Remote Sensing and the Private Sector:Issues for Discussion

March 1984

NTIS order #PB84-180777

Recommended Citation:Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion—A Technical Memorandum(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-ISC-20,March 1984).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601019

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Preface

In March 1983, the administration proposed to transfer the meteorological and landremote-sensing (Landsat) satellite systems to private ownership. This proposal has raised a varietyof issues, including concern over the small size of the market for remote-sensing data, the publicgood aspects of remote sensing, and use of the data to further foreign policy objectives.

In November 1983, Congress resolved one of the issues by deciding that the meteorologicalremote-sensing systems should not be privately owned; the Government will continue to operatethem in the public interest. However, the Landsat system is still under active consideration bythe Congress for transfer to private ownership, and Congress is now considering legislation de-signed to make such a transfer as smooth as possible.

U.S. systems have demonstrated to a variety of users, in the United States and abroad,that land remote sensing from space can be a powerful tool for mapping, assessing, and manag-ing land resources. It may eventually be possible to establish a self-sustaining business sellingdata from a privately owned and operated land remote-sensing system to Government, private,and foreign customers. However, as the debate over whether and how to transfer the Landsatsystem has shown, the process of transferring Government-developed technological systems tothe private sector is difficult and involves a wide variety of agencies and institutions, each witha different view of the appropriate means of transfer.

This technical memorandum, which was requested by the House Science and TechnologyCommittee and the House Government Operations Committee, is designed to help Congressdetermine the appropriate requirements and conditions for private sector ownership of the U.S.land remote-sensing system. It also provides information and analysis that will be useful forCongress as it considers transfer legislation. This technical memorandum constitutes a portionof a major assessment of international cooperation and competition in civilian space activitiesthat was requested by the House Science and Technology Committee and the Joint EconomicCommittee.

In undertaking this study, OTA sought the contributions of several Government agenciesand a wide spectrum of knowledgeable and interested individuals. More than 50 persons con-tributed to this technical memorandum, either to provide data or to review early drafts. OTAgratefully acknowledges their help. We are particularly grateful to our workshop participants.Finally, OTA appreciates the assistance it received from the Congressional Research Service,the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Cen-tral Intelligence Agency, and especially from the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

JOHN H. GIBBONSDirector

Advisory Panel on International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

Paul Doty, Chair-manCenter for Science and International Affairs

Harvard University

Benjamin BovaAuthor

Robert EvansVice PresidentIBM Corp.

Robert FroschVice PresidentGeneral Motors Research Laboratories

Eilene GallowayHonorary DirectorInternational Institute of Space Law of the

International Astronautical FederationIvan Getting

ConsultantMireille Gerard

Administrator, Corporate & Public ProgramsAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and

AstronauticsBenjamin Huberman

Vice PresidentConsultants International Group, Inc.

Walter McDougallAssoc. Professor of HistoryUniversity of California, Berkeley

John MayoVice PresidentBell Laboratories

John L. McLucasExecutive Vice President and Chief Strategic

OfficerCommunications Satellite Corporation

Martin MenterAttorney-at-La w

Arthur MorrisseyDirector, Future SystemsMartin Marietta Aerospace

Fred RaynesVice PresidentGrumman International Inc.

Gary SaxonhouseProfessor of EconomicsCitiCorp Industrial Credit, Inc.

Leonard SussmanExecutive DirectorFreedom House

John TownsendPresidentFairchild Space and Electronics Co.

Laurel WilkeningVice ProvostUniversity of Arizona

Elizabeth YoungPresidentPublic Service Satellite Consortium

NOTE: The advisory panel provided advice and critique, but does not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this technical

memorandum for which OTA assumes full responsibility.

iv

OTA Remote Sensing and the Private Sector Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter Sharfman, International Security and Commerce Program Manager

Ray A. Williamson, Project Director

Gordon Law, Principal Investigator

Douglas Adkins Richard Dalbello Thomas H. Karas

Contractors

Edward Downing Roger Hoffer

Roland Inlow Earl Merritt

Resources Development Associates Edward Risley

Donald Wiesnet William Wigton

Administrative Staff

Jannie Coles Dorothy Richroath Jackie Robinson

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Reed Bundy Debra M. Datcher

Joe Henson Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning

Remote Sensing and the Private sector Workshop, July 26, 1983Kenneth CraibResource Development Associates

Russell C. DrewScience and Technology Consultant

Robert A. FroschGeneral Motors Research Laboratories

Roger HoferPurdue University

Marvin R. HelterERIM

Benjamin HubermanConsultants International Group, Inc.

Terry LehmanARCO Oil & Gas Co.

Arthur MorrisseyMartin Marietta Aerospace

Charles Paul (observer)U.S. Agency for International Development

Bruce RadoERDAS Inc.

Jerome SimonoffCitiCorp Industrial Credit, Inc.

Harry StewartStrategic Geoscience ApplicationsSUN, E&T.

Dennis ZimmermanCongressional Research Service

Earl S. MerrittEarth Satellite Corp.

Executive Branch Meeting on Remote Sensing, August 18, 1983

William M. Feldman Irwin PikusU.S. Agency for International Development National Science Foundation

Raymond G. Kammer, Jr. Victor H. ReisChairman, Source Evaluation Board Office of Science and Technology PolicyU.S. Department of Commerce

John H. McElroyNational Earth Satellite Service

Lisle RoseU.S. Department of State

John TownsendKenneth Pederson Fairchild Space & Electronics Co.National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The following individuals contributed to this study in a variety of ways. OTA is grateful for theassistance they gave:

Marion BaumgartrenPaul BockRadford ByerlyAlden CalvocoressesGeorge ChadwickPhilip P. Chandler, 111Jerald CookLeonard DavidLewis DellwigFred DoyleRonald EastmanMartin Faga

F. Scott FinerDonna FossumRobert HaightFred Henderson, 111Charles HoytDavid JohnsonRaymond KammerRichard KlecknerVictor KlemasJoseph LintzJohn LogsdonDonald Lowe

William LowellRonald LyonCharles MatthewsVictor MeyersRoland MowerRobert PalmerCharles PaulKenneth PedersonWarren PhilipsonRobert RaganMarvin RobinsonDan Semick

David SimonentPhilip SlaterAlexander TaylorJohn Claude ThomasRoy WelchMatthew WillardDavid WilliamsonCharles WittenCurtis WoodcockJoseph Ulliman

OTA appreciates the help and advice of these workshop participants. OTA assumes full responsibility for itsreport, which does not necessarily represent the views of individual members of these workshops.

vi

Contents

Chapter Page

1 . Executive Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2, Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. International Relations and Foreign Policy,,,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4. Public Interest in Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5. U.S. Government Needs for Remote-Sensing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

6. National

Appendix

A. Remote

Security Needs and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Page

Sensing in the Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

B. The Use of Landsat Data in State Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

c. Survey of University Programs in Remote Sensing Funded UnderGrants From the NASA University-Space Application Program . . . . . . 121

D. Remote Sensing in Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

E. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

F. Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

G. Monitoring Desertification Processes by Landsat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

H. El Nino and Climatic Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

I. Monitoring Volcanic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

vii

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Page

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4International Relations and Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

International Relations and Foreign Policy Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Data Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....’,... .“.. 7Value-Added Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8U.S. Technological Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Cooperation With Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8International Legal Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Future International Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Landsat Foreign Ground Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Domestic Public Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10State and Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Continuing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Maintenance of Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11University Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .....m . . . . . . . . 11

Civilian Federal Government Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Government Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Alternative Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2

National Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12DOD Oversight of Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Preemption by the Military in Time of Emergency.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Foreign Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

A process is now under way that is intendedto lead to the early transfer from the FederalGovernment to the private sector of the LandRemote Sensing Satellite (Landsat) system forremote sensing from space, This technical memo-randum was prepared at the request of the HouseCommittee on Science and Technology and theHouse Committee on Government Operations,which are overseeing this process. The HouseCommittee on Science and Technology is alsosimultaneously preparing implementing legisla-tion.

This process inevitably raises the separableissues of whether to carry out the transfer at all,or how to carry it out if the Government doesgo ahead. This memorandum only indirectly ad-dresses the question of whether the transfer is inthe net public interest by focusing on one aspectof such a transfer: it discusses the various publicbenefits provided by the Government’s civilianmeteorological and land remote-sensing systemsand analyzes the effects that transfer of thesesystems to the private sector might have on theprovision of these public benefits.

Principal reasons for transferring remote-sens-ing services to private hands are that the privatesector excels both at innovation and at develop-ing markets. In an earlier study, OTA found apotential exists for greatly expanding the marketfor land remote-sensing services, and that othernations intend to compete for the market. *

Another reason for transferring these servicesto the private sector is the hope of reducing Fed-eral expenditures. This technical memorandumbears directly on the question. Most of the publicbenefits which the United States now derives fromremote sensing could be provided just as well bythe private sector—for a price. However, OTAhas found that a private owner/operator who wasobliged by contract to provide all of these publicbenefits would probably require a large Federal

1Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, 11. C.: U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-177, June1982), pp. 53-67.

subsidy. Until the market expands substantially,and more efficient spacecraft are developed anddeployed, it could cost the Federal Governmentas much to subsidize a private owner as to con-tinue operating the system itself.

The public benefits of land remote sensing couldjustify any of the following policy options:

●

•

●

●

●

continued Government ownership and direc-tion of the system, whether or not actual op-eration was contracted out; ormaintenance of Government ownership fora limited period, in order to effect a phasedtransfer to the private sector, as the marketgrows large enough to support commercialownership; ormixed, public-private ownership of thesystem; orquick transfer to a private owner/operator,but with a series of conditions and require-ments designed to assure the public benefits;anda substantial subsidy to a private owner, inorder to maintain the public benefits andmaintain continuity of operation and data.

An understanding of the nature of the benefits iscritical to an informed choice of policies. How-ever, this memorandum does not take the nextstep of comparing the value of the public benefitsto alternative uses of the public resources re-quired, nor does it address directly the relativemerits of public and private ownership.

Since this memorandum was requested, Con-gress passed appropriations bill H.R. 3222, a pro-vision of which prohibits the sale or transfer ofthe meteorological satellite (metsat) systems to theprivate sector. On November 28, 1983, PresidentReagan signed this bill into law (Public Law98-166). Because the issues raised by the admin-istration’s proposal may be important in consider-ing the disposition of other Government-devel-oped technologies, OTA has retained discussionof metsats in this technical memorandum.

The metsat and Landsat systems not only servedifferent, if related, functions and constituencies,

3

4

but also differ sharply in their developmentalhistory and current status. The metsat systems arefully operational and run by the Government aspart of its responsibility to provide weather serv-ices. Provision of these services has a longdomestic and international history and a set ofusages and established procedures. The Landsatsystem, by contrast, has until recently been en-tirely a research and development (R&D) effort,although in many respects it has been used as ifit were operational. Landsat data are also fun-damentally different in format, repeatability, andcontinuity from other remotely sensed images,such as aircraft photography, and therefore havenot had an easy market niche. The Landsat pro-gram as a whole is clearly ready to shift from theearlier emphasis on R&D toward provision of rou-tine services. Moderate-resolution land remote-sensing technology* is ready for full operational

● That is, the multispectral scanner or equivalent systems, whosespatial resolution is about 80 meters.

BACKGROUND

The potential value of viewing Earth’s at-mosphere, land, and oceans from space for civil-ian purposes was recognized early in this Nation’sdevelopment of space technology. The UnitedStates launched its first civilian remote-sensingsatellite (a polar-orbiting weather satellite calledTIROS) in 1960. TIROS provided the first civilianimages from space.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA) currently operates twocivilian meteorological satellite systems. One isa polar-orbiting system that consists of two sat-ellites (NOAA-N series) orbiting the Earth onceevery 102 minutes; the other consists of two geo-synchronous satellites (GOES) that view the West-ern Hemisphere continuously and transmit imagesto Earth every 30 minutes. Both systems carry avariety of relatively low-resolution sensors (1,000meters (m) or more at the surface of the Earth),which operate at several wavelengths to provideweather imagery and related data.

In 1972, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) launched the first of a

status. The question Congress now faces iswhether the United States should treat landremote sensing as a fully appropriate Governmentoperational activity (as it has with metsat), ortransfer it to private hands under a variety of con-ditions, or drop it completely.

This technical memorandum outlines the tan-gible and intangible public benefits that flow fromoperational remote sensing managed in the publicinterest. It provides a basis for deciding which re-quirements and conditions a private offeror couldbe asked to meet if the Government proceeds withtransfer of the land remote-sensing system. Fur-ther, this memorandum provides a summary ofwhat public social, economic, and political lossescould accrue if the Government decided to dropcivilian land remote sensing altogether, and leavethe field to the French, Japanese, Soviets, andothers.

series of civilian land remote-sensing satellites(Landsat). Among other experimental devices, thefirst three satellites carried a sensor called themultispectral scanner (MSS), having a terrestrialspatial resolution of 80 m and operating in fourspectral bands. Landsat 4, launched in 1982, car-ries the MSS, as well as a new sensor called thethematic mapper (TM), which has a terrestrialresolution of 30 m and operates in seven spectralbands. * Transmissions from Landsat are receivedglobally by 3 U.S. and 10 foreign-owned groundstations. Landsat 4 is currently failing and couldstop working at any moment. Landsat D‘, whichis the backup satellite for Landsat 4, is scheduledfor launch in March 1984, Under current admin-istration policy, this will be the last Government-owned land remote-sensing satellite unless newones are ordered. NOAA now operates the Land-sat system.

Although individual systems are typically de-signed to optimize the observations of the atmos-

‘Except for the 10.40 to 12.5 micron band which has a spatialresolution of 120 m.

5

Photo crecilt Nat/oflal Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm/nistrat/on

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite(GOES series), artist’s conception

Photo credif Nat/ona/ Ocean/c and Atrnosphenc Adm/nisfraf/o/

NOAA-N series polar-orbiting environmental satellite, artist’s conception

6

phere, the land, or the oceans, sensors on boardeach satellite can also collect useful data on othercomponents of the Earth. For example, agricul-tural managers use images from the meteorologi-cal satellites to estimate crop production, coastal-zone managers use Landsat data to study waterpollution and pollution sources, and exploratorygeologists use Seasat data to locate promisingareas for exploration on land.

The Department of Defense (DOD) operates itsown polar-orbiting meteorological satellite sys-tem. To a certain extent, DOD coordinates itsmeteorological operations with those of the civil-ian system. It makes use of data from the Land-sat system, in addition to operating a system ofsurveillance satellites to serve national securityneeds.

Other countries are developing their ownmeteorological, land, and ocean remote-sensingsystems. The European Space Agency (ESA), In-dia, Japan, and the Soviet Union all currentlyoperate meteorological satellite systems. TheSoviet Union operates a land remote-sensing sys-tem; ESA and several other countries plan tolaunch land or ocean remote-sensing satellite sys-tems by the end of the decade. Some of these sys-tems will generate data directly competitive withdata from the Landsat or related U.S. systems.By virtue of significantly higher resolution anda planned rapid delivery system, some will exceedLandsat’s capacity to return useful data to usersof remote-sensing data.

NASA’s and NOM’s efforts with remote-sens-ing systems have demonstrated to domestic andforeign users, both inside and outside Govern-ment, that data from these systems can be highlyeffective in meeting their weather and resource in-formation needs. In light of the potential commer-cial economic value that Earth resources remote-sensing data could have, the Carter administra-tion, through Presidential Directive PD/54,directed that “Commerce will budget . . . to seekways to enhance private sector opportunities” inland remote sensing. Although this directive leftopen the timetable and the means of a possible

transfer of the Landsat system to the private sec-tor, at the same time it committed the U.S. Gov-ernment to provide a continuous flow of datafrom a land remote-sensing system through the1980’s. The Reagan administration decided earlyin its tenure to hasten the process of transfer; itfurther widened the scope of this policy by pro-posing that both the meteorological and landremote-sensing satellite systems be transferred toprivate ownership as soon as possible,

The Commerce Department set up a SourceEvaluation Board (SEB) to draft the Request forProposal (RFP) for transfer of the systems to theprivate sector. The RFP is intended to specify theGovernment’s qualitative requirements for datafor a period of time after transfer takes place, andto lay out the operational constraints that wouldbe placed on the private offeror. The SEB issueda draft proposal for public comment on October24, 1983. Prior to that time, it had solicited andreceived a number of comments from other Gov-ernment agencies and from Congress. Commerceissued a revised RFP in January 1984 for industry’sresponse. In keeping with the legislative prohibi-tion on sale of the metsat systems, it no longercontains provisions for their transfer.

The RFP is long, technically thorough, and con-tains input from a wide variety of interested par-ties. In some respects, it is a very unusual RFP.For one thing, it leaves several important areasof Federal policy to be defined by the private sec-tor. Further, in the absence of clear policy direc-tion from either Congress or the administration,the private offeror runs an awkward and expen-sive risk of offering to invest and become involvedin ways that could later be changed by policymak-ing legislation.

Congress held several hearings on the subjectin 1983. The House and Senate are now consider-ing legislation designed to encourage transfer ofthe Landsat system to private ownership reinforc-ing and specifically preventing similar transfer ofmetsats. Some members of both Houses favor trans-fer of the Landsat system; others feel it should re-main a Government-owned and operated system.

7

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Transfer of either system to the private sectorwould certainly affect our relationships with othernations. International issues related to transfer areamong the most important and difficult to resolvesatisfactorily. Consequently, the transfer proposalcannot possibly be approached as merely a do-mestic decision. Realistic planning for the disposi-tion of the remote-sensing systems must addressglobal concerns in the following areas:

International Relations andForeign Policy Aims

Landsat and metsat data have served as usefuland constructive instruments of U.S. foreign rela-tions. These data have aided other countries toprepare in advance for severe weather conditions,and to map, manage, and exploit their own re-sources; they have also served to raise the gener-al level of awareness about growing environmen-tal problems throughout the world. The data fromboth systems, and the equipment with which toprocess them, have provided the United Stateswith access to, and influence in, many othercountries.

Although the private sector is technically ca-pable (given adequate financial incentives) of pro-viding the data promptly to meet the requirementsof the Federal Government and other potentialcustomers, commercial objectives may conflictwith U.S. foreign policy objectives. Constraintson a private firm that are sufficient to protect U.S.foreign policy objectives could well make such anenterprise unprofitable or require a large and con-tinuing Government subsidy to make the enter-prise viable.

Data Sales

The United States has followed the policy, con-sistent with the practice of other countries, of pro-viding meteorological data freely and withoutcharge. After exploring the feasibility of charg-ing for meteorological data, which raised ire andconcern in other countries (especially those thatparticipate in the data gathering), the administra-

tion decided to continue the earlier policy. If themetsats were to be transferred to the private sec-tor, the Government would presumably purchasethe data from the operating firm and then distrib-ute them free of charge to other countries. Sincethe United States receives free of cost more vitalmeteorological data from other countries than itgives away, and since providing global weatherdata is a public good, maintenance of this datapolicy would continue to benefit the United States.

Landsat data have always been sold to non-U.S,Government users, and they have been madeavailable to all purchasers on a nondiscrimina-tory basis. Indeed, the data policy of the Land-sat program can be considered to be a cornerstoneof the U.S. “open skies” policy and of the use ofspace for peaceful purposes. By following thispolicy, the United States has been able effective-ly to blunt criticism of other activities, such asthe operation of classified surveillance satellites.It has also been able to demonstrate to the entireworld its adherence to the principle of the freeflow of information. It is a powerful message tosend to all governments, especially those opposedto the open interchange of ideas and information,that LandSat data are available even to our polit-ical and economic adversaries at the same priceand under the same terms as to our friends.

Yet, if the transfer to the private sector weremade, potential owners would exert strong pres-sure to be allowed to set their own data salespolicies in order to maximize profitability. Sucha posture would frustrate the very policy theUnited States has fought so hard and so long tomaintain in the United Nations and in its foreignrelations. In view of the continued importance ofthe “open skies” principle to the United States,altering the principle of nondiscriminatory saleof land remote-sensing data would be harmful tomany U.S. foreign policy interests, not just thoseinvolving outer space. Whether or not the Gov-ernment decides to continue the nondiscrimina-tory policy, any charter for a private firm shouldbe unambiguous with respect to the data distribu-tion policies the firm could pursue.

8

Value-added Services

To date, most of the revenue from the use ofremote-sensing data has been earned by those cor-porations that process, analyze, add other infor-mation, and/or interpret the data for themselvesor for others (the so-called value-added industry).The value-added companies constitute a small,but growing, specialized industry. Most biddersfor a remote-sensing system would want to par-ticipate in the value-added business, The primaryeconomic value of the data from the meteorologi-cal satellites is in warning of impending severe orunusual weather. Since receiving terminals arerelatively inexpensive, most countries and manyorganizations can afford to own and operatethem. For meteorological data, allowing a datasupplier to sell value-added services as well as dataappears to raise no special concerns in develop-ing countries as long as the raw data remain freelyavailable to everyone with the capacity to receivethem.

High-resolution land remote-sensing data andthe ability to analyze them are potentially power-ful tools for resource development. Many devel-oping countries have expressed the fear that if thecompany owning the data collection and distribu-tion system were also allowed to offer value--added services, it might take special advantageof having control over the acquisition and distri-bution process to make its own value-added serv-ices more timely or more complete than the serv-ices of its competitors. Under such conditions, thecompany, and its most favored customers, couldobtain economic leverage over countries thatlacked the facilities and personnel capable of in-terpreting the data. Therefore, from the stand-point of maintaining good relations with develop-ing countries, it may be appropriate for the UnitedStates to restrict the private data distributor fromentering into the value-added business, or to reg-ulate it closely to prevent such a company fromexerting unfair economic leverage over others. Ascompetition from foreign or even other domesticsystems grew, it should be possible to relax suchrestrictions. Alternatively, the Government couldrequire data analyses to be sold openly as well.

U.S. Technological Leadership

The existence of metsat ground stations, ownedand operated by over 125 countries, and the muchmore expensive Landsat ground stations in 10countries, constitute an eloquent statement of U.S.leadership in successfully applying high technol-ogy for the benefit of all mankind. The UnitedStates has also participated with both industrial-ized and developing countries in pursuing appliedresearch in the uses of the data. It is critical tothe continuing R&D of remote-sensing technologyand the growth of the data market for the UnitedStates to maintain its cooperative basic and ap-plied research programs with other countries, bothto advance U.S. research objectives and to retainU.S. leadership in the technology of outer space.

Cooperation With Developing Countries

Through its international cooperative projectswith developing countries, the United States hasadvanced the state of the art in remote sensing,and provided access to information and processesthat those countries would not have been able toafford to develop unilaterally. This cooperativeapproach has materially helped such countries tocope with the enormous human and physicalproblems of resource management, especially inisolated, rural areas.

In an era of rising costs and decreasing budgets,it may be increasingly difficult for the Agency forInternational Development (AID) and other U.S.organizations to provide data and other researchsupport in remote sensing, yet U.S. Governmentagency technical programs are largely responsi-ble for the development of the international com-munity of users of metsat and Landsat data, andthe concomitant market for Landsat data prod-ucts. If the transfer to the private sector is made,it will therefore be important to assure that ap-propriate Government funding is continued forthese projects, and that access to data will alsocontinue. It will also be important to involveprivate value-added companies in these projects.

9

International Legal Issues

The United States helped to formulate and isnow party to four major international treaties andagreements that may affect the operations of pri-vately owned Earth remote-sensing systems. Ofgreatest importance to potential private ownersof remote-sensing satellite systems is the 1967Outer Space Treaty, article VI of which requires“continuing supervision by the appropriate Stateparty to the Treaty. ” At the least, this provisionsuggests some form of licensing and Government-imposed regulations for private space systemoperators.

In regulating a private land remote-sensingsystem, the Department of State, Department ofCommerce, or other concerned Federal agencieshave the opportunity to develop imaginative strat-egies and institutions for working with the privatesector in this technology. The form of these strat-egies and institutions is particularly importantbecause land remote-sensing data, by the natureof their information content, raise the sensitivitiesof other countries. The Department of State’sBureau of Oceans and International Environmen-tal and Scientific Affairs (OES), which would like-ly be charged with regulatory responsibility overinternational questions, would have to strengthenits technical expertise in space and its commitmentto using space technology as part of the foreignpolicy of the United States. Such regulations couldbring U.S. foreign policy objectives into directconflict with the profit motives of private enter-prise.

Some countries maintain that they should havepriority access to data derived from the sensingof their territory; others have argued that theirconsent should be obtained before these data aretransferred to third parties. The United Statesmaintains that a policy of free collection and dis-semination of primary data is both supportedlegally and encouraged by the 1967 Outer SpaceTreaty and article 19 of the U.N. UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights.

Our historical policies of nondiscriminatorydata sales and the free flow of information haveserved us well in deflecting attempts to restrict theright to sense other countries or to make thosedata available to third parties. Should transfer toprivate ownership result in discriminatory accessto data—and a reduction in technical assistanceand concessionary sales policies aimed at mak-ing these data less accessible to less developedcountries—the U.S. position about “open skies”would have to be modified, with attendant lossesto U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Future International Coordination

The United States currently participates in thedeliberations of several international groups thatset or coordinate standards for remote-sensing sys-tems. If transfer of the Landsat system takes place,the Government should spell out clearly how pri-vate firms would interact with the Department ofState and other U.S. agencies having cognizanceover these matters.

Landsat Foreign Ground Stations

If the transfer takes place, the Memoranda ofUnderstanding between NOAA and the foreignground stations would become null and void. Yetthe foreign ground stations provide data of signifi-cant importance to the U.S. Government. In orderfor the private firm to supply the required datato the Government, in the absence of a systemlike the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,it may be essential for the firm to be able to enterinto agreements with the foreign governmentswho own the receiving stations. Some countriesmay be unwilling to do so without major conces-sions regarding data distribution policy on thepart of the private owner. In other words, for-eign owners may insist on placing restrictions onsales of data to their adversaries.

25-357 0 - 84 - 2 : QI, 3

10

DOMESTIC PUBLIC GOODS

U.S. remote-sensing programs have contributedsignificantly to the domestic public welfare. Thedaily contributions of the meteorological satellitesare visibly reflected in the daily media forecasts.Landsat’s contribution is less often publicized, butthe data it provides make possible new cost-effec-tive ways to assess, manage, and exploit Earth’sresources and environment. Landsat data are usedfor agriculture (to indicate crop stress and to fore-cast crop yield), forestry (to reveal the state andextent of forest resources and determine appropri-ate replanting strategies), resource exploration(nonrenewable resources), environmental moni-toring and coastal zone management, cartogra-phy, and resource management.

State and Local Government

A fully integrated communications network forreceiving and disseminating satellite meteorologi-cal data already exists in the U.S. NationalWeather Service, which adds these data to ter-restrial observations and distributes them to theStates and local communities in the form of long-and short-range weather forecasts. States andlocal news media use these data to warn citizensof impending weather conditions, including severeweather.

Several States have also begun to integrateLandsat data into their long-term planning, andto add them to computerized information retrievalsystems. However, the high cost of large com-puters and software and the expense of trainingand maintaining personnel, combined with uncer-tainties about Federal policy, are inhibiting theStates from relying more heavily on Landsat data.Further, some States that now use Landsat datato support their planning efforts are worried thattransfer of the system to private hands wouldcause sharp rises in the prices of data over a shorttime. In order to cut costs, many States shareLandsat data purchased from the Governmentwith other States, particularly in border areaswhere Landsat scenes cover land in two or more

States. * States express concern that privateowners would copyright the data in order to in-hibit copying and trading them, which would alsoraise the costs of using Landsat data.

Continuing Research

Important for satellite remote sensing is researchon how to apply the data to environmental andresource problems as well as on improving sen-sors and related hardware. Although meteorologi-cal satellites have been operational for years, ex-perimenters continue to discover ways to use theirlow-resolution data to solve some resource prob-lems. For example, these data now serve as im-portant adjuncts to the use of Landsat data foragricultural predictions. It will be important tocontinue university, private sector, and Govern-ment research on applying meteorological datato resource problems. In addition, there is a needfor continuing improvements to the meteorologi-cal sensors. The present research program withinNOAA is inadequate.

Although the system to produce data from theMSS sensor aboard Landsat 4 is appropriatelytermed “operational,” many of the techniques touse the data effectively are by no means wellunderstood. Thematic mapper (TM) data will re-quire considerable experimentation in order tolearn how to make the best possible use of them.The universities could play a strong role in suchresearch. Without a continuing source of data andcontinued experimentation in the public and pri-vate sectors with applying both MSS and TMdata, the market for data and data products willnot develop and potential benefits will remainunexploited by the United States.

NASA plans to fly a variety of advanced ex-perimental remote sensors on the space shuttle.However, there is also a great need to develop

● Sharing data by copying data tapes or photographic productsis now a common practice in Federal agencies, private industry, andthe universities, as well as in State and local government.

11

long-life operational sensors and associated proc-essing hardware that can be used for commercialpurposes. Smooth incorporation of new hardwareinto operational systems generally mandates evo-lutionary, not revolutionary, changes in designand system capacity.

Maintenance of Archives

Data gathered from meteorological satelliteobservations contribute to our knowledge of long-term weather patterns. In particular, the NationalClimate Program within NOAA assembles thesedata and combines them with other satellite andterrestrial data to produce world climate models.In order to continue the research on weather andclimate, it will be important to continue to archivemeteorological satellite data and to maintain con-tinuity of the data format,

The EROS Data Center (EDC) currently main-tains an archive containing most of the data itreceives. However, most foreign data are not in-cluded in the archive, nor is it possible to pur-chase most foreign data directly from EDC. Cus-tomers must generally purchase their images offoreign land areas from the appropriate foreignground stations. The expense of maintaining acomplete archive of all the data ever received fromthe Landsat system is too great. However, itshould be possible to construct a complete set ofcloud-free images of MSS data for the entireworld. To date, because of lack of funds, this hasnot been done, although NOAA and NASA rec-

ognize the value of such an archive, especially formapping, land-use planning, and for mineral ex-ploration. The Government would have to decidewhether the limited archive maintained at EDCwould be transferred to the private sector and,if so, under what conditions. If the archive istransferred, safeguards to protect it from laterdeterioration or destruction should be institutedso that all interested parties will continue to haveaccess to these data without copyright restrictions.

University Programs

In addition to their role of developing and in-structing in the use of new technologies, univer-sities and other not-for-profit organizations havecarried out research in using Landsat data forthemselves, State and local governments, privateindustry, and the Federal Government. At pres-ent they face two major concerns: 1) the steeplyrising prices of Landsat data and the concomitantdecrease of Federal research support have causedsome universities to reduce severely their researchand teaching programs; and 2) the universities ex-press worries that both the operational and re-search aspects of the U.S. Landsat program lackdirection. From the point of view of universityresearchers and teachers, these uncertainties makethe prospects for the future grim, presaging fur-ther reductions in their teaching and research pro-grams related to land remote sensing. Yet theseinstitutions play a major role in technologytransfer, both in the United States and abroad.

CIVILIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS

Data from the meteorological satellites havebeen used directly by the various Federal missionagencies either as they are transmitted to Earth,or after being processed and integrated with otherweather data by the National Weather Service.If the process of transfer of the metsats to privateownership had continued, the Government wouldhave offered to control, and pay for, the provi-sion of required domestic and international mete-orological data. It would have left to the privatesector the design and operation of future satellites,sensors, and related equipment to ensure that theGovernment’s needs for data were met.

For several years, data products derived fromthe Landsat MSS sensor have been applied by themission agencies to specific resource managementand evaluation tasks. In most cases, these dataproducts have become the standard for theremote-sensing users, both within and without theGovernment. Although TM data will continue tobe used for research purposes, because of the dif-ficulties and expense of processing the enormousvolume of data represented in a TM scene, theywill see relatively limited use. MSS-type data willcontinue to be of general interest to large partsof the user community for some time to come.

12

In part this interest exists because the user com-munity is accustomed to using the data, but formany users, the data’s four-band multispectralcharacteristics and synoptic view are often ofgreater importance than their. spatial resolution,Although it will be important to continue to studythe applicability of advanced data such as TM,which incorporates seven spectral bands, for Fed-eral mission agencies, data equivalent to MSS informat, spectral and spatial characteristics willsatisfy most civilian Federal needs for the rest ofthe 1980’s.

Even if the private sector assumes responsibility yfor providing remote-sensing data for the U.S.Government, it will be necessary for the Govern-ment to maintain oversight authority over suchcorporations to assure that they continue to pro-vide Federal data needs. It seems appropriate todesignate a single lead agency to supervise andregulate all U.S. civilian remote-sensing activities.However, to protect both Government and pri-vate interests, it will be necessary that the agen-cy act in such a way as not to stifle realistic op-portunities for a private owner to exercise initia-tive and flexibility in providing data responsiveto a worldwide market, including the private U.S.market.

Government Data Requirements

If transfer of the Landsat system to privateownership were made soon, (i. e., while Landsat5 is still functional’), it would be appropriate forthe new owner to maintain data products andservice equivalent to, or better than, the Gov-ernment now provides using the MSS sensor.However, one of the reasons for transferring thesystem to private hands would be to achieve bet-

‘Landsat 5 will be called Landsat D ‘ until it is launched and oper-ating in March 1984. Its nominal lifetime in orbit is 3 years for thespacecraft, 3 years for the MSS, and 1 year for the TM.

ter data products, delivery, and services than nowexist. Thus, as the privately owned systemevolved, the Government would be likely to de-mand improved service and products.

As U.S. private satellites begin to incorporateimproved sensors capable of higher resolution andpointing, as the French SPOT satellite has beendesigned to do, it will be tempting for the Govern-ment as well as other customers to ask the cor-poration to respond to special data needs, in ad-dition to supplying routine data. However, suchspecial tasking can only be accomplished at anextra cost, because it takes the satellite away fromroutine tasks. Because this differential pricing (fordiffering levels of service) also has the potentialfor being discriminatory, it should receive carefulconsideration and rules for handling it should bedeveloped.

NATIONAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

Alternative Systems

The Landsat system provides a unique capaci-ty. No other technique in the world provides theability to obtain reasonably detailed data (i. e.,each minimum unit of Landsat MSS data repre-sents 1.1 acres on the ground), over the entireEarth, and at a repetitive frequency that allowsmost temporal changes to be monitored effective-ly. However, in order to derive the maximum userbenefits of this technology, it will be necessaryto find ways to reduce sharply the system costswhile improving delivery, System studies byseveral private companies have shown it may bepossible to achieve cost reductions of up to 50 per-cent for an operational system. If the Governmentdecides to maintain its own civilian land remote-sensing system, it will be essential to find addi-tional ways to reduce system costs. Because R&Dis so expensive, major cost cutting for operationalservices implies that substantial R&D can nolonger be done while providing a high level ofroutine services.

The ability of the United States to collect extra- ation of classified meteorological and reconnais-territorial information of military and intelligence sance satellite systems by DOD. Satellite pro-value was suddenly and dramatically improved grams provide, among other things, essential datain the early 1960’s with the development and oper- about areas of the world where other types of U.S.

13

access is restricted. So long as both the civilianunclassified programs and the military classifiedprograms are under the direct control of the Fed-eral Government, the activities of both can becoordinated and controlled in the national inter-est. However, placing remote-sensing programsin the private sector may make it very difficultto continue appropriate coordination between sys-tems and control over data delivery.

It is little appreciated that the intelligence anddefense communities, taken together, currentlyare the largest users of Landsat data within theFederal Government. If there were no appropriatecivilian Government system or sufficient safe-guards on a privately owned system, these com-munities might find it necessary to build and oper-ate their own system, thereby diminishing any ex-pected budget savings.

DOD Oversight ofTechnical Specifications

NASA, in collaboration with other Federalagencies, academic institutions, and industry, hascarried out a substantial program of experimen-tation and demonstration of sensors and data-processing techniques for land remote sensing.NASA has pursued its research in cooperationwith DOD as provided for in the 1958 NationalAeronautics and Space (NAS) Act. Until recent-ly, the ground resolution of the civilian systemshas not been sufficient to detect objects of signifi-cant military interest. However, the developmentof advanced high spectral and spatial resolutioncivilian sensors in the United States and abroad,and the prospect of private sector entry into therealm of land remote sensing, necessitate a re-

FOREIGN COMPETITION

It is clear that other countries, building on theexperience gained from U.S. applications technol-ogy as well as on their own capabilities, see thedevelopment of meteorological, land, or ocean re-mote-sensing satellites as an integral componentof their entry into space. In addition to construct-ing systems competitive with the U.S. Landsatsystem, they are also moving to develop systems

examination of U.S. and other national policiesregarding technology development and technol-ogy transfer. Areas that should be examined care-fully include the limits that should be placed onthe ground resolution of space-borne sensors, theirspectral characteristics, and on sophisticated data-processing techniques. However, in the face of thedevelopment of advanced foreign systems, it willbe difficult for DOD to exert much control overadvances in U.S. civilian hardware and process-ing techniques without making it impossible forthe United States or its firms to compete in theworld market.

