 1960s remains impressive, even according to modern standards of
satellite development.
Declassified Film-Return KEYHOLE
Program Overview
Although the U.S. detonated the first nuclear weapon in 1945, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR) followed soon after with their own detonation in 1949. Fear of
mutually assured destruction because of the incredible power of these weapons caused the U.S.
and the USSR to be locked in a Cold War. During this time, the space race and arms race rose to
high priority as Americans felt the pressures of competition with the USSR. Desiring more
information about Soviet capabilities and actions, the U.S. government also secretly pursued
several overhead surveillance projects. One of the earliest surveillance projects was codenamed
GENTRIX, a project that equipped stratospheric balloons with cameras suitable for high
altitudes (Cloud, 2002, p. 267). In a successor project codenamed AQUATONE, these balloons
10
were replaced with U-2 aircraft (Cloud, 2001, p. 267). Eventually, the U-2 would be replaced by
the CORONA project, a highly classified endeavor that put cameras aboard satellites.
As early as 1948, the RAND (Research ANd Development) Corporation was researching
possible military uses of satellites, including overhead surveillance (Day, Logsdon, & Latell,
1998, p. 5-6). RAND came up with three different types of possible systems for satellites
reconnaissance: a televised system, a scanning and transmitting system, or a film-return system
(Peebles, 1997, p. 30). The most desirable system would be one that provided real-time
information, and therefore, a televised system seemed very tempting. Unfortunately, a televised
system yielded imagery with a resolution that was much too crude to be utilized for intelligence.
Such a system would be more suited for weather studies, as evidenced by TIROS, the first
weather satellite, which utilized a televised system.
Instead of a televised system for military purposes, some work began on a program
called WS-117L, which would be a scanning and transmitting system. With this type of system,
“film would be exposed and processed, then scanned with a light beam that would transform the
photos into electronic signals that were radioed to a ground station” (p. 30). However, this program
was changed to a film-return system, and then it was abruptly canceled, because something even
more secret was being planned: CORONA (p. 45). Other systems were developed
simultaneously with CORONA, and these were ARGON, LANYARD, GAMBIT, and
HEXAGON, which were all film-return systems. All of these systems are part of the
KEYHOLE series, a codename for security protocols that apply to satellite reconnaissance
(Cloud, 2002, p. 267; Richelson, 1990, p. 65-66).1
1 KEYHOLE security protocols are often mentioned with TALENT security protocols, which cover overhead
reconnaissance on platforms other than satellites. TALENT-KEYHOLE refers to all overhead reconnaissance.
11
CORONA and all of the above were film-return systems. As a film-return system, a
satellite needed to be equipped with a camera and film when launched into space, and while in
space, that camera took pictures until it ran out of film. The undeveloped film was ejected in a
return capsule, equipped with a parachute, to be caught in mid-air by the Air Force and brought
back to land to be developed, interpreted, and analyzed (Peebles, 1997, p. 122). The 6594th Test
Group, established in 1958 and stationed in Hawaii, had the job of catching return capsules in
mid-air (see Figure 2.1) (p. 57-61; Cloud, 2001, p. 237).
Figure 2.1 Seal and motto of the 6594th Test Group, whose mission was to capture film capsules
from classified satellite reconnaissance missions in mid-air (6594th Test Group, 2009).
However, capturing the return capsule in mid-air required complex maneuvering, and not all
attempts were successful. In case the capsule was not caught, the U.S. Navy waited on standby
to retrieve the capsule from the water if necessary.
12
Setting aside the complexities of mid-air retrieval, other issues needed to be resolved in
order to make a film-return system possible, including the weight of the payload to be launched
into space and the potential burning of the payload upon reentry into the atmosphere (Peebles,
1997, p. 10). The weight problem was eventually resolved as larger and stronger rockets
developed, and the reentry problem was solved through Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
(ICBM) research, where an ablative substance was developed that could be used on return
capsules to protect them from heat (p. 27; Day, Logsdon, & Latell, 1998, p. 5). Even after these
problems were solved, there were many unsuccessful missions, but the first completely
successful mission, Discoverer-14, was celebrated in 1960 (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 Successful launch of Discoverer-14 on August 18, 1960 (Space Medicine Association,
2012).
13
The 6594th was able to retrieve the falling capsule in mid-air as shown in Figure 2.3, and the
photographs developed from the film contained in the capsule showed that the cameras on board
the satellite had performed satisfactorily.
Figure 2.3 Successful recovery of the CORONA payload from the Discoverer-14 mission in
1960 (White, 2011).
Many of the early KEYHOLE systems were short lived as researchers and developers
continued their efforts to fine tune the system. In fact, most of the early systems only lasted
about a year; these include the early CORONA, ARGON, and LANYARD. The later
CORONA, GAMBIT, and HEXAGON systems lasted several years and a few even over a
decade. As part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), President Clinton signed Executive
Order 12951 in 1995 to declassify the CORONA system and its early contemporaries. The
executive order also provided for the future examination of historical imagery, so it is possible
that pieces of classified programs will continue to be declassified as time passes (White House,
14
1995). Evidence of this came in 2002 when imagery from CORONA’s later contemporaries,
GAMBIT and HEXAGON, were declassified (Day, 2009). Only recently, in 2011, were details
about the GAMBIT and HEXAGON programs as well as satellite specifications declassified
(National Reconnaissance Office [NRO], 2012a). Even though this is a recent classification, the
last launches of these programs took place in the mid-1980s. As this large time gap shows, only
imagery that is not considered a threat to national or international security is released, and as of
now, this typically includes only that imagery that is old, broad scale, or crude in quality.
Program Details
When the KEYHOLE security protocols were enacted, several of the early systems were
named retroactively; for example, the first CORONA became known as KH-1. The camera
aboard KH-1 was called the C camera, a solitary camera with a vertical, panoramic view
(Peebles, 1997, p. 98). Planning for the KH-1 began while the U-2s were still collecting
panchromatic photographs over the Soviet Union, but after the U-2 piloted by Francis Gary
Powers was shot down over Soviet airspace in 1960, funding flowed into the CORONA project
(p. 78). The first successful retrieval of KH-1 imagery occurred just a few months after the U-2
incident, and photographs collected from the KH-1 boasted a resolution ~12 m (p. 98). The
immediate successor to the KH-1 was the KH-2, whose camera was known as C prime (C’).
Following that, there was the KH-3, whose camera was the C triple prime (C’’’). Each of these
cameras “represented incremental improvements in camera design” (Cloud, 2001, p. 238). The
KH-2 yielded photographs with a resolution of ~9 m (Peebles, 1997, p. 98), and the KH-3 yielded
photographs with a resolution of ~4.5 m (p. 121-122). A significant advancement was made with
the KH-4 which was able to collect photographs that could be viewed in stereo, and the
15
resolution of the photographs taken with its M camera was slightly improved to ~3 m (p. 128;
Richelson, 2005, p. 28).
Arguments between the Air Force and the Army finally came to a forefront with the
camera choice for the KH-5 (Richelson, 1990, p. 24). RAND and the Air Force were focusing
on increasingly high resolution cameras which could be used to obtain specific intelligence
information. The Army, however, emphasized the need for more complete maps for targeting
purposes (p. 25; Peebles, 1997, p. 108); therefore, the camera for KH-5 was a mapping camera
with a resolution of ~140 m (Richelson, 1990, p. 60; Cloud, 2001, p. 239; Peebles, 1997, p. 107).
Since this system was not a part of CORONA, it was known by the codename of ARGON. Also
not part of the CORONA series, KH-6 brought the idea of the film-return WS-117L program
back to life under the unique codename of LANYARD (Day, Logsdon, & Latell, 1998, p. 75).
The cameras for the few KH-6 missions launched were expected to gather panchromatic
photographs with a resolution of ~0.6 m, but the three launches were fraught with problems,
including problems with the launch vehicle (Peebles, 1997, p. 134). Although the KH-6 was
labeled a failure and was not well suited for military reconnaissance, similar cameras to those
used on KH-6 missions were used in NASA’s Lunar Orbiter for mapping the surface of the moon
(1966-1967), so in that sense, LANYARD was not a complete loss (Day, Logsdon, & Latell,
1998, p. 75).
Development on the CORONA project was not finished, despite the detour to reattempt
WS-117L program as LANYARD, but since both ARGON and LANDYARD were given the
designations of KH-5 and KH-6, the further CORONAs were given the designations of KH-4A
and KH-4B (Peebles, 1997, p. 134; Richelson, 1990, 60). The camera aboard the KH-4A missions
was the J-1 panoramic camera with a resolution of 2.7 m (Day, 1998, p. 76; Peebles, 1997, p.
16
156-7). The camera aboard the KH-4B missions was the J-3 panoramic camera with an
improved resolution of 1.8 m, indicating the incremental improvements of satellite systems in the
CORONA series (Day, 1998, p.80-1). Although these satellites gathered imagery with
increasingly high resolution, these were actually used in conjunction with the GAMBIT
satellites, which were considered the high resolution satellites (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4 Photograph of the Pentagon in Washington, DC captured by a KH-4B CORONA
satellite on September 25, 1967 (NRO, 2012b).
17
The CORONA satellites photographed large areas of land with a more general resolution than
the GAMBIT satellites, and the GAMBIT satellites, which had a smaller field of view and higher
spatial resolution, allowed analysts to take a closer look at specific areas of interest (Richelson,
1990, p. 77-8).
The original planning for GAMBIT began soon after CORONA, and two different
versions of the GAMBIT system were launched, given the unique designations of KH-7 and KH-
8. According to recently declassified information from the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) in 2011, the photographs captured from KH-7 had a resolution of ~0.6 – 0.9 m (see
Figure 2.5).
18
Figure 2.5 Photograph of the Capitol in Washington, DC captured by a KH-7 GAMBIT satellite
on February 19, 1966 (NRO, 2012c).
19
The photographs from the KH-8 had a slightly improved resolution of better than 0.6 m (NRO,
2012a). Planning for a more advanced design began, and developers were wondering if they
could 1) incorporate the best of both CORONA and GAMBIT into one system and 2) extend the
life of the system by adding more film and return capsules (Richelson, 1990, p. 105-6). The
resulting system was the KH-9 with the codename HEXAGON, but it was fondly known as “Big
Bird”, due to the immense size of the payload and its enormous booster used to launch it into
space (see Figure 2.6) (Richelson, 1990, p. 105-6).
Figure 2.6 KH-9, HEXAGON, or “Big Bird” sitting on the launch pad in 1971 (Day, 2009).
This system boasted the coverage of the distinguished CORONAs, the KH-4A and KH-4B, with
the resolution of the KH-7 (NRO, 2012a). This is a slight step back from the improved
20
resolution of the KH-8, but the large area coverage seemed worth the trade. Also, the KH-9
sported four return capsules for its increased film capacity; as desired, the lifetimes of the KH-9s
were significantly increased from past satellites in the KEYHOLE series (Sweetman, 1997, p. 44;
Peebles, 1997, p. 249; Richelson, 1990, p. 107-8).
These limitations, the amount of film and number of film return capsules a satellite could
carry with it during launch, were definitive features of film return systems. Once the film was
used or the return capsules were all ejected, the satellite was of no further use for photographic
reconnaissance. For the earliest satellites, lifespans were mere days. Later satellites were able to
achieve lifespans of weeks, maybe months. Nevertheless, in the earliest years of photographic
reconnaissance in space, there were many launches! Table 2.1 shows the codename, KEYHOLE
designations, and number of launches for KH-1 through KH-9.
Table 2.1 Numbers of classified film-return launches (successful and unsuccessful both
included).
Codename KEYHOLE Number
CORONA KH-1 10
KH-2 7
KH-3 9
KH-4 26
ARGON KH-5 12
LANYARD KH-6 3
CORONA KH-4A 52
KH-4B 17
GAMBIT KH-7 38
KH-8 54
HEXAGON KH-9 20
TOTAL: 248
21
All of these launches took place from June 25th 1959 (first KH-1 launch) to April 18
th 1986 (last
KH-9 launch), a period of 26 years, 9 months, and 25 days. With 248 launches total in these
9795 days, satellites were launched on an average of 40 days apart from one another. Such a
commitment – to build and launch satellites, to retrieve film capsules at such an incredible pace,
and to continue research and development for improving satellites all at the same time – bears
testament to both human innovation and the determination of the American government to gain
any leading edge during the high-pressure times of the Cold War.
Program Resolution
Most KEYHOLE series showed a distinct improvement in capabilities according to the
highest resolution of the photographs they obtained. The earliest satellites, KH-1 through KH-4
(the early CORONAs), improved in resolution from approximately 12 m to 9 m to 4.5 m to 3 m.
KH-5 (ARGON) did not continue that trend, because it was designed to obtain large area
photographs with lower resolution for the purposes of mapping and targeting. KH-6
(LANYARD) attempted to continue the trend of increasing resolution from the early CORONAs,
but the program was short lived, and emphasis continued to be placed on the CORONA and
GAMBIT programs.
KH-4A and KH-4B (the later CORONAs) improved upon their predecessors with
resolutions of 2.7 m and 1.8 m, respectively. These two CORONAs worked in conjunction with
KH-7 and KH-8 (GAMBIT), which were “close look” satellites with resolutions of ~0.6 m and
better than 0.6 m (although the NRO does not specify how much better) (NRO, 2012a). KH-9
(HEXAGON), the last film-return KEYHOLE satellites series, achieved resolutions of ~0.6 m as
well. Table 2.2 summarizes this information, providing codenames and KEYHOLE
designations, the dates of the first and last launches, the range of time that the satellites were
22
launched, and the approximate highest resolution achieved in meters. Figure 2.7 displays this
information graphically, excluding ARGON (KH-5) since it has a very course resolution for
mapping purposes and would visually distort the results.
Table 2.2 KEYHOLE details.