Preemption by the Militaryin Time of Emergency

The increased spectral and spatial resolution ofTM or other 1and remote-sensing systems makethe data they provide of increasing interest toDOD and the intelligence community. These datacould serve as a supplement to other data collec-tion means at any time. It will be essential to spellout clearly the particular requirements of DODand the intelligence community for hardening ofthe system’s electronics, and the system specifica-tions, as well as the conditions under which theprivate system could be preempted. Meeting thesespecial requirements will add cost. If the privateowner were to be required to meet them withoutspecific compensation, data prices would be ex-tremely high for all users, which would inhibitthe development of a commercial market for data.If the Government were to pay for these addition-al capabilities, such support would constitute anadditional subsidy of the system, beyond the basicones of no competition and fixed data purchases.

that will sense the physical parameters of theoceans and the coastal waters. The United States,though it has a program within NASA to developnew sensors to fly intermittently on the shuttle,has no plans to develop civilian operational sys-tems for land or ocean remote sensing that wouldprovide continuous data over the long term withrepeat coverage.

14

In order to maintain U.S. leadership in applica- applications of the data such systems supply totions of space technology, it will be important for the solution of a wide range of terrestrial prob-the United States to maintain continuity of data lems. If the United States wishes to maintain lead-delivery. This is likely to require Government sub- ership in this technology, it will be essential thatsidy. It will also be important for the Government the technology and the data it produces, whetherand the private sector to sustain a vigorous pro- publicly or privately owned, remain an integralgram of research in both space systems and the component of U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Chapter 2

Contents

Page

Development and Status of Remote Sensing From Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Foreign Remote-Sensing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Meteorological Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Land and Ocean Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

This Technical Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Preparation of the Technical Memorandum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 2

Introduction

This technical memorandum explores the ma-jor policy-related issues raised by the proposedprivate ownership of satellite-based civilian re-mote-sensing systems. It responds to requests fromthe Committee on Science and Technology of theU.S. House of Representatives to provide infor-mation that would help the committee fulfill itsoversight and legislative responsibilities. Specifi-cally, the committee requested that OTA “addressthe requirements or constraints relating to inter-national and national security concerns. ”l

This memorandum is designed to aid Congressin determining the appropriate requirements andconditions for private sector ownership and/oroperation of the U.S. land remote-sensing sys-tems. It also provides information and analysisthat will be useful for Congress as it develops andconsiders legislation for transferring remote-sensing satellite systems to the private sector. Itdoes not reach any explicit judgments aboutwhether a transfer of remote-sensing services anddata to private hands is either feasible or desirable,Rather, OTA’s analysis discusses what a privateowner and/or operator might be required to doin order to meet existing or projected U.S. obliga-tions to the international community, to enhancenational security, and to preserve the public ben-efits of civilian remote sensing from space.

1 Letter from U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Scienceand Technology, July 20, 1983; see also letter from Governmentoperations Committee, September 1983.

Although the value of remote sensing must con-stitute part of the analysis of potential require-ments, this memorandum neither analyzes the po-tential market for remote-sensing data, data prod-ucts, and services, nor judges the benefits versusthe costs of maintaining these services in theFederal Government as compared to transfer tothe private sector. However, it enumerates manyof the concerns that users of data from the systemhave expressed about transfer to the private sec-tor. It leaves it to Congress to judge the relativeimportance of potential requirements that mightbe imposed on the private sector,

Shortly before this technical memorandum wascompleted, Congress voted to keep the meteoro-logical satellite systems in the hands of theGovernment and directed the administration tocease preparation of a request for proposal totransfer these systems to the private sector. z How-ever, because the issues the proposed sale of themeteorological satellites raises are typical of themovement of technology from the Governmentto private hands, and of the decisions that mustbe made vis-à-vis public and private goods, OTAhas retained the analysis of meteorological satel-lite systems.

‘Appropriations bill HR. 3222, November 1983

DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

The scientific and user community recognizedearly in the development of space technology thepotential value of sensing Earth’s atmosphere,land masses, and oceans from space for civilianpurposes. The first civilian remote-sensing satellitewas a polar-orbiting weather satellite calledTIROS, launched by the United States in 1960.TIROS provided the first civilian images fromspace.

Subsequent improvements in the polar orbitersby the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration (NASA), which until recently has con-ducted much of the research and development(R&D) on new sensors, and the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), whichoperates the meteorological satellite systems, haveled to a powerful system of two orbiters that cir-cle Earth every 102 minutes and provide complete

17

18

Solarpanel

/ I Sun sensors

ORBIT. 35,800-km geosynchronous GOES East over equator at 75 W GOESWest at 135 W

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS:

19

Array Equipment High-energydrive support

electronicsproton and

module alpha particle

Rocket system antennaengine

assembly (4)

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS

13-1718-20

coverage of Earth’s atmospheric parameters every6 hours. These NOAA N-Series satellites alsocarry the ARGOS Data Collection System pro-vided by France, which collects and relays envi-ronmental and other data from ground-basedautomatic sensor platforms. The polar-orbitingmeteorological satellite system is now augmentedby two geostationary satellites (GOES) that pro-vide low-resolution visible and infrared coverageof the western hemisphere every 30 minutes.

Both systems are integral parts of the U.S.weather and climatological systems and constitutea major source of timely weather data to the restof the world. They also comprise a major sourceof data for studies of long-term weather trendsand climatological studies.3 By internationalagreement, weather data, including those gatheredby satellite, are shared with the world communi-ty freely and at no cost. In return, the UnitedStates receives satellite and other weather data atno cost from other countries all over the world.

Aircraft-based experiments with multispectralland remote-sensing systems started before theSpace Age, but were strengthened when NASAlaunched the first land remote-sensing satellite,Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS), in1972. This satellite was later renamed Landsat 1and was followed by Landsats 2 and 3 in 1975 and1978, respectively. In addition to other researchdevices, all three satellites carried a sensor calledthe multispectral scanner (MSS), having a spatialresolution at Earth’s surface of about 80 metersand covering four spectral bands. The output ofthis sensor, transmitted to Earth, then correctedand stored, constitutes the primary archivallibrary of Landsat data, extending back to 1972.

3Ciuilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-177, June1982), app. E.

REMOTE-SENSING POLICY

Landsat 4, which was launched in 1982, carriesboth an MSS sensor and an experimental thematicmapper (TM) sensor, having a nominal spatialresolution of 30 meters on Earth, and providingseven spectral bands of data. *

Developed and procured by NASA, the Land-sat system (Landsat 4) is now operated by NOAA.At the present time, no data can be receiveddirectly from the TM because of a failed X-bandtransmitter aboard the satellite. Limited TM recep-tion is possible through the Tracking Data andRelay Satellite System (TDRSS) when the latteris available for use. In addition, two of the foursolar panels that provide power to the spacecrafthave failed. Landsat 4 consequently has a highlylimited lifetime. NOAA plans to launch the back-up satellite to Landsat 4, Landsat D‘, this month.After launch it will then be named Landsat 5.

NASA’s and NOAA’s efforts with the Landsatsystem have demonstrated to a small but dedi-cated group of customers, both within and with-out the Government, that satellite data can behighly effective in meeting their resource infor-mation needs.4

In 1978, NASA launched the first dedicatedocean observation satellite, Seasat-A. Designedto last for at least 1 year, Seasat-A failed after only3 months in orbit. During that period its activeand passive microwave sensors (including a syn-thetic aperture radar) returned important newdata on the characteristics of the oceans, sea ice,and a variety of terrestrial features. DespiteSeasat’s high degree of technical success, nofollow-on civilian oceanographic satellite has beenauthorized.

*The thermal band at 10.40 to 12.5 microns has a spatial resolu-tion of 120 meters.

4Cil?ilian Space Policy and Applications, op. cit., pp. 53-67.

Although the potential utility of images gath- However, as Federal, State, and local govern-ered by satellite of atmospheric conditions and of ments and universities and industrial firms beganthe surface of the land and ocean were recognized to work with the data from the Landsat system,by those conceiving the systems, few considered they realized that these data were often a cost-operating the systems as commercial entities. effective substitute for older (aircraft) methods of

21

High gain antenna

Global positioningsystem antenna

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS.

22

gathering Earth resources data. The digital for-mat, wide spatial coverage, and repeatability ofthe data make possible new applications thatcould eventually increase the value of the infor-mation these data provide. By the late 1970’s,some observers postulated that the data mighteventually have sufficient commercial value toattract private investment in a remote-sensing sys-tem. However, it was also clear that barriers ofhigh cost, and technological and economic riskwould have to be drastically reduced to interestprivate investors in providing a system com-parable to the Landsat system.

Transfer of space-based land remote sensing toprivate hands was first considered seriously in thedrafting of President Carter’s 1979 policy state-ment on space, PD/NSC-54, which amplified theearlier policy statements, PD/NSC-37 and PD/NSC-42. According to the President’s Policy Di-rective, “Our goal is the eventual operation bythe private sector of our civil land remote-sensingactivities. Commerce will budget for further workin FY 1981 to seek ways to enhance private sec-tor opportunities. ”5 This statement left open thespeed and the means of the transfer but, becauseit also committed the United States to providecontinuity of the data flow from the Landsat sys-tem through the 1980’s, most observers assumedthat transfer to the private sector would take placeabout 1990. The first stage of that process wasto transfer responsibility for operational manage-ment of the Landsat program to NOAA. Transferof the meteorological satellite systems to privateownership was not envisioned by PD-54.

The Reagan administration decided early in itstenure to hasten the process of transfer, and an-nounced “the intent of transferring the respon-sibility [of Landsat] to the private sector as soonas possible. ”6 That statement, too, made no men-tion of the meteorological systems. Later, inMarch 1983, the administration proposed to trans-fer both the Landsat and the metsat systems to

“’Presidential Directive NSC-54, ” Nov. 16, 1979.%tatement of Joseph Wright, Deputy Secretary, Department of

Commerce, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applicationsof the House Committee on Science and Technology, and the Sub-committee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Com-mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, July 22 and 23,1981.

private hands.7 The Department of Commercecommissioned three studies to explore and exam-ine the issues raised by transfer of remote sens-ing from space to the private sector.8 Significantly,none of these reports concluded that rapid transferwas in the best interests of the United States.

In November 1983, Congress passed appropria-tions bill H.R. 3222, which contained a provisionpreventing sale of the Nation’s meteorological sat-ellite systems to private hands. President Reagansubsequently signed that bill into law (Public Law98-166). The meteorological satellites will continueto be operated as a public service, On January3, 1984, the Department of Commerce releaseda request for proposal (RFP) designed to solicitoffers from private industry to own and operatethe Landsat and any follow-on system. Proposalsare due on March 19, 1984.

The eventual goal of the transfer of the resultsof Government R&D to the private sector is tocreate ultimately a self-sustaining business fromall or part of the technology so transferred, withthe private firm in full control (except for ap-propriate regulation) of further development andshaping of the system and products. Realizationof such a goal would constitute full commercial-ization of the Government-developed technology.Intermediate steps along the way to this end couldresult in: 1) shared control of the technology;and/or 2) joint continued development of thetechnology and its products, through either sub-sidies, shared investment, or guaranteed Govern-ment purchase. The process of transferring to suchan intermediate step, in which the system wouldreceive significant Government subsidy, has oftenbeen called “privatization.”

7Statement of Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, to theSubcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and En-vironment of the House Committee on Science and Technology,Apr. 14, 1983.

“’Space Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: An Essay, ” Na-tional Academy of Public Administration, March 1983, Departmentof Commerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-066; “Commercializationof the Land Remote Sensing System: An Examination of Mechanismsand Issues, ” ECON, Inc., April 1983, Department of Commerce con-tract No. NA-83-SACJ3M58; “A Study to Examine the Mechanismsto Carry Out the Transfer of Civil Land Remote Sensing Systemsto the Private Sector, ” Earth Satellite Corp. and Abt Associates,Inc., Department of Commerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-O0679.

23

Depending on the terms and conditions agreedon, transfer of the Landsat system to the privatesector could result in any one of several outcomes.As OTA recently testified:

Three principal alternatives seem plausible:

. Government contract with one or morefirms, either to provide a direct subsidy orto purchase data at an agreed-upon highprice;

● a laissez-faire approach with competitivebidding to supply data for Governmentneeds; and

● a mixed, phased strategy that would allowprivate vendors to build a market over timewhile retaining partial Government owner-ship. “9

Whether such transfer would produce a com-mercially workable self-supporting system woulddepend on the interest of the private sector andthe development of the market for data and dataproducts (i.e., information) that is needed to sus-tain it. It would also depend on a national andinternational legal/political /security environmentthat permits the enterprise to seek success. Mostof the debate over transfer centers on ideological,rather than practical, issues. Ultimately only thedirect experience of the private sector can answerwhether a self-supporting business will be theresult, or whether such a goal is, at least for thetime being, not feasible.

“’Landsat and Land Remote-Sensing Policy, ” statement of Dr. JohnH, Gibbons, Director, Office of Technology Assessment, to the Sub-committee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommit-tee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and Environmentof the House Committee on Science and Technology, June 21, 1983,

FOREIGN REMOTE= SENSING SYSTEMS

As the debate over the fate of the Landsat sys-tem continues, it is well to remember that as theUnited States deliberates, other countries are plan-ning and building their own systems between nowand 1990. These systems, particularly for land andocean, present competitive challenges as well asopportunities for creative cooperative agreements.

Meteorological Satellite Systems

European Space Agency (ESA)—Meteosat-2(1981). This geostationary satellite provides rawimagery of European weather conditions toEurope as well as relaying processed imagery fromU.S. geostationary weather satellites. An im-proved Meteosat is planned for launch in 1985.

India—Insat-l (1982). This geostationarysatellite provides both communications and lim-ited meteorological data. Insat-lB, which replacedInsat-1, was launched successfully by space shuttleMission 8 in August 1983.

Japan–Geostationary Meteorological Satellite,GMS-2. This was launched by Japan on a Japa-

nese NII launcher in 1981 and is the second in aseries of geostationary meteorological satellites.It has now failed and GMS-1 will be used untila third satellite, GMS-3, can replace it in August1984.

Peoples Republic of China—The Chinese areworking on a Sun-synchronous meteorologicalsatellite whose launch date is presently uncertain.

U.S.S.R.—Meteor (4 satellites; a cluster ofMeteor 2-7, 2-8, and 2-10, and a single newer ver-sion, 2-9). Meteor is a polar-orbiting satellite withsensors capable of determining global ice andsnow cover in addition to sensing cloud cover.The Soviet Union currently plans to launch onegeostationary meteorological satellite (1984), withvisible and infrared sensors.

Land and Ocean Satellite Systems

Brazil-The Brazilians plan to launch a moder-ate-resolution land-sensing satellite in the late1980’s. Few details are available about this pro-posed satellite.

24

Canada–Radarsat (1990). This satellite willprovide C-band Radar images of Earth to monitorthe polar sea ice; other sensors are in the plan-ning stages.

European Space Agency—Remote Sensing Sat-ellite (ERS-1)—(1987/88). It is planned primari-ly for passive sensing of the coastal oceans andweather over the oceans. It will also carry a syn-thetic aperture radar for active sensing of landthrough cloud cover.

France—SPOT (1985). A land remote-sensingsatellite capable of high-resolution, multispectral(3 band) stereo images. It will be the world’s firstcommercial* remote-sensing satellite system.

West Germany—Modular Optoelectronic Mul-tispectral Scanner (MOMS)—(1984/85). This in-strument was flown on the Shuttle Pallet Satellite(SPAS) developed by Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB) aboard shuttle flight 7. MBBhas entered into an agreement with COMSAT,and with the Stenbeck Reassurance Co., Inc., tomarket land remote-sensing data collected onshuttle flights beginning in 1984 if agreement withNASA can be reached. The West Germans alsotested a limited synthetic aperture radar aboardSpacelab on shuttle flight 9.

● Although the SPOT system is organized as a commercial system,it is, for the time being, heavily subsidized by the French Govern-ment.

THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

The goal of the analysis of each of the follow-ing chapters is to present Congress with poten-tial requirements the Government might wish toimpose on private industry in supplying meteoro-logical and land remote-sensing data. The thirdchapter, International Relations and ForeignPolicy, describes the current international policyand practice of the United States in remote sens-ing from space and explores its international ob-ligations as defined by treaties and agreements.It also examines the utility of remote-sensing dataderived from space as an element of U.S. foreign

India—IRS-lA (1986). A low-resolution“semi-operational” land remote-sensing satelliteto be built in India and launched by a Sovietlauncher. A follow-on, IRS-lB, will be launchedby an Indian-built launcher.

Japan–Marine Observation Satellite-1 (MOS-1)—(1986) and Japan Earth Resources Satellite-1(JERS-1)–(1990). MOS-1 is being developed pri-marily for sensing various parameters of theocean. It will also be useful for land remote sens-ing. JERS-1 is primarily a land remote-sensing sat-ellite carrying a synthetic aperture radar that willalso have some limited marine uses.

U.S.S.R.—Meteor Priroda (1980); Kosmos1484 (1983). Both are experimental land remote-sensing satellites with low (170 m ), moderate(80 m), and high (30 m) resolution electronic andmechanical scan sensors that operate in a varietyof wavelengths. The Soviets consider the later sat-ellite superior to Landsat 4, and have offered datafrom them to the Eastern bloc as well as the devel-oping countries.

policy, social and diplomatic outreach. The chap-ter explains requirements now demanded by law,and discusses other possible conditions that mightbe imposed for the specific benefit of the UnitedStates. Finally, the third chapter discusses the wor-ries other countries have expressed about privateownership of U.S. remote-sensing systems.

Chapter 4, Public Interest in Remote Sensing,includes a short discussion of the civilian publicgood aspects of remote sensing as well as tablesof uses of remote-sensing data by domestic and

25— — - - — —

foreign non-Federal users. Short case studies showhow State and local governments, private indus-try, and research and educational institutions inte-grate remote-sensing data into other informationneeds.

Chapter 5, U.S. Government Needs for Re-mote-Serzsing Data, summarizes projected futureFederal needs for remote-sensing data, and showswhere land remote-sensing data have been usedto satisfy the requirements of congressionallymandated studies. A section of this chapter ana-lyzes the sales of Landsat data.

Chapter 6, National Security Needs and issuesanalyzes the national security aspects of civilianremote sensing and discusses the feasibility of hav-ing private industry supply the data needs of themilitary and intelligence communities.

Preparation of theTechnical Memorandum

In preparing this technical memorandum, OTArelied on personal interviews, contract studiesfrom several individuals, and the results of twoOTA workshops. In the first workshop, held July26, 1983, participants drawn primarily from theprivate sector discussed those broad issues implicit

in the transfer of remote-sensing systems relatedto international trade, foreign policy use ofremote-sensing data, public-good aspects of landand meteorological remote sensing, and finally,national security issues. The second workshop,composed solely of participants from the executiveagencies, discussed most of the same issues fromthe standpoint of Government policy and plans.

Throughout our discussions it was extremelydifficult to separate the question of whether thiscountry will continue to operate a land remote-sensing system from the question of what condi-tions and requirements a private firm should meet.Customers of the data fear that the entire abilityto gather and distribute useful land remote-sensingdata might well be lost in the debate over transfer.They argue that uncertainties over the fate of landremote sensing have impeded the growth of a mar-ket for data and, consequently, the developmentof a strong value-added industry.

OTA is grateful to the workshop participantsand to the many others who provided informa-tion or reviewed portions of the draft of this tech-nical memorandum. Their helpful and timelycomments and suggestions made it possible tocomplete this report expeditiously.

Chapter 3

International Relationsand Foreign Policy

Contents

Page

The International Character of Remote Sensing From Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29International Relations and Foreign Policy Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Meteorological Remote Sensing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Land Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

International Obligations: Treaties and Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36The Role of the Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Developing Countries.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39International Legal Aspects of Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40International Trade.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table

Table No. Page

l. Countries With APT/HPRT Reception Capabilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure

Figure No. Page

l. Diagram of the Global Telecommunications System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

—.—

Chapter 3

International Relations and Foreign Policy

Among the most important and difficult issuesto resolve in transferring civilian remote-sensingsystems to the private sector are those related tointernational relations, international trade, andforeign policy. Data products from both the ci-vilian meteorological and land remote-sensing sys-tems have been and remain important instrumentsof U.S. foreign policy. These data and the tech-nologies from which they spring remind othercountries of U.S. leadership in space technologyand U.S. dedication to using space for “the benefitof all mankind. ”1 Their use in numerous develop-ing countries has allowed the United States toshare its technological expertise and create goodwill for U.S. interests without transferring criticalaspects of U.S. technology, In addition, data fromthese satellites have raised the level of awarenessof major environmental problems throughout theworld. By providing a means for self-directedresources management, remote-sensing systemshelp to create self-sufficient allies rather thantechnological dependents.

Although many countries accept the use of U.S.remote-sensing systems, some have also ques-tioned the right of the United States to sense theircountries or to sell sensed data to third parties,and have argued that limits should be placed onthe sensors’ ground resolution. In addition, somecountries that have accepted a U.S. Government-owned system have articulated deep concernsabout the potential for abuse of data generatedand marketed by privately operated systems.

Transfer of the metsat or Landsat systems tothe private sector would likely affect U.S. rela-tionships with the world community. Examinationof the Landsat system’s importance to interna-tional relationships, including trade, reveals thattransfer of the active system would strongly affectforeign as well as domestic users of the data.

This chapter identifies and discusses the majorinternational issues connected with remote sens-ing as they relate to the transfer of the U.S. civiliansystems to the private sector. It also suggests re-quirements that might be imposed on a privatecorporation seeking to own and operate remote-

1National Aeronautics and Space Act (NAS ) of 1958, sec. 102 (a). sensing systems.

THE INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER OFREMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

Aircraft or balloons are clearly limited inoverflight by national legal restrictions on sov-ereign airspace, but spacecraft have no overflightrestrictions. According to international treaty,“Outer space and celestial bodies are not subjectto appropriation by claim of sovereignty, bymeans of use or occupation, or by any othermeans.”2 This principle is understood by theUnited States and most other nations to mean thatnations are free to place in orbit any satellite thatdoes not violate other provisions of the 1967Outer Space Treaty.——

“’Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in theExploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and OtherCelestial Bodies, ” Oct. 10, 1967: art. II.

This understanding has been called the “openskies” principle; it is a fundamental principle ofthe U.S. space program. The United States sup-ports it in part by insisting on making civilianremote-sensing data available on a nondiscrimi-natory basis to anyone who wishes to receivethem. Meteorological data are available free ofcharge to any country or organization capable ofreceiving the signals; land remote-sensing data aresold at uniform prices on an equal, nondiscrimi-natory basis.

The United States, through the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (AID), the U.S. Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), and the international World Meteoro-

2 9

30

logical Organization (WMO), has been successful (see table 1). For some of the poorest countries,in helping some 125 countries and organizations such stations are their only means of gatheringpurchase appropriate receiving terminals to synoptic weather data to warn of potentially de-receive meteorological data from U.S. satellites structive storms or dramatic climatic changes. In

Table 1 .—Countries With APT/HRPT Reception Capabilities

Countries with APT facilities:Afghanistan

AlgeriaAngola (status unknown)Antarctica (USN res.)ArgentinaAustraliaAustriaAzoresBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelgiumBermudaBoliviaBrazilBulgariaBurmaCambodia (statusCameroonCanadaCanary IslandsChina (Mainland)China (Taiwan)ChileColombiaCosta RicaCuracaoCzechoslovakiaDenmark

unknown)

Dominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaGambiaGerman Democratic RepublicGermany, Federal Republic ofGhanaGreeceGuatemalaGuadaloupeGuyanaHonduras

Hong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqItalyIsraelIvory CoastJapanJordanKenyaKoreaKuwaitMadagascarMalaysiaMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew GuineaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaSaudi ArabiaSenegalSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSomalia

South AfricaSouth YemenSpainSri LankaSudanSurinamSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTahitiTanzaniaThailandTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyUnion of Soviet Socialist RepublicsUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUpper VoltaUruguayVenezuelaViet-Nam, Republic of (status unknown)YugoslaviaZaireZambiaZimbabwe

Countries with HRPT facilities:BelgiumBrazilCanadaChina (Mainland)CzechoslovakiaFederal Republic of GermanyFranceGreenland (Denmark)IndiaIndonesiaIranNew ZealandNorwaySaudi ArabiaSwedenUnion of Soviet Socialist RepublicsUnited KingdomUnited StatesYemen (South)

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

31

return, these countries provide the United Stateswith their local weather data which are crucialto both U.S. civilian and military users.

As the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration (NASA) developed the Landsat system,it encouraged use of the system by other coun-tries. Ten countries now own Landsat receivingstations. In return for a fee, these foreign stationsreceive Landsat data sensed over their region andsell or distribute data to domestic and foreign cus-

WMO is a specialized agency of the UnitedNations (U.N.), the purpose of which is tocoordinate, standardize, and improve mete-orological services throughout the world. Itconsists of more than 150 member countriesand territories, each of which maintains itsown meteorological service. Establishedunder a 1947 convention, WMO has fosteredinternational cooperation in meteorologythrough such programs as the World WeatherWatch, a system for comprehensive globalweather observation, and through the GlobalTelecommunications System for global ex-change of meteorological data (fig. 1). TheWMO convention itself imposes no obliga-tion for data exchange, but the free inter-change of meteorological data from terres-

tomers. Further, through AID and NASA, theUnited States has been a principal force in settingup foreign regional and national centers capableof processing and interpreting Landsat data. Byintegrating these data with meteorological, air-craft, and ground data of all kinds, these centershelp developing countries to cope with the enor-mous problems of environmental protection andresource management, particularly in isolated,rural areas.

trial stations and satellites has become anestablished custom of great utility to the par-ticipating countries.

Satellites from several countries providedata for this exchange. The GeostationaryMeteorological Satellite (GMS-Japan), Mete-osat (operated by EUMETSAT and the Euro-pean Space Agency), and most recently theINSAT (India) geostationary satellites pro-vide visible and infrared imagery, data com-munications systems and weather facsimile(WEFAX) charts.* These satellites, plus theU.S. satellites and the planned Soviet geosta-tionary satellite, make up the heart of theWorld Weather Watch of the WMO.

● INSAT does not furnish WEFAX transmissions.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY AIMS

A recent administration report acknowledgesthat if the United States transfers its Landsat sys-tem to the private sector, it must consider the ef-fect this step will have on a wide range of U.S.interests:

In remote sensing the readily available productsof United States meteorological and land satellitesare used routinely by the world community. Theresult has been a large measure of good will andsupport of our positions in the U.N. and otherinternational fora.3

3The President’s Report to Congress on Science, Technology, andAmerican Diplomacy for Fiscal Year 1982.

As this passage indicates, in serving the inter-national community, data products from the U.S.remote-sensing systems have been important in-struments of U.S. foreign policy. Not only havethese data aided other countries in predictingharmful weather patterns and in managing andexploiting their own resources, they have servedto raise the general level of awareness of growingenvironmental problems throughout the world,The data from the metsat and Landsat systemshave also provided the United States influence insome countries that strongly disagree with us oncertain international political issues. In suchdeveloping countries as Thailand, Bangladesh and

32

Figure1 .—Diagram of the Global Telecommunications System

II

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kenya, the desire to use remote-sensing data fromU.S. satellites has even effected changes in politicaland institutional structures (see section on “Devel-oping Countries” in this chapter and app. A). Themetsat and Landsat systems also remind othercountries of U.S. leadership in space technology.

Primarily through the Landsat system, theUnited States has been able to overcome poten-tial foreign opposition to satellite remote sensingfor national security as well as civilian uses, andto offset repeated attempts by the Soviet bloc toimpose regimes whose intent is to restrict the freeflow of information. Indeed, the Landsat program

can be considered to be a cornerstone of the U.S.“open skies” policy and of its policy on the useof space for “peaceful purposes for the benefit ofall mankind. ”4 By making data from the Landsatsystem available to all potential purchasers on anondiscriminatory basis, the United States hasbeen able effectively to blunt criticism that mightotherwise have resulted from its extensive use ofmilitary reconnaissance and other satellites. More-over, the open availability of Landsat data toanyone regardless of nationality or political per-suasion is a powerful message to governments op-

4NAS Act of 1958, op. cit.

.———

33

Operational Earth Observation Satellites

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

posed to the open interchange of ideas andinformation.

The following discusses several areas critical toforeign policy and international relations that anyplanning for the future treatment of land andmeteorological remote-sensing satellite systemsmust address.

Meteorological Remote Sensing

Data Distribution Policy

As noted in the previous section, the U.S. policyon meteorological data conforms to the globalpractice of distributing such data freely and at nocost to the other countries of the world. Tentativesuggestions by U.S. officials that the United Statesmight begin to charge other nations for these datawere met with warnings that the United States wastampering with well-established, long-term datapractices and that other countries might recipro-cate.

In addition, two of the instruments carried onU.S. metsats are provided by other countries. TheUnited Kingdom, through the British Meteoro-logical Office, has provided the StratosphericSounding Unit for the U.S. TIROS-N polar or-biter. In a tripartite agreement among NOAA,NASA, and the French Centre National D’EtudeSpatiales (CNES), the French provide and operatethe ARGOS data collection system for the NOAApolar orbiter. These arrangements help reduceNOAA’s costs and make the polar-orbiting sat-ellites much more capable than they would beotherwise.

Because the United States receives more datathrough WMO than it supplies to the rest of theworld, charging for metsat data would result ina net cost to the United States. In part becauseof the negative response from other countries andin part because of the outcry from U.S. users offoreign data as well as Congress,5 the administra-

5House Concurrent Resolution 168, Sept. 19, 1983; Senate Con-current Resolution 67, Sept. 19, 1983: 98th Cong., 1st sess.

3 4—

tion subsequently reaffirmed its commitment tosupplying meteorological data freely and free ofcharge.

Value-Added Services

Value is added to meteorological data whenthey are used by specialized firms to predict severeimpending weather for the benefit of specializedgroups, such as regional farmers or the interna-tional shipping industry. Value-added firms andGovernment organizations are also learning howto process meteorological data conjointly withland remote-sensing data to predict crop yields,both domestically and abroad (see ch. 4).

A private operator would likely be interestedin entering the value-added business, since out-side the Government, there would be only a mod-est market for unprocessed data. Unlike the caseof land remote sensing (discussed below), wherethe primary economic value of the data can onlybe realized after sophisticated and expensive dataprocessing, the primary economic value of thedata from the meteorological satellites is in theirability to warn of impending severe or unusualweather. Receiving terminals and the necessarydata-processing equipment for obtaining basicmeteorological data are relatively inexpensive;most countries and many smaller economic en-tities can afford to purchase and operate them.Thus, for meteorological data, no apparent con-flict would exist in allowing the data supplier tosell value-added services, as long as the raw dataremain freely available to everyone with thecapacity to receive them.

Continued Applied Research

Although the meteorological satellites havebeen in operational use for nearly two decades,there is a continuing need to refine the observa-tions they make, and to learn to integrate theseobservations with other land, ocean, and atmos-pheric data in order to make them more general-ly useful.

When the National Weather Service first as-sumed responsibility for operating the meteoro-logical satellites, NASA was charged with con-tinuing the research and development for newmeteorological sensors and satellites. This work

resulted in substantial improvements in the polar-orbiting satellites, and in the development of thegeostationary meteorological satellites (GOES).However, in recent years the NASA R&D pro-gram for new satellites and sensors (the Nimbusseries of experimental meteorological satellites)has diminished nearly to zero, and for budgetaryreasons, NOAA has not been able to take upwhere NASA left off. Consequently, little hard-ware research is now being carried out in thecivilian programs. In addition, military researchon sensors has slowed considerably for lack ofsuitable civilian satellites to attach them to. Priorto the demise of the Nimbus program, NASA,NOAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD)used these satellites to test new sensors and tech-niques.

U.S. meteorological satellites have demon-strated U.S. leadership in this technology. If theUnited States is to continue to lead, it will be im-portant to continue research in sensors, satellites,and other hardware development.

The Government has continuing research pro-grams to utilize meteorological data to best ad-vantage, both for short- and intermediate-termweather forecasting and for climate research.Much of this research is conducted in collabora-tion with industrialized and developing countries.Since receiving and processing meteorologicaldata from satellites provide an excellent way tolearn about and use space technology, it wouldbe in the long-term best interests of the UnitedStates to continue applications research projectswith both industrialized and developing countries.It will be especially useful to find new ways tointegrate these data with ocean and land satellitedata. Such work would most usefully be carriedout in conjunction with private industry.

Land Remote Sensing

Data Sales and Foreign Policy

Because the U.S. space program and U.S. for-eign policy have benefited from the policy of non-discriminatory sale of Landsat data, this policyassumes importance in foreign relations. If theproposed transfer is made, the private firm willwant to set its own data policies. In general, com-

35—

mercial interests want private ownership of dataand the ability to copyright them so data can besold profitably. Thus, a commercial venture islikely to require proprietary rights in distributingdata in order to gain or maintain economic ad-vantage over possible competitors. However, thisis contrary to notions of open access to informa-tion for the public good. Indeed, the Departmentof Commerce’s Source Evaluation Board hasrecognized the interests of the private sector andthe difficulties of the embryonic market for datain its Request for Proposals (RFP), in which itstates simply:

(1) Conform his [the owner’s] Earth remote-sensing programs as closely as is commerciallypossible to traditional U.S. Government practicesof providing civil land remote sensing satellitedata to all users on an open, equal, nondiscrimi-natory basis; (2) Consult with and obtain the ap-proval of the U.S. Government before institutingmajor changes in international data distributionpractices, to ensure that such changes are in con-formity with the international obligations andforeign policy objectives of the U. S.’

The question is whether it is in fact “commer-cially possible” to maintain the policy the UnitedStates has fought so hard to maintain in the UnitedNations and other international bodies. The for-mulation of the RFP would leave the matter large-ly up to private interests to decide. In view of thecontinued importance of the “open skies” princi-ple to the U.S. use of space, it will be importantfor Congress to consider carefully the implicationsof this potentially radical change of policy.

Value-Added Services

Most of the profit from the use of land remote-sensing data will be gained by those corporationsthat enhance Landsat data to improve their use-fulness (the so-called value-added industry). Thesecompanies integrate Landsat data with other in-formation to make powerful analytical and pre-dictive commercial products. They constitute asmall, but growing, industry.

“’Request for Proposals for Transfer of the United States LandRemote Sensing Program to the Private Sector, ” U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Jan. 3, 1984, VII. 6-3.

There can be little doubt that a private ownerof the Landsat system would want to enter intothe value-added business. The Source EvaluationBoard’s RFP proposes to allow the system’s ownerto process the primary data and to package thosedata in whatever ways it sees fit, including offer-ing a variety of value-added products, as long asFederal data needs are met.7

However, many developing countries have ex-pressed the fear that if the company owning thecollection and distribution system were also al-lowed to offer value-added services, it might takespecial advantage of having control over the dis-tribution process (i.e., a monopoly position) togain economic leverage over countries that do nothave the facilities or personnel to process and in-terpret the data themselves. For example, a com-pany might delay distribution of data to a sensedcountry until after the company had a chance toexploit the data itself for resource information.From the standpoint of international relations, itmay be appropriate for the United States to re-strict the private owner from entering into thevalue-added business. At the least, the privateowner would have to be closely regulated to seethat unfair economic leverage was not appliedover other countries or over other value-addedcorporations.

If the market for land remote-sensing servicesgrows to the point that competitive, timely, dataservices are available, thereby limiting the powerof one company to exert such unfair leverage, any

restrictions could be relaxed because competitionwould make value-added services more readilyavailable. A possible alternative strategy, but onethat would be unlikely to gain the support ofprivate companies, would be to require dataanalysis to be sold openly as well.