Codename /
Designation
First
Launch
Last Launch Time Range Highest Resolution
(approximate)
CORONA / KH-1 6/25/59 9/13/60 416 days 12 m
CORONA / KH-2 10/26/60 8/4/61 283 days 9 m
CORONA / KH-3 8/30/61 1/13/62 137 days 4.5 m
CORONA / KH-4 2/27/62 12/21/63 663 days 3 m
ARGON / KH-5 2/17/61 8/21/64 1282 days 140 m
LANYARD / KH-6 3/18/63 7/31/63 136 days 0.6 m
CORONA / KH-4A 8/25/63 11/22/69 2221 days 2.7 m
CORONA / KH-4B 9/15/67 5/25/72 1715 days 1.8 m
GAMBIT / KH-7 7/12/63 6/4/67 1424 days 0.6 m
GAMBIT / KH-8 7/29/66 6/3/69 1041 days <0.6 m
HEXAGON / KH-9 6/15/71 4/18/86 5422 days 0.6 m
23
Figure 2.7 Resolution in meters of KEYHOLE satellites according to series. This excludes
ARGON (KH-5), the mapping satellite with a resolution of 140 m from 1961 to 1964.
Slowly Making Changes in the 1970s
The KEYHOLE satellites were utilized and refined for over a decade before the first
Landsat satellite, an earth observation satellite with digital sensors capable of moderate
resolution, was launched in 1972 (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 400). Digital technologies could also
be used in the classified KEYHOLE satellites, but they were not as quickly adopted. This was
probably due to a few reasons. First, the film-return system was fairly well established at this
point, and the resolution of the resulting imagery was already quite high, around 0.6 m, and well
suited for intelligence purposes. Second, the KH-9 satellites were already budgeted and in
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
CORONA (KH-1)
CORONA (KH-2)
CORONA (KH-3)
CORONA (KH-4) CORONA (KH-4A)
CORONA (KH-4B)
GAMBIT (KH-7 and KH-8) HEXAGON (KH-9)
LANYARD (KH-6)
24
production; the first KH-9 was launched in 1971 (Richelson, 1990, p. 128). Finally, the digital
technologies would need to be further refined for uses in reconnaissance than for earth
observation, because higher resolution imagery was needed for reconnaissance than for earth
observation. Multispectral, rather than panchromatic, imagery was also needed for earth
observation, but multispectral sensors acquire coarser resolution than panchromatic sensors,
because they sense in narrower spectral bands. The first Landsat satellite acquired multispectral
imagery at a resolution of about 80 m (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 40`). This was crude in
comparison to the 0.6 m panchromatic photographs that were already being acquired (NRO,
2012a). Nevertheless, Landsat’s multispectral imagery was a vast improvement in spatial
resolution in comparison to the low resolution weather satellites that preceded it. All factors
considered, it would be several years before the first digital KEYHOLE satellite system, the KH-
11, would be launched in 1976 (Richelson, 1990, p. 128). The KH-11 and its successors remain
classified at the time of this writing.
25
CHAPTER 3
LOW RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY
Early Alternative to Film Photography
While the early KEYHOLE satellites were developed in secrecy, remote sensing satellites
utilizing television cameras for weather were initially developed publicly (National Aeronautics
and Space Administration [NASA], 2012). Taking pictures of the earth from space seemed like
an obvious application of satellites for meteorologists who would benefit from a more synoptic
view of the planet’s weather patterns. Since broad scale imagery was needed for such a task,
television cameras could be utilized for meteorological applications and were more appropriate
than film-return systems like those used for the classified projects. Film-return systems, due to
their complexity, were unlikely to have been seriously considered, if at all. This choice to use
television cameras, when the developers of the CORONA project dismissed them, illustrates the
tradeoff between spatial resolution and area coverage. The KEYHOLE satellites compromised
area coverage in favor of higher resolution imagery, while the Polar Operational Environmental
Satellites (POES) and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites compromised
higher resolution in favor of broad area coverage.
The first meteorological satellite was the Television Infrared Observation Satellite
(TIROS), but TIROS was deemed insufficient by the military for defense applications. As a
result, DMSP was developed (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 12). Like CORONA and its
successors, DMSP was a classified program; unlike CORONA, DMSP was not a film-return
system. DMSP continues to this day, but the TIROS series was followed by other series which
26
eventually became part of the POES. All satellites part of DMSP and POES, excluding some of
the early TIROS satellites in “inclined” orbits, were polar-orbiting and sun-synchronous (Davis,
2011, p. 21-2). Polar orbits circle around the earth, coming “up” the dark side and going back
“down” the illuminated side (see Figure 3.1)
Figure 3.1 Illustration of a satellite in polar orbit and the direction of planetary movement
(Ahrens, 2009, p. 133).
Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES)
Program Overview
The Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) program is a joint effort between
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the European Organisation
for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), providing global, daily, and
27
continuous coverage of the world’s weather (NOAA, 2003). Technically, POES began with
TIROS-N in 1978 (Lillesand, et al., 2007, p. 463), but effectively, POES began with its earliest
predecessor, the first TIROS satellite (Figure 3.2), which was launched on April 1, 1960 (NASA,
2012b).
Figure 3.2 Artistic rendition of TIROS-1 in space (SpacePlex, 2010).
Before the TIROS-N series, there were 18 years of launches in the U.S., pioneering the use of
satellite observations for weather forecasting.
In those 18 years, the U.S. completed development of three different weather satellite
series. The first series was the original TIROS series, which included 10 satellites launched
between 1960 and 1965. The second series was the Environmental Science Services
Administration (ESSA) series, which included 9 satellites launched between 1966 and 1969
(Radio Corporation of America [RCA], 1970). The third series was Improved TIROS
Operational Satellites (ITOS) series, which included 8 satellites launched between 1970 and
1976 (Davis, 2011, p. 23). All three of these series were rather simple, maturing slightly from
28
one to the next. The conceptual designs of satellites in these first three series were also the same,
but a revolutionary design change followed the launch of the final satellite in the ITOS series,
due to the declassification of the military’s meteorological satellite program (p. 7-8).
In 1972, DMSP was declassified (Green, 2009, p. 27). DMSP was the Department of
Defense’s (DoD) meteorological satellite program, and upon declassification of the program,
“the danger of partial duplication in funding two similar series” was realized (Davis, 2011, p. 8).
The DoD and NOAA had separate plans to develop new series, so to avoid the financial problem
of funding both, it was decided that only one development plan would be funded. The funded
plan would be used by both the DoD and NOAA for their separate purposes, and since the DoD
had already been given funding for the development of their Block 5D satellites, NOAA was
instructed to utilize the already funded design for their next satellite series: TIROS-N (p. 7-8;
Hall, 2001, p. 23).
The TIROS-N series continues today, the most long-lasting series for several reasons.
First, it was the most advanced series to date. The equipment, refined from past series, provides
a reliable production of effective data. Second, these satellites carry a variety of sensors,
rendering each satellite more capable of providing many types of weather data. Third, with the
cooperation of EUMETSAT beginning in the 1980s, the U.S. was able to share the burden of
satellite development and launching with Europe (NOAA, 2003). Fewer launches became
necessary with the international cooperation achieved between the U.S. and Europe. This
cooperation, along with the refinement and increase of sophisticated equipment aboard the
satellites, contributed greatly to the longevity of the series. The most recent launch, at the time
of this writing, was NOAA-19 (also known as NOAA-N’ or NOAA-N Prime) on February 6,
2009 (NOAA, 2009).
29
Program Details
Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS)
The majority of the satellites in the original TIROS series were characterized by two TV
cameras, the Television-Wide Angle (TV-WA) and the Television-Narrow Angle (TV-NA)
(Kramer, 2001, p. 721). Being the oldest and first satellites launched for the sake of weather
observation, they rendered the crudest imagery of all satellites preceding the more modern POES
satellites. In the late 1950s, obtaining a better view of cloud cover was a primary goal for
satellite and sensor designers. The ability to study the location and movement of cloud
formations, from both a higher vantage point and more temporally continuous data, would be a
significant improvement for weather forecasting at this time. The TIROS satellites were able to
successfully provide data for this purpose, and the first television image from space was captured
by the first TIROS satellite (see Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 First television image from space, captured from TIROS-1 (Davis, 2011, p. 5).
30
Table 3.1 shows the name, launch date, lifespan (in days), and date of deactivation (D) or failure
(F) for each TIROS satellite (Davis, 2011, p. 21).
Table 3.1 Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) details.
Name Launch Date Lifespan Date of D/F
TIROS-1 4/1/60 89 days 6/15/60
TIROS-2 11/23/60 376 days 1/22/61
TIROS-3 7/12/61 230 days 2/18/62
TIROS-4 2/8/62 161 days 6/30/62
TIROS-5 6/19/62 321 days 5/13/63
TIROS-6 9/18/62 389 days 10/21/63
TIROS-7 6/19/63 1809 days 6/3/68
TIROS-8 12/21/63 1287 days 7/1/67
TIROS-9 1/22/65 1238 days 2/15/67
TIROS-10 7/2/65 730 days 7/31/66
Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA)
Unlike the TIROS series, satellites in the ESSA series were launched in a pattern (Davis,
2011, p. 22). The odd numbered satellites were launched with two Advanced Vidicon Camera
Systems (AVCS), and the even numbered satellites were launched with two Automatic Picture
Transmission (APT) vidicon cameras (Kramer, 2001, p. 727).2 Each pair of ESSA satellites
worked together to form an operational system, so the ESSA satellites were also known as
TIROS Operational System (TOS) (RCA, 1970). Similar to the TIROS series, the imagery
gathered from the ESSA satellites had very coarse resolution (Kramer, 2001, p. 727). In contrast
to the TIROS series, ESSA satellites were polar-orbiting and synchronized to the sun. The
TIROS satellites had been in “inclined” orbits; the only exception was the TIROS-9 satellite, the
first and only satellite of the TIROS series to be polar-orbiting and synchronized to the sun.
2 A vidicon is “a camera tube in which a charge-density pattern is formed on a photoconductive surface scanned by a
beam of low-velocity electrons for transmission as signals” (Vidicon, 2012).
31
ESSA satellites and all later satellites related to POES would be polar-orbiting and synchronized
to the sun. Table 3.2 shows the name, launch date, lifespan (in days), and date of deactivation
(D) or failure (F) for each ESSA satellite (Davis, 2011, p. 21-2).
Table 3.2 Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) details.
Name Launch Date Lifespan Date of D/F
ESSA-1 2/3/66 861 days 6/13/68
ESSA-2 2/28/66 1692 days 10/17/70
ESSA-3 10/2/66 738 days 10/9/68
ESSA-4 1/26/67 465 days 5/5/68
ESSA-5 4/20/67 1034 days 2/17/70
ESSA-6 11/10/67 763 days 12/12/69
ESSA-7 8/16/68 571 days 3/10/70
ESSA-8 12/15/68 2644 days 3/12/76
ESSA-9 2/26/69 1726 days 12/18/73
Improved TIROS Operational Satellites (ITOS)
There were many changes that took place during the ITOS series, such as name changes
and sensor changes, and of the eight satellites launched as part of the ITOS series, two failed.
The first two satellites of this series each carried 2 APT, 2 AVCS, and 2 Scanning Radiometers
(SR) (Davis, 2011, p. 23). The capabilities of the APT and AVCS cameras were the same as
those in ESSA, but the SRs were new. They had two different channels, one for visible light
(SR1) and one for infrared energy (SR2), and both channels gathered imagery coarser than the
APT and the AVCS. The SR1 channel acquired 4 km imagery, and the SR2 channel, sensing
infrared, acquired 8 km imagery (Kramer, 2001, p. 731-2).
Though the third and fifth satellites of the series failed, the fourth and those remaining in
the series showed a notable improvement from all ITOS series predecessors. These satellites
32
were named NOAA-2, NOAA-3, NOAA-4, and NOAA-5, and they had a different group of
sensors. They each carried 2 SR, 2 Very High Resolution Radiometers (VHRR), and 2 Vertical
Temperature Profile Radiometers (VTPR). The capabilities of the SRs were similar to the SRs in
the early ITOS satellites, but the incorporation of VHRRs was a vast improvement. The VHRR
was able to acquire imagery, in both the visible and infrared bands, at finer resolutions than
imagery captured with other sensors, allowing users to have more crisp and detailed imagery
(Kramer, 2001, p. 732). Table 3.3 shows the name, launch date, lifespan (in days), and date of
deactivation (D) or failure (F) for each ITOS satellite (Davis, 2011, p. 23).
Table 3.3 Improved TIROS Operational System (ITOS) details.
Name Launch Date Lifespan Date of D/F
ITOS-1 1/23/70 510 days 6/17/71
NOAA-1 (ITOS-A) 12/11/70 252 days 8/20/71
ITOS-B 10/21/71 Failure. Failure.
NOAA-2 (ITOS-D) 10/15/72 837 days 1/30/75
ITOS-E 7/16/73 Failure. Failure.
NOAA-3 (ITOS-F) 11/6/73 1029 days 8/31/76
NOAA-4 (ITOS-G) 11/15/74 1463 days 11/17/78
NOAA-5 (ITOS-H) 7/29/76 1067 days 7/1/79
TIROS-N
The TIROS-N series, modeled similar to DMSP’s Block 5D, continues today (Davis,
2011, p. 7-8). The series is named after the prototype satellite, named TIROS-N, but all
successor satellites were given NOAA designations, continuing the trend that began in the ITOS
series. This new series was updated in numerous ways from previous series, and it contained
several new sensors (p. 24):
33
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS)
Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) – from the United Kingdom
Data Collection System (DCS) – from France
Of these sensors, it is the AVHRR that is the focus of this discussion. The AVHRR is the
improved version of the VHRR from ITOS and yields imagery of ~1 km, which is approximately
the same as its VHRR predecessor (Kramer, 2001, p. 734). Including the TIROS-N prototype
there have been 16 launches in this series to date, generally alternating between morning (AM)
and evening (PM) satellites. The most recent launch was NOAA-19 on February 4, 2009 (Davis,
2011, p. 24), and the satellite is currently providing imagery that has significantly advanced from
imagery provided by TIROS in the 1960s. In contrast to the original TIROS satellite, which
provided crude, oblique imagery, the TIROS-N satellites provide imagery that has improved
resolution, vertical imagery, and synoptic coverage (see Figure 3.4 and compare with Figure
3.3).
34
Figure 3.4 First image captured from NOAA-19, the most recently launched U.S. satellite of the
POES program. From the AVHRR sensor, the left side is Channel 1, 0.58 - 0.68 micrometers
(µm), and the right side is Channel 2, 0.725 - 1.00 µm (NASA, 2009).