U.S. Technological Leadershipin Cooperative Projects

During the decade that the Landsat system hasexisted, the United States has encouraged both in-dustrialized and developing countries to partici-pate in generating applications for Landsat data(i.e., applied research). That this approach hasbeen successful is demonstrated by the fact that

‘Ibid., p. ii.

36

10 countries now own Landsat receiving stationsand pay a yearly fee of $600,000 to the U.S. Gov-ernment to receive data. Although the stations areowned and operated by the host country andsome of the equipment is manufactured outsidethe United States, the receiving stations clearlydemonstrate U.S. leadership in developing andtransferring high technology.

The United States has also benefited directlyfrom helping to establish these receiving stations,for they have provided critical foreign multispec-tral scanner (MSS) data for U.S. Governmentprojects, both domestic and bilateral. Withoutthese foreign resources, worth millions of dollars,the success of the Landsat program would havebeen severely limited. Some companies have

found data from foreign ground stations to becrucial in their business. Thus, they benefit fromexisting bilateral agreements with foreign groundstations and from the exposure of a wide varietyof potential data users to Landsat data products.

It is critical for the United States to maintainits cooperative basic and applied research pro-grams in remote-sensing technology with othercountries, both to advance U.S. research objec-tives and to retain U.S. leadership in the tech-nology of outer space. Without help from theGovernment, a private owner is unlikely to havethe resources or the inclination to pursue researchwith other countries. Still, private industry hasa significant role to play in applicationsdemonstrations.

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS: TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

The United States is a party to four major in-ternational agreements formulated by the U.N.Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) that may affect the operations of pri-vate Earth resources remote-sensing systems:

●

●

●

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activitiesof States in the Exploration and Use of OuterSpace, Including the Moon and Other Celes-tial Bodies (1967). Among other things, thetreaty defines the principles for the explora-tion and use of outer space and holds Statesresponsible for the space activities of theircitizens.Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, theReturn of Astronauts, and the Return of Ob-jects Launched Into Outer Space (1968). Thisagreement provides for the rescue and returnof downed or stranded astronauts as well asthe return of a space object and “its compo-nent parts.” It specifies that “the State respon-sible for launching” shall pay the expensesfor recovering and returning the space ob-ject or its parts.Convention on International Liability forDamage Caused by Space Objects (1972).This convention is an extension of articles VIand VII of the 1967 treaty. It defines “dam-age” as loss of life, personal injury, impair-

●

ment of health, loss or damage to propertyor persons or property of international or-ganizations. “Launching” is held to includeattempted launching and a “launching State”is one that either launches or procures thelaunch of a space object. It is also one “fromwhose territory or facility a space object islaunched.”

Convention on Registration of ObjectsLaunched Into Outer Space (1974). The in-formation registered includes the name of thelaunching State or States, an appropriate des-ignator or a registration number, the date andterritory of the launching, the initial basic or-bital parameters including the nodal period,inclination, apogee, perigee, and the generalfunction of the space object.

Of particular importance to potential privateoperators of remote-sensing satellite systems orany other space system, is the 1967 Outer SpaceTreaty. Article VI of this treaty states: “The ac-tivities of non-governmental entities in space. . . shall require authorization and continuingsupervision by the appropriate State party to thetreaty.” Although the terms “authorization” and“continuing supervision” have been interpreteddifferently, article VI clearly requires some form

3 7

of licensing and adherence to Government-imposed regulations.

Similarly, article II of the 1972 Liability Con-vention makes the launching State responsible forpersonal and property damage caused by any sat-ellites or launchers even if they are no longerunder the operation or direct control of the Gov-ernment. At a minimum, the Government wouldrequire assurance that the owner of the satellitesystem had purchased adequate insurance to coverpossible damages.

The U.S. Government has not yet decided onthe precise mechanisms of ensuring that privatecorporations comply with international treatyobligations. Given the importance of this tech-nology to U.S. foreign affairs, it is clear that theDepartment of State must play a major role.

The Role of the Department of State

In general, private operation of the U.S.remote-sensing systems may lessen the potentialfor using them as a tool of U.S. foreign policy.Transfer to the private sector could also diminishthe accountability of remote-sensing operationsto international law and public opinion by remov-ing them from direct public control. The Depart-ment of State therefore should have two primaryconcerns: 1) to ensure that a private owner meetsall the international obligations of the UnitedStates; and 2) to see that its activities support, orat the least do not interfere with, other U.S.diplomatic interests.

The Department of State would have to assurea private operator’s adherence to the provisionsof the various U.N. treaties on space discussedabove. The specific regulatory mechanisms itwould use and the penalties to be imposed fornoncompliance are presently undefined. The De-partment’s function in assuring that the activitiesof a private corporation support U.S. diplomaticinterests is important, but difficult to executebecause the Department would have to work di-rectly and continuously with the private sector.Such a role would require the Department toassess the past benefits of Government remote-sensing activities and determine which of theseshould be retained in the future. The private com-

pany, on its own, cannot be expected to under-stand and comply with U.S. foreign policyobjectives.

In this process, it would be important to dis-tinguish between those benefits which do notoutweigh the advantages of private sector opera-tion and those which are essential to U.S. in-terests. The essential benefits must somehow bepreserved by the transfer agreement. The StateDepartment should examine closely the degree towhich past remote-sensing projects have aidedU.S. efforts at the U.N. and other internationalforums dealing with all issues related to outerspace, then establish the means to continue to usethis technology in the service of U.S. foreignpolicy and international relations.

In regulating a private land remote-sensing sys-tem the Department of State and other Federalagencies (e. g., the Department of Commerce),would be breaking new ground. They thereforehave an opportunity to develop imaginative strat-egies for dealing with the private sector. Thesestrategies are particularly important because theywould deal with a technology which, because ofits economic implications (i e., the data can beused to help in exploring for the resources of coun-tries), raises the political sensitivities of othercountries. Some countries worry they will losecontrol over resources under their sovereigncontrol.

One possible mechanism would be to establisha permanent private sector advisory group towork with the Department of State to advise onground roles for international operation of the sys-tem. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Oceans and In-ternational Environmental and Scientific Affairs(OES) of the Department of State, which wouldlikely be charged with this responsibility, wouldhave to strengthen its expertise in space technol-ogy and its commitment to using space technol-ogy as part of the outreach of the United States.

In the past, NASA has taken the lead in estab-lishing cooperative ventures with other countries;it will continue to do so for most space projects.One reason NASA has been so successful is thatit is well based in the technology and has carefullychosen projects that directly served the best inter-

38

ests of NASA. * The Department of State has neverhad a strong interest in cooperative programs inspace technology,9 in part because space technol-ogy constitutes only a very small part of its totalmission. Yet, as private sector involvement inspace grows, the Department will be in the diffi-cult position of mediating between U.S. privatecompanies, which would want as few restrictionsas possible, and foreign countries which might

8UNISPACE ’82: A Context for International Cooperation andCompetition-A Technical Memorandum (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-ISC-26,March 1983), app. B.

‘T. K. Glennan, “Technology and Foreign Affairs, A Report toDeputy Secretary of State Charles W. Robinson, ” December 1976,p. 33; Norman A. Graham, Richard L. Kauffman, and Michael C.Oppenheimer, “A Handbook for U.S. Participants in MultilateralDiplomacy: The U.S. and U.N. Global Conferences, ” report pre-pared for the Department of State by the Futures Group, Septem-ber 1981, p. 15.

want strong restrictions. The Department mighthave to choose between making friends and influ-encing nations abroad and rallying domesticsupport.

Relationship of Private Sectorto Foreign Ground Stations

The foreign ground stations are all govern-ment-owned and government-operated and re-ceive data from the Landsat satellite by agreementwith the U.S. Government. Each station is nowrequired to pay $600,000 per year for the rightto receive and distribute or sell MSS data fromthe satellite. Before fiscal year 1983, the chargewas $200,000. According to the terms of the Mem-oranda of Understanding between NOAA andthese governments, the stations may receive andpreprocess these data and sell them to their

Distribution by Foreign Ground Stations (as of Jan. 1, 1984)

F

GoldstoneCalifornia

CuiabaBrazil

Mar ChiquitaArgentina

JohannesburgSouth Africa

Bangkok ●

Thailand

DjakartaIndonesia

Landsat coverage(5° antenna elevation criterion)

Receiving station locationReception

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminlstration

3 9— —

customers. In return, they agree to abide by thesame nondiscriminatory sales policy practiced bythe United States. If the private owners of theremote-sensing systems are permitted to pursuediscriminatory data policies, the United States willlose its leverage over operations and data productdistribution policy of the foreign ground stations.

Future International Coordination

The United States currently participates in thedeliberations of the Landsat Ground Station Oper-

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Landsat and metsat technology, and U.S. pro-grams through AID, NASA, and NOAA to trans-fer data-processing technology to developingcountries, have affected the institutional structureof developing countries, and the manner in whichthe countries treat environmental problems. Theseprograms have also affected their relations withthe United States. *

In the developing world, AID and NASA havebeen the principal agents in setting up regionaland national centers capable of collecting, proc-essing, and interpreting Landsat data and com-bining them with other data. The resulting infor-mation has helped developing countries to copewith the enormous human and physical problemsof resource management, particularly in isolatedareas. The United States has shown the rest of theworld how to use Landsat data as a powerful toolfor attacking such serious global environmentalproblems as deforestation and desertification,problems that respect no political boundaries.

In short, in helping to solve these pressing prob-lems, satellite remote sensing has made a distinc-tive contribution to the international image of theUnited States as a leader in the effort to assess andprotect global resources.

For the past 25 years the United States hasstated in international gatherings that its explora-tion and research in space would be used for thebenefit of all mankind. For the past 15 years, de-

‘See app. A for a more detailed treatment of this subject.

ators Working Group and the Coordination onLand Observing Satellites, organizations whichcoordinate standards for land remote-sensing sys-tems. With transfer of the land remote-sensingsatellite system to private ownership, it would beimportant to spell out how private firms wouldhave to interact with the agencies that representthe United States in these organizations, *

*It is not clear that the Government would still have a role toplay in the Landsat Ground Stat Ion Operators Working Group upontransfer of the system to private hands

veloping countries have been told that the cur-rent satellite remote-sensing system (Landsat) wasexperimental and that eventually an operationalsystem would exist in the spirit of internationalcooperation that has been a hallmark of the U.S.civilian space program. In addition, in the faceof strong international opposition, the UnitedStates has stood by its policy of open dissemina-tion of data gathered by satellite. Now, as theadministration moves toward transfer of theLandsat system to private hands, many observersquestion the effect the transfer proposal wouldhave on the broader agenda of U.S. relations withthe developing world and on past U.S. com-mitments.

Transfer of the Landsat system to the privatesector would have some positive effects on the useof satellite data in developing countries (e. g.,private firms should be able to offer more timelydata and provide a greater variety of services thandoes the U.S. Government). Nonetheless, some ofthese countries see the transfer as another signalthat the United States is reversing its longstandingpolicy for outer space and becoming less cooper-ative in space activities with developing countries.

Transfer of the Landsat system could well con-tribute to already deteriorating relations betweenthe United States and developing countries in in-ternational forums and negotiations. U.S. policy-makers should decide whether the goal of imme-diate private sector ownership and operation ofremote-sensing systems is more important for po-

40

litical/economic principle and domestic budgetaryreasons than long-term political relations betweenthe United States and the developing world. Aphased transfer or limited transfer could ease thepolitical problems the United States might face.

One reason AID and NASA have been able topromote the use of Landsat data in other coun-tries is that the data have been readily availableat very low prices (the greatest costs have beenborne by NASA through its funding of the Land-sat program). Such a policy is appropriate dur-ing research and development, when it is impor-tant to encourage many potential users to experi-ment with the data. However, now that the sys-tem has been declared operational and may betransferred to private ownership, the price fordata must approach the costs of building andmaintaining a system. There are other price andcost issues that must be resolved; for instance, willthe United States continue to provide data forprojects that draw “good will and support?” It willbe increasingly difficult for AID and other agen-cies to provide data and other support for remote-sensing projects in an era of increasing costs and

decreasing budgets. Yet U.S. mission agency tech-nical programs have been largely responsible forthe development and maintenance of the interna-tional community of users of data from Landsat.The small market for remote-sensing data that ex-ists abroad today exists because of previous U.S.financial and technical assistance. Further, if suchassistance were to stop after the technology wastransferred to private ownership, it might re-ignitethe international debate over ownership and dis-semination of the data from remote-sensing satel-lite systems (see discussion in the followingsection),

We must also consider the costs to the UnitedStates of not continuing this aid to other coun-tries. From the standpoint of developing marketsfor U.S. products, it is clearly in the best interestsof the United States to continue to encourageother countries to become familiar with landremote-sensing data and their uses. If the transferto the private sector is made, it will therefore beimportant for Congress to assure that appropriatefunding is continued for these worthy projects.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF REMOTE SENSING

Countries are well aware that the possession ofsatellite remotely sensed data and the ability toanalyze them gives others power to affect theirresource development. Data from the meteoro-logical satellites are generally not in questionbecause they are low resolution and are widelyperceived by other countries to be of little use inexploiting a country’s resources. Private owner-ship of the land remote-sensing system mayheighten suspicions that such data would be usedto enable interests outside the sensed country togain a competitive advantage, or that informa-tion on crop conditions or military activities ofStates might be sold preferentially to politicaladversaries. The developing countries are par-ticularly concerned about this issue, since manylack the indigenous ability to analyze the data. *-— —

‘Their concerns over remote-sensing data are directly linked tosimilar concerns over access to information of all kinds as well astheir ability to U Se it.

Some countries maintain that they should havepriority access to data derived from the sensingof their territory, while others have argued thattheir consent should be obtained before these dataare transferred to third parties. These states basetheir claims on the political-legal concept of na-tional sovereignty over resources.

The United States has consistently opposed ef-forts to limit the distribution of Landsat data,arguing that remote sensing is a peaceful andbeneficial use of space in which the constraintsof national sovereignty have no valid application.Further, it has held that the free collection anddissemination of primary data and analyzed in-formation is supported legally and encouraged bythe 1967 Outer Space Treaty and article 19 of theU.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

Some countries carried this debate into theUNISPACE ’82 conference, held in Vienna,

Austria, in August 1982. Mexico, on behalf of theGroup of 77, submitted a position paper at theconference which stated:

The Group of 77 believes that sensed statesshould have timely and unhindered access on apriority basis . . . to all data and information ob-tained over their territories. Dissemination of suchdata and information derived from it to a thirdparty should not be done without the prior con-sent of the sensed country. 10

This wording was rejected for the finalUNISPACE ’82 report, but the United States canexpect similar attempts to restrict the sale of datain the future.

In future meetings of the U.N. Committee onthe Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the UnitedStates will have to defend any new policies withrespect to private sector use of outer space.

] UNISPACE 82; A Context for International (’(l(lperation .]ni/

L’c)rnpctitlon, Op Cit , , d~p }i

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

As noted earlier, outside of limited distributionof land remote-sensing data by the Soviet Union,the United States has been the sole supplier of landremote-sensing data to the world. Yet today,while the United States deliberates over the ap-propriate disposition of the Landsat system, othercountries are developing their own land and oceanremote-sensing systems. Canada, France, India,Japan, and the European Space Agency all planto launch remote-sensing satellites by the end ofthe decade. Indonesia and the Netherlands areconsidering building a system appropriate for theTropics in the 1990’s. Two facts are highly signifi-cant to the U.S. debate: 1) in addition to the indig-enous capabilities, these foreign systems rely di-rectly on experience and technology their design-ers have gained from U.S. R&D efforts; and 2)they are designed to be operational, rather thanR&D, systems. Some of these systems will be tech-nically directly competitive with the current Land-sat system; some will far exceed Landsat’s capacityto return useful data to data users.

The following summarizes briefly the charac-teristics of the foreign systems. In order of planneddeployment, they are:

Therefore, it will be extremely important thatthese policies be thoughtfully formulated anddefensible in international forums. Our previousstrict policies of nondiscriminatory data sales andthe free flow of information have served us wellin deflecting many attempts to restrict the rightto sense other countries and sell those data to thirdparties.

Should the Group of 77, or other concerned na-tions, obtain a consensus about the necessity ofprior consent for remote-sensing activities, sucha decision could negatively affect the private sec-tor’s ability to market data internationally.Although the decision would not bind the U.S.private firm to follow certain procedures, its ex-istence could cause countries to place sanctionson U.S. remote-sensing products, or turn to othersuppliers of data. More important, a “prior con-sent” regime could affect Government data acqui-sition programs.

West Germany—Modular OptoelectronicMultispectral Scanner (MOMS) –(1984/85).This instrument was flown on the ShuttlePallet Satellite (SPAS) developed by Messer-schmitt-Boelkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB) aboardshuttle flight 7. MBB, COMSAT, and theStenbeck Reassurance Co., Inc., wish to mar-ket selected 20-meter resolution multispectral(2-color) land remote-sensing data collectedon shuttle flights beginning in 1984. NASA’sagreement will be needed. The West Germansare developing a stereoscopic sensor and havealready tested a limited synthetic apertureradar aboard Spacelab on shuttle flight 9.

France—System Probatoire d’Observationde la Terre (SPOT )—1985. Since 1978, theFrench have been planning the world’s firstcommercial remote-sensing satellite service.They expect to fly a series of four satellites.Although the first satellite will not belaunched until January 1985, they are cur-rently preparing the sales market through aFrench Government-owned company, SPOT-Image. A Washington-based American sub-sidiary called SPOT-Image Corp. is now

42

●

●

●

developing the U.S. market for SPOT data.The U.S. corporation has flown a successfulseries of tests from high-altitude aircraft overthe United States using sensors designed tosimulate the data that will eventually flowfrom the SPOT system. Customers from U.S.private firms, State governments, and theFederal Government have purchased datasets from these flights.

The SPOT satellite will carry pointablemultispectral linear-array sensors capable ofresolving images at least as small as 20 metersin three wavelength bands. In addition, thesatellite will be capable of lo-meter resolu-tion operating in a panchromatic mode.These are higher resolutions than are possi-ble on Landsat 4 or D‘. Because the sensorsare pointable, they are capable of producingquasi-stereo images. Although the system isa commercial effort, the French Governmentis spending a minimum of $400 million to de-velop the system and will subsidize its oper-ation for a period.India-IRS (1985). This low-resolution “semi-operational” land remote-sensing satellite willbe built in India but launched by a Sovietlauncher. It will carry solid-state sensors.Japan Marine Observation Satellite-1(MOS-1)—1986. The MOS-1 will carry sen-sors capable of resolving objects 50 metersacross in three visible and one infrared (IR)wavelength bands. It will also carry a micro-wave scanning radiometer and a variable-resolution radiometer (900 to 2,700 meters)with one visible and three thermal IR bands.Although this satellite is being developed pri-marily for ocean sensing of wave heights,ocean color, and temperature, these data willalso be useful for land remote sensing. TheJapanese are also planning a land remote-sensing satellite (JERS-1), which is plannedfor launch by 1990. It will carry a syntheticaperture radar. They have not yet announcedplans for distributing or selling data fromMOS-1 or JERS-1.European Space Agency (ESA) Remote Sens-ing Satellite, ERS-1—1987/ 88. This satelliteis planned primarily for passive sensing ofthe coastal oceans and weather over theoceans. In addition, it will carry a synthetic

●

●

It

aperture radar for active sensing of landmasses through any cloud cover. It is the firstof a planned series of three satellites to belaunched by ESA.Canada Radarsat-1990. Under developmentby Canada for routine observations of polarsea ice, the satellite will provide C-band radarimages of Earth’s surface. It will have a steer-able beam and a spatial resolution of about30 meters and be able to gather informationon the surface of Earth through cloud cover.Data from this satellite will be available fordirect sale or by arrangement though offsetprograms. In order to reduce its costs, Can-ada is seeking partners in this venture, andis discussing the possibility of working withthe United States.Brazil—Brazil is working on a moderate-resolution land-sensing satellite to be launchedin the late 1980’s.

is evident from this too brief summary thatother countries, building on the experience gainedfrom U.S. applications technology as well as ontheir own capabilities, see the development of thefull range of remote-sensing satellites as an integralpart of their entry into space. Besides construct-ing systems competitive with the U.S. Landsat sys-tem, they are also developing systems that willsense the physical parameters of the oceans andthe coastal waters. The United States, though ithas a program within NASA to develop new sen-sors to fly on the relatively short shuttle missions,has announced no plans to develop civilian opera-tional systems that would provide data over thelong term with repeat coverage. Thus, the UnitedStates, to obtain certain important data, may haveto rely on foreign systems. In the absence of aGovernment system, or strong Government sup-port for a private system, the private sector wouldbe left to compete with foreign government-funded enterprises.

For research purposes, and for certain civilianGovernment requirements, these data will suffice.However, as is discussed in chapter 6, foreign sup-pliers will hardly be appropriate to supply U.S.intelligence and defense data. In the event ap-propriate U.S. civilian data are unavailable, theDepartment of Defense might seek to develop itsown system.

Chapter 4

Public Interest in Remote Sensing

Contents

Page

Public-Good Aspects of Remote Sensing From Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Users of Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Land Resource Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50The Value-Added Industry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Using Landsat Data for Forestry and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Remote Sensing for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Criteria of a Good Agricultural Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Implications of Improved Information for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Concerns of the Agricultural Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

State and Regional Use of Landsat Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Remote-Sensing Research Within the Universities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

University Concerns Over Land Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Issues Raised by Proposed Transfer to the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Using High-Resolution Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Thematic Mapper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62The French SPOT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Comparison of SPOT and TM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Remote-Sensing Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Tables

Table No. Page

Z. Domestic Distribution of Polar Satellite Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49S. Domestic Distribution of Landsat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514. information Needs of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555. Summary of Operational Landsat Applications in the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576. Costs for Some Landsat Data Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figures

Figure No, Page

2. Geostationary Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483. Polar-Orbiting Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494. Major Elements of the Landsat System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

—

Chapter 4

Public Interest in Remote Sensing

U.S. land and meteorological remote-sensing it is essential to be clear about their respective rolessystems have from the beginning been intended in serving the public interest. This chapter illus-to serve the public interest, whether primarily for trates the use of both kinds of remotely sensedresearch, as in the case of the Landsat system, or data in the public and private sectors, and sug-for operational weather forecasting and severe gests certain conditions and requirements thatweather warning, as in the case of the meteorolog- might be imposed on a private sector offeror forical satellite (metsat) systems. As the debate over the Landsat system.the best treatment of these two systems continues,

PUBLIC-GOOD ASPECTS OF REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

As understood in economic theory, ’ a publicgood is a good or service for which it is impossi-ble or undesirable for reasons of efficiency tocharge customers a price or a user fee for servicesrendered. Public goods are therefore frequentlyprovided by Government and paid for out of taxor other general revenues. Examples of publicgoods are streets and highways, national defense,parks and recreational areas, police services,general weather forecasts, and various informa-tional services.

Although it is theoretically possible to chargefor some public services such as weather informa-ion (in this case, say, by using coded TV signals),the cost of doing so, compared with the cost peradditional viewer (the marginal cost), would bedisproportionately large. * For this reason, amongothers, weather forecasts are provided withoutcharge.

In addition, for weather broadcasts, it wouldnot be prudent to charge for the most valuableaspect of the service—warnings of severe weath-er—since society as a whole benefits from well-informed individual citizens. The objective of hav-ing as many members of the public “consume”weather forecasts is furthered by having as low

‘For example, Richard A. and Peggy B. Musgrave, Public Financein Theory and Practice, 3d ed,, ch, 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill,1980), )

*When the marginal cost—that is the cost of servicing an extracustomer—is zero and a person’s consumption of the service doesnot reduce the benefit derived by others, we have the case of a “purepublic good, ” since there is no rational social reason to exclude any-one from consuming it, even if it were possible to do so.

a “price” as possible—nothing. This is a secondreason why weather data are provided withoutcharge.

For most public goods, reliance on the privatemarket to produce them would result in either noproduction or production at an inadequate levelcompared with what society as a whole might bewilling to pay through taxation. Unless they aresubsidized by the public, private producers arenot capable of providing public goods at sociallyoptimal levels, i.e., where price equals marginalcost, because sales revenues at prices that wouldassure these levels are inadequate to finance pro-duction.

For the producer, a financial problem in pric-ing goods at marginal cost arises whenever themarginal cost is below average cost. It becomesparticularly severe when marginal cost approacheszero. However, if prices are above marginalcosts—the resource cost of servicing the consum-er—some potential consumers are then priced outof the market. Production will then not reach so-cially optimal levels. This latter problem is alsomost severe for the consumer when marginal costsapproach zero, if price is set equal to full (average)system cost. The conflict between financial effi-ciency and social efficiency is inherent in thenature of public goods.

In part because of these considerations, the met-sat systems, both foreign and domestic, havealways been operated by the Government, andweather data have been distributed gratis to thepublic. Current policy dictates that general-pur-

45

4 6

pose weather data will continue to be distributedfree, even if they are eventually supplied byprivate firms under contract to the Government.The Government has clearly chosen social effi-ciency as the goal in the case of meteorologicalsatellites.

A few of the specialized services now providedby the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA), on the other hand, mightbe provided profitably at socially desirable levelsby profitmaking private firms, using the initialsatellite weather data as the input. Services suchas providing fruit frost warnings from the geosta-tionary satellites or ocean surface temperaturecharts could fall into this category if there weresufficient interest in the private sector. A smallvalue-added industry already uses data providedby the meteorological satellites to provide tailoredweather services for a variety of customers. Thus,meteorological remote-sensing services, as pres-ently provided, are a mixed public/private good.

It would be a mistake to conclude that justbecause a good has the features of a public goodthat it should necessarily be financed through thepublic budget and distributed free. The decisiondepends in part on whether or not Congress de-cides that it wants to bestow the benefit directlyon those who benefit and pay for it out of tax rev-enues. The simplest case is when the tax payersbenefit in proportion to the taxes they pay. Thenmaking the service in question available from pub-lic revenues is relatively straightforward.

The public is unwilling to finance some publicgoods, however, because they are seen primarilyto benefit narrow interest groups. As a conse-quence, some public goods are produced by theprivate market at nonoptimal levels. The publicinterest was just not great enough to result inpublic subsidy.

Services using data from the Landsat systemcould also be considered a mixed public/privategood. For Landsat, however, the private-goodaspects are much stronger than they are for themeteorological satellites because Landsat datahave potentially high economic value. The costof producing extra images is extremely small oncethe system is in place, making it undesirable fromthe point of view of social efficiency to recover

the cost of the system by charging a price equalto the average system cost, since marginal usersof images would then be charged much more thanthe marginal costs of servicing them. This is thepublic-good part of the Landsat services. As inthe case of weather data, the value-added industryis a normal profitmaking industry (once it has itsdigital input) and thus produces private goods.

The big difference between the weather andland remote-sensing systems is that land remote-sensing customers such as oil companies, miningcompanies, and even municipalities in some otherState are not the entities that the public prefersto subsidize. Nevertheless, the Federal Govern-ment itself is the largest user of the Landsat sys-tem—for land management, agriculture, forestry,mapping, and for foreign intelligence (ch. 5).2

Therefore, there are significant public purposesthat would in any case result in budgetary expend-itures. When such a situation exists—i .e., an in-dustry with the characteristics of a public goodthat also has the Government as a principal cus-tomer—Government production is a naturaloutcome.

At present, Landsat is also available as a par-tially subsidized Government-produced service toa variety of domestic and foreign users. Under thisarrangement, which arose initially because of theresearch and development (R&D) nature of thesystem, Landsat has been used by State and localgovernments for rangeland, forest and water-re-sources management, by resource companies asan aid in resource definition, and by a variety ofother private, profitmaking and nonprofit organi-zations. Some analysts predict that the market fordata and for data products from space will oneday expand and grow into a major industry.3

The issue before Congress is whether to con-sider land remote sensing primarily a public goodor a private good. If Congress considers it primari-ly a private good, direct commercialization makessense. The remote-sensing industry would join thethousands of other unsubsidized American indus-tries producing private goods.

2See also Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington,D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-177, June 1982), apps. B and C.

3Donn C. Walklet, “Remote Sensing Commercialization: Viewsof the Investment Community, ”ERIM Conference, May 9-13, 1983.

47

However, if Congress considers the Landsatsystem to be primarily a public good and decidesthat Government should not itself produce thegood a further issue arises—how much, if any,subsidy Congress will continue to give the indus-try to ameliorate the efficiency problem. A relatedissue is how much regulation of the industry willbe necessary to enable it to use other mechanismsfor such amelioration.

A widely used mechanism in public utility reg-ulation, the two-part tariff, illustrates how someof the efficiency advantages of subsidized Govern-ment provision of Landsat services can be pre-served in the event that the public is unwilling tosubsidize them. In this mechanism, both a sys-tem access fee and a fee that depends on usageare charged. The usage fee can be set closer tomarginal cost because the upfront access chargefinances part of the system cost. Departures from

USERS OF REMOTE SENSING

This section enumerates the organizations,agencies and categories of private firms that arethe primary users of remote-sensing data fromboth land and meteorological satellites. Theseusers constitute the primary customers for a re-mote-sensing industry. Although the two commu-nities of land and meteorological data users over-lap one another to a certain extent, and both in-clude domestic, foreign, and international users,in most respects they are separable.

Meteorological Data

The largest domestic user of metsat data is thegeneral public, with NOAA as supplier. The Na-tional Weather Service has a vital interest in themetsat data and its sister agency, the National En-vironmental Satellite and Data Information Serv-ice, operates the U.S. Weather Satellite systemcurrently consisting of two geostationary and twopolar-orbiting satellites—respectively GOES Eastand GOES West and NOAA-7 and -8 (figs. 2, 3).Both qualitative and quantitative data are col-lected, processed, and distributed via communica-tions networks. Other users are included in table2.

optimal production can be reduced in this wayeven if there is no subsidized provision of the serv-ice by the Government. Given the relatively largeGovernment usage of remote sensed data, the ac-cess charges under such a scheme could possiblybe assumed by the Government, not as a subsidyper se but as payment for its usage.

If the public-good aspects of land remote sens-ing are considered large or important to the gen-eral public, a further question arises as to whetherthe industry should be continued under Govern-ment ownership or under private ownership, orin some combination of Government and privateownership. Whether the industry under full pri-vate ownership and operation, even with subsidyor regulation to ameliorate the efficiency prob-lem, would serve the public interest is an impor-tant aspect of commercialization that remains tobe determined by Congress.

Prominent among the domestic private sectorusers of metsat data products are the airlines, pri-vate meteorological forecasting companies, thefishing industry, sea-ice consultants, agriculturalindustries, and a large number of research spe-cialists such as climatologists, hydrologists, andoceanographers. Many of these people are en-gaged in pioneering studies involving water-resources management; others use the satellites’communication capabilities from terrestrial data-collection platforms to monitor various parame-ters such as water, soil, or plant temperatures orsnow depth for practical, operational manage-ment decisions.

Foreign users of metsat data are many. Themost popular aspect of the early metsat programwas the free availability of the U.S. meteorologicalsatellite data to all countries through the Auto-matic Picture Transmission program. This pro-gram engenders much good will for the UnitedStates throughout the world. Inexpensive anten-nas and receiving equipment enabled even thepoorest of the third-world nations to have weathersatellite images for better weather forecasting, TheCanadians have taken particular advantage ofthese data to provide better forecasting and bet-

48

Figure 2.—Geostationary Satellite System

S p a c e— — —Earth

Raw data

— .

Stretched data

III

IIII

In f rared

II Space Environment Services Center

Boulder, Colorado I

data●

Ground Data —station processing and distribution

center —

ISatellite 4

1 control Winds

I center processing●

I

I

Archival

I1 J

IWal lops Stat ion, V i rg in ia I Sui t land. Mary land I Camp Spr ings, Mary land I

National Weather ServiceDepar tment o f Defense

1 GOES - TAP and WSFO TAP usersOther depar tments and agenc ies

Wor ldwide user communi ty

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

—..—.

49

Figure 3.—Polar.Orbiting Satellite System

Space Data col lect ion

Earth ‘ – – ‘– –

Direct readoutI I stat ions ● BalloonsI I

Ground Datastat ions I processing Space Environment Services

Center f30ulaer, Colorado1 Argos Processing Center

:Toulouse, France

i . National Weather ServiceI

1

I

:Fairbanks, Alaska I Suitland, Maryland

Lannion, France (secondary) 1

I

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimstration

Table 2.—Domestic Distribution ofPolar Satellite Products

—

National Weather ServiceEnvironmental Research LaboratoryOther NOAA officesDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of the InteriorNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDepartment of Defense (Air Force and Navy)Coast GuardAcademic communityCommercial users (e.g., farmers, fisheries, oilcompanies, engineering and consulting companies)Private individualsState governments

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment.

I , Navy (Fleet Numerical Weather Center, etc.)Department of Agriculture

I ~ Other agencies and departmentsI [ Global Telecommunications Systems,I WWB

ii I

\I

II Retrospective users

~ Camp I WorldwideI Springs, 1 userIMarylandlI

communityI

ter data for the more remote and inaccessible por-tions of their vast country. About 125 countriesof the world similarly collect data using their owncollection stations (see table 1 in ch. 3).

Certain scientific disciplines, such as meteorol-ogy, climatology, oceanography, and geology,transcend political boundaries because the bound-ary conditions they deal with are physical ratherthan national. Study of global phenomena re-quires global cooperation. The need for interna-tional cooperation in these disciplines has led tointernational programs (e. g., the International

50

Hydrological Decade) and organizations (e.g., theWorld Meteorological Organization).

Land Resource Data

The Landsat system (fig. 4) possesses severalproperties that permit the development of a globaldata base for resource inventory and monitoringover time:

● perspective over a range of selected spatialscales;

● selected combinations of spectral bands forcategorizing and identifying suface features;

● repetitive coverage over comparable view-

ing conditions;

Telemetrv

c o m m u n i c a t i o n snetwork

DTM

• direct measurement based on one set of re-flectance conditions for a wide surface area;

● signals suitable for digital storage and subse-quent computer manipulation; and

● accessibility over remote and difficult terrainand across political divisions.

As with the meteorological data, the largestsingle user of Landsat data is the Federal Govern-ment (see table 3). Within the Government, theDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) and the intel-ligence community are the two greatest users.Both of these agencies and the other Federal agen-cies combineformation to

Figure 4.— Major Elements of the Landsat

- C o m m a n d s

Operat ions

these data routinely with other in-assist their missions.

System

c

mfrom foreign

TM and MSSh

data f rom I

and M SS data

r . \. / 1 1 \ \

\\

Image generat ionfacll [f y

/-w /\ t

i —

ground stat ion

assessmentsystem

aPrior to TDRSS Phase-In

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Table 3.—Domestic Distrubition ofLandsat Products

Department of AgricultureDepartment of DefenseDepartment of the InteriorNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationIntelligence communityCoast GuardState planning and resource management agenciesRegional planning agenciesAcademic communityCommercial users (eg., foresters, mineral explora-tion geologists, engineering and consultingcompanies)private individuals

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Landsat Ground Segment

Tracking

and datarelay

sate l I i tes(TDRS)’

51—

The major commercial customers of Landsatdata include the agriculture, forestry, mineral in-dustries, and land-use planners, directly or in-directly through the value-added industry (dis-cussed below). The academic community (dis-cussed below) primarily supports the research ef-forts of Federal and State agencies and the privatesector.

The Value-Added IndustryTransfer of the land remote-sensing program

to the private sector is likely to introduce bothdesirable and undesirable changes in the remote-

0I\

TDRSg r o u n dstat ion

Globalposltlon I ng

sys tem

. \ satell Ites)

Data NASA

Ground stationcenter ground tracking and

stat Ion

II

r -JGround segment

III1- 1

I assessment

I I

Foreigng r o u n dstat ion

1

Control and Isimulation

facility I1

7 4

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisiration

52—-———

Landsat Data Needs of Foreign and Domestic Users

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Agriculture (Federal, State, and private): specific sampl-ing areas chosen according to the crop; time-dependentdata related to crop calendars and the weather patternsForestry (Federal, State, and private): specific samplingareas; twice per year at preselected datesGeology and nonrenewable resources (Federal, State,and private): wide variety of areas; seasonal data in ad-dition to one-time samplingCivil engineering and /and use (State and private):populated areas; repeat data required over scale ofmonths or years to determine trends of land useCartography (Federal, State, and private): all areas; repeatdata as needed to update mapsCoastal zone management (Federal and State): monitor-ing of all coast lands at selected dates depending onlocal seasonsPollution monitoring (Federal and State): broad, selectedareas; highly time-dependent needs both for routinemonitoring and in response to emergencies

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

sensing value-added industry. This small but ex-panding industry exists both as small units of largeresource companies and as independent smallercompanies. The business base of the independentcompanies has developed since the late 1960’s inparallel with the Nation’s space-borne remote-sensing program. Value-added operations of vari-ous types exist not only in the United States butalso in free-market European countries and Japan.The availability of remotely sensed data on an un-restricted basis at an acceptable cost is essentialto the continued strong growth of this industry.