Table 3.4 shows the name, orbit (AM or PM), launch date, lifespan (in days), and date of “end of
useful life” for each TIROS-N satellite (Davis, 2011, p. 16).
Florida Florida
35
Table 3.4 TIROS-N details.
Name Orbit Launch Date Lifespan End of Useful Life
TIROS-N PM 10/13/78 751 days 11/1/80
NOAA-6 AM 6/27/79 1546 days 9/19/83
NOAA-B - 5/29/80 Failure. Failure
NOAA-7 PM 6/23/81 1326 days 2/7/85
NOAA-8 AM 3/28/83 426 days 5/26/84
NOAA-9 PM 12/24/84 4800 days 2/13/98
NOAA-10 AM 9/17/86 1827 days 9/17/91
NOAA-11 PM 9/24/88 5745 days 6/16/04
NOAA-12 AM 5/14/91 5933 days 8/10/07
NOAA-13 PM 8/9/93 13 days 8/21/93
NOAA-14 AM 12/30/94 4528 days 5/23/07
NOAA-15 AM 5/13/98 TBD Secondary
NOAA-16 PM 9/21/00 TBD Secondary
NOAA-17 AM 6/24/02 TBD Backup
NOAA-18 PM 5/20/05 TBD Secondary
NOAA-19 PM 2/4/09 TBD Operational
Program Resolution
The primary objective of POES has been the acquisition of weather and climate data for
the purpose of forecasting and climate studies. Considering that general weather patterns are
more observable over large areas, increasing the spatial resolution of the imagery has not been a
primary goal in design, because it would compromise the area coverage of the imagery.
Increasing the resolution of imagery received was not undesirable, but the incorporation of new
and varied sensors aboard POES satellites has been given greater importance. Nevertheless,
improvements in technological capabilities as measured by spatial resolution were moderately
achieved throughout the four series previously described.
Aboard the TIROS satellites, the TV-WA and TV-NA were able to achieve ~3 km and ~1
km resolutions, respectively. From the ESSA satellites, the AVCS and APT were able to return
imagery with a resolution of ~3 km. As for ITOS, imagery captured with the VHRR showed an
36
improved resolution of ~1 km. The AVHRRs aboard satellites the TIROS-N series capture
images at ~1 km resolution. Though the TV-NA and the VHRR sensors were able to capture
images of approximately the same resolution, there was a critical difference between the two:
ground coverage. The TV-WA had 1206 km ground coverage with ~3 km resolution, and the
TV-NA had 121 km ground coverage with ~1 km resolution. Although the TV-NA gathered
imagery with more desirable resolution, gathering images of such small areas was deemed
inappropriate for studying large area patterns and weather forecasting. The AVHRR, however,
had the resolution of the TV-NA and the coverage of the TV-WA camera, so it is not surprising
that the TIROS-N series with AVHRR sensors has been used for over three decades, longer than
all three series before it altogether. Table 3.5 shows the series, years of use, and approximate
resolution in kilometers (Davis, 2011, p. 720-44). Figure 3.5 shows this information graphically.
Table 3.5 Image resolution of POES satellites.
Series Years Resolution (km)
TIROS 1960-1965 ~3 km (TV-WA), ~1 km (TV-NA)
ESSA 1966-1969 ~3 km (AVCS and APT)
ITOS 1970-1976 ~1 km (VHRR)
TIROS-N 1978- Present Day ~1 km (AVHRR)
37
Figure 3.5 Resolutions (in kilometers) and time frames/duration of POES according to series.
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)
Program Overview
The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) is a meteorological satellite
program that started as a classified military program (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 12). Back in
the 1960s, TIROS was considered insufficient for military purposes, because it “viewed only an
oblique swath of the Earth’s surface occasionally in each orbit instead of once each time it
revolved” (Hall, 2001, p. 1). The military needed “better knowledge of weather conditions –
particularly cloud cover” for several purposes. For instance, better knowledge of current weather
patterns could benefit the timing and deployment of other reconnaissance satellites, which
needed to capture cloud-free imagery for intelligence purposes. Also, improved knowledge of
weather could make specific military operations more effective, aiding tactical decision making
(Storm and Iwanaga, 2005). Since Congress had already decided to fund the TIROS satellites,
DMSP had to be developed in secrecy. According to historian R. Cargill Hall, author of A
History of the Military Polar Orbiting Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP began as a
0
1
2
3
4
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Res
olu
tio
n (
kilo
met
ers)
Year
TIROS (TV-NA)
ESSA
TIROS (TV-WA)
ITOS
TIROS-N
38
temporary project with a fixed budget and a firm timeline. DMSP was a “single purpose,
minimum cost, ‘high-risk’ program” (Hall, 2001, p. 4).
Not entirely unexpected, considering the “high-risk” nature of the program, the first
DMSP launch in May 1962 was unsuccessful, but the second DMSP launch in August 1962 was
successful. In fact, the second DMSP was able provide weather imagery during the Cuban
Missile Crisis in October 1962, aiding the planning and success of reconnaissance missions over
Cuba and the Caribbean (Hall, 2001, p. 5). Although still in the early years of being a classified
project, the usefulness of the weather imagery provided by DMSP during the Cuban Missile
Crisis was a factor that contributed to the transition of DMSP from a temporary program to a
permanent program. Similar to its use in providing weather imagery for tactical purposes in the
Cuban Missile Crisis, DMSP imagery became critical during the Vietnam War. In fact, it
became so critical that a readout station was constructed in South Vietnam, so military users
could have the imagery that they needed of Southeast Asia sooner. The two main readout
stations were on opposite ends of the continental U.S.; one was in Maine, the other in
Washington, and both relayed their information to Nebraska (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 12;
Hall, 2001, p. 7).
DMSP made several contributions to astronautics and the development of satellite remote
sensing, such as illustrating the effectiveness of small programs, pioneering new ideas for the
technical improvement of meteorological satellites, improving ground stations, and establishing
standard satellite tracking processes (Davis, 2011, p. 11). Considering this success, the
Department of Commerce pressured NASA to improve the civilian satellites similarly. As early
as the 1960s, it was deemed desirable to have a single system capable of meeting both military
and civilian needs (pp. 23, 30). NASA was already working on a National Operational
39
Meteorological Satellite System (NOMSS system), but it became so complicated, expensive, and
delayed that it was deemed infeasible (p. 1). A similar effort to combine military and civilian
weather needs was attempted much more recently (late 1990s, early 2000s), and the name of that
system was to be the National Polar-Orbiting Observing Satellite System (NPOESS). It suffered
from similar problems as its NOMSS predecessor; according to an article entitled, “NPOESS
Weather Satellites: From Crisis to Program Splits,” the NPOESS program was “billions over
budget, and 6 or more years late” (Defense Industry Daily, 2011). NPOESS was canceled like
NOMSS, and thus, DMSP satellites continue to be launched as their own program.
Program Details
Block 1. Though the first DMSP satellites were not called Block 1 satellites, the DMSP
satellites were eventually divided into “blocks”. There are currently five blocks in the history of
the DMSP satellites. There were 11 Block 1 satellites launched from 1962 to 1965, but most of
the satellites in the first two years failed to orbit. Launches in later years became more
successful, and it was determined that the Scout rocket used in the first two years of launches had
definitely been unreliable (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p.12). For the five Block 1 satellites
launched with a Scout rocket, only one was particularly successful. Table 3.6 shows the block,
launch date, duration, and end of mission date (EMD) for each Block 1 satellite (Hall, 2001, pp.
38-40).
40
Table 3.6 DMSP Block 1 details.
Block Launch Date Duration EMD
Block 1 5/23/62 - Failed to orbit, 2nd
stage exploded.
Block 1 8/23/62 293 days 6/11/63
Block 1 2/19/63 - Improper orbit.
Block 1 4/26/63 - Failed to orbit, 3rd
stage exploded.
Block 1 9/27/63 - Failed to orbit, 3rd
stage exploded.
Block 1 1/19/64 175 days 7/10/64
Block 1 1/19/64 424 days 3/17/65
Block 1 6/17/64 610 days 2/16/66
Block 1 6/17/64 486 days 10/15/65
Block 1 1/18/65 - Failed to orbit, payload shroud failed to separate.
Block 1 3/18/65 91 days 6/16/65
Block 2. Though imagery from Block 1 was utilized during the Cuban Missile Crisis in
1962, more attempts were being made to incorporate weather imagery into “tactical military
operations at home and abroad” in 1964 (Hall, 2001, p. 5, 16). Modifications of the Block 1
satellites were approved for three new satellites, which became known as Block 2 satellites.
These satellites were the same size and same shape as their Block 1 predecessors, but they
weighed more, fitted with “improved infrared radiometers”, and they “provided tactical
meteorological data for operations in Southeast Asia” (p. 16). A major goal of DMSP across
blocks was to provide weather imagery to the U.S. military in Southeast Asia for use during the
Vietnam War, so not only was weather imagery being used for reconnaissance, it was being used
for “more precise planning of tactical air missions” (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 12).
Block 3. Block 3 consisted of a single satellite. It was similar to Block 2 satellites, but its
sole purpose was the provision of imagery for tactical purposes. According to Hall (2001), “The
reason for this curiosity, a ‘one-vehicle block,’ involved efforts to distinguish it from its Block 2
cousins that also supported the primary strategic cloud cover mission” (p. 16, emphasis added).
41
In short, though Block 2 satellites supported both strategic and tactical efforts, the Block 3
satellite supported only tactical efforts. Table 3.7 shows the block, launch date, duration, and
end of mission date (EMD) for each Block 2 satellite and the Block 3 satellite (p. 40).3
Table 3.7 DMSP Block 2 and Block 3 details.
Block Launch Date Duration EMD
Block 3 5/20/65 628 days 2/6/67
Block 2 9/9/65 379 days 11/22/66
Block 2 1/7/66 - Failed to orbit, upper stage failed to ignite.
Block 2 3/30/66 766 days 5/3/68
Block 4. There were two different groups of Block 4 satellites, Block 4A and Block 4B,
and the satellites of Block 4 were larger than all predecessors in Blocks 1-3. While the Block 1-
3 satellites incorporated one camera, the Block 4 satellites had two cameras pointed away from
vertical. This allowed the satellite to have an increased swath and gain much better coverage of
the equator, which had suffered from “significant gaps in coverage” (Hall, 2001, p. 16). Table
3.8 shows the block, launch date, duration, and end of mission date (EMD) for each Block 4
satellite (p.41).
3 Note that the Block 3 satellite was launched before the Block 2 satellites.
42
Table 3.8 DMSP Block 4 details.
Block Launch Date Duration EMD
Block 4A 9/15/66 781 days 11/3/68
Block 4A 2/8/67 100 days 5/18/67
Block 4A 8/23/67 204 days 3/13/68
Block 4A 10/11/67 257 days 6/23/68
Block 4B 5/23/68 369 days 5/26/69
Block 4B 10/22/68 698 days 9/19/70
Block 4B 7/22/69 606 days 3/19/71
Block 5. The design of the Block 5 satellites departed completely from the design of
their TIROS-derived predecessors. The sensors were designed, with users’ needs in mind, by
Captain Richard Geer and Major James Blankenship of the U.S. Air Force. The most notable
sensor change was the incorporation of the Operational Line Scanner (OLS) (Hall, 2001, p. 18).
With the OLS came a significant improvement in the resolution of imagery collected. All in all,
the new Block 5 satellite satisfied tactical and strategic needs, and three satellites, which came to
be known as Block 5A were launched before “military demands for greater tactical
meteorological support dictated further changes” (p. 20).
More specifically, the change that the military desired would allow imagery to be
received aboard ships. This would require an increase in temporary image storage capacity
aboard satellites and the installation of terminals aboard ships. This capability was achieved in
Blocks 5B and 5C. There were five Block 5B satellites and three Block 5C satellites, and just as
their different designations suggest, other changes were incorporated into these satellites to
differentiate them from their predecessors. The Block 5B satellites had a large shade from the
sun, more powerful amplifier, a second recorder for data, and a sensor to detect gamma radiation.
The Block 5C satellites added a sensor that made profiles of both temperature and moisture, and
43
it had an improved infrared radiation sensor (Hall, 2001, pp. 20-1). The eleven Block 5A, 5B,
and 5C satellites were launched in the early 1970s (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 12). Table 3.9
shows the block, launch date, duration, and end of mission date (EMD) for each Block 4 satellite
(Hall, 2001, pp. 42-3).
Table 3.9 DMSP Block 5A, 5B, and 5C details.
Block Launch Date Duration EMD
Block 5A 2/11/70 402 days 3/19/71
Block 5A 9/3/70 166 days 2/15/71
Block 5A 2/17/71 746 days 3/3/73
Block 5B 10/14/71 197 days 4/27/72
Block 5B 3/24/72 702 days 2/23/74
Block 5B 11/9/72 925 days 5/22/75
Block 5B 8/17/73 1257 days 1/24/77
Block 5B 3/16/74 804 days 5/27/76
Block 5C 8/9/74 1211 days 12/1/77
Block 5C 5/24/75 922 days 11/30/77
Block 5C 2/19/76 - Failed to orbit, improper fuel loading.
Block 5D. Eventually, the DMSP satellites reached a point where further modifications
would yield diminishing returns. This, in combination with the short lifespans of past DMSP
satellites, seemed to indicate that the program could benefit from a completely new design.
However, “a new block number meant a ‘new start’” and a lot of red rape from Washington
(Hall, 2001, p. 22). Considering this, it was possible that Block 6 would not be approved,
sparking interest in combining DMSP and the corresponding civilian program. Wishing to avoid
this, funding was requested for a Block 5D. Not looking too closely, politicians approved the
funding for the “modified” Block 5D, and an entirely new system was developed under their
noses (p. 23).
44
There have been different variations of the Block 5D: 5D-1, 5D-2, and 5D-3. Block 5D-1
was the original design for Block 5D, and there were five Block 5D-1 satellites launched from
1976 to 1980. Block 5D-2, however, was a response to the effort to blend the military and
civilian weather satellites. Despite trying to avoid merging the systems by calling the new
DMSP system Block 5D instead of Block 6, interest in blending the military and civilian systems
still arose. However, the military Block 5A, 5B, and 5C satellites had already broken away from
the design derived from the original TIROS satellite, making the existing DMSP satellites
superior to the planned TIROS-N, the corresponding civilian system at the time. Suggestions to
have a single system managed by the Air Force were firmly turned down, adhering to the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which emphasized the need to separate civilian and
military attempts at spacefaring (Hall, 2001, p. 23). Specifically, the act stated “that it is the
policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the
benefit of all mankind” (NASA, 2004). Combining the civilian and military satellite systems
represented a conflict of interests, and eventually it was decided that there would still be two
separate systems. Block 5D-2 satellites would be fitted with additional sensors and be used by
both the Air Force and NOAA. There were nine Block 5D-2 satellites launched from 1982 to
1997, and all were successful (Strom and Iwanaga, 2005, p. 15).
The Block 5D-3 satellites are the DMSP satellites currently being launched, and they are
the heaviest and most complex of the DMSP satellites. They are modified from previous Block
5D satellites to have an average lifetime of five years, incorporating a bigger solar array, three
batteries, an improved sunshade, temperature controls, etc. According to Hall, there should be six
Block 5D-3 satellites, and at the time of this writing, there have been four launches from 1999 to
2009 (see Figure 3.6) (Hall, 2001, p. 33).
45
Figure 3.6 Artistic rendition of Block 5D-3 DMSP satellite in space (Hall, 2001, p. 33).
End of mission dates for the most recent satellites are not known, but many are still in orbit
which could indicate that the satellites are operating according to the longer lifespan expected.
Table 3.10 shows the block, launch date, duration, and end of mission date (EMD) for each
Block 5D satellite (Hall, 2001, pp. 43-45; Krebs, 2012; Gebhardt, 2009).
46
Table 3.10 DMSP Block 5D details.
Block Launch Date Duration EMD
Block 5D-1 9/11/76 1102 days 11/17/79
Block 5D-1 6/5/77 1019 days 3/19/80
Block 5D-1 5/1/78 2130 days 2/28/84
Block 5D-1 6/6/79 451 days 8/29/80
Block 5D-1 7/15/80 - Failed to orbit, 4th stage failure.
Block 5D-2 12/21/82 1708 days 8/24/87
Block 5D-2 11/18/83 1430 days 10/17/87
Block 5D-2 6/20/87 1638 days 8/13/91
Block 5D-2 2/3/88 1483 days 2/24/92
Block 5D-2 12/1/90 1531 days 2/8/95
Block 5D-2 11/28/91 3199 days 8/30/00
Block 5D-2 8/29/94 974 days 4/28/97
Block 5D-2 3/24/95 TBD (Still in orbit).
Block 5D-2 4/4/97 TBD (Still in orbit).
Block 5D-3 12/12/99 TBD (Still in orbit).
Block 5D-3 10/18/03 TBD (Still in orbit).
Block 5D-3 11/4/06 TBD (Still in orbit).
Block 5D-3 10/18/09 TBD (Still in orbit).
Program Resolution
According to Hall (2001), “a resolution at the surface of better than three nautical miles
provided by the DMSP Block 1 satellites was judged ‘extremely desirable’” (p. 13). Three
nautical miles is approximately equivalent to 5.6 km.4 It turned out that Block 1 was able to
yield imagery with a resolution of approximately 5.6 – 7.4 km (p. 16). No changes that could
greatly affect imagery resolution were made to the DMSP satellites of Blocks 2 and 3, so the
resolution of imagery from Blocks 2 and 3 was also approximately 5.6 – 7.4 km. As for Block 4
satellites, however, changes were made to these systems that did affect imagery resolution.
Block 4 satellites were able to acquire imagery at approximately 1.5 – 5.6 km, a significant
improvement from Blocks 1 – 3 (p. 17). As discussed, Block 5 was significantly different from
4 1 nautical mile (nm) = 1.852 km
47
its predecessors and incorporated the new Operational Line Scanner (OLS), which yielded
imagery with a resolution of approximately 0.6 – 3.7 km (p. 19) (see Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7 An image of Hurricane Fran in 1996, obtained with DMSP’s Operational Line
Scanner (OLS) (NOAA, 2012).
As for the Block 5D, a completely new system that could have been called Block 6, the OLS was
improved and yielded a resolution of approximately 0.6 – 0.9 km; this is the system currently
used (p. 19). Table 3.11 shows the block, approximate date ranges, and approximate resolution
in kilometers (Hall, 2001), and Figure 3.8 shows the information from Table 3.11 graphically.
48
Table 3.11 Imagery resolution of DMSP satellites.
Block Years Approximate Resolution (km)
Block 1, 2, and 3 1962 to 1966 5.6 – 7.4 km
Block 4 (4A and 4B) 1966 to 1969 1.5 – 5.6 km
Block 5A, 5B, and 5C 1970 to 1976 0.6 – 3.7 km
Block 5D 1976 to Present 0.6 – 0.9 km
Figure 3.8 Range of resolutions (in kilometers) and program time frames/duration of DMSP
according to Block.
Leading the Way to New Frontiers
Both DMSP and POES continue to provide valuable information for weather forecasting
and climate studies, but they are limited in what they can accomplish. After all, these satellites
originally acquired imagery at so coarse a scale that only general patterns could be determined.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Res
olu
tio
n (
kilo
met
ers)
Year
Block 1, 2, and 3
Block 4 (4A and 4B)
Block 5A, 5B, and 5C
Block 5D
49
Nevertheless, these primarily meteorological satellites did spur visionaries to discover other
applications of satellite remote sensing. These satellites provided information over broad areas,
such as continents, nations, and states, but some studies require information over smaller areas.
This information, however, typically needs to be of greater detail. POES and DMSP provided
imagery with resolution in kilometers, but soon Landsat satellites would provide imagery with
sub-kilometer resolution. Such an increase in imagery detail could be used to study something
entirely different; while meteorological satellites could be said to show the effect of the
environment on humans, earth observation satellites like Landsat could show the effect of
humans on the environment.
50
CHAPTER 4
MODERATE RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY
Studying Human Impact on the Environment
Broad scale imagery with resolutions in the kilometers is sufficient for meteorological
studies, but at this resolution, it is very difficult to see how humans have interacted with the
environment, changing it and shaping it for unique purposes. For studies of this nature, moderate
resolution imagery (10 – 250 m), rather than low resolution imagery, is needed. Moderate
resolution is best for studying changes across the globe, because it is high enough to detect
human activity, such as urbanization or deforestation, and it is low enough to be gathered across
the globe on a regular basis. Imagery with moderate resolution would reveal large manmade
features but not in extreme detail; this could include showing the extent of urbanized areas,
major roads, and large buildings (NASA, 2012a). Imagery of this sort could aid the
measurement of urbanization and deforestation, and it would also be suitable for vegetation
studies, which are useful for agricultural applications. Early civilian satellite systems, such as
POES and DMSP with imagery in kilometers, do not show enough detail to reveal human impact
on the environment.
To collect this sort of imagery, the Landsat satellites were developed and launched
beginning in the 1970s. In favor of imagery with improved spatial resolution than that of the
meteorological satellites, Landsat sensors compromised area coverage for better resolution
(Lillisand, et al., 2008, 400-1). Landsat imagery, a major milestone in satellite remote sensing,
set the standard for moderate resolution. The resulting imagery from the Landsat satellites
51
revealed revolutionary views of the surface and continues to be applicable to this day, providing
information about land cover and land use, urbanization and deforestation, vegetation and
agriculture, and more. Also, as imagery has been collected from Landsat over the years, change
detection studies are possible by comparing different imagery dates for the same area.
Considering the applicability of this type of imagery to peoples and places all over the world, a
high demand eventually developed for Landsat imagery. A monopoly over Landsat imagery
developed, but this was eventually broken by a French satellite program called SPOT (NASA,
2012a). Currently, several Landsat-like systems are in existence, continuing to provide this
necessary imagery for study and preventing any sort of future monopoly over moderate
resolution imagery.
Landsat, a Civilian Program for Earth Observation
Program Overview
Before being renamed, the Landsat satellites were to be called Earth Resources
Technology Satellites (ERTS). As early as the mid-1960s, plans were underway for ERTS,
which would provide moderate resolution imagery for studying land use and land cover data.
These ERTS satellites would be given alphabetic notations before launch (e.g. ERTS-A, ERTS-
B, etc.) and numeric notations after successfully reaching orbit (e.g. ERTS-1, ERTS-2, etc.).
After the success of ERTS-1, however, the program was renamed Landsat. ERTS-1 was
retroactively named Landsat-1, and all following ERTS satellites were named Landsat-2, -3, etc.
“to distinguish [the Landsat satellites] from the planned Seasat oceanographic satellite program”
(Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 399).
The Landsat program, despite its eventual success, was initially met with opposition.
The Bureau of Budget considered the program financially irresponsible, considering the
52
established source of imagery, high-altitude aerial photography, sufficient. Also, the Department
of Defense was concerned that such a program “would compromise the secrecy of their
reconnaissance missions” (NASA, 2012a). Even when NASA was finally “coerced” to build
Landsat, there were disagreements between the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture about sensors. Once these problems were resolved, Landsat-1 was finally launched
in 1972, and the “quality and impact of the resulting information exceeded all expectations”
(NASA, 2012a). Landsat-2 was launched in 1975, and Landsat-3 was launched in 1978. After
these launches, responsibility for Landsat shifted from NASA to NOAA in 1979. However, it
was not until after Landsat-4 was launched in 1982 that the operational management shifted from
NASA to NOAA in 1983. In 1984, Landsat-5 was launched, and Congress passed the Land
Remote Sensing Commercialization Act, which permitted the privatization of Landsat. As a
result, NOAA contracted Landsat to Earth Observation Satellite Company (EOSAT) for
commercialization (Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 400-1; NASA, 2012a).
The results of commercializing Landsat were terribly negative. Since Landsat was the
only satellite of its kind until 1986, the U.S. had a monopoly on Landsat-like imagery, so after
Congress passed the 1984 act, the prices for imagery were raised from $600 to $3700 by NOAA.
Then when Landsat was transferred to a private company, EOSAT, the prices were raised from
$3700 to $4400. Such inflated prices turned away many potential buyers, who reverted to the
available imagery from meteorological satellites. With a narrowed consumer pool, Landsat data
was acquired on an “on-demand” basis, not systematically for archiving, which would suit
scientific study (NASA, 2012a). As Landsat-4 and Landsat-5 aged (previous satellites were
already decommissioned by this time) and no budget existed for further Landsat satellites,
NOAA reached a point in 1989 where they instructed EOSAT to simply turn off the remaining
53
two satellites. Such a drastic move finally awakened Congress, data users, and the Vice
President to do something about the unfortunate situation, which resulted in the Land Remote
Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (NASA, 2012a).
Landsat-6, which was a launch failure in 1993, was EOSAT-owned, but the Land Remote
Sensing Policy Act of 1992 said the following Landsat, Landsat-7, would be government-owned.
Landsat-7 was launched in 1999 (Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 400), and Space Imaging, which had
acquired EOSAT from Lockheed Martin in 1996, returned responsibility and commercial rights
for Landsat back to the U.S. government (GeoEye, Inc., 1996). The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), which had been in charge of long-term data archiving all this time, was able to reduce
imagery prices back down to their original price of $600, which resulted in “a large increase of
Landsat data users” (NASA, 2012a). Unfortunately, Landsat-7’s scan line corrector (SLC) failed
in 2003, resulting in images that contained striping devoid of data. Possibly as a result of this,
Landsat-7 data became free in 2008. Soon after, all Landsat data became free in 2009, which
resulted in a “60 fold increase of data downloads” (NASA, 2012a). Landsat-7 is the last Landsat
satellite to be launched at the time of this writing, but plans have been developed for the Landsat
Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) to be launched in early 2013 (NASA, 2012a).
Program Details5
Landsat-1. The first Landsat satellite had two sensors: the Return Beam Vidicon (RBV)
and the Multispectral Scanner (MSS). The RBV was intended to be the main instrument aboard
Landsat-1, but the MSS proved to be the superior instrument. This was because the RBV sensors
were “analog television-like cameras,” riddled with technical problems, and in comparison, the
5 Most of the information in the Program Details subsection for Landsat were taken from Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation (Lillesand, Et al., 2008, pp. 400-1)
54
MSS returned multispectral imagery in digital format, able to be processed on a computer
(Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 402). The RBV acquired imagery in three bands at a resolution of 80
m, and the MSS acquired imagery in four bands at a resolution of 79 m. Landsat-1 was launched
July 23, 1972 and decommissioned January 6, 1978.
Landsat-2. Same as Landsat-1. Landsat-2 was launched January 22, 1975 and
decommissioned February 25, 1982.
Landsat-3. The third Landsat had an RBV and an MSS, but the capabilities of those
sensors were slightly improved from Landsat-1 and -2. The RBV sensor had a resolution of 30
m, since it switched from multispectral to panchromatic imagery (see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Panchromatic image of Cape Canaveral, FL from Landsat-3’s RBV sensor
(Federation of American Scientists [FAS], 1999; Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 404).
55
As for the MSS, the resolution of the existing bands changed slightly from 79 m to 82 m, and a
thermal band was included with a planned resolution of 240 m. Unfortunately, the thermal band
failed soon after launch (NASA, 2012a). Landsat-3 was launched March 5, 1978 and
decommissioned March 31, 1983.
Landsat-4. The fourth Landsat did not include the RBV. Landsat-4 included the MSS
with the same capabilities as the MSS on Landsat-3, but Landsat-4 also included an instrument
called the Thematic Mapper (TM). This instrument was similar to the MSS but sensed in seven
bands instead of five and acquired data at a higher resolution than the MSS. Six of the bands had
a resolution of 30 m, which was a fraction of the resolution of MSS bands, and the thermal band
had resolution of 120 m, as compared to the 240 m band of the MSS. Landsat-4 was launched
on July 16, 1982 and decommissioned June 15, 2001.
Landsat-5. Same as Landsat-4. Landsat-5 was launched on March 1, 1984 and has not
been decommissioned but is currently shut down “due to a rapidly degrading electronic
component” (NASA, 2012a).
Landsat-6. The sixth Landsat satellite was launched on October 5, 1993 and failed in
launch. Though never used, this satellite had an Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM).