Data services or products furnished by value--added firms range from improving the image bysimple processing of the raw data, to the provi-sion of information services specific to variousnatural resources industries. Petromining, agricul-ture, hydrology, land-use planning, and ocean-ographic companies all benefit from services pro-vided by value-added companies. In many cases

the firms supplying services and products basedon remotely sensed data provide information thatcan significantly alter the way many industriesmake decisions.

Presently, over 50 commercial organizationsin the United States provide analyses of remote-ly sensed data. They or their customers use theimagery acquired from space to evaluate specificareas of Earth’s surface for hydrocarbon resourcepotential, estimating future crop production andwater resources, and surveying land use. Severalof these firms also sell hardware designed to proc-ess data remotely sensed from space.

A strong value-added industry is essential tocreating a self-supporting land remote-sensing

business. For example:

Without the competitive nature of a strongvalue-added industry it is unlikely that the prod-ucts, the services, and the multilevel derived geo-logical information will be made available to theprivate sector energy and mineral explorationistwith whom the U.S. Charter for finding our fu-ture nonrenewable resources lies. If so, no com-mercial market is likely to evolve.4

It is also important to recognize that profitmak-ing value-added firms exist in an infrastructureincluding other entities that provide ancillarydata, onsite inspection, and a variety of relatedservices. Important among these are the Govern-ment laboratories and management units that pro-vide an essential research base from which thevalue-added companies derive some of their infor-mation-processing techniques.

‘Frederick B. Henderson, “The Significance of a Strong Value-Added Industry to the Successful Commercialization of Landsat, ”presented at the 21st Goddard Memorial Symposium, Mar. 24-25,

1983.

USING LANDSAT DATA FOR FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURE

Landsat data have been used in a variety of examples from two areas where these data appearfields where low- to moderate-resolution spectral to be especially helpful: forestry and agriculture.data can be integrated with other information to It specifically excludes discussion of petroleumprovide analyses important to the exploitation and and other mineral exploration because these havemanagement of resources. This section presents been discussed in considerable detail in other

5 3— — . . .

publications. ’ However, the petroleum and min-eral exploration industry is now the largest privatepurchaser of Landsat data. Its relative importancefor the near-term prospects of commercializingland remote sensing is high.

Forestry

In forestry, as in many other disciplines involv-ing land management, there is a distinct need fortimely, reliable information about the resourcebase. The “synoptic view” provided by images ob-tained from spacecraft altitudes is proving val-uable when information over extensive geographicareas is required, as is the case in managing ourNation’s forest resources. For instance, the Forestand Rangeland Renewable Resources PlanningAct of 1974, in which Congress mandated the U.S.Forest Service (through the Secretary of Agricul-ture) to provide information on the condition andproductivity of approximately 1.6 billion acres ofpublic and private land every 10 years, empha-sized the need for efficient, cost-effective systemsto collect detailed data periodically over very largeareas.

Numerous other examples could be cited of re-quirements for accurate, detailed information fora wide variety of resource-management and/orpolicy decisions. These range from the needs ofan individual forester who works for a single for-est company and makes market-related decisionsabout a specific block of land to those of Stateor Federal legislators who must make policy deci-sions which could affect forests and other naturalresources of an entire State or of the Nation fordecades to come.

In at least three respects, the characteristics ofthe information required for effective and efficientmanagement of forest resources are unique. First,the forests are so extensive, both nationally andglobally, that the quantity of data needed is gigan-tic. Second, the forests are highly complex anddiverse, which results in the need for detailed in-—.

‘Alexander F. H Goetz ancl Lawrence C. Rowan, “GeOl(lgicalRemote Sensing, “ 5c]ence, vol. 211, 1981, pp. 781-790, “Sate]]ltcRemote Sensing Data An Unrealized Potentla] for the Earth ScienceC’(lmmunit},” The Geosdt Committee, 1nc , 1977; ‘Remote Srn+-I n~ and Exploration C)eology, Proceedings ot the Geosat Panel1)lwu\sion, COSPAR Conference, May 21, 1Q82, C)ttaw. a, Canada,(je(]sdt Technical Repot-t NO 3.

formation on their various components. There aredifferent species and species mixtures, differentage classes, and varying stand densities. Third,the forest grows slowly but can be harvested oradversely affected relatively quickly, which makesinventorying and characterizing the forests expen-sive. Yet, because of both human and natural in-fluences (e.g., insects, disease, severe weather) onthe extent and condition of forest resources, in-ventories of some type are mandatory. The inter-val between inventories might well vary, depend-ing on the type and severity of the particularchanges expected. In sum, the demands for thetype and frequency of information concerning for-est resources are quite different from those involv-ing crops, water, or mineral resources.

Because of these special information require-ments and economic limitations peculiar to for-estry, the Landsat system is uniquely capable ofobtaining the type and quantity of data needed.Only the Landsat system provides reasonably de-tailed data (i. e., each pixel or minimum elementof Landsat data represents 1.] acres on theground), over the forested regions of the entireEarth, at very modest cost (on a per-acre basis), *and at a frequency that allows most changes tobe monitored effectively. However, if the cost ofthe data used for forest inventories, on either alocal or worldwide basis, is too high, such datawill not and cannot be used to obtain the neces-sary information. Management decisions will, bynecessity, continue to be made, but may be basedon inadequate, outdated, resource information.

The advantages and limitations of Landsat datato foresters, and examples of the use of Landsatdata are discussed in some detail in appendix F.The following paragraphs summarize its conclu-sions.

Three major groups involved in forest resourcemanagement have found Landsat data to be par-ticularly effective:

‘ Current cost per c{lmputer-compatible tape ct>ver]ng apprt>x-imate]y 13,225 square miles i> $650.00, wh]ch IS less than $0.05 per>qua re m i ]e, or ]ess than 1 100 cent per acre. Hc~we\’er, t hl~ c(wttlgure dc}es not Include sizdhle clatd dcqul~lt](~n {)r &td analyvs c[wt~Also, because aerld] photo~ c(~ntdin much more cktdileci int(lrmd-t i(]n, and can be ordered to co~rer \maller more cllscrete area+, nldn}users Are WI]] ing to pay much h]gher costs tt~r aerial phot~~graph}”thdn i<]r Lancisat ddtd.

54

●

●

●

Forest industries. The St. Regis Paper Co. hasfound Landsat data cost-effective in increas-ing efficiency of forest mapping, and improv-ing field operations. Although other forestcompanies have shown interest in usingLandsat data, they are reluctant to invest thetime, money, and personnel necessary to usea new technology in their operations whenthe continued availability of Landsat data isin considerable doubt. They are also fearfulof continuing price increases that would de-crease the cost-effectiveness of the data. Inaddition, in forestry, the use of land remote-sensing data has not reached the operationallevel that has been obtained in the geosci-ences. Continued research by the companieswill be needed to determine just how to usethe data most effectively under day-to-dayoperational conditions.Federal and State agencies. The FederalBureau of Land Management (see app. F) usesLandsat data for managing forests and range-lands under its care. In addition, States suchas Minnesota, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania,as well as regional groups of States, have ex-plored the use of Landsat imagery to aid inmonitoring their forest lands (see apps. D andE).Foreign countries. One of the primaryresource concerns in other countries, partic-ularly developing countries in tropical re-gions, is the rapid loss of forests because ofclearcutting for agricultural purposes and forfuel. Landsat data are particularly cost effec-tive (at current subsidized prices) for mon-itoring the rate of deforestation (see apps, Aand G). They have been used for this pur-pose in Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, theDominican Republic, Nigeria, and CostaRica. A critical factor in the future use ofLandsat data, however, will be their cost aswell as their timely availability. Many ofthese data were supplied by the Agency forInternational Development (AID) as part ofthe U.S. effort to make Landsat data avail-able to developing countries. If AID dramat-ically reduces the support it gives to landremote-sensing research programs in othercountries (see ch. 3), their ability to monitor

the rate of deforestation will decreaseaccordingly.

Remote Sensing for Agriculture

Drawing on the information and analysis of ap-pendix D, this section summarizes the use of re-mote sensing for agriculture. Land and meteoro-logical remote sensing provide only some of thedata important to planning agricultural produc-tion. Yet, as agricultural analysts have gained ex-perience in applying these data, the data have in-creased in importance. The repeatability, synop-tic view, and spectral and spatial characteristicsof satellite-derived systems could make agricul-tural prediction and planning over wide geograph-ical areas much more reliable than it now is.

Soon after the launch of the first Landsatsatellite, USDA entered a joint research programwith the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration (NASA) and NOAA, called the LargeArea Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). Thisprogram developed software to estimate grainproduction in the Soviet Union and Canada.LACIE experienced both successes and failures,but showed enough potential for USDA to devel-op a joint research program with NASA, Agri-culture and Resource Inventory Surveys throughAerospace Remote Sensing (AgRISTARS). TheAgRISTARS program seeks to develop satelliteremote sensing for practical agricultural purposes.

Most of the agencies at USDA are able to usesatellite data to support their missions. Much ofthis current know-how resulted from either LACIEor AgRISTARS. In the private sector, severalcompanies have learned how to combine meteoro-logical with Landsat data to predict future cropyields, These data are important to Governmentagricultural planners as well as to farmers, farmcooperatives, and merchants and traders who buyand sell farm commodities.

Although remote-sensing data satisfy a smallpart of the total information needs of agriculture,timely delivery of accurate, comprehensive, ob-jective, remote-sensing data could improve mostof the information areas for agriculture (table 4)if the data were inexpensive enough.

55

Table 4.– Information Needs of Agriculture

Remote-sensing data couldInformation type improve quality

Resources:Physical . ... ... . ●

Human . . . . . . . . .Economic ., . . . . ... . .

Farmer/producer behaviorAgronomy ... . . . . ... ●

Current crop and livestock ., ●

Market news . . . . . ●

E c o n o m i c p r e d i c t i o n s ●

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Criteria of a Good AgriculturalInformation System*

Satellite technology has tremendous potentialto supply data with the necessary characteristics.However, this potential has yet to be realized withLandsat technology. Data from the meteorologicalsatellites meet most of the necessary criteria,especially cost-effectiveness and timeliness, but thelow spatial resolution and limited spectral char-acteristics of the metsat data necessarily limit theiroverall effectiveness for agriculture. These criteriaare:

●

●

●

●

—

Accuracy. To be used for predictive pur-poses, data must contain acceptably smallerrors. Satellite data have the potential to beboth precise and accurate, but considerableresearch on the data is needed to determinehow to reduce sampling errors. In the mean-time, the data are being used to predict futurecrop yield.Timeliness. Agricultural decisions requiredata that are no more than a few days to 2weeks old, depending on the particular deci-sion to be supported by these data.Cost-effectiveness. To achieve maximumusefulness to the agricultural community,satellite data must be cost-effective comparedto older, less efficient, but more familiar waysof gathering data (i. e., ground and aerial sur-vey).Expandability. An effective information sys-tem must be able to adapt to new modes andnew technologies without increasing costs ex-

●

cessively. Satellite technology has the poten-tial of making objective, accurate crop yieldmeasurements with current data for largefarm plots. The thematic mapper (TM) andother proposed sensors having high spectralresolution are expected to increase the ac-curacy of these measurements and allowsampling of smaller fields as well.Repeatability y. Surveys made at differenttimes should reflect changes in the target pop-ulation rather than alterations in the methodsfor collecting data. Remote sensing fromspace makes possible highly repeatable datacharacteristics. Because the Landsat systemhas been a research effort until recently, dataformat, spectral and spatial characteristics,and orbital characteristics have changed overtime. Such changes make it difficult to com-pare images taken at different times.

Implications of Improved Informationfor Agriculture

Global, timely, reliable information on majorfood and fiber crops is a significant element ofnational economic and political intelligence. Suchinformation may affect a broad spectrum of publicand private sector activities. Better information,distributed in a timely way, could lead to moreequitable sharing of the profits and losses of farm-ing activities. Of more importance, it might leadto avoidance of spot shortages or of overproduc-tion in particular geographical areas. It could alsoreduce the total energy consumption devoted toagricultural production.

Because the agricultural community needs re-petitive data over periods of days, weeks andmonths, it would be the major customer for landremote-sensing data if good data can be deliveredpromptly and cheaply.

Concerns of the Agricultural Community

● Costs. For fiscal year 1984, USDA has allocated$7.4 million to purchase the Landsat data itneeds. However, potential private customersare likely to make little use of Landsat data untilthe cost per scene is reduced considerably, thedata can be delivered promptly and the costsof analysis can be reduced.

5 6—

Continuity. Agricultural statistics assumegreater meaning when collected and analyzedover time. Current data must be compared withthose of earlier years. For the agricultural com-munity to make more use of land remote-sens-ing data, data format should be standardizedand the data should be available promptly andcontinuously, without gaps in delivery.Copyright. Existing legislation charges severaldifferent Government agencies with managingour national resources. Landsat data have be-gun to play a significant role in meeting thisresponsibility. For these agencies to use the dataeffectively, they must be able to pass them free-ly among themselves. Copyright restrictions ondata, if imposed by a private operator, couldimpede the free exchange of information amongGovernment offices.Data control. Although grain companies and

of Landsat data, they are interested in the tech-nology. Some agricultural analysts fear that apolicy allowing discriminatory access to datamight result in predatory marketing practices.Theoretically, a firm that could pay for first ac-cess to the data would have an unfair advan-tage and could make windfall profits simply bypostponing availability of data to the outsideworld. This is especially crucial in agriculture,where the value of the data is highly time-dependent.Technological improvements. Parts of the agri-cultural community are concerned that trans-ferring the Landsat system might result in afreeze of technology at the current level ofsophistication, In their view, not only improvedsensors are important, but lower cost, improvedimage-processing.

other agricultural firms are not now large users

STATE AND REGIONAL USE OF LANDSAT DATA

Because computers are now used in most Statesand regional organizations, Landsat data find aready niche in their resource information systems.With considerable assistance from NASA, manyStates have purchased the hardware, software,and training to process Landsat data. At least 18States have now merged Landsat data with otherdata in broad-based geographic information sys-tems (table 5). Some of these systems can useLandsat data directly (app. B).

A prime example is the State of Mississippi,where Landsat data are integrated directly in asingle information system—the Mississippi Auto-mated Resource Information System (MARIS).When operating fully, MARIS will provide a cat-alog of natural resources and cultural data aboutthe State, interpretive maps, and the analyticalstaff to analyze and interpret trends (app. B).Landsat data are being used in Mississippi to iden-tify and study the available nuclear waste-disposalsites, ground water depletion, and the amount andtype of ground cover. Landsat data have beenfound to be highly cost effective in meeting Mis-sissippi’s resource information needs.

Because of their synoptic coverage, Landsatdata are particularly useful for regional manage-ment. In 1975, the Pacific Northwest RegionalCommission, with support from NASA and theU.S. Geological Survey, started a project to in-vestigate the applications of Landsat data to avariety of resource problems in the Pacific North-west. The project’s goal was to integrate these datawith other data on the region’s vegetation, soils,and terrain. The Pacific Northwest is particular-ly interesting ecologically because it is the site oftwo major, but contrasting, ecoregions—the Hu-mid Temperate Domain of the coastal areas ofWashington and Oregon, and the Dry Domaineast of the Cascade Mountains.

Participants in the study concluded that theLandsat system was a cost-effective source ofmanagement data. However, a “critical mass” ofindividual agencies is necessary to prove the valueof Landsat data on a State or regional basis. Al-though the cost of the necessary processing hard-ware and software constitutes a barrier to usingLandsat data, “the most critical element is con-tinuity of data. Without assurance of continui-

57

Table 5.—Summary of Operational Landsat Applications in the States

A.

B.

c.

D.

Water resource managementSurface water inventoryFlood control mapping and damage assessmentSnow cover mappingWater resources planning and managementIrrigation demand estimationDetermination of runoff from croplandWatershed or basin studiesWater circulationLake eutrophication surveyIrrigation/saline soilGeothermal potential analysisGround water locationOffshore ice studies

Forestry and rangeland managementForest inventoryForest productivity assessmentClearcut assessmentForest habitat assessmentWildlife range assessmentFire fuel potentialFire damage assessment and recovery

Fish and wildlife managementWildlife habitat inventoryWetlands location and analysisVegetation classificationSnow pack mappingSalt exposure

Land resources managementLand cover inventoryComprehensive planning

SOURCE National Governors’ Conference

ty, States (and therefore regions) cannot acceptthe risks of utilizing Landsat data as a primarytool. ”7 Here, as in Federal use of land remote-—-

“Letter from Governor Straub of Oregon, State co-chairman ofthe three-State project, to NASA Administrator, 1979.

E.

F.

G.

Corridor analysisFacility sitingFlood plain delineationSolid waste managementLake shore management

Environmental managementWater quality assessment and planningEnvironmental analysis or impact assessmentCoastal zone managementSurface mine inventory and monitoringWetlands mappingLake water qualityShoreline delineationOil and gas lease salesResource inventoryDredge and fill permitsMarsh salinization

AgricultureCrop inventoryIrrigated crop inventoryNoxious weeds assessmentCrop yield predictionGrove surveysAssessment of flood damageDisease monitoring

Geological mappingLineament mappingGeological mappingMineral surveysPowerplant sitingRadioactive waste storage

sensing data for resource

—

management, it wasoften important to share the primary data amongState agencies, a practice that copyrighting themcould prevent.

REMOTE-SENSING RESEARCH WITHIN THE UNIVERSITIES

Universities use Landsat data for research in avariety of resource and land-planning applicationsencompassing the entire range of remote-sensingapplications. They develop techniques for specificapplications and carry out research on the spatialand spectral characteristics of new, more power-ful sensors. The universities work with local andState governments as well as with the Federal

Government and industry. In some States, univer-sity researchers constitute the major source of re-mote-sensing information and support. Univer-sity researchers have expressed concerns about thestate of land remote-sensing policy, and about theproposed transfer of land remote sensing to theprivate sector. They would also like to see futureresearch needs provided for.

2 5 -357 0 - 84 - 5 : QL 3

58

Overview of Landsat Applications in the 50 States

Geologicmapping

xxxxx

x

x

xxxx

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

xxxx

x

x

x

Landresources

management—xxxxxx

Water Forestry/ Wildliferesources rangeland management

x xx xx x x

Environmentalmanagement Agriculture

-.xxx x

xx xx x

State

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnect i cutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIIIinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusetts:MichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshirNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

x x xx x

xxx

xxxx

x xx xxx xxx x

xxxxxxxxxxxx

xx

xx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xx xxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxxxx

xxx

xxxxxx x

xxxxx

xxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxx

xxxxxx

x xx x x

x

xx

x x xx x x

xx x x

x xx

x xx x x

xx xx x

xxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

x

x

xx

x

xx

xx—

SOURCE National Governors Conference

59

Photo credit National Aeronautics and Space Administration

New York/New Jersey area as seen by Landsat 1

In gathering data for this section, OTA inter-viewed 21 people at 19 universities. Most are Stateuniversities with close ties to various State map-ping and monitoring agencies that either now useLandsat data or are considering it for the future.

University Experience With NASA’sLandsat Program

Because land remote sensing from space is anovel technique for obtaining information aboutthe Earth’s surface, its use requires innovativeeducational and training programs. With no pre-vious community of users, exposure to the tech-nology, training, and experience were needed todevelop understanding of the potentials of Land-

sat data. Early in the development of the Land-sat system, NASA instituted a Universities Pro-gram to demonstrate practical benefits from theuse of remote-sensing technology to a broad spec-trum of new users, principally in State and localgovernments. During the period 1972-82, NASAprovided between $8 million and $10 million touniversities a year as seed money for research,demonstration, and training in the uses of landremote-sensing technology.

A wide variety of State, local, and privateorganizations, as well as the recipient universities,matched NASA funds with direct financial sup-port and in-kind grants. The university role as-sumed increased importance as NASA’s satelliteflight programs for remote sensing became bet-

60

ter understood and emphasis shifted from thehardware to the resulting data and its users. A1978 survey shows, for 20 selected universities,details about program duration, size, scope, andunique characteristics (see app. C). a

The interviewees generally agreed that univer-sity courses of instruction trained personnel innew applications of remote sensing. They pointedout that the close relationships established withother disciplines allowed prompt feedback to theuniversities, prompt assimilation of lessons, andrapid revision of instructional programs. Themultidisciplinary course work and research haveled to several new domestic applications of re-mote-sensing data. The universities have trainedforeign students, conducted symposia, and as-sisted AID and other agencies in overseas develop-ment work. They have also assisted in introduc-ing remote-sensing technology into the work ofState and regional agencies. Their work has evenresulted in the development of several small prof-itmaking value-added companies.

University Concerns Over LandRemote-Sensing Policy

The university remote-sensing community ex-presses major concerns about three general ques-tions: 1) the future of land remote sensing in theUnited States, 2) the effect of current budget con-straints on university research programs, and 3)the effects of future costs of Landsat data on teach-ing and research budgets.

—— ..——.“’Survey of University Programs in Remote Sensing Funded Under

Grants From the NASA-University Space Applications Program, ”Battelle Columbus Labs, report No. BCL-OA-TFR-78-3, Mar, 31,1978.

University researchers worry that both the op-erational and research aspects of the Landsat pro-gram lack direction. Uncertainty at the Federallevel has led to even greater uncertainty at thelocal level. Industries, as well as Federal and Stateagencies, are reluctant to invest in their own re-search programs on Landsat applications untilthey are assured that land remote-sensing data willbe continuously, promptly, and inexpensivelyavailable. This reluctance is having a significantnegative effect on remote-sensing programs inuniversities throughout the country.

For the multidisciplinary centers of remote-sens-ing research (which were put together laborious-ly over a decade with Federal support) to continuetheir work, they will require assured budgets andflow of data. Decreased activity by Federal, State,and local agencies, and by private industry hascaused many university programs to be drasticallycurtailed—staff have been reduced, researchershave redirected their efforts elsewhere. This trendis likely to continue until the overall direction ofthe Landsat program is defined or until the FrenchSPOT program becomes operational. If a strongmarket for land remote-sensing data were to de-velop, some funding through private industrywould likely become available, In the meantime,universities are losing the qualified, experienced,and knowledgeable people needed for remote-sensing research.

The third major concern is the cost of Landsatdata. Table 6 shows past, present, and future costsof a few of the Landsat products. For teaching pur-poses, a professor often needs multiple copies ofa single image. Even if he or she can use the samedata in subsequent semesters, it soon becomesfrayed, torn, and marked up. The teaching budg-

Table 6.—Costs for Some Landsat Data Products

costUntil October 1981 — October 1983– February 1985—

Product October 1981 October 1983 February 1985 ???

Multispectral scanner (MSS) computer-compatible tape (CCT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200 $ 650 $ 650 $ 730

Thematic mapper (TM) CTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $2,800 $3,400 $4,400TM CCT (quarterly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $ 750 $ 925 $1,350Color composite image (1:250,000 scale):

MSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5 0 $ 175 $ 175 $ 195TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $ 235 $ 275 $ 290

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration –

61— —

ets for supplies and equipment in many universi-ties are extremely modest. As one university pro-fessor explained:

Ordering just four color prints of a thematicmapper image would exhaust my entire teachingbudget for all of my courses for an entire year!As of February 1985, a single frame of thematicmapper data in CCT format would cost morethan is contained in my total teaching budgets for4 years! It is quite clear that these prices will (andalready have ) caused me and many other teachersto modify the course content, decrease the avail-ability y of “hands on” laboratory materials for thestudents to use, and virtually eliminate futureorders for Landsat products to use in the class-room.”9

This and similar examples from other univer-sities demonstrate that the long debate over thefate of land remote sensing in the United Stateshas negatively affected the quality of educationin remote-sensing techniques as well as furtherdecreasing the volume of products being ordered.

Issues Raised by Proposed Transferto the Private Sector

The issues of the proposed transfer are im-bedded within the general concerns of the univer-sity research community towards Federal land re-mote-sensing policy in general:

—

Continued, open availability of data. Thisis mentioned most frequently as the majorissue. As understood by university research-ers, it includes a predictable and affordableprice structure, perhaps with special rates fornonprofit groups, and the absence of restric-tions on use of the data. In other words,OTA’s respondents were opposed to copy-righting the corrected data. *Research and training support. For theuniversities to continue their programs, they

—‘OTA Workshop on Remote Sensing, July 26, 1983.‘Corrected data are the raw data as received from the spacecraft,

corrected only for radiometric and geometric distortion. This is theway the data are now sold in standard packages from the EROSData Center.

●

●

●

will need assurances that Federal funding forscientific research, methods-development,and training will continue. Even if the pro-posed transfer to private ownership is highlysuccessful, it will take many years for themarket to build to the point that the privatesector and the States can support these im-portant university programs. In the mean-time, an important resource and the pool ofskilled labor will have dwindled to the pointthat rebuilding them will be extremely expen-sive and time-consuming. Teaching programsin remote sensing have declined and bothprofessors and students are directing their ef-forts elsewhere.Data quality. The quality of the data overtime needs to be assured to obtain the valueof repetitive coverage. This is especially im-portant for agriculture and forestry. Somerespondents expressed concern that the con-sistency of the radiometric and geometric cor-rections, which are now carefully controlledby university and Government experts, maydegrade under private operation. Still, itwould be in the best interests of a U.S. pri-vate operator to maintain its data at a highlevel of quality because of competition withSPOT Image or other U.S. private compa-nies.Continuing university input. Members ofuniversity remote-sensing programs fear thattransfer to private hands will diminish thepublic-good aspects of land remote sensingand reduce their role in finding new and bet-ter ways to use the data.Long term data trends. Plotting potentiallyharmful changes on the Earth’s surface re-quires data to be continuously available andsafely stored for later retrieval. It also re-quires a research community with adequateresources. University researchers express con-cern that transfer to the private sector maymean a loss of data continuity, reduction inthe quality and quantity of the archival ma-terial available, and reduction in Govern-ment support of research in this importantarea.

62———

USING HIGH-RESOLUTION DATA

Thematic Mapper (TM)

Most research and applications projects usingLandsat data have used MSS data having a nom-inal spatial resolution on the ground of 80 metersand four spectral bands. The TM, which is oper-ated by NASA as a research instrument, has amuch improved 30-meter spatial resolution andseven spectral bands. Studies with simulated TMdata sensed from aircraft, as well as with someof the early TM data from outer space, indicatethat this higher spatial resolution will enable ma-jor advances in the utility of such satellite data.

For example, NASA research suggests that insuburban areas land-use classification accuraciesof 89 percent are possible. In urban areas, the po-tential accuracy is difficult to estimate before moredetailed research is done .’” Certain aspects of TM— —————

‘“Dale A. Quattrochi, “Analysis of Landsat-Y Thematic MapperData for the Discrimination of Urban Features, ” Decision SupportSystems for Policy, and Management, Urban and Regional Infor-mation Systems Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Ga. ,August 1983.

data have great promise. For tasks where spatialdiscrimination is important, such as mineral ex-ploration, high resolution is the most obvious im-provement over data from the MSS; other attri-butes of the system are equally remarkable froma technical standpoint. The TM digital data comein an eight-bit configuration which potentially willoffer more information content than the six-bitconfiguration of the MSS data. In addition, theseventh spectral band is thermal which, whencombined with the other six bands, can be ex-pected to provide new interpretive capacity.

For agriculture, the real advantage of the TMderives from the narrowness of the spectral bandsas well as their extension into the near infraredat 2.2 micrometers and thermal infrared at 11 mi-crometers, These attributes make the TM muchmore than a high-resolution MSS. Initial analysesof the TM data from U.S. agricultural areas showmuch sharper delineations of crops having differ-ent textures and tone. These observations suggestthat TM data will be much more capable of sep-

Landsat Bands and Electromagnetic Spectrum Comparison

Electromagnetic spectrum

\ ●

Cosmic Gamma X-rays UV Microwave TV Radio Electricrays rays - power

Visible

1 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Wavelength (micrometers)Landsat bands

.5 .6 .7 .8 1.1

Landsat I 5 I 61 & 2

Landsat3

13.5

same band)MSS 4 I 5 1 6 ]7

(Two cameras.50 .75

.45 .52 .60 .63 .69 .76 .90 1.55 1.75 10.412.5

I2.082.35

SOURCE U S Geological Survey

6 3

arating corn from soybeans and, perhaps, barleyfrom spring wheat. The improved resolution alsooffers significant improvements in delineatingdrainage in and around agricultural areas.

For forestry, the major improvements providedby TM data will probably include increased ac-curacy of measuring areas occupied by differenttypes of vegetation—a highly significant improve-ment for forestry applications (see, however, be-low). The additional detail in the Landsat datashould enable more accurate analysis of the dataas well—small forest stands, roads, streams, andother features not discernible on MSS images areclearly seen in TM data.

For petroleum geology, the improved spatialand spectral resolution of TM data have alreadyproved their usefulness. Nonetheless, those whospecialize in locating new sources of oil or otherminerals have indicated that the ability to senseEarth in stereo would be more important to theirindustry than the increased number of spectralbands or higher resolution.’]

As the case of forestry illustrates, in some situa-tions different analysis techniques will be neces-sary effectively to utilize the increased spatial andspectral resolution of the TM data. A recentstudy12 showed that with standard “per-pixel”classification techniques, as the spatial resolutionof the pixels improves, the ability to classify for-ested areas with accuracy decreased significant-ly. Indeed, with data having 30-meter spatial res-olution, overall classification performances wereconsiderably poorer than with Landsat MSS dataof much lower resolution. The use of 15-meter-res-olution data resulted in a significant decrease inoverall classification performance.

— —‘ hl]chael T 1 lalhout}r Stat emen t [~n C I v I I Rem tlte Sensl n~

S}ttems be}ore th[ Subc{~mmlttee (In Space Scl~nce a n d Applic<i-t ]on~ c)! the Ilouw C ( )mm]t tee on SC ]ence and Technology, and theSubc{~mmittc’c on Science, Techn(~lcjg}, and Space of the Senate( (lmm]ttee on Commerct Science and Transportation (97th Cong ),Iu]\ 22 and 23 lQ81 pp 2 1 3 - 2 . 3 2 .

121{ hl H<~tter N1 E [)ean, D K Kn{~wlton, anct R S Latty,E\~luatlon IJI S1 AR and Simulateci T h e m a t i c \lapper Data t~>r

Ft,re>t ( ,,~,er \lapp]ng LT>]nx ~omputer-.$l]ded Anal>ws Techniques.1..41{S Tc’chnlcal Rep<,rt 083182 Purdue Linlver\lt> \f’est [.ata>ctt(Ind , 1Q82

These results substantiated earlier studies” thatfound a similar decrease in classification perform-ance with increasing spatial resolution primarily

in areas of forest cover, but not in agriculturalcover types. The reason is that images havinghigher spatial resolution allow more detailed spec-tral data to be obtained. Thus, in forested areas,the spectral response of one resolution element ofTM data could be dominated by tree crown,whereas the adjacent resolution element could bedominated by the shadow area between treecrowns, and so forth. The coarser spatial resolu-tion of Landsat MSS data averages such spectraldifferences, resulting in much less variability fromone resolution element (pixel ) to the next.

In agricultural areas, where the field size islarger than the 80-meters resolution of the MSSinstrument, approximately the same percentageof row crop, bare soil, and shadow is being sensedand integrated into the spectral response of eachresolution element, whether it be a 30- or 80-meterspatial resolution. To take full advantage of thehigher spatial resolution of the TM data for for-estry applications, therefore, the standard per-pixel methods of analysis must be replaced by fin-er methods using both the spectral and the spatialinformation of the data. This finding brings outthree key points which apply as well to uses ofTM data other than forestry:

1. Different disciplines may need to apply dif-ferent analysis techniques in order to use thesame type of land remote-sensing data (e.g.geologic analysis techniques often are signif-icantly different from those used in agricul-ture).

2. Changes in sensor systems may cause suchsignificant changes in the characteristics of

64

the data that entirely different analysis tech-niques must be developed and tested,

3. The sheer volume of data in a TM scene forseven spectral bands will limit their use. Re-search efforts should be directed to offeringthe ability to select a windowed array of datafrom anywhere in the scene; currently onlya quarter subscene is available on specialorder from the EROS Data Center at SiouxFalls, S. Dak. Thus, if one wants to processa portion of Earth’s surface located near thecenter of the four quarter-scenes, it is nec-essary to order a full scene.

So far, investigators have devoted relatively lit-tle attention to evaluating TM data other thanstudying the quality of the data received. NeitherNASA or NOAA have conducted formal applica-tions tests. Therefore, one can only speculate onthe uses or value of TM data for forestry, agri-culture, or even geologic applications.

The French SPOT System

The SPOT satellite, with its 20-meter resolu-tion, three spectral bands, and ability to point thesensors, promises to provide coverage not avail-able through the existing Landsat system. SPOT’spointability (i.e., the ability to obtain images atangles to the vertical) will enable repetitive cov-erage of transient phenomena. 14 To take one ex-

“W. G. Broome, Larry J. Warwick, and G. Weill, “SPOTSatellites: A Major New Information Source for Urban and RegionalEnvironments, ” Decision Support Systems for Policy and Manage-ment, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association An-nual Conference, Atlanta, Ga., August 1983.

The SPOT

Characteristics of the high resolutionvisible (HRV) instrument

ample, between April 13 and 18, 1979, the PearlRiver Basin in Mississippi, rose to an unprece-dented level of 43.5 ft and devastated Jackson,the State capital. Providing cloud cover did notinterfere, if coverage comparable to SPOT’s (e.g.,pointability and resolution) could have been ob-tained on April 15, 16, or 17, estimations of dam-age and analysis of the event could have beengreatly improved. Landsat 3, which was in useduring the flood, passed over shortly before thetorrential rains occurred and again just as theflood waters receded (an 18-day period).

The 20-meter resolution of SPOT data may notprove to be as valuable as its paintability becausehigher resolution data have a point of diminishingreturns. The sheer volume of data resulting fromsuch high resolution over a large study area canquickly overload the storage and data-handlingcapacities of most computer systems now proc-essing Landsat data. This problem is faced alreadyby analysts attempting to use the TM data. Thefact that SPOT will use three bands, rather thanthe TM’s seven, will ease the problem of handl-ing data volume at the expense of losing impor-tant spectral information. In addition, the SPOTsatellite will sense a narrower swath of Earth’s sur-face. Each scene will be proportionately smaller,making the data handling problem easier perscene. *

SPOT has flown simulated missions in theUnited States, and the results of these will answer

— —● The SPOT sensor views a ground swath 60-km wide compared

to a swath width of 185 km for Landsat.

Satellite

Multispectral mode Panchromatic mode

Spectral bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50-0.59 µm 0.51-0.73 µm0.61-0.68 µm0.79-0.89 µm

Instrument field of view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 3° 4.13”Ground sampling interval (nadir viewing) . . . . 20 m x 20 m 10 m x 10 mNumber of pixels per line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 6,000Ground swath width (nadir viewing) . . . . . . 60 km 60 kmPixel coding format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 x 8 bits 6 bits DPCMa

Image data bit rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 M bits/s 25 M bits/s‘DpCM (dlqltal ~ui~e code modulator) IS a mode Of data compression that does not degrade the radlometrlc accuracy of the

Image data (256 grey levels)

SOURCE SPOT Image

65—.—— — . ———————

many questions about its future application. SomeState agencies and other public and private groupsare interested in formatting SPOT data to use ex-isting Landsat processing computer software. Iftotally new software is required, it will slow theuse of SPOT data.

Comparison of SPOT and TM Data

It appears probable that the enhanced resolu-tion of either TM or SPOT data would be of sig-nificant value for measurement, but how the sevenchannels of TM data will compare to the threechannels of SPOT data is still a matter of conjec-ture. * The middle infrared portion of the spec-trum (available only with TM data) should even-tually prove invaluable for geologic and snowcover mapping purposes. For forestry applica-tions, the differences between TM and SPOT dataare not obvious. It would be surprising if thestereoscopic capability of SPOT data had any ma-jor advantages in forestryr unless topographicmaps for the area of interest did not exist, a con-dition that is much more likely in developingcountries than i n the industrialized ones. As men-tioned above, however, it should be highly usefulto the geologists, and will also improve the abili-ty of mapmakers to generate high-resolution t(~po-

REMOTE-SENSING ARCHIVES

Data gathered from meteorological satelliteobservations are obviously useful for short-termweather predictions. Less well-known is their partin forecasting over periods of weeks, years, cen-turies i.e., in the long-term prediction of climate.As we learn more about the long term effects ofsuch climatic effects as El Nino (see app. H) andincreased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide,the utility of satellite data for climate studiesbecomes apparent. The operational weather satel-lites make major contributions to the long-termglobal climate record kept by the National Cli-

graphic maps. The higher resolution of TM,SPOT, or future systems may eventually proveto be very useful in differentiating and categoriz-ing different varieties and maturity of trees, whichwould allow better estimates of timber- volume ina forest stand. It will also allow agriculturaliststo estimate crop production better in countries. .where the average field size is significantly lessthan the 80-meter resolution of MSS data.

Investigators have frequently raised questionsabout the advantages of various data formats ortypes of data from future proposed instrumentsystems. Such quest ions clearly indicate the needfor an effective, ongoing research program to pro-vide guidance and direct ion in developing mean-ingful operational systems.

For operational uses, TM data will tend to beused in a sampled mode rather than as completecoverage. This may limit the sales of TM dataonce the newness wears off, even in the petromin-ing industries where the data have received highpraise. At over $4,000 per frame, even the petro-leum exploration geologist will tend to look atnarrow areas rather than broad ones.

and spatial resolut ion sensors, when linked withon-board data processing and improved computerprocessing may aleviate some of the near-termproblems investigators expect to experience inusing high-resolution TM or SPOT data.

mate Program within NOAA. It assembles thesedata and combines them with other satellite andterrestrial data from the Department of Defense,the Department of Energy, USDA, the NationalScience Foundation, and NASA to produce worldclimate models.

Through this program, the Government has de-veloped the mechanism to assemble and store me-teorological data to meet the research needs 01 cli-matologists and others who require historical dataabout the weather. These data are recognized as

66

a national resource and are treated accordingly

To continue the research on weather and climate,it will be important to continue to archive satellitedata. Continuity of the format of the data storedin the archive is particularly important:

The overriding requirement is for a continuous,intercomparable data record for a span of timethat is climatologically significant . . . the longerthe more valuable it is in determining the likeli-hood of “extreme” occurrences. ”15

For Landsat data, the EROS Data Center inSioux Falls, S. Dak., maintains an archive con-taining most of the data it has received. Althoughthe archive includes foreign scenes taken by Land-sats 1, 2, and 3 when their recorders were oper-ating, and some other foreign scenes acquired byspecial agreement with foreign ground stations,the vast majority of these data are domesticscenes. The EROS Data Center does not sell mostforeign data, either current or historical. Normal-ly, customers must purchase data acquired fromforeign ground stations directly from the stationsin question.

The expense of maintaining a complete archiveof all the data ever received from the Landsat sys-

—‘5Civllian Space Policy and Applications, op. cit,, p, 344.

tern is great; in fact, not all data are equally worthsaving, and it would be helpful to purge the ar-chive of certain scenes, such as those containinga high proportion of cloud cover and duplicatescenes. However, obtaining a complete set ofcloud-free data for the entire world would be aworthy goal. Such a data set would be especiallyuseful for mapping, land-use planning, mineralexploration, deforestation, and desertification.Because of lack of funds, this has not been doneso far, although NOAA and NASA recognize thevalue of such an archive. One of the problemsin setting up such a worldwide data set is that thevarious foreign ground stations use slightly dif-ferent standards for data acquisition and storage:the data are not entirely comparable.

Whatever form the archive were to take, theGovernment would have to decide whether thelimited archive maintained at the EROS DataCenter would be transferred to the private sectorand under what conditions. If the archive weretransferred, safeguards to protect it from laterdeterioration or destruction should be institutedso that all interested parties would continue tohave access to theseright restrictions.

data, at least, without copy-

●

Chapter 5

U.S. Government Needs forRemote-Sensing Data

Contents

PageFederal Metsat Data Users and Their Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Federal Landsat Data Users and Their Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Landsat Data Purchases and Use by Federal Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Relationship Between Federal Users of Data and Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Review of Department of the Interior Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Survey of Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Concerns of Federal Landsat Data Users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Remote Sensing for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Criteria of a Good Agricultural Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Implications of Improved Information for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Concerns of the Agricultural Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

State and Regional Use of Landsat Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Remote-Sensing Research Within the Universities .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

University Concerns Over Land Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Issues Raised by Proposed Transfer to the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Using High-Resolution Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Thematic Mapper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62The French SPOT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Comparison of SPOT and TM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Remote-Sensing Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Tables

Table No. Page7. Federal Government and Total Sales of Landsat Data by

EROS Data Center and NOAA: 1973-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758. Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779.U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

10.U.S. Government Purchases in Number of Digital and Photographic Scenes., . . . . . 7911.1213.

14

15.16.

U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat Data for Domestic and for Overseas Purposes 80NOSS Landsat Statistical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Operational Uses That Can Be Implemented With Existing or PlannedSatellite Technology .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Current and Projected High-Priority Interior Applications Amenableto Landsat Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 86Existing Legislation Requiring Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Federal Statutes Pertinent to Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figures

Figure No. Page5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.

April 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOAA-7 Thermal IR Image of the GulfStream Meandering Eastward Toward EuropeDeliveries of Landsat MSS Data to Federal Users by NASA-GSFC and DOI-EDC. .Quarterly Sales of MSS Imagery and Digital Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grand Total of Shipped Sales From EROS Data Center in Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abilities occurrent, Funded, and Future Systems to Meet Requirements, by AgencyNumber of Requirements in Each Measurement Class, by Civil Agency.. . . . . . . . . .

7071737980828384

Chapter 5

U.S. Government Needs forRemote= Sensing Data

This chapter summarizes Federal requirementsfor Landsat and metsat data as they apply to in-dividual agencies. A number of Government-sponsored studies based on the use of Landsat datahave engendered optimism about the utility ofspace remote sensing for a wide range of resourcesurvey, mapping, and environmental monitoring

tasks. Howeverr the results of such studies remaintentative because the Landsat system has not beenoptimally configured for operational use nor man-aged according to business-like principles. Ques-tions persist in Government agencies about sys-tem continuity, data cost, and timely delivery.

FEDERAL METSAT DATA USERS AND THEIR MISSIONS

The largest Federal user of metsat data is, notsurprisingly, the National Weather Service (NWS)in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA). Indeed, the agency responsi-ble for operating the first weather satellites in theearly 1960’s was the National Earth Satellite Cen-ter, a part of the old Weather Bureau. It was notuntil a decade later that a separate satellite serv-ice (National Environmental Satellite Service—NESS, now National Environmental Satellite Dataand Information Service—NESDIS) was estab-lished.

NOAA’S mission is to explore, map, and chartthe global ocean and its living resources; to man-age, use, and conserve these resources; to de-scribe, monitor, and predict conditions in the at-mosphere, ocean, air, and space environment; toissue warnings against impending destructive nat-ural events; to develop methods of environmen-tal modification; and to assess the consequencesof inadvertent environmental modification overseveral scales of time. The global scope ofNOAA’s mission makes metsat data valuable tothe various agencies within NOAA. NWS makeswidespread use of satellite data to improve itsforecasts to aviators, farmers, fishermen, fruitgrowers, commercial shippers, sport boaters,recreationers, and just plain citizens.

For example, the geostationary satellites canidentify and track the characteristic cloud shapesof tornadoes, allowing warnings to affected areas.

Hurricane tracking by satellite is a second vitallifesaver. The NWS Severe Storm Warning Centerin Kansas City and the Hurricane Alert Centerin Miami would both be severely handicappedwithout frequent satellite imagery to aid in issu-ing warnings.

The NWS Office of Hydrology produces river-basin snow maps and precipitation estimates forNESDIS to add to computerized hydrologic mod-els for runoff and flood forecasting. Soundingdata, sea-surface temperature data, cloud cover,and snow cover are but a few of the satellite-derived data that are processed by the NWS com-puters to improve global analysis and forecasting.

The powerful mixture of computers and satel-lites has produced new data sets that could wellimprove the ability of meteorologists to preparelonger range, even seasonal forecasts. NWS isnow investigating sea-surface temperature changesor anomalies in the North Pacific and the percent-age of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphereas important new variables in the study of climaticvariations. Prior to metsats, these variables wereunmeasurable (figs. 5 and 6).

The National Ocean Survey (NOS) explores,maps, and charts the oceans. The 1.1-km resolu-tion of the polar-orbiting metsats is more thanadequate to provide NOS with sea-surface tem-perature charts and ice charts of polar areas andthe Great Lakes. NOS and NESDIS oceanograph-

69

70— —

s

de

—

-J1m.-

Figure 6.—July 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean

‘1/’”/ y, I

<

— .-—

b-. —— --

— .- ——-Zw ‘!

--,2 ‘y

I),

—— — -— --— . . . . —.. -

SATELLITE I.: - , ., , . ~.,. i‘ t ;- . . 1,1, ,’:. I

.1--~ _=----- T -~ I --.-—. . . ——-. ~- ---

W .

I

— —- —-----

/ ~

. ——-—.—-———

4“%I

-1,

CLIMATOLOGY I ‘: \ --- .-( u -

72—— — — — . . ————.—

ers also chart currents using thermal infraredmeasurements. NOAA produces a monthly anal-ysis of the Gulf Stream movements that aids inship routing as well as in oceanographic researchstudies (fig. 7), It also uses satellite data to studythe highly variable tidal and estuarine currentsclose to shore. It warns of tsunami from measure-ments collected by ocean buoys and relayed by

satellite telecommunications.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has formany years used satellite thermal maps to indicateareas of nutrient-rich upwellings for commercialfisherman; such areas constitute the most prob-able good fishing areas.

Part of the National Climate Plan is to identi-fy broad areas of environmental modification,whether manmade or natural. The results of pro-longed drought, such as areas of desertificationin the Sahel in Africa, are easily monitored bymetsats. Metsat data can also be used to monitorthe recent deforestation and development in Bra-zil’s upper Amazon basin. The Department ofAgriculture’s (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Serv-ice (FAS) continuously monitors foreign cropsusing some NOAA polar-orbiter imagery in itsefforts to project overseas markets for U.S.agricultural products. The Forest Service hasfound thermal infrared data from metsats usefulfor early detection of forest fires.

The need for up-to-date meteorological infor-mation is acutely felt by the Department of De-fense (DOD) (see also ch. 6). Though many ofits needs are met by the Defense MeteorologicalSatellite Program (DMSP), a system which in-cludes two polar orbiters, DOD also relies heavilyon NOAA satellites. The U.S. Air Force derivesinformation from both the DMSP and NOAA’smetsats to make flight weather summaries andforecasts; the U.S. Navy uses metsat data to mon-itor sea-surface temperature, currents, and watermass or ocean color, important variables for bothsurface and subsurface operations.

The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers includes programs to protect the environ-ment, improve waterway navigation, controlfloods and beach erosion, engage in water-re-sources development, and provide natural disasterrelief assistance. The Corps was an early user of

metsat and Landsat data. Data Collection Plat-forms (DPCs), which relay data to the metsats,are widely used to provide operational hydrologicdata to Corps offices. The New England Divisionof the Corps working with the Corps Cold Re-gions Research and Engineering Laboratory inHanover, N. H., and the University of Connecti-cut, are determining the effectiveness of satelliteimagery for real-time water-control management.The Corps Great Lakes Division has studied howto use data from space to improve their manage-ment of the Great Lakes water resources and nav-igation control.

The Office of Naval Research, the NavalOceanographic Research and Development Activ-ity, and the Naval Oceanographic Command, aswell as DOD’s Advanced Research Projects Agen-cy, conduct, manage, and coordinate research inoceanography that requires metsat data.

The Department of the Interior is responsiblefor managing public lands and natural resources.A pilot program of monitoring vegetation inremote areas of Nevada and Arizona with datafrom the polar orbiters has been successful in theBureau of Land Management’s fight against rangefires. This work was actually performed by theU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which has amandate to chart the Nation’s water and mineralresources. Although the Landsat system is thepreferred data source for some of the applications,especially hydrologic and tectonic studies, theUSGS has increasingly turned to NOAA metsatdata. The USGS’s North American Tectonic Platemosaic project is currently considering the use ofenhanced images from the polar orbiters. It is alsoplanning to make a mosaic tectonic map of Ant-arctica from enhanced metsat images.

In the Department of Energy, metsats furnishcertain hydrologic information useful for thePower Administrations—e. g., Bonneville Powerand Alaska Power. The Department of Transpor-tation’s U.S Coast Guard (USCG) has a directobligation to provide search and rescue for shipsin distress and to monitor the Contiguous FisheriesZone, USCG icebreakers benefit from metsat ob-servations of ice. The Coast Guard also uses met-sat data to monitor oil spills, such as the Xtoc wellin the Gulf of Mexico in 1979. Though it relies

73. — — — — . — —.— — — — —

\

25-357 0 - 84 - 6 : QL 3

74

on Government and private forecasters to advisepilots, the Federal Aviation Administration’s(FAA) mission to regulate air commerce and tofoster air safety requires that it consider all typesof meteorological hazards and volcanic hazardsas well; thus, metsat data are of direct interest toFAA.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has been charged with the responsibility to pro-tect and enhance our environment. The EPA mis-sion is to control and abate pollution from solidwaste, noise, radiation, and toxic substances. Met-sat data provide timely and frequent observationsof air pollution such as windblown dust, oil spills,and nearby ocean currents, and trajectories fortoxic or nuclear airborne pollutants based on sat-ellite-derived wind vectors.

Many of these agencies have a continuing in-terest in following potential national disasterssuch as volcanic eruptions, floods, hurricanes, tor-nadoes, or earthquakes. The Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) has the specific mis-sion of enhancing emergency preparedness at Fed-eral, State, and local levels to coordinate andoversee hazard mitigation, preparedness planning,

relief operations, and recovery assistance. A re-cent studyl found that although metsats, by vir-tue of their coarse resolutions, are not highlysuitable for disaster management, they can beused by FEMA to detect the overall effects ofdrought and floods. Metsat data area useful ad-junct to Landsat data, which are more directlyuseful in disaster management.

NASA uses data from the metsats in its EarthScience and Applications Program. It also con-ducts research on improved sensors in partial sup-port of the NOAA/NESDIS metsat program.

The U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (AID) has provided assistance to develop-ing countries in building their capacity to receiveand use metsat data through programs like theSahel Development Program, International Dis-aster Assistance, Food for Peace, and Science andTechnology. Vegetation and hydrologic studiesare also prepared by AID scientists using NOAAmetsat data and imagery.

1P, B. Richards, C. J. Robinov, D. R. Wiesnet, and M. S. Max-well, “Recommended Satellite Imagery Capabilities for DisasterManagement, ” proceedings of the 33d Congress InternationalAstronomical Federation, Paris, September-October 1982.

FEDERAL LANDSAT DATA USERS AND THEIR MISSIONS

Landsat Data Purchases and Useby Federal Government Agencies

During the 1970’s the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) was especially at-tentive and responsive to satisfying data needs ofFederal agencies as part of its program to demon-strate the new technology, and transferred fundsto potential user agencies for them to experimentwith applying Landsat data to their missions.Because of the success of this close collaboration,some Federal agencies became major users ofLandsat imagery and digital tapes. NASA fol-lowed the earlier precedent of the meteorologicalprogram in encouraging and stipulating open ac-cess to the satellite data. Yet, while the Earth im-agery has proved effective for broad-area moni-toring of events which affect private sector inter-ests, such as oil spills, floods, the spread of in-

sect infestation, and regional geology, many pri-vate companies continue to rely on the use ofhigher resolution aerial photography for commer-cial applications.

Over more than a decade of Landsat operation,the market for the data has grown slowly andGovernment agencies have not requested data atrates forecast by early studies. Nevertheless, ascore or so of agencies have experimented withthe data and several now have operational pro-grams dependent on the application of space im-agery. Direct Government data purchases fromthe EROS Data Center (EDC) account for between20 to 30 percent of sales through 1982 (table 7).Sales information, however, is a poor indicatorof actual data use, especially in the earlier, highlysubsidized years. Some agencies used the datamost extensively when they obtained them forfree. Users have employed a variety of means to

75—. — ——

Table 7.— Federal Government and Total Sales ofLandsat Data by EROS Data Center and NOAA: 1973-83

(in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year Government sales Total-sales

1973 . . . . . . . ... . . . . $ 63 $ 228 -

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5281975 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 9091976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 1,6411977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 1,4541978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 1,9761979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 2,1311980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 2,3891981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 2,4951982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 2,9411983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,270 7,026 a

(1,188) - - .(2,934)alncludes special acquisltions and service charges The numbers in brackets

indicate the sales excluding these special charges

SOURCE EROS Data Center National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration

conceal or reduce the costs of acquisitions. Somewere able to arrange for direct transmission ofdata to ground receivers, bypassing EDC com-pletely.* In addition, agencies of both the FederalGovernment and various industry organizationshave reproduced computer-compatible tapes(CCTs) (the most expensive items) and imageryand traded them among themselves. In the pastyear, as stricter accounting measures and controlof data flow have been applied, overall dollar vol-ume of sales to Federal agencies has increased dra-matically. This change in procedures has resultedfrom an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)directive that system operating costs will berecovered by sales, and is a direct consequenceof the shift from R&D to an operational system.

Current Level of Landsat Data Sales

Information on the sale of Landsat imagery andtapes is available from the authorized Govern-ment distributor, EDC at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., andfrom cooperating foreign ground stations. TheJanuary 1983 study of Landsat prepared by NOAA/ESDIS provides information through fiscal year1982.2 OTA has supplemented these figures bydata extending through fiscal year 1983, obtaineddirectly from EDC and NESDIS. Tables 7 through12 and figures 8 through 10 express the sales in-

● For example, for a period, the FAS received transmissions directlyat its Houston receiving station.

“’Transfer of the Civil Operational Earth Observation Satelliteto the Private Sector, ” U.S. Department of Commerce, February1983,

formation in a variety of ways and formats tomake it as meaningful as possible. Federal pur-chases are shown, variously, in absolute dollarfigures, as percentage of total sales, in number ofitems distributed, and as broken down among sep-arate Government agencies.

Sales of Landsat data to Federal agencies havebeen negatively affected by two primary circum-stances: 1) the present state of extreme uncertaintyover the future of the Landsat program has ef-fectively deterred Federal agencies from placingorders for future delivery of data to be used forsatisfying mission data needs in cases where failureto receive the material on time would limit theirability to carry out their assignments, and 2) OMBhas closely supervised purchases of Landsat dataand required that money spent for this purposeby Government agencies be accompanied by acorresponding reduction in funds allocated foralternative methods of data collection. Agenciesare often unwilling to give up older methods whenthey are unsure about their ability to receive Land-sat data as needed. In addition, agencies that haveneed for only one frame of multispectral scanner(MSS) data for a given area have already satisfiedmost of their data needs; other agencies are simplywaiting for thematic mapper (TM) data to bemore widely available.

Overview of Landsat Data Sales

In contrast with the rapidly expanding marketfor the services of communications satellites, themarket among Federal agencies for Landsat datahas grown slowly. Thus, by fiscal year 1982, Fed-eral purchases of Landsat data amounted to about$500,000 out of a total sales for all imagery of $ 3million (table 7). * This difference in growth is ex-plained by the fact that the communications in-dustry was already well established and organizedto use the new technology. For satellite commu-nications, space technology replaced older terres-trial methods because it was cheaper or more ef-ficient.

By contrast, data from the Landsat system pre-sented unique and novel problems of handling,—

*The more-than-doubled Federal sales in 1983 (bracketed figures)reflects the dramatic Increase in 1983 prices over 1982 and the re-quirement that all Federal agencies must now pay for data.

76—

processing, and interpretation. In most cases theysupplement other means of gathering data; inothers, they present an entirely new data resource.The record of Landsat sales from 1973 through1983 (table 8) reflects continuing, but decreasing,interest in the data on the part of Governmentagencies. During this period, Federal agenciestested these data for a wide range of possible ap-plications to determine the potential advantagesof switching away from conventional monitor-ing programs. NASA assisted the testing processby supplying data free to selected investigators(NASA investigators in table 8), and in 1976 some21 percent of all reimbursed data distribution wasin this category. NASA broadened the base oftrained people and stimulated the purchases ofcomputers and other specialized equipment neces-sary to use the new material.

Recent Trends in Landsat Product Sales

Expressed in terms of unit deliveries, sales ofLandsat MSS data to all Federal users reveal adownward trend after 1978 and by key user agen-cies after 1980 (fig. 8). These trends can be at-tributed primarily to the decrease in funding forresearch in applying Landsat data, and price in-creases. In addition, the pace at which user agen-cies can marshal internal resources effectively toexploit the data is governed by OMB oversightand internal agency budgetary considerations.Some of the potentially large users of Landsat dataare the resource survey and environmental agen-cies whose budgets have been most constrainedduring the recent period of fiscal austerity. In suchtimes, managers find it more prudent to continuewith well-known conventional monitoring sys-tems (which, however, require more manpower)than to risk adopting new procedures based ona novel type of data requiring large capital costsfor trained personnel and new processing equip-ment, especially when there is no guarantee ofdata continuity.

Experience with the Landsat data has demon-strated the superiority of computer-compatibledigital products over Landsat photographic prod-ucts for Government users as well as industrialpurchasers. The inherent advantages of informa-tion acquired from space (e.g., its repetitive stand-

— — . — .

ardized format) are best exploited through selec-tive manipulation of digital tapes.

Total income from Federal Government pur-chases for calendar year 1983 increased substan-tially over calendar year 1982 (tables 7, 8, and9). * This jump can be attributed to two major fac-tors: a nearly threefold price increase and theimposition of charges for special acquisitionorders. * * About 20 separate agencies of the Gov-ernment are recorded as purchasers of the data,but most purchases are made by about a halfdozen large data users.

Although income from data sales increased, thenumber of scenes delivered actually declined (table10). The extent of decrease is not known since thedeliveries to the FAS are not available. Specialacquisition charges paid by both FAS and theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) in order toassure scenes of specified areas at desired timesand with minimal cloud cover, account for mostof the increase in income, In the absence of pur-chases by these two agencies, Landsat data salesto Government agencies would have fallen dra-matically .

The scale of Landsat data usage by FAS andCIA (table 11), appears to indicate that their ap-plications have moved well beyond the experi-mental or demonstration phase into practical op-erations. For example, years of research withLandsat data have established its effectiveness insome types of crop forecasting. The importanceto the national economy of accurate global cropdata increases as the world’s population increaseswith the world population growth and with a pro-portionate rise in U.S. exports of agriculturalproducts, As an arm of USDA, FAS is chargedwith this function.

Sales data show a dropoff in use by agenciesprimarily concerned with domestic assessmentand management. Direct interviews with Federalagency technical staff, however, temper any con-clusions one may draw from inspecting only the

*Figures in tables 9 and 10 cannot be compared directly to tables7 and 8. The former are expressed in terms of calendar year, thelatter in terms of fiscal year.

*‘ Purchasers may stipulate cloud-free coverage of specified areasat specified dates by paying a surcharge.

Table 8.–Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data

FY 1975

Dollar (0 O) Items Item (%) Dollars Dollar %O.)

FY 1973a

Customer category Items Item (%) Dollars DolIar (%)

Federal Government(less N.l.’s) 21,780 27% 62,756 270.

NASA investigators — — — —State/local

g o v e r n m e n t 2,995 4 “/0 10,639 5 %A c a d e m i c 13,071 16 % 28,679 13 %I n d u s t r i a l 24,430 30 % 67,360 300 %I n d i v i d u a l s . 5,109 6 % 17,143 7 %N o n - U . S . 8,497 11 % 28,154 12 %N o n - i d e n t i f i e d 5,189 6 % 13,311 6“C

T o t a l d a t a 81,071 100 % 228,042 1 0 0 0 ,

FY 1974”

items Item (%) Dollars

16% 34,346 1 7 % 1 6 9 , 2 8 3 19“ c— 5.456 3% 15,992 2 %

28,493 18° % 87.156— — —

2,534 2 % 10,92018,611 12 0‘, 63.96435,890 23 % 1 1 4 , 1 4 0

17,266 11 % 67,12737,038 23 ‘/L 120,49917,346 1 1 % 64,708

157,178 100 % 528,514

2%12°’0220 ‘o13 %230“01 2“o

1 0 0 0 0

1,96927,72745,67118,64347,17417,397

198,383

1 %

14 %23 %9%

24 %9%

16,988 2 %142,054 16‘o219,704 24 %100,953 11 %174,659 190069,376 7 %

909,009 100”’0100%

FY 1976 TQ 1976 FY 1977

Customer category Items Item (%) Dollars Dollars (%) items Item (%) DolIars DolIar ( % ) Items Item (%) Dollars Dollar (%). - —Federal Government

(less N.I ‘s) ., ., 31.645NASA investigators 63,329State/local

g o v e r n m e n t 1.214A c a d e m i c 26.077I n d u s t r i a l 42.833Individuals ., 18,052N o n - U . S . 65,100Non-ldentified . . 488

Total data 248,738

16%11 %

21,0749,827

16“O 269,8257 % 96,032

19%7 %

1%10 %28%5%

30%0%

1 0 0 %

1300 253,16625% 341,056

15002100

7,77?5,730

1 5“o11 %

73,436

48.111

0 %

160.24%

7%27 %0%

100 %

1% 8,19111% 178,16017 % 322,699

7% , 141,55626 % 391<673

0 % 4,892

1498.489

12,1223,755

13,70296

51.814

1.16840,129

121,02528,683

138. 6321,087

452.271

0 %

9° o27 c’ O

6% 31 %

0 %

1 0 0 0 0

1.36014,06336,979

8,00340, 632

49

131,271

1 % 20,16811% 141 ,07728% 4 1 2 , 1 8 3

6% 72,1293 1 442,079

0 344

1 0 0 % 1 , 4 5 3 , 8 3 7

0 %1 1 2

2 4 0 0/0

1 0 0 0 , 1,641,393 100 % I

I

78

N

,., . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .:D :p : : : : :

.0 , . . .

79

Figure 8.— Deliveries of Landsat MSS Data toFederal Users by NASA-GSFC and DOI-EDC

40

30 — O t h e r F e d e r a lusers

20‘-,

In ter ior

Agriculture~ (includes LACIE and AgRISTARS)

1 I1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

NOTE Breakdown of purchases by Federal users in fiscal year 1983 unavailableat present

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Off Ice ofTechnology Assessment

sales evidence. The technical staff continue to seelarge potential benefits for their agency operationsfrom the systematic application of Landsat data,if the system could be depended on to supply datadependably and promptly. The Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), for example, has primaryresponsibility for monitoring vast tracts of west-ern U.S. range and forest lands. The Denver Of-fice of BLM made major investments in data-processing equipment in order to take advantageof the lower costs of Landsat data before pricesrose and special acquisition surcharges were in-stituted. BLM currently is restrained in placingfuture orders forand uncertainty

data because of insufficient fundsover the future of the program.

Table 9.—U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat Data (in dollars)

CY 1983Agency CY 1982 (to 8-17-83)

Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,531 $ 14,006Department of Agriculture (USDA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,101 70,986USDA— Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N.A. 2,375,437 a

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,232 181,016National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,967 29,108Department of State (including AID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,682 380Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,013 74,076Central Intelligence Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,435 1,390,650aOther Federal agencies (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,558 10,390

Total dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $801,519 $4,416,049—al nCreaSed , nCome , n ~alendar Year 1983 attributed largely tC charges fOr SpeClal aCq UISltl Ofl S, I e , customer-stipulated area

covered, timing, and condition of cloud cover

SOURCE EROS Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Table 1O.—U.S. Government Purchases in Number of Digital and Photographic Scenes

Agency

Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Agriculture (USDA) . . . . . . . .USDA—Foreign Agricultural Servicea. . . . . .Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Aeronautics and Space

Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of State (including AID) ... ,Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NSC/CIA b . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aAcquisition charges of $2.4 million calendar Year 1983bAcquisition charges of $14 milllion in calendar year 1983

CY 1982

Digital Photographic

5 2- - - ‘- 4 8 6118 2,492

N.A. N.A.1,038 13,314

128 6825 325

217 4,9847 433

CY 1983 (to 8-17-83)

Digital Photographic

2 071 933

N.A. N.A.121 2,059

28 6020 5

38 1,6340 5,293

SOURCE EROS Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospherlc Administration

80— . — — — — —

Table 11 .—U.S. Government Purchases of LandsatData for Domestic and for Overseas Purposes

(in dollars)

CY 1983CY 1982 (to 8-17-83)

Domestic agencies:Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . $402,232 $ 181,016Depar tment o f Agr icu l ture . . 100,101 70,986Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . 26,531 14,006

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $528,864 $ 266,008

Agencies with overseas responsibilities:Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . N.A, $2,375,437Department of Defense ... . . . . $122,013 74,076Department of State (AID)a . . . . . . 11,682 380NSC/CIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,435 1,390,650

Total ., ... . . . . . . $175,130 $3,840,543aAid Stipulates~~” ~lt h,” I hls tableLandsa[ I m a g e r y I n m a n y o v e r s e a s c o n t r a c t a r e a s n o t

SOURCE EROS Data Center National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationprovided to OTA on Sept 20 1983

While USDA is making operational use of thedata, the Department is now paying for data thatit previously received practically free throughthe Johnson Center for Manned Space Flight inHouston, Tex. The volume of data purchases re-flects the agencies’ ability to pay for them in thecontext of an overall budget. This, in turn, is at-tributed by some agency analysts to interventionsby OMB which overrode agency desires.

Information on recent overall sales trends basedon latest EDC reports as provided in table 8 is con-firmed by detailed information supplied in theNOAA Landsat statistical summary for fiscal year1982 and fiscal year 1983 (table 12 and figs. 10and 11), Figure 11 shows that in terms of dollarsspent, USGS and the category of non-Federalusers have maintained a fairly constant dollarlevel of orders. The number of images and com-puter-compatible tapes purchased has decreasedsharply for all purchasers outside of the FederalGovernment. For the first time, sales to Federalagencies have exceeded sales to the non-FederalU.S. community (table 8) and by a significantamount. “This appears to be a result of the direc-tive by OMB that each agency would account forits actual use of Landsat data, and therefore maynot reflect a real trend.

Figure 9.—Quarterly Sales of MSS Imagery and Digital

40

30

20

10

0

Frames (total sales, including non• Federaland foreign customers)

.

1 I 1 1 1 1.

Relationship Between Federal Usersof Data and Agency Mission

The remote-sensing requirements of Federalagencies as well as State and local governmentswere examined in exhaustive detail by an inter-agency task force in 1978 and 1979. > Among otheruses, the report served to help justify continuedfunding of the TM Landsat sensor. * Although itwas not distributed beyond NASA and DOD, anunclassified section of the report listing the re-quirements for civilian agencies yields the data offigures 11 and 12. It states the requirements ofeight Federal agencies as well as State and localuses, posed against a set of physical quantities or—-

‘Integrated Remote Sensing System Study (IRS’).*TM development actually began in 1976

81

I I (6

r

. .

.,

.,

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

,.

.,

. .. .. .. .

. .. .:V

. 3

..

. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

. .

. ..(’u%

, U

.03

82

Figure IO.— Grand Total of Shipped Sales From EROS Data Center in Dollars(mainly Landsat data but also includes other satellite imagery,

aircraft imagery, and miscellaneous services)2 . 5

2.0

—

USGS ——

O t h e r F e d e r a l - - - -N o n - F e d e r a l —

/ ’

/1/

//

//

//

5

- - - - - — - - - - -0 ’ 1 1

Jul. Oct.- Jan. -Dec 81

Apr -Mar. 82 June 82 Dec. 82 Mar 83 June 83

Source EROS [)ata Center Product Summary Statements for seven quarter 1982 and 1983

qualities that must be known in order to meet orsatisfy agency missions or objectives. Of the 62measurement classes listed, 43 can be met at leastin part by the TM, or in some cases by the MSS.The numbers applied in the matrix of figure 12are simple additions and do not reflect importanceattached to one agency’s mission over another’s.They do tend to emphasize subjects of greatercoincidence of interest.

Review of DepartmentInterior Requirements

of the

The Department of the Interior has maintaineda special interest in land remote sensing. A studyproduced by Interior in partial response to the IRSinteragency study contains a comprehensive list-ing of uses to which the data could be applied(table 13). Table 14 provides a summary list of

the various Bureau data needs which can be metby remote sensing.

Survey of Relevant Legislation

The major assessment of desertification in theUnited States, prepared by an interagency taskforce, included a list of pertinent legislation (table15) that requires periodic surveys and measure-ments. This list supplements information from anearlier study (table 16). Both lists reflect the in-creasing demands placed on Government agen-cies during the decade of the 1970’s for types ofinformation that can be appropriately satisfied byremote-sensing techniques.

Concerns of Federal Landsat Data Users

The apparent discrepancy between the presentrelatively modest level of Landsat data sales and

83

al

0

cm

tnal.-

I

I

I -I

— .

;

Figure 12.— Number of Requirements in Each Measurement Class, by Civil

85

Table 13.—Operationai Uses That Can Be Implemented With Existing or Planned Satellite Technology—. . —●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mapping geologic structure for mineral and fuel ex-ploration (GS, BLM)Digital enhancement and analysis of altered andpotentially mineralized zones and altered areas(GS, BLM)Monitoring seasonal consistencies and variations inthe Beaufort OCS sea ice (BLM, GS)Regional environmental surveys for preparation ofenvironmental impact statements (LBR, BLM, F&WS,GS, BIA, NPS)Detection and monitoring of surface mining and minereclamation activities (OSM, F&WS, Mines, BLM,BIA, GS)Monitoring snow cover accumulation, melt, and changein irrigation and hydroelectric catch merits in theWestern United States and adjacent areas of Canada inorder to contribute to predictive hydrologic models andrunoff calculations (LBR, GS)Surface water inventory (LBR, F&WS, GS, BLM, BIA)Real-time analysis of mesoscale cloud systems (LBR)Water and wetland measurement to assess the amountand type of waterfowl habitat and the impact of irriga-tion (F&WS, LBR)Inventory of irrigated cropland, including acreage underirrigation and a breakdown by crop type (LBR, BIA)Mapping of flooded areas, estuaries, and shallow seafeatures (BLM, LBR, GS, BIA)Assessment of salinity problems in major watersheds(BLM, GS, LBR)Assessment and monitoring of physical water quality.water turbidity, and algae blooms (GS, F&WS, NPS, -

BLM, LBR)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Monitoring ice conditions in Arctic goose nestinggrounds to aid in the prediction of waterfowl popula-tions. (F&WS)Vegetative cover mapping (BLM, F&WS, LBR, GS, BIA,NPS)Mapping extent of fire scars and rate of revegetation(BLM, F&WS, BIA, NPS)Contribute to land use/land cover mapping and landuse/land cover change detection and statisticalanalysis of nonurban areas at scales of 1:250,000 andsmaller (GS, NPS)Monitoring with Landsat to supplement and updateorthophoto coverage of Indian lands (BIA)Mapping and classification of forest lands for thenorthwest Indian tribes to produce updated land-useplans (BIA)Publication of Landsat image maps at 1:250,000,1:500,000, and 1:1,000,000-scale of unmapped or poorlymapped regions of Antarctica and other regions insupport of national and international cooperativeefforts (GS)Route selection for utility corridors (BLM, BPA)Monitoring ephemeral rangelands for drought andovergrazed conditions (BLM, BIA)Geographic positioning using doppler satellite(BLM, GS)Environmental data collection and relay (GS, NPS,BLM, LBR, F&WS, BIA)Teleconferencing and emergency communications(NPS, BLM, BIA, TA)

——KEY

BIA” Bureau of Indian Affairs F&WS Fish and Wildlife Service NPS National Park ServiceBLM Bureau of Land Management GS Geological Survey OSM Off Ice of Surface MiningBPA Bonneville Power Administration LBR Bureau of Reclamation TA Territorial Affairs

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior Secretary’s initiative Use of Aerospace Technology Draft Mar 30 1978.