Essentially, it was the same as the Thematic Mapper, but it included an additional panchromatic
band with a resolution of 15 m. This band would be used for pan-sharpening, which would make
the 30 meter multispectral imagery appear to have 15 meter resolution. Unfortunately, this
satellite never reached orbit and acquired no data.
Landsat-7. The seventh and latest Landsat satellite has an Enhanced Thematic Mapper
Plus (ETM+), which is exactly the same as the ETM aboard the Landsat-6 satellite, except the
56
resolution of the thermal band improved from 120 m to 60 m. Landsat-7 was launched April 15,
1999, and although the SLC failed in 2003, the satellite has not been decommissioned.
LDCM. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is planned to use a sensor called
the Operational Land Imager (OLI), which has nine bands, comparable but not identical to the
bands in the previous Landsat satellites (NASA, 2012a; Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 429-31). All
multispectral bands have a resolution of 30 m, and there is a 15 m panchromatic band. There is a
separate instrument called the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) that will capture 100 m thermal
imagery. The LDCM is a joint effort between NASA and USGS, who are striving “to launch
LDCM in January 2013” (NASA, 2012a) (see Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 Rendition of Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) in space (NASA, 2011).
57
Program Resolution
Improving spatial resolution for Landsat satellites was a gradual process. Multispectral
imagery improved from ~80 m to 30 m, thermal imagery improved from 240 m to 120 m to 60
m, and panchromatic imagery improved from 30 m to 15 m. Name, launch date, lifespan,
decommission date, and sensors/resolutions for each Landsat satellite have been included in
Table 4.1. Figures 4.3 - 4.5 show this information graphically, separating the multispectral,
panchromatic, and thermal bands of Landsat satellites into different graphs.
Table 4.1 Landsat details.
Name Launch
Date
Lifespan Decommission
Date
Sensors/Resolutions
Landsat-1 7/23/72 1994 days 1/6/78 RBV (80 m multispectral) and MSS (79
m multispectral)
Landsat-2 7/22/75 2592 days 2/25/82 RBV (80 m multispectral) and MSS (79
m multispectral)
Landsat-3 3/5/78 1853 days 3/31/83 RBV (30 m panchromatic) and MSS (79
m multispectral, 240 m thermal)
Landsat-4 7/16/82 6910 days 6/15/01 MSS (82 m multispectral) and TM (30
m multispectral, 120 m thermal)
Landsat-5 3/1/84 TBD TBD MSS (82 m multispectral) and TM (30
m multispectral, 120 m thermal)
Landsat-6 10/15/93 Launch
failure.
Launch failure. ETM (30 m multispectral, 120 m
thermal, 15 m panchromatic)
Landsat-7 4/15/99 TBD TBD ETM+ (30 m multispectral, 60 m
thermal, 15 m panchromatic)
LDCM TBD
(2013?)
TBD TBD OLI (30 m multispectral, 15 m
panchromatic)
58
Figure 4.3 Resolution of Landsat satellites’ multispectral bands over time.
Figure 4.4 Resolution of Landsat satellites’ panchromatic bands over time.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
Panchromatic Band
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
Multispectral Bands
59
Figure 4.5 Resolution of Landsat satellites’ thermal bands over time.
Breaking the Monopoly: Landsat-Like Systems
Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT)
After the U.S. began the Landsat program, France started working on a comparable
program in 1978 known as Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT). This system
differed from the Landsat program, because from the start, SPOT was meant to be an
operational, commercial program (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 432). In 1986, France launched
SPOT-1, the first satellite of the SPOT series to be launched. At the time, the U.S. had a
monopoly on selling Landsat-like imagery, but the availability of SPOT imagery, with
comparable bands and slightly better resolution, broke this monopoly (NASA, 2012a). Since
the launch of SPOT-1, four more satellites have been launched, and two more, SPOT-6 and
SPOT-7, are planned for launched in the near future (sometime in 2012-2014) (Krebs, 2012).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
Thermal Band
60
SPOT-1, -2, and -3 were identical to each other, carrying a High Resolution Visible
(HRV) sensor. This sensor gathered multispectral imagery (green, red, near infrared) at a
resolution of 20 m and panchromatic imagery at a resolution of 10 m. SPOT-4 carries a slightly
more advanced sensor, the High Resolution Visible and Infrared (HRVIR) sensor, which gathers
the same imagery as the first three SPOT satellites but includes an additional mid-infrared band,
also at a resolution of 20 m. SPOT-5 carries a High Resolution Geometric (HRG) sensor. This
sensor obtains imagery at improved resolutions in comparison to previous SPOT satellites,
gathering panchromatic imagery at 5 m, multispectral imagery (green, red, near infrared) at 10
m, and mid-infrared imagery at 20 m. Details about the SPOT satellites – such as name, launch
date, lifespan, end date, and sensors/resolutions – have been included in Table 4.2 (Centre
National D’Études Spatiales [CNES], 2011; Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 433).
Table 4.2 Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) details.
Name Launch Date Lifespan End Date Sensors/Resolutions
SPOT-1 2/21/86 1775 days 12/31/90 HRV (10 m panchromatic, 20 m
multispectral)
SPOT-2 1/21/90 7130 days 7/29/09 HRV (10 m panchromatic, 20 m
multispectral)
SPOT-3 9/25/93 1512 days 11/14/97 HRV (10 m panchromatic, 20 m
multispectral)
SPOT-4 3/23/98 TBD TBD HRVIR (10 m panchromatic, 20 m
multispectral and mid-infrared)
SPOT-5 3/3/02 TBD TBD HRG (5 m panchromatic, 10 m
multispectral, 20 m mid-infrared)
61
Indian Remote Sensing
India has launched many satellites, and several of these are comparable to the Landsat
satellites, beginning in 1988. In order of launch, the Landsat-like satellites of the IRS series are
as follows: IRS-1A, -1B, -1E, -P2, -1C, -P3, and -1D. The first three satellites, IRS-1A, -1B, and
-1E, had two different multispectral sensors: LISS-1 and LISS-2.6 The only significant
difference between the two sensors is that LISS-1 covered more area at a coarser resolution than
LISS-2; LISS-1 resolution was 72.5 m, and LISS-2 resolution was 36.25 m. Both IRS-P2 and
IRS-P3 were launched with one sensor each; IRS-P2 was launched with a LISS-2 sensor, and
IRS-P3 utilized an entirely different sensor, the Wide Field Sensor (WiFS), which had a
resolution of 188 m (FAS 2000).
Beginning with IRS-IC and IRS-ID, launched in 1995 and 1997, respectively, India
began to refine its earth observation satellites. These two satellites carried the same sensors: a
panchromatic sensor with a resolution of 5.8 m, a multispectral LISS-3 with a resolution 23.5 m,
and a WiFS with a resolution of 188 m. The successors to these satellites are Resourcesat-1 and
Resourcesat-2, launched in 2003 and 2011, respectively. These satellites are identical to one
another, carrying the same sensors: the multispectral LISS-4 with a resolution of 5.8 m, the
multispectral LISS-3 with a resolution of 23.5 m, and an Advanced Wide Field Sensor (AWiFS)
with a resolution of 55 m. Neither Resourcesat-1 nor Resourcesat-2 has a panchromatic sensor.
Instead, satellites part of the Cartosat series have been launched, and these satellites only collect
panchromatic imagery. Cartosat-1, launched in 2005, has a resolution of 2.5 m. Cartosat-2, -2A,
and -2B, launched in 2007, 2008, and 2010, respectively, all have a resolution of 1 m. Details
about the IRS satellites and successors – name, launch date, lifespan, end of life, and
6 LISS is the abbreviation for Linear Imaging Self-Scanning.
62
sensors/resolutions – have been included in Table 4.3 (FAS, 2000; Krebs, 2012; Indian Space
Research Organisation [ISRO], 2008; Committee on Earth Observation Satellites [CEOS],
2012).
Table 4.3. Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) details.
Name Launch Date Lifespan End of Life Sensors/Resolutions
IRS-1A 3/17/88 2117 days 1/1/94 LISS-1 (72.5m) LISS-2 (36.25m)
IRS-1B 8/29/91 4021 days 8/31/02 LISS-1(72.5m) LISS-2 (36.25m)
IRS-1E 9/20/93 Failed. Failed. LISS-1(72.5m) LISS-2 (36.25m)
IRS-P2 10/15/94 1174 days 12/31/97 LISS-2 (36.25m)
IRS-1C 12/28/95 4286 days 9/21/07 Pan (5.8m) LISS-3 (23.5m) WiFS
(188m)
IRS-P3 3/21/96 3574 days 1/1/06 WiFS (188m)
IRS-1D 9/27/97 4481 days 1/2/10 Pan (5.8) LISS-3 (23.5m) WiFS
(188m)
Resourcesat-1 10/17/03 TBD TBD LISS-4 (5.8m) LISS-3 (23.5m)
AWiFS (55m)
Cartosat-1 5/5/05 TBD TBD Pan (2.5m)
Cartosat-2 1/10/07 TBD TBD Pan (1m)
Cartosat-2A 4/28/08 TBD TBD Pan (1m)
Cartosat-2B 7/12/10 TBD TBD Pan (1m)
Resourcesat-2 4/20/11 TBD TBD LISS-4 (5.8m) LISS-3 (23.5m)
AWiFS (55m)
ASTER
As part of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), there are two complimentary
satellites known as Terra and Aqua, and aboard the Terra satellite, the Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) gathers Landsat-like imagery. ASTER
gathers imagery via three subsystems: Visible and Near Infrared (VNIR), Shortwave Infrared
(SWIR), and Thermal Infrared (TIR). The resolution of the imagery these three subsystems
gather is 15 m, 30 m, and 90 m, respectively. The Terra satellite, with ASTER on board, was
63
launched December 18, 1999. These details about ASTER are summarized in Table 4.4
(Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 471-2, 475-6).
Table 4.4 Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) details.
Name Launch Date Sensors/Resolutions
EOS Terra December 18, 1999 ASTER (15 m VNIR, 30 m SWIR, and 90 m TIR)
Small Sats
Launching small satellites, commonly truncated to “Small Sats”, in groups to form
satellite constellations for earth observation is a relatively new concept in the history of satellite
remote sensing. Most satellites before the 21st century were launched individually, but as
miniaturization of satellite and sensor technology becomes more feasible and cost efficient,
launching groups of small satellites provides users of remotely sensed imagery with another
source of imagery for time-sensitive applications. Only two constellations of Small Sats are in
orbit at the present time, both launched within the last decade: the Disaster Monitoring
Constellation (DMC) and the RapidEye constellation.
Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC)
The Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) is headed by the United Kingdom (UK),
but different countries are responsible for individual satellites of the constellation. These
satellites have Landsat-like capabilities, gathering multispectral and panchromatic imagery at
moderate to high resolution. Nine satellites have been launched within the past decade, and of
those nine, five are operational and four are retired. See Table 4.5 for information about name,
country, launch date, and resolutions (DMC International Imaging Ltd [DMCii]; Krebs, 2012).
64
Table 4.5 Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) details.
Name Country Launch Date Resolutions
Alsat-1 Algeria November 28, 2002 32 m multispectral
Bilsat-1 Turkey September 27, 2003 26 m multispectral
and 12 m
panchromatic
NigeriaSat-1 Nigeria September 27, 2003 32 m multispectral
UK-DMC UK September 27, 2003 32 m multispectral
Beijing-1 China October 27, 2005 32 m multispectral
and 4 m panchromatic
Deimos-1 Spain July 29, 2009 22 m multispectral
UK-DMC2 UK July 29, 2009 22 m multispectral
NigeriaSat-2 Nigeria August 17, 2011 2.5 m panchromatic
and 5 m / 32 m
multispectral
NigeriaSat-NX Nigeria August 17, 2011 22 m multispectral
RapidEye
RapidEye, previously a German company now owned and operated by a Canadian
company, also has a constellation of small satellites (de Selding, 2011). This constellation is
both newer and more cohesive than DMC. All five RapidEye satellites are exactly alike. More
specifically, all five satellites have the same JSS 567 sensor, capture Landsat-like multispectral
imagery in identical bands to one another, and all produce imagery with a 5 m resolution.
RapidEye launched its entire constellation aboard the same rocket on August 29, 2008. These
details about the RapidEye constellation are summarized in Table 4.6 (RapidEye, 2012).
Table 4.6 RapidEye details.
Name Launch Date Sensor/Resolution
RapidEye August 29, 2008 JSS 56 (5 m multispectral)
7 JSS is the abbreviation for Jena Spaceborne Scanner.
65
Expansion of Satellite Remote Sensing across the Globe
Aside from France, India, the UK, and Germany, other countries such as Israel, China,
and Korea have developed their own satellite remote sensing programs to meet their own unique
needs. Such a proliferation of information technology causes both positive and negative
reactions. Some national leaders anticipate that the development of satellite remote sensing may
increase global transparency and promote peaceful negotiation. Others believe that these
technologies may increase the divide between wealthy and poor countries, putting weaker states
at risk of exploitation. Either way, multinational constellations of small satellites indicate a trend
toward international cooperation, sharing costs and providing a means for more international
participants, regardless of economic status, to benefit from remotely sensed satellite imagery
(Baker, Williamson, & O’Connell, 2001, pp. 6-8).
Just as the number of nations developing satellite remote sensing technologies increases
and the individual cost of satellites decreases, recent commercialization of satellites has
promoted the refinement of high resolution satellite remote sensing. As resolution continually
improves, new political concerns have become apparent. High resolution imagery is no longer
limited to the government, via its KEYHOLE programs; now civilians produce information-rich,
high resolution imagery that can be viewed by the public. Individuals, not just other nations, are
concerned by what others can see on publicly available imagery, which has led to privacy
concerns. In order to protect the privacy of individuals, the government has imposed restrictions
on satellite imagery that is released to the public, allowing commercial providers of high
resolution satellite imagery to only release imagery at half-meter resolution. In recent years,
satellites have been developed that are capable of collecting imagery with resolution better than
half a meter, but only the government is allowed to see the original data that has not been
66
resampled to 0.5 m, a restriction originally set at 1 m (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 459; Donnelly,
2010; Weinberger, 2008; Cheves, 2009).8
8 This 0.5 m restriction, which was originally 1 m, is referenced in many articles and texts, but the original
documentation of these restrictions are difficult to find.