86

Table 14.—Current and Projected High-Priority Interior Applications Amenable to Landsat Technology

Bureau applications

Bureau of Reclamation:Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .Irrigated Land Inventory . . . . . . . . . .Agricultural Crop Inventory . . . . . . . .Hydrometeorological Data Relay .Mesoscale Cloud Analysis. . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management:Natural Resource Inventory . . . . . . . .Natural Resource Monitoring . . . . . .Telecommunications Improvement . . .Geographic Positioning . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service:Migratory Bird Management ., . . . .Habitat Inventory and Analysis . . . . .

National Park Service:Vegetation/Land Cover Inventory . . .Resource Condition Monitoring . . .Environmental Quality Monitoring . . .

Geological Survey:Land Cover Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cartographic Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . .Geologic and Mineral Assessment . . .Conservation and Regulation . . . . .

Onshore OffshoreEnergy and Energy and

Minerals Minerals

xx

xx

xx xx x

Water Land Fish andResources Resources Wildl i fe Telecommunications

x x xx xx xx xx x

x xx x

x

x xx x

xx xx x

xx

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

x xx x xx x

xx x x

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior, Use of Aerospace Technology in Interior Department Programs, March 1978

87

Table 15.—Existing Legislation Requiring Monitoring

Name

Mining Law of 1872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desert Land Act 1977, . . . . . . . . . . ...

Carey Act of 1894 ., ... ... ... . .National Irrigation Act of 1902 ., . .

Weeks Act of 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916,

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 ... ...Recreation and Public Purposes Act

of 1926. . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Actof 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 . . . . . . .Soil Conservation and Domestic

Allowance Act of 1935 ... ... .( a n d a m e n d m e n t s o f 1 9 3 6 ) .

Watershed Protection and FloodPrevention Act of 1954 . . .

Multiple Mineral Development Actof 1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Plains Conservation Program Actof 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 ., . .Clean Air Act of 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Amendments of 1977 . . . .Wilderness Act of 1964 . . . . . . . . . . .Land and Water Conservation Act

of 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and Amendment of 1977 . . .

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. ,Community Planning and Resource

Development Soil Surveys of 1966 . . .Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 . . . .

and Amendments of 1976 . . . . . . . . . .Endangered Species Act of 1973 . . . . . .Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Bank Act of 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining and Mineral Policy of 1970 ....,Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Act of 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clean Water Act of 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Endangered American Wilderness Actof 1978

Renewable Resource Extension Actof 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Surface Mining Act of 1977 . . . . . . . . . . .

Reference

Public Law 42, Ch. 152

Public Law 44, Ch. 107

Public Law 53, Ch, 301Public Law 57-161

Public Law 61-435Public Law 64-290

Public Law 66-146

Public Law 69-386

Public Law 73-121Public Law 73-482

Public Law 74-46Public Law 74-461

Public Law 83-556

Public Law 83-585

Public Law 84-1021Public Law 87-703Public Law 88-206Public Law 95-05Public Law 95-05

Public Law 88-578Public Law 95-42

Public Law 89-90

Public Law 89-560Public Law 90-542Public Law 94-486Public Law 93-205

Public Law 93-320

Public Law 94-579Public Law 91-559Public Law 91-631

Public Law 95-192

Public Law 95-217

Public Law 95-237

Public Law 95-306Public Law 95-87

Agency

DO I

DOI

DO IDOI/USDA

DOI/ACEDOI

DO I

DO I

DOIDOI

USDAUSDA

USDA

DO I

USDAUSDA

EPADOI

DOI

DO I

USDADO IDO IDO I

DOI/ACE

USDA/DOlDOIDO I

DO I

DOI/USDA/EPA/ACE

DOI

USDADOT

Data required

Develop mining resources of theUnited States

Desert lands in certain Statesand territories

Reclamation of desert landsConstruction of irrigation works and

land reclamationWatershed and river navigabilityUnappropriated Federal land to

stock-raisingPromote mining of coal, oil, phosphate

Federal public lands to States andcities for recreational purposes

Conservation of wildlife-fish gamesPrevent injury to public grazing lands

Protection of lands against soil erosionProtection of lands against soil erosion

Works of improvement to preventsoil erosion

Multi-mineral mining of public lands

Great Plains ProgramsConservation of national resources

Regional air pollution control IocationsRegional air pollution control programs

Water conservation and outdoorrecreation

Development of water and related land

Soil Survey ProgramPreserve selected rivers

Preserve endangered fish and wildlife

Construction of public works onthe river

Public lands inventoryConservation of surface waterReclamation of mined land

Further the conservation of water andrelated resources.

Improve biological integrity of theNation’s water

Protect wilderness preservation areas

Protect forest rain productsProtect society and environment from

suface operations

Abbreviations ACE — U S Army Corps of EngineersUSDA — U S Department of AgricultureDOI – Department of the InteriorEPA – Environmental Protection AgencyDOT — Department of Transportation

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

88

Table 16.— Federal Statutes Pertinent to Remote Sensing

Name

Cotton Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act . . . . .

Agricultural Marketing Act. . . . . . . . . . .

Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act . . . .

Weather Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soil Conservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forest Pest Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

Fish and Wildlife Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fishery Resources Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Watershed Protection and Flood

Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coal Mine Fire Safety Act . . . . . . . . . . .

Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flood Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Housing Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . .Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Taylor Grazing Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Reclamation Law. . . . . . . . . . . . .Forest Resources Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Admission of New States . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Outdoor Recreation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and Agriculture Act. . . . . . . . . . . . .Water Resources Planning Act . . . . . . . .

National Flood Insurance Act . . . . . . . . .

Dam Safety Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Water Pollution Control Act . . .

Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hazardous Waste Management Act . . . .

Toxic Substance Control Act . . . . . . . . .

National Resources Land ManagementAct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land Use Policy and PlanningAssistance Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marine Pollution Dumping ConservationNational Environmental Policy Act. . . . .Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1973. .

Surface Mining Reclamation Act . . . . . .-.

Reference

Public Law 92-3317 USC 1010

7 USC 1622

7 USC 1652

15 USC 31316 USC 59016 USC 594

16 USC 665

16 USC 74216 USC 74416 USC 758a

16 USC 75910 USC

16 USC 100-1009

Public Law 83-738

40 USC 641Public Law 86-645

Public Law 90-448

43 USC 243 USC 3143 USC 315f43 USC 485g16 USC 58143 USC 857

43 USC 1181Public Law 88-29

Public Law 89-321Public Law 89-80

Public Law 90-448

Public Law 92-367

Public Law 92-500

—NYP

NYP

NYP

NYPNYP—NYP

NYP

Agency

USDAUSDA

USDA

DOI/USDA

DOCUSDAUSDA

DOI

DOIDOIDOI

DOIDOI

USDA/ACE

DOI

DOIACE

HUD

DOIDOIDOIDOIUSDADOI

DOIDOI

USDADOI/USDA/HEW/FPCHUD

ACE

EPA/DOC

EPAEPA

DOI

DOI

DOIEPAEPADOI

DOI

Abbreviations” ACE — U S Army Corps of Engineers DOI — Department of the Interior HEWUSDA — U.S. Department of Agriculture EPA — Environmental Protection Agency HUDDOC — Department of Commerce FPC — Federal Power Commission NYP

-—Data requirements

Estimates of cotton crop and acreageLand inventory and monitoring of ero-

sion, sediment, flood plain, land useStatistics on agricultural product

suppliesSurveys of presence and effect of

Halogeton Glomeratus, a weedEnabling legislationSurveys and studies of soil erosionDetection of forest insect pests on

wildlifeStudies of effect of pollutants on

wildlifeStudies of fish and wildlifeStudies of food, fish populationsStudies of fish resources in South

Pacific possessionsStudies of Atlantic coast shadStudies of the Atlantic coast

Investigations and surveys for floodprevention and watershed programdevelopment

Surveys and research outcrop andunderground fires

Mineral explorationIdentification of flood plain areas,

damage assessmentTechnical assistance to local planning

agenciesEnabling legislationEnabling legislationLand classificationLand classificationSurvey of forest suppliesSurvey of public lands in a State prior

to its admission to the UnionLand classification and managementInventory of outdoor recreation

resourcesCommodity acreage and land useStudies of water supply adequacy

Establishment of flood risk zones,estimates of flood losses

Inspection of dams, Landsat data usedto locate them

Oil spill surveillance, violation detec-tion, pollution surveys and research

Studies and detection of pollutionSurveys of effects of hazardous wastes

on the environmentResearch and monitoring of extent of

toxic substances

Land inventory and land-useclassifications

Comprehensive land-use planningMonitor seas for pollutionEnvironmental impact statementsSurveys of land-use and surface mining

operationsSurface mining operations survey

– Department of Health, Education, and Welfare– Department of Housing and Urban Development– Not yet passed in 1974

SOURCE General Electric, Definition of Total Earth Resources System for the Shuttle Era, vol 1, NASA contract, 1974

———

the need postulated in earlier official Governmentprojections of demand is striking. In discussionswith remote-sensing specialists from several Fed-eral agencies the difference has been attributed toseveral technical and policy factors:

Considerable modification in Landsat p e r -formance characteristics between I.andsat 1and I.andsat 4, and the likelihood that futurechanges could seriously perturb the ways inwhich data must be processed in the future.Technical difficulties> experienced in the land-sat 4 system.Initial slow production rate (one scene perday ) of the improved resolution TM scanner,The X-band transmitter used to transmit datafrom the TM failed only a few months afterlaunch.Delay in design and procurement of a moreadvanced solid-state and higher resolutionscanner comparable to the scanner to be em-ployed on the French SPOT spacecraft in1985.Anticipation of a gap in data flow between

89

the failure of Landsat 4 and launch of Land-sat D) ‘.

● Continuing d e l a y s i n d e l i v e r i ng d a t a t ocustomers.

• Uncertainty over Federal policy regarding acontinuing role for a [U.S. space remote-sens-ing system.

• The experimental phase of MSS is nearlyover.

The Federal user community has generally con-cluded that experimental and demonstration proj-ects carried out using the data products of the sys -tem have been successful in showing potentialcost-effective applications to agency missions.These have included utility for a substantial]number of national resource, environmental, andland management purposes. On the other handthe Landsat system, they note, had not been runas an operational system until 1983. It has not pro-vided the Federal user community with the assur-ances needed by managers of standardized dataflow available over an extended period.

Chapter 6

National Security Needsand Issues

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Land Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Civilian Remote Sensing and National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Contributions of the Civilian Remote-Sensing Systems to Meeting

National Security Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Civilian/Military Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Potential Military and Intelligence Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Possible Suitability of Projected Foreign Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table

Table No. Page

17. Contributions of the Civilian Remote-Sensing Systemsto U.S. Space Intelligence Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

— ———

Chapter 6

National Security Needs and Issues— —— —— .—

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Government operates two parallelprograms of Earth remote sensing from space.Civilian systems operated by the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration (NASA) andthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA) provide unclassified low- andmoderate-resolution information about the phys-ical parameters of the Earth’s land, water, and air.Department of Defense (DOD) classified satellitescollect data for a variety of military and in-telligence purposes such as early warning of mis-sile attack, verification of compliance with inter-national treaties, and strategic and tactical plan-ning. While both programs may utilize similarspacecraft and basic technologies (e. g., earthward-looking sensors and ground processing), the pro-grams differ in amount of funding, priority, andvisibility.

The classified programs, among other things,provide essential data on activities in areas of theworld where U.S. access may otherwise be greatlyrestricted. They are highly classified because theyproduce highly sensitive information, some ofwhich could relate to ongoing classified militaryactivities. * They are also highly classified becausepublic knowledge of the capacities of the technol-ogy would be of considerable use to potentialadversaries. Even nonsensitive data from the sys-tems could, upon analysis, reveal the technicalcharacteristics of the surveillance systems andcompromise their effectiveness.

The prospect of transferring the civilian systemto private ownership raises the question of whateffects private ownership might have on the rela-tionship between civilian and classified militaryremote-sensing systems and on the work of themilitary and intelligence communities. This chap-ter summarizes data and program support whichcivilian remote-sensing systems could provide tothe military and intelligence communities and lists

● For many years, even “the fact of” the existence of strategic sur-veillance satellites was classified Only in October 1978 was theirexistence officially acknowledged by an American President.

likely concerns of military and intelligence agen-cies over the prospect of transfer of civil activitiesfrom Federal ownership. It identifies requirementsor conditions which it might be desirable to placeon a private sector owner of a space remote-sensing system. Finally, it discusses the possibleutility and availability for defense purposes ofdata from foreign space programs.

Meteorological Data

Data provided by civilian satellites operated byNOAA are an integral part of the DOD weatherforecasting service. Since weather data are essen-tial to the global operations of U.S. air and navalforces, a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program(DMSP) has been established to gather accurate,timely, and precise meteorological information.The DMSP is supplemented by the data productsof NOAA meteorological satellites. Careful coor-dination between the programs from the designstage onward ensures that the family of polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites are integratedinto a system for meeting both national civilianand military global weather data needs.

Weather satellites have proven particular] y use-ful for obtaining data over oceans and remoteareas where there is a paucity of surface report-ing stations. In addition to determining atmos-pheric conditions on a near-instantaneous basis,the satellites contribute to observing slower act-ing phenomena such as ice-floe generation and cli-matic trends that could affect DOD’s operations.

A recent NOAA study’ states that any privatesystem supplying meteorological data would berequired to provide priority service to DOD andwould be subject to DOD direction when select-ing and designing operational parameters.

1 “Transfer of the Civil Operational Earth Observation Satellitesto the Private Sector, NOAA, February 1983.

93

94

Land Remote Sensing transportable ground receiving and data-process-

The military and intelligence communities pur-ing unit, which permits rapid deployment to over-seas sites, if required. This equipment could, in

chase the moderate-resolution Landsat data, inboth imagery and digital tape format, to supple-

time of emergency, be used to supplement otherdata-collection means. *

ment collections made by classified systems.

The flexibility of the Landsat data receiving sys-tem has been increased by construction of an air-

——“The transportable station is also of use for general purposes.

CIVILIAN REMOTE SENSING AND NATIONAL SECURITY

So long as both the military and the civilianspace programs are under the direct funding andmanagement of the Federal Government, the ac-tivities of both can be readily coordinated andcontrolled in the overall national interest. Overthe past two decades, policies governing theoperations of unclassified civilian remote-sensingsatellite programs have been developed at highlevels of Government under the close supervisionof the National Security Council. NASA, in col-laboration with other Federal agencies, academicinstitutions, and industry, has carried on a sub-stantial program of experimentation and demon-stration which has served a variety of civilian andnational security needs. DOD has pursued its ownconcurrent development program, which has re-turned some benefits to the civilian community. z

General policy governing the relationship be-tween the national security and civilian space pro-grams of the U.S. Government was establishedby the provisions of the National Aeronautics andSpace Act of 1958. For reasons cited at the begin-ning of this chapter, details of the extent and na-ture of collaboration are not publicly available.Policies have been implemented through inter-agency agreements. The sharing of facilities andequipment, the setting of permissible limits forcivil sensor operation, and many details on theacquisition and processing of data have been de-termined by Government policymakers, out of thepublic view. This has caused some discontentamong some U.S. data users. However, the in-terest in commercializing the technology, and the

‘Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Report, OTA-STI-177,June 1982.).

simultaneous emergence of a number of com-petitive foreign space remote-sensing systems, re-quire reevaluation of the intragovernmental ar-rangements and networks which have been usedover the past decade for collaboration and con-trol of remote-sensing programs.

Any transfer of U.S. civilian remote-sensingsystems would be accompanied by a review of theobligations, conditions, and stipulations to beplaced on the operator to protect national securityinterests. In some cases, such as control of tech-nology transfer, existing regulations should serveto oversee adequately the operations of U.S. com-panies. The continued supply of data from civil-ian systems to defense organizations, similarly,should be a straightforward matter of adjustmentto possible new price structures and deliveryroutes.

Military and intelligence agencies face othermore difficult questions—e. g., the steps to betaken to preempt and operate commercial systemsin time of national emergency. These and othersafeguards, such as guarantees of the long-termavailability of data, require both careful planningand commitment to some Government subsidy.Defense agencies can be expected to pay a pro-portionate share of the system costs incurred bya private satellite owner/operator to meet specialGovernment needs.

A less tractable problem is to keep openly avail-able data products of U.S. civilian systems fromrevealing classified information about the UnitedStates’ sensitive installations and activities topotential adversaries. Since the Soviet Union pos-sesses competent space reconnaissance systems,

95— — . . — — — —

the problem really applies more to other poten-tial adversaries, including those who might con-sider sponsoring terrorist activities on U.S. soil.Inclinations to set a limit on sensor resolution orto screen the data for content will run counter tothe private entrepreneur’s desire to maximize theinformation content of the data, shorten the timeof delivery to customers, and generally to meetthe competition posed by the advanced systemsof France, Japan, and other countries. It appearsthat by the end of the decade, high-quality im-agery and data on the entire surface of the globewill be generally available from foreign systems.This development will require accommodationamong the sometimes conflicting aims of the U.S.military, political, and commercial sectors.

In the event of transfer of the Landsat systemto private ownership, military and intelligence

agencies will want to place certain limits on thedesign and use of the technology and the resultingdata products. Though their special interests maybe unique to this particular field of space activi-ty, meeting defense limitations should requirenothing beyond licensing and regulation. Principalareas of concern of the defense and intelligenceagencies include:

●

●

●

●

limits on technology and design criteria em-bodied in a civilian system;potential limits on day-to-day operations asthey relate to sensitive contents, regions, orcustomers;impact of aggressive worldwide market de-velopment that may intrude upon nationalsecurity needs; andpolicies on access and cost of data.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CIVILIAN REMOTE-SENSING SYSTEMSTO MEETING NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS

Under the terms of the National Aeronautic andSpace Act of 1958, the Landsat and meteorologicalsatellite systems must provide data that are notduplicated in their characteristics by any otherU.S.-funded system, classified, or unclassified.This establishes a unique role for civilian systemsin contributing to the net national pool of globalland and meteorological information. Table 17summarizes the contributions they have made.The Defense Mapping Agency has used Landsatdata to revise hydrographic and aeronauticalcharts inexpensively. For example, the Landsatmultispectral scanner (MSS) sensor is able toobserve underwater detail, making possible a newclass of shallow sea maps of interest to the U.S.Navy.

The MSS on Landsat scans continuously aswath of about 100 miles wide on the Earth’s sur-face and rescans the same track every 16 days. *Thus, it has become possible economically tomonitor vast areas in a routine way. Subsequent

‘Successful acquisition of Landsat images depends on the absenceof cloud cover. Some regions of the world, especially tropical areas,are particularly hard to sense, even with repeated access.

improved scanners like the multispectral linear ar-ray would have the same areal coverage with im-proved reliability and lower costs. Higher resolu-tion sensors sacrifice the ability to cover such wideareas as cheaply because the number of pictureelements increases as the square of the improve-ment in resolution. Although most human worksor activities are not visible on MSS Landsatscenes, they are capable of revealing agriculturaland other gross disturbances of the landscape. Thehigher resolution thematic mapper (TM) data, onthe other hand, have rather good capacity torecord the presence of human activity. Landsatdata or their equivalent could signal the need formore detailed investigations of an area and, tosome extent, guard against surprise developmentsin out-of-the-way parts of the globe, thereby free-ing up more expensive and sophisticated surveil-lance systems to concentrate on areas of highpriority.

The Landsat system, used in conjunction withmeteorological satellites, has shown value in ob-serving agricultural conditions and land-use pat-terns, Land degradation, population shifts, andother stressful conditions resulting from a combi-

96

Table 17.—Contributions of the Civilian Remote.Sensing Systems to U.S. Space Intelligence Systems

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Complementary data: The civilian metsat systems providedata complementary to those provided by the DefenseMeteorological Satellite Program. U.S. intelligence andmapping organizations are substantial users of the uniquedata produced by Landsat to supplement other sources.Backup system: In the event of failure of a military or intel-ligence system, or a temporary overload, civilian metsator Landsat data can be used instead,Technical emergency support: Landsat’s worldwide net-work of communications, ground facilities, processingcenters, etc., can, in an emergency, be used to support in-telligence collections,Broadened technical base: A larger group of trained per-sonnel and technical competence are available as needed,Unique data products: Information drawn from civiliansources, e.g., environmental monitoring information, canbe used as a basis for further intelligence analysis,Cover data: Landsat imagery can be released and used asa basis for discussion involving the U.S. public or interna-tional forums, when the original source may be classifieddata which should not be compromised.Political leverage: Landsat and training can be used to ex-tract reciprocal rights from foreign nations where intelli-gence operations may need base rights or special access.GeneraI information needs: Meteorological or Landsattechnology helps to maintain cognizance of foreign remote-sensing developments by serving as the U.S. contributionat international technical symposia.Political tool: Open distribution of metsat and Landsat datahas served to deflect and diffuse international criticismof U.S. space intelligence operations.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

nation of environmental problems, populationpressures, and political conditions, can contributeto instability and tensions and thereby may af-fect the overall security of the United States. Land-sat data can be merged with data from othersources, including highly classified sources, toprovide enhanced information on events in remoteareas or regions where conventional informationis scanty and unreliable. Some types of analysis,such as estimating foreign crop yields, can bemade with Landsat data without necessarily re-vealing the precise areas of U.S. interest or requir-ing expensive collection activities.

Civilian/Military Interrelationships

The following paragraph items present a varietyof examples of the types of relationship that DODor intelligence agencies may wish to have with aprivate firm chartered to provide remote-sensingservices. This issue will be the degree to whicha private owner will be able to assure direct sup-

——

port to Government activities, whenever these arerequested by the Government. These examples areintended to illustrate the range of potential ap-plications, without attempting to evaluate theirrelative importance:

●

●

●

� ✎

Provision of Primary Data in an Emergen-cy. —Earth-orbiting satellites are unique intheir ability to view distant parts of the globeand relay the data back to the United Statesin near-real time. * Landsat and meteorologi-cal satellite systems also can serve as backupunits in the event of a failure of one of thecomparable classified satellites. In a nationalemergency, these civilian systems are subjectto takeover by the defense forces. In the eventof transfer of these systems to the private sec-tor, it maybe appropriate to require that dataformat and handling characteristics be com-patible with military data management ap-proaches.Controlled Distribution of Data.—Access tocivilian remote-sensing data distributionchannels and the ability to influence or con-trol data flow can be of value to the intelli-gence and military communities. Analysis ofsales records of land remote-sensing data mayshow patterns of foreign purchases, tippingoff specific areas of interest for resource ex-ploitation or military purposes, for example.In time of international stress, it might be de-sirable to delay or deny altogether distribu-tion of land remote-sensing data to hostilecountries if these data might be used direct-ly against the United States or its allies.Guarantee of Beneficial Data Exchange.—The open, free distribution by the UnitedStates of meteorological data has createdmuch good will and helped to develop pat-terns in which the United States benefited byreceiving data in return from other countries.The U.S. lead in civilian space technologyover two decades allowed the United Statesto gain acceptance of its right to operate inspace and to sense other countries. Throughthe World Meteorological Organization andother international organizations, the United

● When the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System is completed,it will be possible to send data from the spacecraft directly to theUnited States, no matter what part of the globe it is over.

97

States was able to advance the exchange ofweather data worldwide to the benefit ofmany of its civilian activities as well as thoseof the military and intelligence agencies. Thisprompt and reliable supply of weather datafrom foreign sources is used extensively i nair operations of the U.S. military. In addi-tion, foreign data assist in ground-checkingU.S. satellite data.

Use in International Meetings.—The militaryand intelligence communities may, on occa-sion, be required to use classified data toassist U.S. civilian agencies in analyzing amajor event for presentation in an interna-tional organization. An example might be fix-ing responsibility for damage from a large oilspill. In such a case, civilian imagery is ob-tained rapidly and presents objective infor-mation (e.g., Landsat data showed the extentof the recent Mexican oil well blowout as itaffected the Texas coast). It can be used formultinational negotiations or for briefing thepublic without compromising more sensitiveU.S. sources, if the event is sufficiently grossto be visible on Landsat imagery. As civilianinstruments increase in resolving power,many more activities related to the securityof nations could be revealed—troop activi-ty in desert areas for example. The advan-tages and disadvantages for the United Statesof “open skies” and nondiscriminatory datadistribution will have to be weighed. Thereis considerable value in having a source ofopen and unclassified data.

Continuing Source of Information on ForeignSpace R&D.—As the use of remote sensingbecomes more widespread and the technol-ogy diffuses around the world, it will be in-creasingly important for military and intel-ligence agencies to be alert to new develop-ments which can either be adopted and usedfor U.S. national security purposes or which,in the hands of others, could make the U.S.systems relatively less advanced. The mainte-nance of an open, advanced civilian programat all stages of development of satellite andremote-sensor instrument and data process-ing is necessary to preserving a broad tech-nical base. Demonstrated U.S. competence

in these fields assures that U.S. nationals willcontinue to be aware of technical advancesat all stages and will be in a position to mon-itor developments of colleagues in othercountries.Civilian Program Hardware as Backup toDefense Programs. —The command and con-trol, communications, ground reception, anddata-processing facilities needed for the civil-ian program are related to those used forclassified remote-sensing programs. In theevent of international tension, and by Presi-dential directive, civilian Government sys-tems may be partially or wholly diverted tomilitary use, To facilitate planning for suchcontingencies, the equipment used in civilianprograms may have to be designed and con-structed so as to be compatible with corre-sponding military components. Elements ofthe civilian system may also be preemptedfor interim backup service during, for exam-ple, the partial failure of a classified system.Civilian Program Value in Providing Train-ing and Special Skills. —Trained personnelare a prerequisite for the management andoperation of advanced technology remote-sensing programs at all levels, from equip-ment design, construction, and operation, todata reception, management, and interpreta-tion. An open program helps to ensure a poolof trained personnel in each of these categor-ies. Technically trained people constitute apool of labor available to be drawn upon byclassified programs as needed. Technical edu-cational institutions must be operated on alargely unclassified basis and require the ex-istence of a viable civilian program to attractstudents and to justify continued researchand educational efforts.Preferential Access to U.S. Data or Remote-Sensing Programs.—As a new and somewhatglamorous technology combining space sci-ence and the potential for practical Earth ap-plications, remote sensing has proven to bea means for entering negotiations with othercountries. It is generally necessary to dealwith foreign nationals on the basis of unclas-sified technology. In some cases, foreigngovernments stipulate the desire to deal withcivilian agencies of the U.S. Government to

98

assure themselves of the high level and reli-ability of the exchanges. For example, theU.S. Geological Survey has been the primeinstrument selected to manage mineral explo-ration by remote sensing in some MiddleEastern countries. On occasion this has re-sulted in finding mineral reserves that havenational security implications.Ability to Monitor and Influence the Course

U.S. civilian remote-sensing sponsorshipand/or participation in international tech-nical meetings enhances U.S. ability to ob-serve and monitor closely the technologicalstate of the art in foreign countries as a basisfor judging the degree of technology transferand determining whether such activities areto the net advantage of the United States, orshould be inhibited.

of Remote-Sensing Technology Transfer. —

POTENTIAL MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE REQUIREMENTS

The military and intelligence agencies are byno means monolithic or uniform in their viewsof civilian remote sensing. Indeed, sometimes theirindividual goals conflict. Nevertheless, it is possi-ble to summarize the possible requirements thatvarious members of both communities have sug-gested if the proposed transfer of remote-sensingsystems to private ownership proceeds:

●

●

●

Continuity of meteorological data supply isan absolute necessity as a complement to mil-itary weather satellites. Orbital characteris-tics must be appropriate and sensors mustperform as specified.It may be necessary to encrypt communica-tions links and harden satellite components,or otherwise make the system conform toGovernment specifications on orbital param-eters and sensor specifications.The operator must design the resolution andoperating wavelength of sensors to meet mil-itary and intelligence restrictions.

●

●

●

●

●

In dealings with foreign entities the operatorwill need to guard against unacceptable formsof technology transfer.Design and operations will need to take intoaccount contingency planning requirementsto assure compatibility and ability to operatein a possibly hostile environment.Operations will require that some private sec-tor personnel possess special clearances andthat secure facilities be available.Guarantees of specified types of operationswith products conforming to agreed levels ofquality, format, etc., may be necessary for2 to 3 years in advance, as may guaranteedreadiness of replacement satellites.The satellite operations may be subject tooverride or preemption in the event of na-tional need, and the sale of product likewisemay be “sanitized” or sales forbidden to cer-tain foreign customers.

POSSIBLE SUITABILITY OF PROJECTED FOREIGN SYSTEMS

As discussed in chapter 3, within the next 5years several foreign countries will possess re-mote-sensing satellites designed for a variety ofland, ocean, and meteorological tasks. The U.S.military and intelligence remote-sensing commu-nities can be expected to acquire and analyzequantities of data from these new systems forresearch purposes. To the extent that some uniquekinds of information can be extracted from the

data, it is possible that U.S. defense agencies maypurchase some data sets for practical application.

On the one hand, continuing provision of spe-cialized data from foreign systems, data impossi-ble to obtain with U.S. satellites, might be advan-tageous to U.S. purposes. On the other hand, U.S.satellites, which collect and transmit global databack to U.S. collection points, have proven to be

99

the most rapid and efficient means of accomplish-ing a host of sensitive national security operationsbecause they can be tightly controlled. Informa-tion about both the surface areas and the timeperiods of interest to U.S. data collections mustbe controlled, because either would be of consid-erable interest to potential adversaries. Yet it isextremely difficult to control foreign sources, evensystems operated by close allies, to the degree nec-

essary. For most important satellite missions, theU.S. military and intelligence communities arelikely to insist on totally in-house operations orthe use of private U.S. contractors who can beregulated and closely supervised. Thus, it isunlikely that procurement arrangements wouldbe worked out as part of the defense allianceagreement or that the material would constitutea primary source for U.S. forces.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Remote Sensing in the

. . — — -.

Commercialization ofand U.S. International

Developing Countries—

Remote SensingRelations*

Understanding the international effects of U.S.policy to transfer satellite remote-sensing systems tothe private sector requires placing them in the contextof 25 years of “space relations” as well as overall U. S.-developing country relations. U.S. actions with respectto outer space may affect negotiations over Law of theSea, Trade, and other international areas. In addition,they must be placed in the context of overall U.S. for-eign policy and policy towards the United Nations andother international organizations, Finally, they mustbe understood in the context of the perceptions of theforeign policy community, as distinct from the usercommunity, in developing CoUntries.

Historical Perspective andDeveloping Country Perceptions

The utilization of space has always raised politicalquestions. However, initial discussions within theUnited Nations over rules governing outer space oftenfo u n d the U n i ted S t a t es a n d the U. S. S. R. o n the sa meside, Neither desired international regulation of itsspace activities. The Outer Space Treaty formalizedt hit po i n t of view by allowing countries open accessto space, w i the the caveat that no weapons of massdestruction would be placed in outer space, and theunderstanding that benefits from space-related ac-tivities would be used to the benefit of all countries,and particularly the developing countries. The politicaltradeoff between the two space powers and the devel-oping countries during these earl y stages of space ex-ploration was straightforward, In exchange for shar-ing of benefits and explicit promises that space wouldbe reserved for peaceful purposes, there would be lit-tle international regulation.

Space applications, especially remote sensing, werefirst discussed in this context. The United States tookthe position in the U.N. Committee for the PeacefulUses of Outer Space (COPUOS) that no internationalregulations were necessary for an experimental remote-sensing system (or any other space application), and

—“ f~,~<(cl In p,irt tln dI.( u..l{n. ~. ]th \l,ir\ ]n R[)hlnw In t(~rm(r [ hitt <~t tht,

( )uter $p,ic v Att,]jr. [~I\ ].]t}n III th(, [ In]tt,,l N,itl,ln. t,]]] 1 Q8?

promised that when the system was proven andbecame operational the developing world would sharein its benefits. At the same time, the United States,while not directly supporting U .N. technical assistance,developed extensive bilateral agreements with, andtechnical assistance to, the developing world.

The developing countries have been particularlyconcerned about the possible use of satellite data bymultinational companies to exploit the resources ofdeveloping countries. These countries have also ex-pressed concern over the possibility that such datacould be used for military purposes to the detrimentof their own national security. Thus, they argued forrestricted dissemination of the data and for technicalassistance to aid them in developing their own abilityto use them. These concerns, while mitigated to someextent in the mid-1970's, are still at the forefront ofthe international debate regarding remote-sensingsatellites,

International negotiations to establish a regime togovern the distribution of remote-sensing data fromspace slowed to a near standstill early in the 1970’s.The United States, for its part, was opposed to theestablishment of any regime restricting the open de-velopment of satellite systems and the open dissemina -tion of information. Many developing countries andthe Eastern bloc countries, for their part, argued forregulating the distribution of remote-sensing data.

Over the course of these negotiations, the UnitedStates mitigated some concerns of the developing coun-tries by disseminating data on a nondiscriminatorybasis and by continuing its own technical assistanceprograms. However, as it became clear in the late1970’s that the United States was beginning to thinkin terms of an operational (and perhaps commercial )system, the position of the developing countries once

again hardened, and the rhetoric of the debates becameincreasingly harsh. Ironically, one of the key concernsof the developing countries is that a commercial sys-tem might mean the end of open and nondiscrimina-tory access to data—the very policy they arguedforcefully against for so many years. However, theysee a policy of nondiscriminatory distribution as farbetter than one in which a U.S. company would ownand control data acquired by remote-sensing satellites.

The issue of commercialization comes to the inter-national arena in the context of over 100 years of in-ternational cooperation in forecasting and reporting

103

104

the weather and 25 years of U.S. assurances that spacewould be developed for the benefit of a]], particularlydeveloping countries. It also must be seen in the con-text of 15 years of discussion regarding land remotesensing in which the United States has argued againstregulation of remote-sensing satellites and has prom-ised that remote-sensing data would continue to beavailable on an open, nondiscriminatory basis.

Interdependence

Durin g the past decade, the nations of the worldhave become increasingly interdependent. This has af-fected international negotiations and organizations bycreating linkages between issues which make it increas-ingly difficult to treat any issue in and of itself. Discus-sions on the distribution of satellite remote-sensingdata carry over into the debate over such issues asdirect broadcast satellites, the use of the geostationaryorb it, the Law of the Sea, negotiations in the Interna-tional Telecommunication Union regarding radiofre-quencies, and the regulation of transborder data flows.

This tendency is compounded by the fact that in thedeveloping countries, it is often the same individualwho negotiates a wide range of issues. Hence, on avery personal, as well as substantive, level, what issaid and done in one forum carries over into others.In understanding the broader ramifications of U. S.policy towards increased private sector involvementi n, space, one must consider not only remote sensing,but a broad range of other issues.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives

Delegates from some developing countries regardU.S. actions at the U.N. and in other internationalorganizations as increasingly insensitive to the needsof developing countries. They suggest that the UnitedStates has missed excellent opportunities to generategood will and strength in international organizations.

The UNISPACE ’82 conference, which was orga-nized in part to discuss the potential benefits of spacefor the developing countries, was the latest exampleof U. S. policy i n this area. The Department of Stateapproachcd the conference from the perspective of lim-iting the damage to U.S. policies. In that, they weresuccessful. However, developing countries view thec(lnf~~rc’net’ as d failure because i t did not result in dplan of action.

According to some conference participants, the UnitedStates left them with the image of a nation uncon-

cerned about the functioning of the U. N., pushingcommercialization without consultation with the in-ter-national community, and preparing to militarizespace. Although these perceptions are not shared byall countries, they may well influence developing coun-try activities in future international negotiations.

Although the issue of commercialization of satelliteremote sensing appears of little consequence comparedwith the major troubles facing the world today, thedevelopment of space policy now depends on militarypolicy, natural resources and economic development,and global environmental problems. In addition, asthe national papers contributed to UNISPACE ’82 il-lustrate, it is a highly visible arena upon which thedeveloping countries have placed a tremendousamount of national prestige. As such, space cannot beseen as an issue of little consequence, even though it,in and of itself, may not be of the highest nationalpriority.

Some developing countries view the commercializa-tion of space as a hostile action because it removes theU.S. Government one step from its responsibility forU.S. actions in outer space. This ultimately may placethe United States in a weakened position in the U.N.and other international forums.