67
CHAPTER 5
HIGH RESOLUTION DIGITAL IMAGERY
Becoming an Integral Component of the Information Age
Although Landsat-like remotely sensed images are still desired by consumers, high
resolution imagery continues to become a highly valued product, especially for the government.
The U.S. government is a primary consumer of data products from companies such as GeoEye
and DigitalGlobe. Each of these companies specializes in the collection of high resolution
imagery from satellite platforms. The resolution of these commercial companies’ high resolution
imagery (0.41 – 8 m) has finally surpassed the resolutions achieved by the classified film-return
systems (0.6 – 12 m), and the most recently achieved resolutions of commercial systems’
imagery may either match or exceed the current capabilities of the most recent classified
satellites, based on what can be gleaned about the latest of the KEYHOLE series, the KH-11.
No matter what the capabilities, satellite remote sensing has become an integral
component of the current times, for users of this remotely sensed satellite imagery have
discovered a variety of uses, which are dependent on varying scales and resolutions. Viewing
satellite imagery is no longer limited to analysts, because Google provides satellite imagery as a
public good in their Google Earth and Google Maps products. Using Landsat imagery as a
global “skin”, Google updates its virtual globe with high resolution imagery from multiple
sources, including GeoEye and DigitalGlobe. The average American citizen has access to maps
and georeferenced satellite imagery on Google, and not only does the average citizen have access
to this type of information, the availability of this information is expected. A dependency on
68
satellite imagery has been developed that the market continues to feed with more imagery, both
increasing in quality, quantity, scope, and applicability. Major providers of the imagery on
Google include both GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, but the imagery of their KEYHOLE
contemporary, the KH-11, is classified and likely to remain classified for several more years.
Commercialization: GeoEye and DigitalGlobe
GeoEye
In January 2006, Orbital Imaging Corporation, commonly known as OrbImage, bought
Space Imaging, and the merged company was called GeoEye. GeoEye is a commercial company
that specializes in high resolution imagery, of which the U.S. government is a major consumer.
As evidence of this trend, a civilian organization that provides geospatial intelligence services for
the military, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), awarded a 10-year, $3.8
billion contract to GeoEye in 2010. This strong working relationship between the government
and GeoEye is partially the result of a long-term understanding: GeoEye’s predecessor, EOSAT,
before it was acquired by Space Imaging, was given responsibility for the commercialization of
Landsat back in the 1980s. Eventually Space Imaging returned its rights to Landsat back to the
government in 2001, but by this time, Space Imaging launched its own satellite: IKONOS, the
first high resolution commercial satellite (GeoEye, Inc., 2012b; Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 400-1;
NASA, 2012a).
IKONOS, whose name is derived from a Greek word that means “image” (GeoEye, Inc.,
2012b), would not have been permitted by the U.S. government before 1994. In 1994, President
Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 23 (PDD-23) which “laid the foundation for U.S.
companies to launch competitive, high-resolution satellites” (GeoEye, Inc., 2012a). Because of
PDD-23, Space Imaging was allowed to launch IKONOS on September 24, 1999. IKONOS has
69
both a panchromatic sensor and a multispectral sensor with resolutions of 0.82 m and 3.28 m,
respectively, but the imagery is released at 1 m and 4 m pixel sizes. Still a separate company
from Space Imaging when IKONOS was launched in 1999, OrbImage launched its own
satellites. The first launch was OrbView-4 in 2001, but it did not reach orbit due to a launch
failure. The second launch was OrbView-3 in 2003, and it was more successful. Nearly
identical to its predecessor, it had a panchromatic sensor and a multispectral sensor with
resolutions of 1 m and 4 m, respectively, effectively equivalent to IKONOS (GeoEye, Inc., 2012;
Krebs, 2012).
After OrbImage and Space Imaging formed GeoEye, the satellite in development at the
time, OrbView-5, was renamed GeoEye-1. This satellite “again made history” when it became
the new highest resolution commercial satellite in the world, launched on September 6, 2008.
This satellite, like its predecessors, has a panchromatic sensor and a multispectral sensor with
resolutions of 0.41 m and 1.65 m, respectively. Although GeoEye-1 gathers panchromatic
imagery at a resolution of 0.41 m, which currently appears to be the best in the world, it cannot
be commercially released as it is (GeoEye, Inc., 2012, Krebs, 2012). Only the U.S. government
and permitted organizations are allowed to see the 0.41 m panchromatic imagery. Otherwise,
other viewers receive imagery that has been resampled to 0.5 m, according to government
restrictions on commercial imagery (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 459; Donnelly, 2010; Weinberger,
2008; Cheves, 2009).
GeoEye is currently working on another satellite, GeoEye-2, that is planned to have a
resolution 0.25 m. Again, this imagery would only be available to the government and a few
others who have been granted permission to see it. Otherwise, the imagery will continue to be
resampled to 0.5 m (Krebs, 2012; Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 459; Donnelly, 2010; Weinberger,
70
2008; Cheves, 2009). Table 5.1 summarizes the information about satellite name, company,
launch date, and sensors/resolutions for the high resolution satellites launched by Space Imaging,
OrbImage, and GeoEye. Figure 5.1 displays the resolution information graphically (GeoEye,
Inc., 2012, Krebs, 2012)
.
Table 5.1 GeoEye details.
Name Company Launch Date Sensors/Resolutions
IKONOS Space Imaging 9/24/99 0.82 m panchromatic and 3.28 m multispectral
OrbView-4 OrbImage 9/21/01
(launch failure)
1 m panchromatic and 8 m multispectral
OrbView-3 OrbImage 6/26/03 1 m panchromatic and 4 m multispectral
GeoEye-1 GeoEye 9/6/08 0.41 m panchromatic and 1.64 m multispectral
GeoEye-2 GeoEye TBD 0.25 m panchromatic
71
Figure 5.1 Resolutions of GeoEye’s high resolution commercial satellites.
DigitalGlobe
Unlike GeoEye, DigitalGlobe is not a merger of two different companies that existed for
a while. Rather, when the U.S. government finally allowed commercial companies to build and
launch high resolution satellites in 1993, DigitalGlobe, which was known as World View at the
time, was granted one of the first licenses. The name of the company was changed from World
View to Earth Watch in 1995, and the company was still named Earth Watch when it launched
its first satellite, QuickBird, in 2001. At the time, it was the best high resolution commercial
satellite in orbit, gathering panchromatic imagery at a resolution of 0.65 m and multispectral
imagery at a resolution of 2.62 m. The name of the company was again changed in 2002, from
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
Orbview-4 (multispectral)
Orbview-3 (multispectral)
IKONOS (multispectral)
Orbview-4 (panchromatic)
IKONOS (panchromatic)
Orbview-3 (panchromatic)
GeoEye-1(multispectral)
GeoEye-1(panchromatic)
GeoEye-2(panchromatic)
72
Earth Watch to DigitalGlobe. In 2003, DigitalGlobe announced its plans to build the next
generation of satellites, called WorldView-1 and WorldView-2, when the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency (NIMA) awarded DigitalGlobe a contract of $500 million (DigitalGlobe, Inc.,
2012a).
WorldView-1 and WorldView-2, though both successors to QuickBird, are not exactly
alike. Launched September 18, 2007, WorldView-1 only collected panchromatic imagery, but it
collected its panchromatic imagery at the highest resolution of all high resolution commercial
satellites at that time: 0.5 m (see Figure 5.2) (DigitalGlobe, Inc., 2012b).
Figure 5.2 Panchromatic image of the Washington Monument captured via the WorldView-1
satellite in 2009 (Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC], 2012).
73
When launched on October 8, 2009, WorldView-2 slightly improved on that record, gathering
panchromatic imagery at a resolution of 0.46 m. WorldView-2 also collected 8-band
multispectral imagery at a resolution of 1.85 m. However, WorldView-2 was not the highest
resolution satellite in the world at that time, because GeoEye-1 had been launched the year
before. DigitalGlobe and GeoEye continue to be the top commercial competitors in the world
for providers of high resolution commercial imagery. Details about DigitalGlobe’s three
satellites – such as name, date of launch, and sensors/resolutions – have been summarized in
Table 5.2. Figure 5.3 displays the information graphically (DigitalGlobe, Inc., 2012b).
Table 5.2 DigitalGlobe details.
Name Launch Date Sensors/Resolutions
QuickBird 10/18/01 0.65 m (panchromatic) and 2.62 m (multispectral)
WorldView-1 9/18/07 0.5 m (panchromatic)
WorldView-2 10/8/09 0.46 m (panchromatic) and 1.85 m (multispectral)
74
Figure 5.3 Resolutions of DigitalGlobe’s high resolution commercial satellites.
Classified Digital KEYHOLE
The U.S. government has declassified much information about its KEYHOLE satellites,
but not everything. Only photographic reconnaissance, which lasted about 25 years from 1959 to
1984, has been declassified. Everything in the past 25+ years since photographic reconnaissance
ended still remains classified. However, satellite launches are difficult to hide, and despite the
government’s efforts to keep information about its reconnaissance satellites secret, much can be
learned from observing satellite orbits, and amateur astronomers can easily track satellites, not to
mention take a look at them (Richelson, 1990, p. 130). Also, some information about the most
recent KEYHOLE satellites has been leaked (pp. 157-183), and anyone interested in the
government’s most recent reconnaissance satellites can piece together a general picture of the
government’s currently classified endeavors with satellite remote sensing.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
QuickBird (multispectral)
QuickBird (panchromatic)
WorldView-2 (multispectral)
WorldView-1 (panchromatic) WorldView-2 (panchromatic)
75
In the 1960s, researchers and developers for the U.S. photographic reconnaissance
satellites continued to seek a realistic means of acquiring imagery in real time. After a decade of
refining the film-return technique, the charge-coupled device (CCD) was finally developed by
researchers in Bell Telephone Laboratories (Richelson, 1990, p. 125). It was “the first electronic
device that could provide resolution approaching that of film” (Sweetman, 1997, p. 45-6). This
new piece of technology, along with refinements in computer technology, would make the
collection of high resolution digital images more feasible (pp. 45-6; Richelson, 1990, p. 129-31;
Peebles, 1997, p. 253). This would completely circumvent the problem of film and mid-air
retrieval, and satellite life would no longer be a function of film capacity and number of return
capsules. Considering these major differences and the fact that the CCD was an entirely new
technology, several years passed before the first satellite of the new series, codenamed KENNEN
and designated KH-11, would be launched.9
The very first KH-11 was launched December 19th
1976 and utilized a telescope and fine
quality, curved mirrors (Peebles, 1997, p. 253; Richelson, 1990, p. 131). With its higher altitude,
it may have initially been mistaken as a different type of satellite entirely (Richelson, 2005, p.
29-30). It came “no closer than 164 miles to the Earth’s surface,” while the KH-9s came around
100 miles above the Earth’s surface (p. 124), and according to Richelson (2005), it has been
speculated that “at first, for reasons unknown, the Soviets apparently mistook the KH-11 for an
electronic intelligence satellite and did not exercise the same security precautions when it was
overhead as they did for other U.S. imaging satellites” (p. 29-30). The Soviets soon determined
that the satellite performed image reconnaissance and took precautions (see Figure 5.4).
9 KH-10 is not mentioned in this thesis because it never existed.
76
Figure 5.4 A “Soviet naval shipbuilding facility” submitted to Jane’s Defence Weekly by the
Naval Intelligence Support Center in 1984 (Richelson, 1999).
In the early 1990s, the satellite was updated with an Improved Metric Crystal System (IMCS),
and the codename appears to be changed from KENNEN to CRYSTAL at this point. At the time
of this writing, the most recent KH-11 satellite was launched January 20, 2011, and a total of 15
KH-11 satellites have been launched to date. Theoretically, the satellite is capable of gathering
imagery with 15 cm resolution, not considering the effects of the atmosphere, but this is not
known for certain because the satellite is still classified (Krebs, 2012).10
10 There does not appear to be a KH-12.
77
Reaching a State of Equilibrium
The capabilities of commercial satellite companies and the government are becoming
increasingly comparable. For decades, the separation between classified and civilian satellite
capabilities was extraordinarily great, especially during the years of film-return systems. Now
all satellites are digital, and the market for high resolution imagery has driven commercial
providers to increase their capabilities greatly. While the driving motivation for the early
KEYHOLE systems was Cold War pressure, the driving motivation for the latest commercial
systems is the pressure of market competition. Now that both classified and commercial systems
appear to achieve sub-meter resolutions, the question remains of whether or not the U.S.
government will turn to relying wholly on commercial satellite imagery. Since the KH-11s
continue to be launched, the last launch being in 2011, it would seem that government
capabilities still surpass commercial capabilities, otherwise the launches would be redundant.
Until the government stops launching its own classified satellites, it may continue to appear that
government capabilities remain at least a step ahead of their commercial counterparts. How
much ahead remains a mystery with an answer that can only be estimated, based on what
information can be gleaned about current satellite systems and from the development trends of
the past several years.
78
CHAPTER 6
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
Synthesis of Results
The current state of satellite remote sensing is a product of more than fifty years of
refinement. Film-return systems provided a foundation for expanding technology, and as digital
imaging systems were tested and refined over time, they eventually supplanted the existing film
return systems and continued to improve over the years. The satellite systems discussed up to
this point are a part of this story, each providing a piece of a timeline that shows how satellite
remote sensing improved in the passing of time. This process is one that can be traced and
graphed through the years, showing improvements in digital capabilities, especially across
different decades. Such a graph could be able to aid the estimation of current satellite remote
sensing technology in the classified sector, but even more interesting, such a graph may be able
to tell how much imaging capabilities may improve in the next decades.
Digital satellite remote sensing began with meteorological satellites in the 1960s. These
systems utilized a television-like camera system to gather low resolution imagery with
resolutions of ~1 – 8 km. After the development of the charge-coupled device (CCD) in 1969,
however, the potential for higher resolution images became an actuality (Richelson, 1990, p.