Organizational Infrastructure

The ability of a country to adopt remote-sensingtechnology depends on its capacity to create appro-priate institutions for its use and management. Thisis particularly at issue in the developing world, wherespace-related organizations have only recent] y emergedas part of the governmenta] institutions. Althoughthere is no single best way to organize satellite remote-sensing programs, the successful adoption of the tech-nology coincides with the development of a strong in-stitutional infrastructure, including effective organiza -tion, equipment, and personnel.

Thailand’

The Royal Thai Survey Department, through the useof aerial photography, has benefited from remote-sens-ing technology for nearly 30 years, In 1971 , the RoyalThai Government became aware of the possibility y ofusing Landsat data to supplement its aerial survey dataand joined the NASA-sponsored ERTS-I * interna-tional investigators.

Since that time, the United States has contributedto three U.S. Agency for International Development

105— . — — . — — . — . — . —

the institutional commitment to remote sensing in NRCwill not help Thailand in its national planning.

In particular, the Royal Forestry Department, theOffice of Agricultural Statistics, the Soils Science Divi-sion of the Department of Agriculture, the Royal Ir-rigation Department, and the Land Development De-partment have all made commitments of equipmentand manpower to the use of satellite remote-sensingtechnology. For instance, within the Royal ForestryDepartment, Forest Mapping and Remote Sensing Sub-division, 20 people are directly involved with remotesensing ---10 using aerial photography and 10 usingsatellite data. The latter have received training in theUnited States, at ITC/ Netherlands, in Canada and atThai NRC training programs. The Forestry Depart-ment’s use of the data is limited by its equipment(which includes adequate visual interpretation equip-ment hut not computer analysis equipment) and bythe availability of satellite data, The Office of Agri-cultural Statistics has within i t a Remote Sensing and Service Branch that is working on an Area FrameSampling Program in which satellite data will play aminor role. Its commitment to Landsat data is less thanthat of the Forestry Department because it has foundthe data less useful. Within the’ Soils Science Iii\’isi[lnof the Department of Agriculture, three people are cur-rently working with satellite remote-sensing data. Inaddition, eight to ten masters theses have been writ-ten applying satellite remote sensing to soils survey inThailand.

The Thai Government user agencics, then, consti-tute the beginnings of an institutional infrastructureto support the use of satellite data. The use of thosedata is limited by the data themselves, slow data turn-around time, * and the lack of computer analysis equip-ment, as well as by organizational impediments,

These organizational impediments are the result, inpart, of the manner in which the Thai Governmenthas approached the organizational development of itsremote-sensing program. Creating a separate entitywithin an existing institution separated the technologyfrom institutions which have as their primary focusthe solving of resource and environmental problem.Instead, it was housed in a sevrice agency and thisgenerated problems in data availability and the ap-plication of satellite data by user agencies.

Figure A-1 .—Organization of the Thailand National Remote Sensing Program

< Land Development Depar tment

\ National Environmental BoardDepartment of Fishery

Department of Mineral Resources. Post and Telegraph Department

Board

N A S A \

General Service

and Fol low-upData Analys isTechnical and M a i n t e n a n c e

User Service

Computer Analys isAgriculture, Forestry and

Land Use \

Geology, Hydro logy,Oceanography and \

\

cool

\\\’Tra[ n Ing and Seminar

\ of Science, Technology and EnergyNat ional Research Counci l

1

Remote Sensing Division

Research Coordinationand Follow-up

Technical andMaintenance

GroundReceiving StationGeneral Service Data Analysis User Service

● To plan, follow-up● Responsible forgeneral adminis-trative servicesincluding budgetand financialmatters, clericalwork, procure-ment, inventory

affairs of theDivision

from both satellitephotos and aerialphotos by conduc-ting optical inter-pretation and fieldsurveys and toprocess data fromcomputer compati.ble tapes in

nary applications

To conduct,,groundtruth survey

To establish ad a t a b a n k

I Responsible forremote sensingtechnology development, equip-ment design andtesting, andmaintenance ofequipment ofthe Division

.

●

●

�

sat and otherremote sensingdata to users onrequestTo reproduceLandsat imageryand other relatedphotos fordisseminationTo provide imageanalysis equip-ments, e.g. zoomtransfer scope,four channelviewer and stereo-scope, etc. to user

with various agen-cies both withinthe country andabroad onresearch andsurvey for naturalresources byremote sensing -

. To prepare andtranslate articleson remote sensingfor dissemination

● To organize train-ing courses andseminars onremote sensing

with NASA for re-ception of Land-sat signals andcoordinate withother organi-zations perform-ing similarfunctions

To establish andoperate a groundreceiving station

To coordinatewith other groundreceiving stations

agencies

SOURCE U S Agency for International Development

Bangladesh

The Bangladesh

and was overseen by the Nationalresources, etc.,Landsat Committee of Bangladesh, an advisory group

Landsat Program (BLP) was createdin 1971, following Bangladesh’s War of Independence,

representing government user agencies, universities,and the Planning Commission. In addition, Bangladeshhas a Landsat Task Force, consisting of over 30 inves-tigators from user agencies, which works under theNational Landsat Committee.

BLP recently merged with the Space and Atmos-pheric Research Center of the Bangladesh AtomicEnergy Commission to form the Space Research and

within the Science and–Technology Division, CabinetSecretariat. BLP was created as a multiuser programcovering agriculture, forestry, land use, fisheries, water

‘ Space and Remote Sensing Activities in Bangladesh, ” SPARRSO, Bangla-desh, 1980 and ‘National Paper Bangladesh UNISPACE 82 Vienna, June

1981

107

Remote Sensing Organization (SPARRSO). This newentity is responsible for both research and operationsfor space science and remote-sensing technology inBangladesh. SPARRSO currently operates an Auto-matic Picture Transmission (APT) meteorologicalground station to receive signals from internationalweather satellites. With the aid of the United Statesand France, SPARRSO will soon be building a newground-receiving facility capable of receiving bothLandsat and SPOT data, as well as Advanced HighResolution Meteorological Satellite Data. Bangladeshhas recently completed a new applications laboratorythat contains visual and digital image-processingequipment, color and black-and-white photographicprocessing equipment, and photo-interpretation facili-ties. At the same time, the United States and SPARRSOhave trained a nucleus of over 25 resource specialistsin handling and interpreting satellite data. This train-ing will continue under the upcoming U.S. and Frenchprograms.

The Department of Meteorology in Bangladesh isthe government’s weather forecasting agency. It inte-grates data accumulated by conventional methods withsatellite data collected by SPARRSO. Most of the useragencies in Bangladesh use satellite data collected anddisseminated by SPARRSO. In this way, SPARRSOhas been and will continue to be a service organiza-tion for the rest of the government’s user agencies.SPARRSO has attempted to avoid becoming isolatedfrom the user agencies by bringing personnel fromthose agencies to work within SPARRSO. This ap-proach seems to have been fairly successful in spread-ing the use of remote-sensing technology throughoutBangladesh. Bangladesh has developed a solid institu-tional commitment to the use of satellite data.

Kenya and Peru’

While both Bangladesh and Thailand have creatednew entities overseen by national coordinating com-mittees to develop remote-sensing capabilities, they donot represent the only form of institutional develop-ment in the developing world. Both Kenya and Perupresent examples of an alternative way of developingremote-sensing capabilities.

Kenya’s initial interest in satellite remote sensingcame from the Ministry of Natural Resources, whichformed a national steering committee composed of rep-

resentatives from agencies throughout the KenyanGovernment. Until recently, however, no central focusfor remote-sensing activities developed in Kenya, asprimary responsibility for the new technology shiftedfrom the Survey of Kenya to the Central Bureau ofStatistics to the National Environment Secretariat tothe Kenyan Rangeland and Ecological Monitoring Unit(KREMU). Outside funding of specific projects withineach of these agencies caused these shifts of emphasis.

Today, KREMU functions as the national remote-sensing agency within Kenya. With a World Bankloan, KREMU is installing a digital processing system.This is a key step in Kenya’s ability to use remote-sens-ing data, since up to this point Kenya has relied sole-ly on visual analysis. This also marks a further, andsubstantial, commitment by Kenya to the continueduse of satellite data. Kenya is studying the potentialfor establishing a regional remote-sensing center andground facility in Nairobi. Intergovernmental coordi-nation is the responsibility of the Committee on theApplication of Satellite and Space Technology(COASST).

Kenya is also the host country for AID’s RegionalRemote Sensing Facility in Nairobi. This facility, serv-ing the whole of East Africa, has benefited from theactive participation of the Kenyan Government, whichhas cosponsored several training courses and symposiaand helped to set up the center.

In addition to its work in land remote sensing,Kenya is actively using meteorological data fromsatellites. The Kenyan Meteorological Department re-ceives APT images from the NOAA-6 polar-orbitingsatellite, which it uses in determining cloud formation,type, location, and general cloud movement. The De-partment uses these data to map and monitor tropicalcycles and to forecast hurricanes. Kenya hopes to im-prove its meteorological forecasting from satellite data,and plans to train more technicians in the near future.

Kenya is just beginning to develop an organizationalcontext for incorporating remote-sensing technologyinto national planning. It is also securing the necessaryequipment and personnel, a fundamental link in usingremote-sensing data. Kenya has also shown a strongcommitment to the use of remote-sensing technologythrough its participation in the African Remote Sens-ing Council and the AID regional training facility inNairobi. More than 200 Kenyans have received train-ing in satellite remote sensing and photo-interpretationtechniques since the mid 1970’s.

Kenya has taken a different approach to the devel-opment of remote-sensing capability than have eitherThailand or Bangladesh. KREMU is not a space-ori-ented agency, but much more a user of satellite dataand a provider of resource surveys to other Kenyan

108— .

agencies. This type of organizational structure ties theuse of satellite data more directly to actual resourceand environmental problems, but it may make it moredifficult to establish a focal point for remote-sensingactivities. Nonetheless, Kenya’s commitment to the fu-ture use of satellite remote-sensing data and the nec-essary manpower, equipment, and organizational in-frastructure is strong.

Peru, like Kenya, has placed responsibility for satel-lite remote sensing in a well-respected agency that willbe a user of Landsat data and provide resource infor-mation to other Peruvian agencies. Like Kenya, Peruhas chosen not to house its remote-sensing programin a special remote-sensing agency or a space agency,choosing instead to make it a part of an existing agen-cy which sees the use of remote-sensing data as anothertool for carrying out its mandated tasks.

Peru is now working with AID on a program tostrengthen its infrastructure through institutionaldevelopment, equipment purchases, and personneltraining.

Other Programs

Several other developing countries have begun theinstitutional development necessary for the effectiveuse of satellite remote-sensing data.

Egypt established the Egyptian Remote Sensing Cen-ter in 1971.5 This center has become a focal point forremote-sensing expertise in the Middle East and NorthAfrica. It employs more than 65 qualified/trained per-sonnel and engages in cooperative work with manyremote-sensing institutions worldwide. This center car-ries out its own research and is also supposed to coor-dinate remote-sensing activities within Egypt.

India has developed a strong national space pro-gram, with a large remote-sensing component .6 Build-ing on a strong organizational base and training pro-gram, India has established a full ground-receiving sta-tion and has plans to launch its own remote-sensingsatellite in the near future. India’s National RemoteSensing Agency is fully equipped with the latest inphotographic and processing equipment. At least 65of its employees were trained abroad in the UnitedStates and other industrialized countries.

In sum, then, whether the institutional commitmentmade by a developing country takes the form of a new-ly created remote-sensing/space organization or a new-ly created entity within an existing resource surveyagency, it requires substantial commitment to develop-ing institutional infrastructure.——.

Rt,rnott \<,n\lng (Jt N<lturdl I{t.[,ur(et in Ikvtl{)plng ( (~untrlt,s I he I R\Ip

t Id n F kfx,rlt,nc e [ ‘NIsI’AL [ 82 l’lenna klan h IQ81‘ Nat t{~n.~1 I’~pt,r indl.i [ lx]\f’,.\( E 82 L’lennd \fcl\ I Q 8 1

The Use of Satellite Technologyin Solving Environmental andResource Problems

A great deal has been written about the applicationof satellite remote-sensing technology to the solutionof environmental and resource problems of the devel-oping world. Using examples from Thailand and CostaRica, this section attempts to distinguish betweenpotential and actual uses of satellite remote-sensingdata.

Thailand 7

Thailand has made numerous attempts to apply re-mote-sensing technology to the mapping and manage-ment of its natural resource areas. Some of these at-tempts have been remarkably successful and have ledto operational use of the technology. Others providegood examples of innovative and adaptive use thatmay prove to be of significant value in the future. Stillothers have been complete failures.● Forestry. --- The deforestation problem in Thailand

is severe. Each year an average of 4,650 squarekilometers (km’) of forest land is cut while only 800km 2 are reforested, resulting in a net loss of 3,800km 2 of forested land each year. At this rate of de-forestation, Thailand would deplete its forests com-pletely in the first quarter of the 21st century.

The first indication of the extent of the deforesta-tion problem came from a resource inventory donein 197’3— the first year Landsat data were used toaid the Forestry Department. The results of the firstfull study utilizing Landsat data led to a more vigor-ous reforestation policy. The outcome of this policy

which indicates an increaseis shown in figure A-2,in the number of forest plantations throughout Thai-land.

Using Landsat data, the Forest Mapping and Re-mote Sensing Division of the Royal Thai ForestryDepartment has been able to map and summarizethe status of forest lands nationwide every 3 yearssince 1973. Because of the high cost of aerial photog-raphy, this task would be impossible to accomplishwithout satellite data.

In August of 1981, the Prime Minister’s Office re-quested a report on the status of forest lands anddeforestation throughout Thailand. The ForestryDepartment prepared this report using Landsat data.Since that time the Prime Minister has requiredreports every 3 months on the state of the forestsin different parts of Thailand. The staff of the Prime

——. - ——-~!(]~( ,IL ( r,il[ fll{twn ,in~l }j’]ll,ird {1[) < rt ]un[, IQ83

.—— .—

109

Figure A-2.— Relative Number of Forest Plantations in Thailand

First Landsat satelllte map showtng extento f d e f o r e s t a t i o n n a t i o n w i d e ( 1 9 7 7 ) ~

iFirst Landsat data Indicating widespread

extent of deforestation problem (1973)

Remote Sensing Program started in Thailand (1972)

1

1970 80Time in years

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

110. — .

Minister then works with the Ministry of Agricul-ture and Cooperatives on agricultural developmentprojects designed to settle farmers in already defor-ested areas rather than having those farmers moveonto still-forested land.

Without Landsat data, Thailand would be unableto maintain an ongoing and up-to-date inventoryof its forested lands and the level of deforestation.In fact, without the use of Landsat it is possible thatthe magnitude of the deforestation problem wouldnot have come to the attention of decisionmakersin Thailand at all. This is one of the most dramaticexamples of the successful use of Landsat dataanywhere in the world.Environmental Impact .—Thailand has been less suc-cessful in using remote sensing to monitor the en-vironmental impact of tin mining and offshoredredging near Phuket in southwestern Thailand. In1980, the National Environmental Board started aprogram to monitor sedimentation, water pollution,and destruction of coral reefs in this area. The En-vironmental Remote Sensing Section has conductedextensive field-sampling surveys here, many timedto correspond with Landsat satellite passes over thisarea. They have also ordered satellite data over thePhuket region from September 1982 until the pres-ent. Unfortunately, although it is likely that the re-quired information could be extracted from Land-sat data, this project as been unsuccessful becausethe data have not been available from the Thaiground station or from the United States becauseof problems in the satellite sensor and tape recorders(of Landsat 3).

Landsat data have been useful in evaluating theextent of soil erosion problems. One project, com-pleted in 1982, identified several areas of severe ero-sion near the Pitsanuloke-Lomask Highway and inthe Phumipol Dam Region. Some of these areashave lost upwards of 20 cm of topsoil on steepslopes. This study led to a bill, introduced in theThai Parliament, to prohibit agriculture on steepslopes.Crop Forecasting.—Thai use of the Landsat systemfor agricultural crop production forecasting has notbeen nearly as useful as had been expected. Membersof the Office of Agricultural Economics who haveapplied remote-sensing techniques to agriculturalcrop production forecasting believe that the tech-nology is far from operational and that it is still inthe research stage in Thailand. Impediments to usingLandsat for crop yield forecasting in Thailandinclude:—Small field size.—The practices of interspersing

different crops on adjoining fields and planting

adjoining fields with the same crops at differenttimes makes it very difficult to use satellite datafrom the multispectral scanner (80-meter resolu-tion).

—Cloud cover .—The presence of cloud cover dur-ing the growing season prevents substantial useof Landsat data.

–-Lack of timely delivery.—In order to evaluate thestate of the crops and take necessary remedial ac-tion, remote-sensing data need to be deliveredwithin a few days.Still another difficulty with crop production fore-

casting is the lack of good yield models for cropsin Thailand. It is necessary to predict both crop areaand yield per acre.

The failure to apply Landsat data effectively toagricultural crop production forecasting has been amajor disappointment. Remote-sensing programs inmany developing countries were justified on the ex-pectation that they would improve agriculturalforecasts. The fact that the enthusiasm for satelliteremote sensing remains strong in developing coun-tries despite the failure of Landsat with respect toagriculture, shows the strength of commitment ofthe developing world to the use of satellite data.

Costa Rica8

Costa Rica, like many developing countries, facessevere environmental and resource problems. It hasexperienced both rapid deforestation, as forest land iscleared to accommodate agricultural and grazing, andrapid urbanization, which destroys prime farmland.

Costa Rica is following a trend which is character-istic of all of Latin America. In 1978, Latin Americawas believed to possess 25 percent of the developingworld’s forest land area. If current trends continue, thisforest area (around 550 million hectares) will be re-duced by 40 percent. Most of the remaining forest willbe found only in inaccessible areas. In Costa Ricaalone, an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 hectares per yearof forest land is destroyed, compared with a reforesta-tion rate of only 1,000 hectares per year.

Although the Costa Rican Government was awareof these problems, it had not grasped their extent, Infact, during the 1960’s and 1970’s the Costa Rican Gov-ernment did little to survey its resources. By the late1970’s Costa Rica realized that it needed a nationwidesurvey to define its current resource base and the rate

“’The Utility, Cost and Effectiveness of Remote Sens]ng for Forest and Ur-ban Sector Assessment in Costa Rica” (Los Altos, Calif : Resources Develop-ment Associates, March 1978); and “Design of a Natural Resources Inven-tory and Information System for Costa Rica: The Pilot Project Report” (LosAltos, Calif. Resources Development Associates, June 1979),

777

of change of land use (either agricultural to urban orforested to grazing and agricultural) in the country.

In 1977, Costa Rica began an AID demonstrationand pilot project to determine the feasibility of usingLandsat to aid in a natural resources inventory forCosta Rica. The project was successful in confirmingthe magnitude of the resource and environmentalproblems facing Costa Rica—it created a clear pictureof the rapid deforestation and rapid urbanization tak-ing place in various “project areas” in the country. Thestudy also showed the feasibility of integrating Land-sat data into a national resources survey effort. InCosta Rica, even though Landsat data were used toillustrate the magnitude of a particular resource prob-lem, and were shown to be a useful tool in monitor-ing that problem, the government did not follow upby undertaking a national survey.

Although Costa Rica has continued to use remote-sensing data, it has not adopted remote-sensing tech-nology on the scale recommended by the studies. Twofactors have brought this about: 1) there is no centralinstitution in Costa Rica charged with remote-sensingresponsibilities; and 2) in spite of the fact that eachAID project had a strong training component, fewtrained personnel have afterward been able to devotetheir time to remote sensing. As the example of otherdeveloping countries has shown, the creation of a na-tional advisory committee and the designation of alead agency are clearly critical to the effective use ofsatellite data, even when the data are shown to behighly useful for monitoring serious environmentaland resource problems.

Weather Satellites inDeveloping Countries

The flow of data from the weather satellites, ratherthan requiring the development of new institutions hasbeen incorporated into the programs of existing weath-er agencies. The World Meteorological Organization(WMO) helped to provide the necessary receiving sta-tions. Data have always been available at no cost.

Weather satellite data have been used for a multi-tude of routine tasks, from disaster and storm warn-ings to crop forecasting. Over $100 million has beeninvested worldwide in direct readout equipment andmanpower, space processing, and dissemination equip-ment. At present, over 1,000 APT ground stationshave been established in over 125 countries worldwide,including an extensive number in developing countries.Forty-four stations located in twenty-nine countriesreceive HRPT data.

These numbers are increasing all the time. The well-established weather-satellite user community in devel-

oping countries stands in marked contrast to the lim-ited user community for land remote-sensing data. Infact, the “market” for Landsat data in developing coun-tries is still in its developmental stages, primarilybecause the resource information programs of develop-ing countries are only beginning to prove their worth.

Potential Effects of Commercialization

The transfer of all or part of U.S. space remote-sens-ing systems to the private sector would certainly af-fect the use of satellite data by the developing coun-tries. The extent of its effects and how they are playedout in political and scientific relationships will dependon several key factors: 1 ) the remote-sensing user com-munity and the foreign policy community in the devel-oping countries are separate, independent, entities; 2)regardless of U.S. policy in this area, France, Japan,and the European Space Agency are planning commer-cial remote-sensing ventures; 3) the market for remote-sensing data from space is in its early stages. Whilesome users are clearly ready to integrate these data intotheir standard operations, others are still in the proc-ess of exploring the usefulness of remote-sensing data;4) in the arena of foreign policy, the perceptions ofThird World political leaders regarding transfer maybe more important in determining their actions thanthe actual outcomes of commercialization on data usersin developing countries.

The effects of transfer to private sector can be dis-cussed in terms of five variables:

Data Type and Continuity

Development of a commercially operated Landsatsystem implies that all data would be available on acontinuous and timely basis. If this were not the case,any commercial effort would fail. In fact, one couldsurmise that Landsat data would become available ina way which would compare to the current availabilityof metsat data. In isolation, such a development wouldclearly encourage the use of satellite data in the devel-oping world.

One of the major complaints developing countrieshave made since the outset of the Landsat programhas been that uncertainty over the future of Landsathas made it nearly impossible to develop the capacitysuccessfully to incorporate remote-sensing data intonational development planning. At the same time, thedifficulty of receiving Landsat data promptly after asatellite pass has made it difficult to rely on such data.To the extent that ultimate commercialization of theLandsat system would mean the timely and continuousavailability of data, it would greatly enhance the de-veloping countries’ use of satellite data.

112

In addition, it is likely that a private operator wouldalso “tailor” its satellite sensors to its primary marketareas. While the Government might well continue toperform R&D for advanced satellite sensors, the pri-vate sector would have to develop its own sensors incontinuous interaction with the market. For instance,in the tropical areas of the developing world, a satellitesensor capable of penetrating cloud cover would great-ly enhance the commercial value of remote-sensingdata. * To the extent, then, that a private sector ownerand operator would match satellite sensors to the needsof the market, commercialization would have a posi-tive impact on the use of satellite data by developingcountries.

Pricing

If the Landsat system is transferred to private hands,the price of data may well increase. Such a price in-crease, however, might have an adverse effect on theuse of data and the further development of institutionalinfrastructure in developing countries.

This is not to say, however, that a price increasewould eliminate the use of satellite data in developingcountries. If the data were available promptly and con-tinuously, then it is likely that developing countrieswould continue to use remote-sensing data to replaceother, more expensive, means of obtaining resourceinformation. Higher prices for satellite data would notnecessarily discourage serious users of the data. Theyare more likely to discourage those users who are inthe early stages of adopting remote-sensing technolo-gy, which would inhibit the growth of the market.

U.S. technical assistance programs have, for the past15 years, helped developing countries adopt remote-sensing technology. If the U.S. Government wishedto continue its technical assistance programs forsatellite remote sensing, and thereby decrease the neg-ative effects of a price increase, it could subsidize thecost of commercial remote-sensing data in its develop-ment projects.

In addition, a private company might well providesome incentives to developing countries to encouragethem to use remote-sensing data. Many computer com-panies donate computers to developing country institu-tions to promote their products. There is no reasonto think that the private sector would not operate ina like manner to develop a remote-sensing market.

Copyright and Data Protection Laws

Another key set of issues tied up with the transferof remote-sensing data are those of copyright, proprie-——

‘Recently the F!etherlands and Indonesia have explored the possibility ofbu]ldmg a satell]te system speclf]cally designed for use over tropical regions,

tary data rights and data protection laws. Commer-cial interests generally want private ownership of data,thereby making the data a scarce resource for whichthe customer would pay more. As such, a commer-cial venture is likely to require data protectionguarantees or proprietary rights to data. This is in linewith traditional notions of private ownership, but goesagainst public notions of open access to information.

This is a key point in the entire commercializationdiscussion. It is clear that if a private firm, and par-ticularly a multinational firm, were allowed proprie-tary rights to data acquired by satellite, many coun-tries of the world—including the developing coun-tries—would react negatively.

Government Technology Transfer andTechnical Assistance Programs

In order to achieve success in commercializing

remote-sensing technology, the U.S. Government willhave to stop competing with the private sector in of-fering value-added services. Although they have beeninstrumental in spreading understanding and use ofremote-sensing technology throughout the world, tech-nical assistance and technology transfer programs maycompete with the private sector.

Ever since the opening of the international debateover the future of remote sensing the United States hasoffered technical assistance to the developing world.This has helped to mitigate international concern overthe U.S. policy of open dissemination of satellite data.If the United States were to stop providing technicalassistance completely, the international debate overdata dissemination might become more heated.

The U.S. technical assistance programs are largelyresponsible for the development of the internationaluser community. To the extent that any market forremote-sensing data exists internationally, it existsbecause of U.S. aid. Discontinuing this aid would slowthe further spread of land remote-sensing technology.

In attempting to provide technical assistance to de-veloping countries U.S. policymakers will have to con-sider carefully the effects of their policies on the U.S.private sector. It may not be appropriate to discon-tinue technical assistance programs, but if the transferis to be successful the Government will likely have toimplement them at the market price for data and value--added services. As part of their marketing strategies,private sector operators might find it in their interestto assist developing countries in the use of the tech-nology. Hence, transferring land remote sensing toprivate ownership would not necessarily mean an endto technical assistance, sponsored either by govern-ment or by the private sector.

113— . — — — —

U.S. Regulation its own territory. Other regulations might involve pric-

Several forms of regulation might be used to ensure ing regulations, guarantees of technical assistance anddata continuity, etc. These types of regulations wouldthat a commercial entity would conform to U.S. for-have a positive influence on the use of satellite data

eign policy objectives. These include such things as a by developing countries—however, they might dis-guarantee of open access to data, much as they areavailable now from the EROS Data Center, or assur-

courage private sector commercialization efforts.

ing a particular country access to data collected over

Appendix B

The Use of Landsat Data inState Information Systems— ——

Computers have revolutionized the way States man-age statistical, demographic, and natural resourcedata. Because they are acquired in digital form, datafrom the Landsat system have been particularly ap-propriate for inclusion in broad-based information sys-tems. Early research efforts were directed primarily toproducing land cover maps from Landsat digital data.These land cover maps were generally used as the sin-gle source for resource management analysis.

Geographic Information Systemsin State Government

The Landsat system has the promise of providingup-to-date, low-priced, land cover data. In the IWO’S,many States and universities, with assistance from theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), began to purchase specialized hardware thatcould support NASA’s software for Landsat data proc-essing.

With the publishing of Ian McHarg’s book DesignWith Nature, I State and local governments began ap-plying multiple data sources and multiple disciplinaryapproaches to resource analysis. McHarg advocatedthe use of hand-drawn overlays depicting a particularelement (as defined by a particular specialist) affectingthe suitability of area for a particular use. This overlaysystem, McHarg recognized, would eventually be com-puter-assisted. Shortly after, Carl Steinitz and his as-sociates (Harvard Graduate School of Design) beganto develop an automated “geographic information sys-tem” (GIS) to manipulate data geographically refer-enced to a position on the Earth’s surface. Steinitz andhis associates developed the first widely acceptedgeographic information systems software —IMGRID.Data elements used in IMGRID software are the dataequivalent of the picture element of Landsat data(pixel): * attributes could be assigned to grid positions(X, Y coordinates) or cells, with each cell representingspecific areas of the surface. Because both Landsatprocessing systems and IMGRID use computerized dig-ital storage and manipulation techniques, it is possi-ble to link the two systems by computer to performrapid analysis.

‘Ian McHarg, De.wgn J\’Ith Nature (Garden City, N.Y Natural HistoryPressr 1969)

“ Each pixel covers an area on the ground of about 1,2 acres

In particular, it is possible to present to the user mul-tiple solutions to a resource management questionbased on values specified by the user. GIS technologyblossomed in the late 1970’s; these GIS software pack-ages were made available to the States at little or nocost .

Several small companies started up which used thesame technology, but modified the software to suitparticular markets—primarily energy development. Afew private firms added Landsat data-processing soft-ware to their systems, but most relied on users to ob-tain their own Landsat data. The applicability of Land-sat data to resource management is now clear: manyStates accepted the startup expense associated withprocessing Landsat data because they were to obtainfinal products that could assist in managing their lim-ited resources.

Currently, about 19 States have developed geo-graphic information systems (table B-l). Not all ofthese systems have direct Landsat data-processing ca-pability, but most do utilize Landsat data in someform. These geographic information systems are, forthe most part, less than 3 years old; they were devel-oped in response to pressures for increased efficiencyand the recognized need to develop an information net-work among State agencies. Texas and Minnesotahave systems which have been in existence for morethan 10 years.

State agencies have approached the development ofState systems in two ways. The first, and less suc-cessful, scheme has been to spend millions of dollarson hardware, software, and staff. The aim was to es-tablish a very large, technically sophisticated systemto serve all users for digital data, satellite data proc-

Table B-1 .—State Landsat Data Users WithGeographic Information Systems

Alabama MontanaAlaska NebraskaArizona New JerseyFlorida North Carolinalowa New MexicoKentucky OhioLouisiana South CarolinaMaryland TexasMinnesota VirginiaMississippiSOURCE This listing IS not comprehensive and does not Include reference to

the several universities which support State systems

114

115— . . . . — —— ——

essing, resource management, and analysis. Becausethey are costly and unwieldly, these systems producedboth users and strong opponents within State govern-ments; about half have fallen into disuse and current-ly are not operational or are severely underutilized.

The second approach has been one of a very meas-ured growth, with systems acquisition and staff de-velopment based totally on user demand for projectswhich could utilize Landsat and GIS technologies. Thesystems that have evolved from the second approach,while smaller and much less sophisticated, are the moststable and are beginning to grow larger as demand forthem increases.

Landsat Data and the DecisionmakingProcess in Mississippi

The Mississippi Automated Resource InformationSystem (MARIS) was created by Executive Order 459,signed by Gov. William F. Winter in May 1983. Mis-sissippi had joined with other States in developing abroadl y based system for acquiring, storing, analyz-ing, and disseminating cultural and natural resourcedata.

Much earlier, in 1970, a group of 10 State agencieshad met with NASA officials from the Earth ResourcesLaboratory located at Bay St. Louis, Miss., to obtainNASA’s help in developing statewide land-use mapsbased on aerial photography. Participants at thatmeeting agreed that the State would provide interpre-tation of aerial photography, and that NASA wouldprovide the aircraft from which the aerial photographywould be obtained.

NASA supplied 1:120,000 color infrared photoswhich the Mississippi Research and DevelopmentCenter enlarged to 1:24,000 and printed in black andwhite. U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle sheets wereused as geographic reference control. These photoswere manually interpreted by the R&D center and par-ticipating agencies’ staff using the Anderson Classifica-tion System employing 51 categories of land use. Thetraining and quality control were provided by theR&D center and a Lockheed consultant.

The project produced 1,440 manually interpretedphotos (one per township). These became the statewideland-use base map. The mapping project, which wasnot completed until 1975, ultimately required a com-bined effort of the 10 sub-State planning and develop-ment districts, the University of Southern Mississip-pi, NASA, and the Mississippi Research and Develop-ment Center.

This photographic data base was completed duringthe peak of the U.S. Department of Housing and Ur-ban Development’s (HUD) 701 Planning Program, a

program that required each of the State’s 10 sub-Stateplanning districts to produce future county land-usemaps for their multi-county areas. To assist those dis-tricts in developing future land-use plans, HUD sug-gested that each sub-State planning and developmentdistrict, using the State mapping project’s aerialphotography as a base, prepare overlays depictingselected factors that would affect future land-usedevelopment. The overlays included 100-year floodplains, prime agricultural lands, dilapidated housing,water and sewer districts, areas of ecological concern,and noise hazards.

The actual use of these hand-drawn overlays metwith marginal success. At that same time, the tradi-tional approaches to land-use planning were comingunder heavy attack because of the top-down planningphilosophy encouraged by the HUD programs. TheHUD 701 program had failed to educate decision-makers in dealing with problems associated withmanaging the growth they began to face in the late1960’s and early 1970’s. When Federal funding of plan-ning activities faded, it appeared that in Mississippiland-use planning would cease to exist. However, theproblems associated with growth continued to mount,and the need for land-use planning or, as it began tobe called, “resource management, ” became obviouseven to the most skeptical. If State or local officialswere going to make resource allocation decisions, theyneeded understandable and accurate information onwhich to base those decisions.

Major advances in the acquisition and manipulationof land-use related information were made during theearly 1970’s, Landsat 1 introduced a new and excitingdata source. Computerized data management systems,geographic information systems, and Landsat satellitedigital data all became readily available to plannersand resource managers. The problem no longer wasthe acquisition and manipulation of data, but how tointroduce the user to the land-use management proc-ess. The problem now was to generate a “defensibleprocess” for regional planning or resource manage-ment.2

At this stage, recognizing the advances in data ac-quisition and management, many States invested hun-dreds of thousands and even millions of dollars insophisticated computer equipment which gave themthe capability to process these new digital data.Mississippi, however, did not have the capital avail-able to purchase one of these sophisticated data man-agement systems, and, therefore, had simply to ob-serve the progress of other States. Many of these sys-

‘Carl Ste{nftz, L)e[enslble Processes tor Regl(>nal Landscape Des)gn Har-vard Graduate School O( Des]gn Latls vol 1, NIO, 1, W’ashlngton D C , 1Q79

116

terns proved to be as much of a disaster as the old HUD701 Land Use Planning Program. It appeared that thepotential users would not accept and could not dealwith sophisticated methods for managing data ex-hibited in these systems. A few systems failed and wereclosed down completely, and others were underuti-lized. The ingredient lacking in most States whose sys-tems had fallen into misuse was a strong user com-munity properly educated in the use and applicationof these new technologies,

To develop a geographically referenced informationsystem for Mississippi, the system had to be cheap,and it had to produce products that were immediate-ly usable by State agencies in fulfilling their mandatedresponsibility. In the tradition of Mississippi govern-ment, the organization would have to be voluntary.Membership would be only those agencies which couldbe convinced that they directly benefited from mem-bership. Because legislators of the State of Mississippisit on the boards of all major State agencies, the legis-lators must be convinced directly that new systems arebeneficial. Representative Wes McIngvale, of Bates-ville, Miss., was the original advocate of automatedsystems technologies and information-sharing net-works in Mississippi. He wished to see the State cen-tral data-processing computer network heavily usedby State agencies.

The first organizational meeting involved only direc-tors representing the four agencies that would mostobviously benefit from a new information network. *These agencies also had been exposed to satellite andgeographic information systems through past projects.The Mississippi Department of Energy and Transpor-tation agreed to provide staff support and to houseany specialized hardware. This group, with assistancefrom the R&D center staff, prepared a “policy struc-ture” for the system. The term “policy structure” waspainstakingly selected to describe an organizationwhich assisted in policy decisions, but did not makepolicy decisions. A primary mandate was that thisorganization would not become a new agency or levelof bureaucracy. Its purpose would be to reduce thecost of agency operations and assist all members intheir legislated functions. It would also serve to educateand inform member agencies about automation. Usersof the system would have the ability to play “what if”games based on the iterative capabilities of the com-puter system and multiple data sources. Two new tech-nologies were to be introduced by the Mississippi Au-tomated Resource Information System (MARIS)—geo-graphic information systems and Landsat satellite data.

‘ Mlsslsslppi Department of Natural Resources, ME.sIssIppl Department ofEnergy and Transportation, M1s51ss1pp1 Research and Development Center,and MIss]ssIppJ Department ot Economic Development.