125). In the 1970s, the Landsat satellites were the first moderate resolution satellites to be
launched, and they gathered digital imagery with resolutions ranging from 15 - 240 m, a
revolutionary jump from resolutions in kilometers (Lillesand, et al., 2008, pp. 400-1). After
opening satellite remote sensing to private enterprises in the 1990s, companies such as
79
DigitalGlobe and GeoEye were permitted to specialize in high resolution imagery, fine tuning
the systems developed in the 1970s and 1980s into systems that yield highly detailed,
information-rich imagery in the 2000s. These systems are capable of collecting imagery with
sub-meter resolution, as low as 0.46 m and 0.41 m at the time of this writing (GeoEye, Inc.,
2012; DigitalGlobe, Inc., 2012). All of this information is reflected in Figure 6.1, which shows
the earliest date that digital satellite systems discussed in this thesis achieved certain resolutions
(U.S. satellite systems only).
Figure 6.1 Curve of best fit, an exponential decay curve, over achieved resolutions by digital
satellite systems.
Figure 6.1 reflects the technological advancement of digital satellite remote sensing
technology, as a measure of spatial resolution. Technological advancements, as shown by this
y = 1E+149e-0.171x
R² = 0.8475
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
80
graph, have returned increasingly higher resolutions over time. Resolutions improved very
quickly at first and more slowly as time passed, as if to approach a certain resolution, but never
actually reach it. In this case, the curve is approaching 0 m, which would be equivalent of
perfect resolution, resolution with infinite depth and detail. This is merely theoretical
destination, since infinite resolution cannot actually be reached; nevertheless, technological
advancement can continue to asymptotically approach perfection. Whether or not this is a
necessary or reasonable goal would depend on the application and cost of pursuing such project.
Fitting a curve to this type of behavior requires an exponential decay curve, which has been
calculated and depicted in Figure 6.1. With an R2 value of 0.8475, the decay curve equation is:
y = 1E + 149e-0.171x
. The capital “E” is scientific notation for “times ten to the power of,” and
the lower case “e” is the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828.
This equation can be used to both estimate the average likely spatial resolutions of
different years and estimate the spatial resolutions to be achieved in digital imagery in years to
come, should the trend continue. This equation was used to fill Table 6.1 with averages of
imaging capabilities in the past and present as well as estimations of imaging capabilities in the
future, assuming the rate of technological advancement for satellite remote sensing is solely a
function of spatial resolution achieved over time.
81
Table 6.1 The estimated resolution, in meters, for different years according to the formula:
y = 1E + 149e-0.171x
.
Year
Estimated Resolution
(meters)
Actual Resolution
(meters)
Difference
(meters)
Moore’s Law
(meters)*
1955 6504.04 N/A N/A NA
1960 2766.06 ~1000 (TIROS) 1766.06 1000
1965 1176.36 ~1000 (TIROS) 176.36 250
1970 500.29 ~600 (DMSP) -99.71 125
1975 212.76 ~80 (Landsat) 132.76 62.5
1980 90.48 30 (Landsat) 60.48 31.25
1985 38.48 30 (Landsat) 8.48 15.63
1990 16.37 30 (Landsat) -13.63 7.81
1995 6.96 15 (Landsat) -8.04 3.91
2000 2.96 0.82 (IKONOS) 2.14 1.95
2005 1.26 0.65 (Quickbird) 0.61 0.98
2010 0.54 0.41 (GeoEye-1) 0.13 0.49
2015 0.23 TBD TBD 0.24
2020 0.10 TBD TBD 0.12
*This assumes satellite imaging capabilities double every 5 years, rather than every 2 years as
Moore’s Law would dictate, and the values are calculated utilizing the highest resolution
acquired by the first TIROS satellite.
As seen in Table 6.1, the resolutions achieved in the 1990s and into more recent years have
become very small. Imaging capabilities, as measured by spatial resolution, do appear to
improve according to Moore’s Law, but at a much slower pace, doubling approximately every 5
years instead of every 2 years. Subtle variations, though seen in the average/estimated
resolutions table, are indistinguishable in Figure 6.1. To create a more interpretable graph
similar to those used to illustrate Moore’s Law, the y-axis of Figure 6.1 has been converted to a
logarithmic scale in Figure 6.2.
82
Figure 6.2 Achieved resolutions of digital satellite systems displayed on a logarithmic scale by a
power of 10.
To take a closer look at how technological advancement is reflected in spatial resolution
for high resolution commercial satellites of recent years, another graph has been derived from
Figure 6.1 that only looks at the twenty year range from 1995 to 2005 (see Figure 6.3).
y = 1E+149e-0.171x
R² = 0.8475
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
83
Figure 6.3 Resolutions achieved by the most recent high resolution satellite remote sensing
systems.
Technological advancement for the high resolution commercial systems, as it is expressed in
Figure 6.3, remarkably resembles the degree and rate of technological advancement for the film
return satellites decades prior to the commercialization of satellite remote sensing. Figure 6.4
reflects the technological advancement of the U.S. government’s film-return systems as a
measure of spatial resolution. The ranges of the horizontal and vertical axes for both Figures 6.3
and 6.4 have been specifically chosen to aid in visual comparison. The graph for the high
resolution digital systems shows a twenty year period, from 1955 to 1975, and the graph for the
high resolution film-return systems shows a twenty year period as well, from 1995 to 2015. Both
graphs show a range of resolutions from 0 m to 14 m (see Figures 6.3 and 6.4).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
84
Figure 6.4 Resolutions achieved by the high resolution film-return systems of the U.S.
government. The trend line shown in this graph for film-return satellite systems is very similar
to the one for digital satellite systems.
When comparing the two figures, there is an obvious similarity in the rate and degree of
technological advancement achieved by the two different types of systems. Early technological
advancements returned imagery with resolutions that were quickly improving. Later
advancements returned imagery with improved resolution, but the rate of improvement had
slowed as the systems became finely tuned.
Discussion of Results
These results can be used to approximate how much imaging capabilities may improve in
the next several years, and these graphs and the equation given, y = 1E + 149e-0.171x
, can be used
to make an estimate of future capabilities; for example, according to the equation, imaging
capabilities could be around 0.1 m by 2020. However, this number is based on information that
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
Res
olu
tio
n (
met
ers)
Year
KH-1
KH-2
KH-3
KH-4 KH-4A
KH-6 and KH-7 KH-8
KH-4B
KH-9
85
has always been freely available or is declassified. Information on the latest of the government’s
KEYHOLE series, the KH-11, has not been declassified, and because the KH-11 system is
currently in use, there does not appear to be any imminent declassification of this system or its
imagery. If information about this system and its imagery was declassified, resolutions values
could be included in the results previously discussed, improving the reliability of the trend line
for making estimations of future capabilities. Regardless of its classified status, the information
that can be obtained about the KH-11 indicates that imagery from this satellite has a theoretical
resolution of approximately 0.15 m (Krebs, 2012). This surpasses current commercial satellite
capabilities, which is understandable considering the government’s efforts to maintain a leading
technological edge for the purposes of security and defense. How superior the U.S.
government’s high resolution satellites systems are in comparison to other national and
international systems remains a mystery. Nevertheless, the capabilities of classified and
unclassified systems appear to be converging, based on available information.
When the government was utilizing film-return systems for reconnaissance, the
photographs they obtained were leaps ahead of civilian attempts to utilize satellites for imaging
purposes; the U.S. government’s classified CORONA satellites were collecting photographs with
12 m, 9 m, 4.5 m, and 3m resolutions, while the unclassified TIROS satellite was collecting
imagery with 3 km and 1 km resolutions. The government obtained photographs with
resolutions better than 15 m from the beginning and quickly improved. It is only since the
government opened the development of high resolution satellites to the commercial sector in the
1990s that the government and civilian/commercial capabilities become nearly comparable.
While the government’s work in high resolution film photography was initially spurred onward
by international competition during the Cold War, the more recent developments in high
86
resolution digital imagery are also spurred onward, but by competition of a different kind. There
is a blooming need for satellite imagery in the modern market, and private companies, such as
GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, compete with one another for the titles of the best imagery, the
highest resolution, most consumers, etc. Most importantly, they compete with each other for
government funding, investing in their imagery products and their companies.
This new dynamic, the government buying imagery from commercial sources, poses a
new question for high resolution satellite development: Will the government continue their
classified programs, such as the KH-11 and any related contemporaries or successors, or will the
government turn to relying solely on the commercial sources of high resolution imagery? The
government may not continue development of their own satellite programs if it is a more cost
effective arrangement to purchase imagery. In that case, the U.S. government would outsource
high resolution imagery collection to a private, commercial company such as GeoEye or
DigitalGlobe. This does, of course, assume that the imagery is suitable for defense purposes, and
whether or not it is suitable depends on the needs of the government at this time and whether or
not current commercial companies can meet those needs.
Considering the U.S. government’s attempt to stay on the leading edge of technology for
security and defense purposes, another factor to be considered is whether or not the commercial
industry for high resolution imagery would be able to provide the government with the leading
edge technology they desire. This leading edge may be related to achieved resolution, area
coverage, or how well the system approaches real-time imagery. Why the government continues
its classified KEYHOLE programs may not be solely dependent on spatial resolution. Other
considerations, such as the amount of imagery gathered and how quickly the data can be
obtained and exploited, may make a significant difference for whether or not they continue their
87
own classified programs. It is possible that technological advancements, other than those that are
reflected in spatial resolution, give the U.S. government an edge that makes their systems
superior to others.
One way the government maintains an edge over civilian users of high resolution
imagery is through the restrictions it places on imagery released to civilian users. No imagery
with a resolution finer than 0.5 m (originally 1 m) can be released to anyone except authorized
government users of the imagery (Lillesand, et al., 2008, p. 459; Donnelly, 2010; Weinberger,
2008; Cheves, 2009). Initially this regulation seemed to be a moot point, because commercial
systems had not acquired imagery better than 0.5 m. Recently, however, commercial providers
such as GeoEye and DigitalGlobe have launched satellites that gather imagery with resolutions
slightly better than 0.5 m; these satellites were GeoEye-1 with 0.41 m imagery and WorldView-2
with 0.46 meter imagery, launched in 2008 and 2009, respectively. They remain the highest
resolution satellites in the world, ignoring the possibility that the U.S. government’s classified
satellites hold that position. Were the spatial resolution of imagery the only important factor to
be considered in the determination of labels such as “best”, the classified satellites still being
launched would very likely be the “best” high resolution satellites in the world, but the
government would be negligent to ignore other factors such as area coverage, spectral and
temporal resolution, and how well the system approaches real-time imagery.
88
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
International Remote Sensing and Future Declassifications
High resolution satellite remote sensing continues to develop, and only the passing of
time will reveal how close the estimations calculated in this thesis are to the truth. Part of
knowing the accuracy of these results, however, is dependent upon the declassification of
currently classified KEYHOLE satellites. Considering all three declassifications – the first in
1995 for CORONA, ARGON, and LANYARD, the second in 2002 for low resolution imagery
from GAMBIT and HEXAGON, and the third in 2011 for the remaining details from GAMBIT
and HEXAGON – took approximately thirty years to take place, it may be another thirty years or
more before current, classified KEYHOLE satellites and their imagery will be fully released to
the public. However, considering the increasing market for high resolution imagery and the
technological advancements of other nations, declassification may take place sooner.
Before declassification, however, it may be more likely that the U.S. government will
loosen the restriction it places on commercial satellite companies to only release 0.5 m or coarser
imagery. If international remote sensing companies begin collecting and publicly releasing
imagery of higher resolution than 0.5 m, this could cause the government change this value. For
example, instead of restricting commercial companies to half-meter imagery, this could change
to quarter-meter imagery (0.25 m). For satellites such as the planned GeoEye-2 satellite, which
is expected to have 0.25 m imagery, imagery would not need to be resampled to 0.5 m imagery
before release. There does not appear to be any dialogue about a change of this nature though;
89
international remote sensing companies have not yet matched U.S. capabilities. Nevertheless,
just as U.S. companies continue to emerge, creating and refining new systems of their own, more
countries continue to develop their own satellite remote sensing programs. As discussed earlier,
India has launched its own high resolution satellites in the past five years: Cartosat-2, -2A, and -
2B, and all three of these satellites gather panchromatic imagery at 1 m resolution. It may not be
long before India, or another country, gathers and releases imagery better than 0.5 m.
As systems capable of gathering imagery with higher resolutions continue to be
developed, continuing to keep KEYHOLE imagery classified may become increasingly
unnecessary. If the resolution and quality of imagery that is publicly available approaches or
matches or even surpasses that of the U.S. government’s high resolution systems, there may be
little or no reason to keep the imagery classified any longer. At the same time, just as it seems
unnecessary to keep such imagery classified, it may seem just as unnecessary to declassify the
imagery. If the quality of imagery from the government’s current KEYHOLE system, KH-11, is
eventually surpassed by commercial systems, the utility of this data may decrease, causing
interest in using imagery from this system to decrease as well. There will, however, always be
pressure for the U.S. government to declassify information about its classified high resolution
imaging programs, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Supporters of this act
believe that U.S. citizens have “the right to access information from the federal government”
(U.S. Department of Justice, 2012), which would include imagery from its classified remote
sensing programs. The FOIA pressures the government to release its classified information,
which the government only does when that information is no longer important for maintaining
national security.
90
All of the above is dependent on high resolution satellite systems continuing to be refined
with the goal to increase the resolution of imagery the system requires, and systems may or may
not continue to be refined towards higher resolutions. Higher resolution imagery does have its
uses, particularly for intelligence, but it is also useful for other applications such as object-based
image analysis and 3D modeling. High resolution imagery, however, may not be as desirable as
other advancements, such as sensors tailored to acquiring specific imagery products, improved
multispectral and/or temporal resolution, integrated systems, real time delivery of products, input
to models and decision making algorithms, and geovisualization simulation. Considering high
resolution satellite remote sensing may continue to improve but with diminishing returns,
satellite systems may not continue to advance at the projected rate, and satellite remote sensing
will continue to develop and be refined in other ways.
Possible Directions for Future Research
Regardless of whether or not high resolution satellites continue to be refined for the
purpose of obtaining higher resolution imagery, this thesis still provides a systematic method of
measuring technological advancement of satellite remote sensing. Considering a main source of
error for this study is the inclusion of only major U.S. satellite systems, future research in this
field could benefit from expanding the pool of satellite systems used in the study to non-U.S.
systems. Since the market for remotely sensed imagery drives the competition among
commercial companies, looking at major satellite systems outside the U.S. may provide a better
context for understanding the development of satellite remote sensing. However, the U.S. has
typically stayed on the leading edge of technological advancement, and including international
capabilities in the timeline could potentially overestimate the time it takes to achieve certain
resolutions. Nevertheless, development timelines could be made for international satellite
91
remote sensing as a whole or for separate countries, to track the pace of their technological
advancement as a measure of spatial resolution.
Other than incorporating international systems for a more complete time line of satellite
remote sensing development over the years, another direction for future research would be to
measure technological advancement by another variable or by multiple variables, other than
spatial resolution. For example, looking at spectral and/or temporal resolution could also
provide a clearer picture of how satellite remote sensing is developing in the U.S. As stated
before, other factors beyond spatial resolution may explain why the government continues to
launch their classified KEYHOLE satellites despite how commercial satellite systems are
becoming increasingly comparable in terms of the spatial resolutions they achieve. Rather than
monitoring improvements in spatial resolution, one could also look at the lifespans of satellites,
which were briefly discussed in certain body chapters of this thesis. A more interesting but less
easily quantifiable measure of technological advancement would be the achievements toward
real-time imagery, a highly desired quality for remote sensing systems.
Satellite systems that are designed with the goal to provide more real-time imagery
emphasize the capture, transmission, receipt, and processing of an image, until it is ready for
analysis. The ideal would be to have imagery available for any place in the world at any time
desired, to have imagery at one’s fingertips “on-demand”. The transition from film photography
to digital imagery was a step in this direction, but like spatial resolution, a curve representing
technological advancement according to achievements toward real-time would approach
perfection asymptotically. While using spatial resolution as a measure of technological
advancement, the graph shows resolutions improving from kilometers to meters to centimeters.
In contrast, while using achievements toward real-time imagery as a measure of technological
92
advancement, a graph may show real-time response times improving from weeks to days to
hours to minutes and, ideally, to mere seconds or sub-seconds. Unfortunately, information of
this nature, reflecting the real-time status of a satellite in history, is much more difficult to obtain
or calculate than spatial resolution, which has significantly fewer variables to consider and is
more readily available.
Closing Thoughts
This thesis cannot take into consideration future scientific breakthroughs that may affect
satellite remote sensing. For example, satellite remote sensing started off in the late 1950s and
1960s with film photography because no scientific breakthrough in imaging technology had yet
been made. It took another decade before the right device was developed to revolutionize
satellite remote sensing and lead the world into the age where film photography increasingly
obsolete. Knowing this and the continuing creativity of the human mind, it is entirely possible
that some new technological advancement could be the next revolutionary breakthrough for
satellite remote sensing. Some innovations pertinent to satellite remote sensing may already
exist in the classified environment, coming from the U.S. military’s recent efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Should a new technique for imaging be discovered, the results may be surprising,
turning what was once science fiction into reality. The resulting information of satellite remote
sensing is, like all other information, neutral in nature, but all information is a source of
knowledge, and knowledge is power: Scientia potentia est.
93
REFERENCES
6594th
Test Group. (2009). “Catch a Falling Star.” Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.6594thtestgroup.org/
Ahrens, C. (2009). Meteorology today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, CengageLearning.
Baker, J. C., Williamson, R. A., & O’Connell, K. M. (2001). Introduction. Commercial
Observation Satellites: At the Leading Edge of Global Transparency (pp. 1–11). Santa
Monica, RAND.
Centre National D’Études Spatiales (CNES). (2011). SPOT: Système Pour l’Observation de la
Terre. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://smsc.cnes.fr/SPOT/index.htm
Cheves, M. (2009). Eye in the Sky: A Visit to GeoEye. The American Surveyor: A Foot in the
Past... an Eye to the Future. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from
http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Cheves-VisitToGeoEye_Nov-
Dec2009.pdf
Cloud, J. (2001). "Imagining the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence
of the Earth Sciences." Social Studies of Science 31(2): 231-251.
Cloud, J. (2002). "American Cartographic Transformations during the Cold War." Cartography
and Geographic Information Science 29(3): 261-282.
Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). (2012). CEOS Mission, Instruments and
Measurements Database Online. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from
http://database.eohandbook.com/
Davis, G. (2011). “History of the NOAA Satellite Program.” NOAA Satellite and Information
Service. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from
http://www.osd.noaa.gov/download/JRS012504-GD.pdf
Day, D.A. (2009). A ray of sunshine into a dark world: the future declassification of satellite
reconnaissance information. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1295/1
Day, D. A., Logsdon, J. M., & Latell, B. (1998). Chapter 3 Development and Improvement of
the Corona Satellite. In D. A. Day, J. M. Logsdon, & B. Latell (Eds.), Eye in the Sky: the
Story of the Corona Spy Satellites (pp. 48-85). Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
94
Day, D. A., Logsdon, J. M., & Latell, B. (1998). Introduction. In D. A. Day, J. M. Logsdon, & B.
Latell (Eds.), Eye in the Sky: the Story of the Corona Spy Satellites (pp. 1-18).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Defense Industry Daily. (2011). NPOESS Weather Satellites: From Crisis to Program Splits.
Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/major-shifts-flow-
from-
de Selding, P. (2011). “Canadian Earth Observation Firm Buys Bankrupt RapidEye.” Space
News. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from http://spacenews.com/earth_observation/110902-
canadian-firm-buys-rapideye.html
DigitalGlobe, Inc. (2012). History. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.DigitalGlobe.com/about-us/history
DigitalGlobe, Inc. (2012). Resources. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.digitalglobe.com/resources
DMC International Imaging Ltd (DMCii). (2012). Earth Observation Solutions. Retrieved July 1,
2012, from http://www.dmcii.com/index.html
Donnelly, H. (2010). Commercial Remote Sensing: A Global View. Geospatial Intelligence
Forum, 8(1). Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://www.kmimediagroup.com/mgt-
home/225-gif-2009-volume-8-issue-1/2513-commercial-remote-sensing-a-global-
view.html
Doyle, F. J. (1978). “The Next Decade of Satellite Remote Sensing.” Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 44(2):155-164.
Doyle, F.J. (1985). “The Large Format Camera on Shuttle Mission 41-G.” Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 51(2):200-206.
Engel, H., et al. (1984). Investigations of metric camera data quality. Institute for
Photogrammetry and Engineering Surveys, University of Hanover, Federal Republic of
Germany, Commission I, WG I/1, 64-69.
Federation of American Scientists (FAS). (1999). Remote Sensing Tutorial. Retrieved June 30,
2012, from http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Intro/Part2_15.html
Federation of American Scientists (FAS). (2000). IRS (Indian Remote Sensing Satellite).
Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/india/earth/irs.htm
95
Gebhardt, C. (2009). “Atlas’ 600th Mission launches with DMSP F18 from Vandenberg.”
NASAspaceflight.com. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/live-atlas-600th-mission-launch-dmsp-f18-
vandenberg/
GeoEye, Inc. (1996). Space Imaging and EOSAT Agree on Acquisition. Retrieved July 16, 2012,
from http://geoeye.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=264
GeoEye, Inc. (2012). “Imagery Sources.” Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/products-and-services/imagery-sources/
GeoEye, Inc. (2012). “The History of Satellite Imagery.” Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.geoeye.com/GeoEye101/what-is-geospatial/satellite-history.aspx
Green, K., & Jackson, M. W. (2009). Chapter 1 Timeline of Key Developments in Platforms and
Sensors for Earth Observations. Earth Observing Platforms & Sensors (pp. 1–48).
Bethesda, Maryland: ASPRS.
Hall, C. (2001). “A History of the Military Polar Orbiting Meteorological Satellite Program.”
Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://www.nro.gov/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-02.pdf
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). (2008). Earth Observation Satellites. Retrieved July
1, 2012, from http://www.isro.org/satellites/earthobservationsatellites.aspx
Konecny, G. (1984). The evaluation of Spacelab-1, Photogrammetric camera data, International
Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Part A-1, 180-183A.
Kramer, H. J. (2001). Observation of the Earth and Its Environment: Survey of Missions and
Sensors. Springer. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://books.google.com/books?id=4JucM8bpLbEC&dq=ITOS+scanning+radiometers+r
esolution+-AVHRR&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Krebs, G. (2012). Gunter’s Space Page. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from
http://space.skyrocket.de/index.html
Lillesand, T. M., Kiefer, R. W., & Chipman, J. W. (2008). Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2004). National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958 (Unamended). Retrieved July 16, 2012, from
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
96
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2009). First image from NOAA-19.
Retrieved June 30, 2012, from http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NOAA-N-
Prime/news/NPrime_first_image.html
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2011). Critical Milestone Reached for
2012 Landsat Mission. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2011/11-049.html
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2012). Landsat Then and Now.
Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2012). TIROS. Retrieved June 30,
2012, from http://science.nasa.gov/missions/tiros/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2003). “U.S., European Satellite
Agencies Sign Cooperation, Data-Sharing Accord: New Agreement Builds on Partnership to
Provide Enhanced Earth Observing Capabilities.” Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/jun03/noaa03079.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2009). NOAA’s New Polar-Orbiting
Satellite is Launched. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090206_nprimelaunch.html
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2012). 1996 Atlantic and Northeast
Pacific Hurricanes. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/hurricanes/atlantic96.html
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). (2012). Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance:
The Gambit and Hexagon Programs. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://nro.gov/history/csnr/gambhex/index.html
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). (2012). CORONA Satellite Imagery. Retrieved July 16,
2012, from http://www.nro.gov/history/csnr/corona/imagery.html
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). (2012). Index, Declassified GAMBIT and HEXAGON
Images. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from
http://www.nro.gov/history/csnr/gambhex/GAMBHEX%20Images.html
Peebles, C. (1997). The Corona Project. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.
Rachelle, O. (2012). TIROS - World’s First Weather Satellite. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from
http://weather.about.com/od/spaceweather/ss/TIROS.htm
Radio Corporation of America (RCA). (1970). TIROS/ESSA/ITOS: Weather eye workhorse in
the sky. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/TIROS_johnson/
TIROS%2010th%20anniversary%20-%20RCA.pdf
97
RapidEye. (2012). Delivering the World. Retrieved July 1, 2012, from http://www.rapideye.net/
Richelson, J. (1990). America's Secret Eyes in Space: the U.S. Keyhole Spy Satellite Program.
New York, Harper & Row.
Richelson, J. (1999). U.S. Satellite Imagery, 1960-1999. National Security Archive Electronic
Briefing Book No. 13. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/
Richelson, J. (2005). Satellite in the Shadows. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 61(3), 26-33.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). (2012). Commercial High Resolution
Imagery. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
https://www.saic.com/geospatial/imagery/commercial-high-resolution-imagery.html
Space Medicine Association. (2012). Space Medicine Association History Timeline. Retrieved
June 30, 2012, from http://spacemedicineassociation.org/timeline/1960.htm
SpacePlex. (2010). “Satellite Weather Tracking Celebrates Golden Anniversary.” Retrieved July
2, 2012, from http://spaceplex.com/2010/04/01/satellite-weather-tracking-celebrates-
golden-anniversary/
Strom, S. and G. Iwanaga. (2005). “Overview and History of the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program.” Crosslink 6(1):11-15.
Sweetman, B. (1997). Spies in the Sky. Popular Science, 250(4), 42-48.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). FOIA.gov. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.foia.gov/
Vidicon. (2012). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vidicon
Weinberger, S. (2008). Can You Spot the Chinese Nuclear Sub? Discover Magazine. Retrieved
July 1, 2012, from http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/21-can-you-spot-the-chinese-
nuclear-sub/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
White House (1995). Executive Order 12951. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-02-28/pdf/95-5050.pdf
White, T. (2011). First Mid-Air RV Retrieval. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from
http://www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/blog/2011/08/08/first-mid-air-retrieval/
98
APPENDIX
LIST OF ACRONYMS
APT Automatic Picture Transmission
ASPRS American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
ASTER Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer
AVCS Advanced Vidicon Camera Systems
AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
AWiFS Advanced Wide Field Sensor
CCD Charge-Coupled Device
CNES Centre National D’Études Spatiales
DCS Data Collection System
DMC Disaster Monitoring Constellation
DMCii DMC International Imaging Ltd
DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
DoD Department of Defense
EMD End of Mission Date
EOS Earth Observing System
EOSAT Earth Observation Satellite Company
ERTS Earth Resources Technology Satellites
ESA European Space Agency
ESSA Environmental Science Services Administration
ETM Enhanced Thematic Mapper
ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
EUMETSAT European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
FAS Federation of American Scientists
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
HIRS High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder
HRG High Resolution Geometric
HRV High Resolution Visible
HRVIR High Resolution Visible and Infrared
IMCS Improved Metric Crystal System
IRS Indian Remote Sensing
ITOS Improved TIROS Operational Satellites
JSS Jena Spaceborne Scanner
LDCM Landsat Data Continuity Mission
LFC Large Format Camera
LISS Linear Imaging Self-Scanning
MC Metric Camera
MSS Multispectral Scanner
99
MSU Microwave Sounding Unit
N/A Not Applicable
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NIMA National Imagery and Mapping Agency
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOMSS National Operational Meteorological Satellite System
NPOESS National Polar-Orbiting Observing Satellite System
NRO National Reconnaissance Office
OLI Operational Land Imager
OLS Operational Line Scanner
PDD Presidential Decision Directive
POES Polar Operational Environmental Satellites
RAND Research ANd Development Corporation
RBV Return Beam Vidicon
RCA Radio Corporation of America
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
SPOT Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre
SLC Scan Line Corrector
SSU Stratospheric Sounding Unit
SR Scanning Radiometers
SWIR Short Wave Infrared
TBD To Be Determined
TIR Thermal Infrared
TIRS Thermal Infrared Sensor
TIROS Television Infrared Observation Satellite
TM Thematic Mapper
TOS TIROS Operational System
TV-NA Television Narrow Angle
TV-WA Television Wide Angle
UK United Kingdom
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
VHRR Very High Resolution Radiometer
VNIR Visible and Near Infrared
VTPR Vertical Temperature Profile Radiometer
WiFS Wide Field Sensor