Using these criteria, a consortium of 19 State agen-cies was formed. It is directed by a policy committeemade up of the agency directors from each of the 19.The MARIS central staff oversees the operation of thespecialized computer system which serves MARISmember agencies. This computer is a stand-alone sys-tem with software that allows for interpretation ofmultispectral scanning (MSS) and thematic mapper(TM) satellite data. The software also includes ageographic information system.

MSS and TM data provide a quick and reliablesource of historic and current land cover data. Whenproperly geographically referenced, these data can becompared with other data concerning topography,flood hazards, or census. This ability to combine dataand compare and analyze their interactions is of greatvalue.

Two major functional divisions make up the MARISorganizations: the MARIS catalog and the MARISanalytical effort. The MARIS catalog is an interactivecomputerized catalog of natural resource and culturaldata. The catalog allows a user with the proper I.D.to query the State central data-processing records andascertain the locations of reports and data stored ineach member agency’s files. The catalog can besearched by agency, publication title, or key word.Presently only a description of the document storedwithin each member agency files is available. How-ever, more detailed information and actual data fromthe documents will be added next. MARIS can alsobe called on to aid in analyzing the data available.

User satisfaction is the key to the MARIS operation.MARIS is not funded directly in the State’s budget.It depends on voluntary participation and supportfrom its member agencies. If MARIS loses the supportof its users, MARIS loses its funding. By supplying useragencies with data needs, MARIS has begun to buildan impressive data base for Mississippi. The originalaerial photography and overlays mentioned earlierhave now been digitized and added to the State’s geo-graphic information system. New elements include theState’s transportation network as classified by theHighway Department’s standard classifications, ma-jor and minor watersheds as defined by the Soil Con-servation Service, Federal and State park lands andpreserved areas, water and sewer districts, 412 soiltypes, major population centers, and various inter-pretive maps based on these elements. Statewide mod-els of preservation, conservation, and developmentsuitability have been developed. Each model depictsthe areas least suitable and most suitable for a specifieduse. The maps are not future land-use plans. They arepresentations of levels of suitability for a particularuse, and will serve as a policy tool for those agencies

177—

in State government that deal in development of theState’s resourccs.

The Mississippi Automated Resource InformationSystem is unique among Southern States. It uses astate-of-the-art computer system and an active politicalsystern which provides support and guidance. The fu-ture of the system will depend on its ability to pro-fduce products usable to the consortium members.Cost, the aspect of MARIS most vulnerable to transferof the Landsat system, is a major concern to memberagencies. The MARIS central staff and the specializedcomputer system which they manage represent a ma-jor investment by the State Miississippi,

Projects in Mississippi UsingLandsat Data

Nuclear Waste Storage Disposal Studies

A ste in Perry County, Miss., has been selected asone of the prime sites for potential development of anuclear waste storage disposal site. The unique saltdome geology of the area possesses many attributeswhich appear desirable for such a facility. Mississippihas acquired Landsat data of the area surrounding thepotential site and will classify these data to produceland cover maps of the area. Landsat data were foundto be suitable in this Study because the study area waspredominantly rural in character, and high-qua lit}’I.andsat data were readily available. The land covermaps will be merged with other elements stored in thestate's geographic information system to assess the im-pact of the development of the facility and to assistin developing a management plan for the area. Otherperipheral studies will include transportation accessstudies concentrating on nuclear waste transportationsafety .

Delta Ground Water Studies

Although the Mississippi Delta has traditionallybeen the land of cotton, two new crops rice and cat-fish –-have made substantial gains in recent years. Ricearea has increased to over 300,000 acres, and catfishfarming is currently estimated to consume 60,000 acresof delta and. Because these new industries are heavywater users, ground water depletion is now a prob-lem in the delta, The Mississippi Department of Nat-ural Resource\ and several Federal agencies were askedto investigate ground water use and to assess futurealternatives to manage the water resources of this mostcritical area.

With the assistance of NASA’s Earth Resources Lab-oratory and a private consultant, Mississippi acquiredand classified four 1981 scenes (two dates -- ]uly and

September) of Landsat data of the Mississippi Delta.The product was a map of rice and catfish operations.These data were then merged into the State geographicinformnation system. The spatial allocation of theseoperations affects ground water quantity availablc forirrigation. The allocation is also dependent on soilcharacteristics; clay soils make better field and pondbottoms than do more porous soils. The occurrcnceof existing rice and catfish operations can be expectedto be consistent with the’ occurrence of clay soils anddepletion of ground water.

Statewide Land Cover Update

The State has acquired Landsat satellite data cov-erage for the entire State, which will be used to pro-duce a statewide land cover element in the existing geo-graphic information system. This will be the first state-wide land cover classification since 1 1975, when aerialphotography was used.

Land cover information acquired from the Landsatsatel lite has many advantages over traditionallly ac-quired data when merged with at statewide geographicinformation system. They are consistent in format andresolution, are digital, and are therefore machine-proc-essable; the same classification methodologies can beapplied to all elements of the complete data set.

The level of detail acquired from Landsat data can-not match that of aerial photography. Therefore, theLandsat data will be grouped into approximately 12to 15 classes instead of the 51 classes used in thephotographic survey. However, the cost of the 1975photo project was approximately $450,000. The costof the Landsat project will be less than $75,000, whichwill be allocated over several projects, The 1983 costof repeating the original photographic project wouldbe over SI million

118

The Pacific Northwest Project:A Regional Resource InventoryDemonstration

In 1975, the Pacific Northwest Regional Commis-sion, with support from NASA and the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey, initiated the Land Resources Inventoryproject for the application of Landsat data to resourceproblems on a regional basis. The project helped in-troduce new land-monitoring techniques and was amajor Commission activity until its termination in1980.

The primary objective of the Pacific Northwest proj-ect was to provide to a wide variety of natural resourceplanning and management agencies in Idaho, Oregon,and Washington, an opportunity to extract, apply, andevaluate information derived from Landsat multispec-tral data and other collateral sources. The results ofthe project were assessed by the users according todemonstrated utility and cost; these results formed aninput to future monitoring and planning.

The use of Landsat data for public purposes is mosteffective when user needs in a given region are aggre-gated and the data can be applied to solving a varietyof problems. The Pacific Northwest depends on its for-ests and irrigated crop lands as well as expanding ur-ban areas around Puget Sound and inland; collective-ly, these present a range of informational mapping andmonitoring needs. The project focused on the contribu-tion to be made by satellite multispectral data modeledto the peculiarities of the region’s vegetation, soils, andterrain.

The Pacific Northwest encompasses two major andcontrasting ecoregions. Each is typified by a combina-tion of climate, soils, and topography radically dif-ferent from the other. They are sharply separated bythe crest of the Cascades. The western or coastal por-tion of Washington and Oregon is classified as theHumid Temperate Domain. It contains the Pacific For-est and the Columbia Forest provinces. To the east andsouth lies the Dry Domain, an area of net water defi-ciency. This section is further subdivided into thePalouse Grassland, the Intermountain Sagebrush, andthe Rocky Mountain Forest provinces.

The areas covered are extensive; for example, thePalouse Grassland covers 12,400 square miles and isan important wheat producer. The Willamette-PugetForest covers 13,000 square miles and is a major sup-plier of forest products.

Under the aegis of the Pacific Northwest Commis-sion, some 50 State agencies studied the economics ofusing Landsat data in a variety of applications. Theyundertook projects covering the major concerns overforest inventory, wildlife habitat, land cover, irrigated

land inventory, urban areas, toxic weed occurrence,rangeland resources, reservoir volume, and surfacemining.

A report prepared by the Commission lists examplesof significant results attained on a State-by-State basis.

Idaho

• Idaho Department of Water Resources. —Surveys of36 million acres of agricultural land were accom-plished at a cost of $41,646, compared with a costof $65,800 by conventional means.

● In a 4-million-acre area along the Snake River, year-ly increases in irrigated land were recorded and croptypes identified. A multistage statistical analysis in-corporating Landsat data was developed and inte-grated into the activities of the Idaho Departmentof Natural Resources.

Oregon

●

●

●

●

Oregon Fish and Wildlife reported a cost savings of43 percent using Landsat for habitat inventory.Oregon Water Resources Department.—By inter-state compact, the extent of irrigated farmland alongthe Klamath River Basin is reported. The depart-ment developed a system depending in part on Land-sat data for monitoring irrigation.Oregon Department of Agriculture. —Landsatdigital data were used to identify areas of a noxiousweed, the Tansey Ragwort. Infestations of the weedcause $3 million to $8 million a year in direct lossesof livestock.The Department of Transportation, along withother agencies, used Landsat data to determine thetype and percentage of land cover. They producedstatistical summaries as an aid to zoning and pollu-tion control. The department adopted the methodfor continuing use.

Washington

●

●

●

Washington Department of Natural Resources.—An estimated cost saving of 48 percent was achievedin a forest inventory covering over 13 million acres.A timber volume inventory was conducted in west-ern Washington involving analysis of data from 20million acres. The resulting information was usedin State productivity studies and the technique wasadopted and expanded by the Washington Depart-ment of Natural Resources.Central Puget Sound, a multiagency organization,incorporated Landsat data into urban planning inan 8,000-square-mile area. It used the results intransportation planning and water and air quality

studies. A new computerized data base was preparedand put into use by the city of Tacoma.Governor Straub of Oregon, State cochairman of

the three-state project, concluded in a letter to the Ad-ministrator of NASA that Landsat has provided a new,more effective and less costly source of managementdata. He emphasized that the involvement of a “criticalmass” of individual agency participants is prerequisiteto proving the overall value of Landsat data on a Stateregional basis. He further stated that “the acquisitionof equipment and changeover to a new data base canbean expensive proposition” and that “the most criticalelement is continuity of data. Without assurance ofcontinuity, States cannot accept the risks of utilizingLandsat data as a primary too] ."3

In a letter to the Chairman, Office of Science andTechnology Policy (OSTP) of the White House, thechairman of the Pacific Northwest project’s Technol-ogy Transfer Task Force commented on remote-sen-sing capabilities demonstrated in the Pacific North-west. He said that much of the information derivedis being used for remote areas where data were previ-ously unavailable. The letter noted the uniqueness ofthe Landsat system to provide frequent coverage which,, . . . establishes a historical record of the changes andtransit ions.” He pointed out that from fiscal year 1975through fiscal year 1979, roughly $6.5 million wascommitted by participating agencies— Federal, State,and local. As a result of the success of the initial 3-yeardemonstration, a follow-on Landsat applications pro--gram was approved which provided for- a larger shareof funding by local participants. The States began thepurchase of software as well as arranging access to ma-jor hardware systems for the exploitation of the dataon a continuing basis.

Following several years of experience with remote-sensing systems, the Commission stated, “It is ourstrong belief that the Federal Governrment should con-tinue to be responsible for Landsat research and de-velopment as well as Land sat data at the Federal level.The burden of analysis belongs at the State and locallevel with the agencies and communities that will applythe data in their planning and management decision-making process. “4

In the course of about 5 years, project leaders madea number of management decisions. Partly in view ofthe unknown or unresolved future of the Landsat ser-ies, the States determined that rather than set up asingle regional data center, each would be responsi-ble for its own data handling and processing schemes.Considerable Landsat data are now stored in various

.z [ etter tr,lrr~ ( ,{~vvrn,}r Strtiub I t (>rt,~[~n f[,itt c (K h.iirm<in (It tht, t hr(,t

St,itt ~~ri)~t( t, I ( I N’A5A Adm]n).t r,it ion I Q7Q‘1 ttttr Iron] \\’ Lill<l( t f } ~f,,lrjt L t,, [)t T 1’ Lla) 5 1 Q78

computer banks in the region. However, the abolitionof the Commission in 1980 removed a key coordinat-ing body. Although many of the original participantscontinue to exchange data and to interact with oneanother through professional meetings and on a col-legial basis, an essential part of the cooperative pro-gram now is absent. Nevertheless, as a direct resultof the demonstration project, the States involved haveacquired the improved capability to perform digitalanalysis and manipulation of Landsat and other geo-referenced data on State computers. This operationalcapability, to greater or lesser degree, continues to beemployed as funds and availability of data permit.

Effects of Private Ownershipon Use of Landsat Data

At a conference on natural resource inventory meth-ods held in Corvallis, Oreg., in August 1983, three ofthe leading participants in the Pacific Northwest proj-ect were asked to react to the proposed transfer ofLandsat to private ownership. They expressed the fol-lowing concerns:

Cost. —The profit incentive may raise costs to lev-els unacceptable to State managers.Data Continuity.– If the I.andsat program shouldnot prove sufficiently profitable, it might becomeonly seasonally active or be abandoned alto-gether.Uncertainy. —The private sector is not account-able to the users in the sense that public agenciesare; therefore, there could be a relaxation of qual-it y control and service.Monopoly. - Private sector monopoly couldmean less incentive to improve service and keepcosts down.Prioritization. —Data availability may becomerestricted and preference shown to those partieswho can afford to pay the highest prices to receivedata or to reserve time of limited transmissionand /or processing capabilities.Data Archive. –A private sector operator maychoose only to collect, process, and store thosedata that have been requested and paid for.Therefore, data of less productive, remote areasmay go uncovered and historic data for many re-gions may become unavailable or nonretrievable.Support Photography,—The private sectoroperator would not be motivated to provide an-cillary support to Landsat projects by such thingsas U-2 underflights and ground checking.Data Processing. —The private sector might notchoose to put in the time and dollars necessaryfor cleaning up and processing the data as is cur-

120— .

rently done. Alternatively, the operator might notdo it as well or might charge extra.

● Data Inquiry. —The present free search and in-quiry service, considered a public service, mightbecome unavailable or available only at a price.

● Data Restriction. —The distribution of data mayno longer be on a nondiscriminatory basis, butinstead may either be made available to the firstparty to order or subjected to a price biddingwhere the part y that can pay the most will reservedata and processing time.

● Landsat Data Users Notes. —The Governmentpublication describing Landsat activities maystop .

● Research. —Many research and application dem-onstration projects now occurring at governmentand other public facilities may stop or else onlycontinue with a charge for the findings. Researchmight not be conducted with complete objectivi-ty if the end is to support market development.

● Technology Feedback. —-Linkages with universi-ty and other research facilities are beneficial forlearning new technological approaches and re-quire free give-and-take and feedback. Such anarrangement might not be possible for a privateoperator.

Appendix C

Survey of University Programs inRemote Sensing Funded Under Grants

From the NASA University-SpaceApplication Programl

Summary Conclusions

●

●

●

●

All of the programs surveyed have attained somelevel of State / local involvement. One program hasworked in projects with 39 State agencies, maintainsregular contact with 74 others, and has 150 othercontacts that can be drawn upon as needed. Suchinvolvement depends on seed money to demonstrateapplications before State /local agencies will providefunding.NASA grant funding has reduced the time whichwould otherwise be expected for State/local govern-ments to become operational users of remote sens-ing. NASA grants are the base which assists and sup-ports university programs to demonstrate provenapplications to first-time users. The States willgenerally not support development/demonstrationprograms.State governments are beginning to use remote-sensing technology and capabilities in operationalareas. Capabilities have, in general, not been institu-tionalized in the sense that many programs wouldnot continue if NASA seed support were withdrawn.About 9 percent of the total funding in 1977 wasfrom State and local sources. Estimates for prioryears indicate that State funding is accelerating asremote-sensing applications are beginning to be ap-plied in State and local programs. In many pro-

) ] A Lladlgan a n d R W’ Earhart, N A S A c o n t r a c t No NASW2800, task.N(, 27 Batte[le Columbus I.aklrat(~rws rcpt)rt Nc) FKl -OA-TFR-78- 3 hfar31 1Q78

grams, significant nonfinancial support is con-tributed by the university (faculty and graduateresearch assistants), and by State/local agenciesworking with the university.Total funding for the university programs surveyedhas grown approximately 50 percent since 1974. Alarge part of non-NASA funding comes from Federalsources to develop applications which also interestState, local, and private users. NASA grant fundshave been an important stimulus to attracting non-NASA Federal funds.The programs are adaptive to the expressed interestsof State/local governments. The distribution of ap-plication areas and specific expertise developedreflects State/local interests and funding patterns.State/local participation is dependent on the ap-plicability of remote sensing to near-term problems.University participation in remote-sensing is largeand growing. Some universities offer several coursesin specific remote-sensing disciplines. Overall, dur-ing 1977, 137 courses were taught to a total of 2,906students; 195 faculty members and 393 researchassistants were involved in the research projects.Sixty-five percent of the programs have minorprivate sector involvement, which ranges fromgeoexploration assistance for the major oil com-panies to rangeland productivity y projects with localranchers.Twenty-five percent of the programs have foreigninvolvement. The University of Utah, for example,has a $150,000 land-use project with the Govern-ment of Korea.

121

2 5 – 3 V O – 84 – 9 : Q 1, 3

122

Figure C-1 .—University Programs: Sources ofFunding 1974.77

0

9.3

Non-NASA7.6 7.6

‘6.4 6.6

.Other NASA

2.72.2

1.9. .

. .

1 I1974 1975 1976 1977

Year

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration

123

Program

Figure C-2.— Students and Courses in University Remote Sensing Programs

Number ofcourses offered

in 1977

Arizona

California

Purdue

Minnesota

Oregon

MSU

South Dakota

Cornell

Texas A&M

ERIM

23

Univ. of MichiganI

Colorado

Wisconsin

Florida

Mississippi

Alaska

Kansas

Louisiana

Nebraska

Utah

Virginia

II

I

6

15

7

8

5

5

9

11

12

6

10

4

4

3

3

2

2

0 100 200 300 400

Number of students enrolled in remote sensing courses during 1977

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admintstration

124

Figure C-3.— Faculty and Research Assistants in University Remote Sensing Programs

Program

Purdue

California

ERIMUniv. of Mich.

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Texas A&M

Arizona

Minnesota

Florida

Colorado

MSU

Mississippi

Nebraska

Oregon

Kansas

Louisiana

Cornell

Alaska

Utah

Virginia

Key:

I \

150

I I I

h I

r

1 ’

1 I

1 I I1

L

L I

I I

I 1

L 1 A

L

I I

I

1 I

1 I1

1I

J

Faculty Researchassistants

25 50 75 100 125

Number of faculty and research assistants participating in programs during 1977

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Figure C-4.— University Programs: Major Applications of Remote Sensing* {

Hydrology/water management,

Land-use planning

Agriculture

Resource management/geology.

Forestry, I

SoilsL b

Environmental quality1 i

IGeneral mapping IWildlife

aRangeland

management1

Snowpack runoffL ●

Coastalr Total programs = 87

erosionb

I I 1 I I 1 I I 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Number of universities engaged in application

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix D

— — —In the late 1960’s, work began on aircraft and space

remote multispectral sensing systems for agriculturalapplications. The Laboratory for Application of Re-mote Sensing (LARS) at Purdue University did muchof this initial work and showed how to use data frommultispectral sensors to classify major agriculturalcrops.

The corn blight watch experiment in 1971 demon-strated that a single crop —i. e., corn—could be iden-tified by multispectral techniques and that variationsin crop health —e. g., blight infection—could bemapped with multispectral data. The corn blight pro-gram showed the validity of the concept using aircraft,but it took experiments on Apollo 9 to demonstrate’that crops could be recognized and mapped fromspace.

Early experiments conducted with Landsat over aseries of test sites—e, g., the joint U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) /Canada spring wheat program4—showed clearly that Landsat data could provide usefulinformation, though their ability to separate similarcrops like spring barley and wheat was limited.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion’s (NASA) LACIE (Large Area Crop Inventory Ex-periment) < was designed to extend the early wheat testresults to other wheat areas of the world. While suc-cess was claimed for the LACIE program, it is clearthat major questions remained about the ability ofLandsat data to discriminate between crops and aboutthe negative effects of extensive cloud cover. Theseproblems: 1) reduced the effectiveness of the systemto assess crop area, a major objective of LACIE; and2) severely limited the ability to use satellite data dur-ing the growing season.

The results of the U.S. /Canadian spring wheat ex-periment led to two conclusions, that: 1) Landsat dataare at their best when used to assess the stress condi-tions of the agricultural system, and 2) a system wasneeded to allow daily computer simulation of the agri-

——‘‘ Remote Multlspectral Sensing in Agriculture, ” Bullet]n 844, I.aboratory

tor Application of Remote Sens]ng (LARS), Purdue Llnlversity, vol. 3, Annual Report, September 1968,

2“C(~rn Bllght t\’atch Experiment Final Report, Experimental Results, ‘NASA S[’-353, 1074

I ‘Crop Surveys Fr,~m Muitlband Satelllte I’hotograph} Uwng D]gltal T“ech-nlques, ” LARS Inforrnatlon Note 032371, Purdue University, 1971

‘ An Investigation ,)t the Feas]btl]ty of Developing a Semt-Automated Sys-tem for Monitoring Spring Wheat Production, ” prepared for the USDA(A. X’S), contract N,) 123341024, May 1974, by Earth Satellite Corp , Wrash-Ingttln, D.C

‘ ‘The 1 arge Area Crt,p Inventory Experiment (LACIE), ‘ In Proceedingsof the NASA Earth Res~lurce Survey TM X-58168 JSC 09930, June 1975,Houston, Tex

cultural scene using basic modeling of soils, precipita-tion, solar radiations, and plants.

These conclusions implied that it was possible to de-velop a cost-effective crop assessment system. Such asystem should reduce concentration on crop area map-ping during the year in question from Landsat, andemphasize instead crop yield relationships inherent inthe crop stress information available from the Land-sat spectral data. A crop simulation system (conclu-sion 2) would provide the framework in which to usethe Landsat crop stress information as well as provideuseful crop assessments when clouds obscured the fieldof view.

Development of the crop simulation system, initi-ated in 1973,6 concentrated on the use of the meteoro-logical satellite data to overcome the limitations ofground meteorological reporting stations. This ap-proach had the distinct advantage of offering thepotential of a near continuum of the meteorologicaldata needed to run plant simulation models. The sys-tem was first tested in Iran; 7 later tests were made inthe United States under the NASA LACIE programs.The results showed the metsat-based simulation sys-tem to be sound, but in need of further development.

In “1976, another test of the system was run to testthe ability of the system to assimilate Landsat cropcondition information and thereby improve yield esti-mates; it showed that Landsat crop condition data didimprove when yield estimates made by meteorologi-cally derived yield simulation models were added,

In 1977, Earth Satellite Corp., a value-added com-pany, placed the Landsat/metsat conjoint simulationsystem in commercial operation over various areas ofthe world. This value-added system, called CROP-CASTTM

now covers overcountries.

Landsat Data Uses

Landsat data today offerthe following useful data to

12 “different crops in 12

opportunities to provideagricultural assessments:

●

●

●

spatial distribution of potential crop yield classesin three to six unique categories;spatial location of winter kill in winter wheatareas of the world;area of irrigation in a crop area;—-

“’Iran Agriculture Program Evaluation of Techniques and Procedures, ”prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture Iran, Interim Report lune-October1%’4 Earth Satellite Corp., Washington, D C

7“CR01’CAST Crop Reports, ” vol 5, Issue 15, Aug 15, 1982, ct)ntinulngseries of CRO1> Reports, prepared by Earth Satelllte Corp

126

127—— —

●

●

●

●

●

●

areas of abandonment —i. e., planted fields thatare not harvested because of low yield or otherreasons;replanting areas—i .e., areas where another cropis sown in the spring following losses to a wintercrop;soil moisture distributions at planting times;snow cover and perhaps depth assessments;winter wheat crop area at spring green-up; andflood area mapping and crop damage assessment.

USDA started using some of these Landsat-deriveddata on a routine basis in 1980. CROPCAST TM intro-duced some of the Landsat data in 1977 and expandedtheir use in 1983, after negotiating a program with theSwedish Space Corp. in Stockholm to provide near-real-time Landsat analyses directly from the SwedishLandsat station at Kiruna. The Swedish analyses pro-vide Landsat data to CROPCASTTM in 4 to 5 daysafter acquisition. This compares favorably with thescales of 4 to 5 weeks for the USDA Foreign Agricul-ture Service operation in Houston.

In addition to the highly dynamic, real-time applica-tions discussed above, Landsat data are used in vari-ous other ways to assist with agricultural problems:

● soil maps are prepared over areas that havelimited conventional soils data,

● Landsat data are used in the design of a crop areasample survey design, and

● irrigation potential can be mapped using Land-sat data.

Specific Examples of Key LandsatInformation Applications

Operational use of Landsat data in agriculturecenters primarily on the delineation of stress and ir-rigation potential. Some recent examples drawn fromCROPCAST TM operations include:

●

●

●

●

The 1983 delineation of drought stress in theOdessa region of the U.S.S.R. The meteorologi-cal models indicated dry conditions and stressedplants, but Landsat provided positive evidencethat this was true.The 1983 confirmation of drought stress inRumania and other Eastern Europe areas.The 1980 delineation of the drought stress in soy-bean areas on the west side of the Mississippi inArkansas. The meteorological system had in-dicated general problems, but Landsat data pro-vided a detailed inventory of the stressed fields.In 1981, China was undergoing drought in the Bej-ing area, The meteorological models and groundreports of drought conflicted because of the ex-tensive use of irrigation in the area. Landsat data

ordered from the Japanese ground station pro-vided verification of a serious decline in the ir-rigation reservoirs and the existence of some cropstress.

These few examples show the value of Landsat datato confirm, and thus to add confidence to, agriculturalassessment worldwide.

Meteorological Satellite Data Uses

Meteorological satellite data from both geosyn-chronous and polar orbiters are used routinely in theCROPCAST TM Agricultural Simulation System. TheAgRISTARS program also includes plans to use themon a routine basis because they provide a quantitativesource of precipitation estimates for many value-addedmeteorological services in the United States andoverseas.

In the current CROPCASTTM system and in theplanned AgRISTAR in 1986, the data from the geosyn-chronous meteorological satellite from the UnitedStates, the European Space Agency, and the Japaneseprovide a primary input to a global analysis of rain-fall and solar radiation—key factors in plant simula-tion models.

The manipulation and analysis of metsat data byEarth Satellite Corp. provides a useful example of howvalue is added to primary satellite data. Data from theU. S., Japanese, and European metsats are delivered toEarth Satellite’s offices via the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA fa-cilities. Earth Satellite takes facsimile photographs re-ceived over this system, converts them to digital formand enters them into a common grid system with vari-ous other kinds of data. After processing by computermodels, analyses of soil moisture, plant growth, stress,yield, etc., are produced. The spatial resolution ofthese analyses, obtained with the use of the satellitedata, is unobtainable in any other way.

Data from the polar-orbiting NOAA satellites* areused in the CROPCASTTM (and will be used in futureAgRISTARS programs) in two ways; one is to sup-plement the geosynchronous data at latitudes aboveabout 50° N and S, the other is to make use of theresolution (1 km) and spectral capabilities of the polarorbiters to map vegetation, flooded lands, and snowcover.

The ability to map vegetation is made possible bysensors operating at wavelengths of 500 to 7 0 0nanometers and 800 to 1,200 nanometers. These spec-tral bands measure the level of plant reflectance in thered and infrared parts of the spectrum in the same way

‘ From the automatic i,ery h]gh-resolution radiomc+er [ A\’t{I{f{ I

128

that the Landsat multispectral data are used. The l-kmresolution will only resolve large fields, but the spec-tral capability provides excellent delineations of vege-tation stress over large areas.

The low-resolution, low-cost data from the polar or-biters have many advantages in comparison withhigher resolution Landsat data; among them are dailycoverage and broad area vegetation condition map-ping. These attributes make the data very attractiveto customers of value-added services, to the futureUSDA AgRISTARS program, and to the U.N, LocustProgram. The following examples illustrate some ac-tual uses of these data by CROPCASTTM since 1980.● The U.S.S.R. coverage by Landsat is limited to the

western half. In 1982, polar-orbiter data were usedto map crop stress in the U.S.S.R. spring wheat belt,and thereby accurately to assess yield.

● In 1973, drought and fires dotted the cacoa areasof west Africa. CROPCASTTM used these data todelineate the drought area and to estimate the loca-tion and extent of the damaging fires.

● In 1980, polar-orbiter vegetation analyses were usedto map the extent of the drought in the UnitedStates.

● In 1981, 1982, and 1983, polar-orbiter vegetationanalyses were used to assist in assessing sugar beetyields in the European Community and the U.S.S.R.

In the foregoing examples, the use of only polar-orbiterdata was discussed; however, conjoining data from themetsat and Landsat systems leads to cost-effectiveways to use these data in agricultural assessments.

Conjoint Applications of Landsat andAVHRR Meteorological Satellite Data

Landsat data by themselves have some significantlimitations—e.g., the satellite views the same point onthe ground at intervals of only 16 days, thereby reduc-ing the data’s potential to monitor short-term changesin crop condition and other factors. On the other hand,Landsat data offer higher resolution. Although polar-orbiter data possess lower resolution (1 km at best)the satellite views the same area once per day, indaylight, and once per night.

Conjoining data from both the Landsat system andAVHRR offers improved confidence in delineatingvegetation stress because Landsat data provide calibra-tion samples on which to “tune” the AVHRR data.Tests conducted by Earth Satellite Corp. indicate thatAVHRR data used in this way over the U.S.S.R. canprovide accurate crop stress information at a cost sig-nificantly less than that obtained from Landsat alone.The data are also available more reliably because thedaily passes allow cloud screening not possible withLandsat.

NOAA polar-orbiter data will be used more andmore in agriculture as users learn how to acquire andprocess the data. Data from Landsat, SPOT, or otherhigher resolution satellite systems will continue to beimportant for calibrating these data.

Appendix E

Hydrology—

Meteorological Satellite Data

The river and flood forecasting service of the Na-tional Weather Service (NWS) produces more than400,000 forecasts annually for about 2,500 riversidecommunities from its 13 River Forecast Centers. 1 TheNWS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.Geological Survey operate thousands of river gagesthat transmit data via the geostationary meteorologi-cal satellite (GOES) to central sites for near-real-timeanalysis. Transmission via satellite solves the commonproblem of interrupted service during floods. All theseagencies, as well as local and regional water authori-ties, are continually expanding their use of satellitetransmission of data.

For the past 10 years the metsats have been used formapping the areal extent of snow in river basins in thePacific Northwest and California to improve riverforecasts on the Columbia River and the rivers drain-ing the Sierra Nevada. Rainfall estimates from con-vective storms and hurricanes are now routinely doneby the National Environmental Satellite Data Infor-mation Service (NESDIS) at the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA). They drawheavily on the satellite measurement of cloud-toptemperatures and the rate of growth of cumulonim-bus clouds from the half-hourly images taken by theGOES satellite.

Another important unknown in the hydrologic cy-cle is soil moisture, which controls the amount ofprecipitation that will form storm runoff. Some ther-mal infrared experiments indicate that this techniquehas promise, but no operational soil moisture estima-tions are currently being made.

Flood mapping from both NOAA polar-orbitingand geostationary satellite imagery and data has beendemonstrated under cloud-free conditions on largerivers such as the Mississippi, and on smaller riverswith wide flood plains such as the Red River of theNorth (North Dakota and Minnesota) and the Ken-tucky River. The daily coverage of the metsats pro-vides opportunities to map the progress of the floodas it moves across a large basin drainage system. Thethermal infrared channels permit nighttime floodmapping.

‘~ A Clark Satellite Appllcatlons In River and Flood Forecasting, ‘ In.Satel//fe Hydro/ogy NI Deutsch D R . W’lesnet, a n d A Rango (eds I [’r{)-

ceedlngs of the 5th A n n u a l W T Pecora Memoria l Sympos]um on RemoteSens ing 1979, SIOUX Falls, S Dak , 1981, pp 6 - 8

Several new hydrologic models for basins that havesubstantial snowmelt contributions have been devel-oped to use the new snow-area data made availableby satellites.

The AgRISTARS program of the Department ofAgriculture includes a large amount of hydrologic dataderived from NOAA satellites. Hydrologic require-ments are integrated into almost all sub areas of theprogram:

● early warning and crop condition assessment,● commodity production forecasts,Ž renewable resources inventory and assessment,● land-use classification and measurement,● land-productivity estimates,● conservation practices assessment, and● pollution detection and impact evaluation.Some of the hydrologic information developed from

metsat data under the AgRISTARS program involved:flood damage assessment, warning of the onset ofdrought, soil-moisture modeling, rainfall, solar radia-tion, vegetation indices, land-use changes, and snow-pack characteristics.

NOAA has used satellite data to provide evapora-tion estimates for Lake Ontario, to detect ice dams onrivers and ice conditions on the Great Lakes, and todetermine the best ship routes on the Great Lakes.

NESDIS routinely prepares thermal maps of theGreat Lakes. In addition it is able to detect coastal cir-culation patterns at river mouths, estuaries, lakes, andbays using the thermal infrared channels.

In sparsely settled Canada, the use of metsat datahas been widespread. Snow cover mapping, freezeup,and ice breakup on large lakes, flooding, and telemetryof hydrologic data are common applications; becauseof the vastness and remoteness of much of the North-west Territory, use of the data is increasing in popu-larity. The Atmospheric Environment Service, theCanadian Centre for Remote Sensing, and the vari-ous Provinces are heavily involved in these hydrologicapplications.

Metsat data (channels 1 and 2) are also used to pro-duce vegetation indices. The Goddard Space FlightCenter of the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-istration (NASA) has prepared a series of computer-enhanced images of Africa showing by color thevegetation of the country. NOAA/NESDIS now pro-duce vegetation index maps of both the Northern andSouthern Hemispheres on a weekly basis (see figuresin app. H).

129

25 – 357 0 – 84 - 1 () : Q L 3

130— —

In Bolivia, GOES data have been used to determineconvective storm characteristics in small- or medium-sized basins for the design of dams or other water-resource engineering development. Cloud indexingtechniques have improved rainfall estimates in north-west Africa in connection with a desert locust controlsurvey sponsored by the U.N. Food and AgriculturalOrganization.2

Snowpack can be routinely mapped with the l-kmresolution Advanced High Resolution Radiometer.Tests in California have shown that these measure-ments are equivalent in accuracy to traditional aircraftsurvey techniques. 3 Snow inventory and runoff fore-casting in Norway have been done largely throughNOAA polar-orbiting satellite imagery, with effectivecost savings resulting from improved water-powermanagement.4

Although the U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment (AID) has been the lead Federal agency intransferring the technology of remote-sensing todeveloping countries, it has commonly emphasizedLandsat data rather than metsat data. NOAA has runtraining sessions for a wide variety of scientists andengineers at its U.S. facilities to assist in remote-sensingtechnology transfer as it pertains to the metsats. Muchof this work has been financed by international andAID programs. NASA and the U.S. Geological Sur-vey have also engaged in international on-the-jobtraining for foreign nationals.

Landsat Data

Landsat investigations over the decade have proventhe ability of the Landsat system to map floods, snowcover, and ice cover; delineate surface permeability;etc. Used together with meteorological satellite data,they offer a formidable resource survey tool:

● In 1973, some of the most disastrous flooding onthe Mississippi River in recent years was mappedwith Landsat, vividly delineating the extent of in-undation over large parts of a major river basins

‘E. C. Barrett, “Satellite Rainfall Estimation by Cloud Index]ng Methodsfor Desert Locust Survey and Control, “ in Satel/ite Hydrology, M. Deutsch,D. R. Wlesnet, and A. Rango (eds. ), Proceedings of the 5th Annual W TPecora Memorial Symposium on Remote Sens]ng, 1979, Sioux Falls, S. Dak ,1981, pp. 92-100.

‘D. Wiesnet and D McGinnis, “Hydrological Application of the NOAA-2Very High Resolution Radiometer, ” in Remote Sensing and Water Managem-ent, Proceeding No. 17, American Water Resources Association, June 1973

‘G. Ostrem, T. Andersen, and H Odegaard, “Operational Use of SatelllteData for Snow Inventory and Runoff Forecast, ” ]n Satellite Hydrology, MDeutsch, D. R Wiesnet, and A, Rango (eds. ), Proceedings of the 5th An-nual W. T. Pecora Memorial Symposium on Remote Sensing, 1979, SIOUXFalls, S. Dak , 1081, pp. 2 3 0 - 2 3 4 .

‘M. Deutsch, F H. Ruggles, P Guss, and E. Yost, “Mapping of the 1973Misslssipp] River Floods From the Earth Resources Technology Satellite(ERTS), ” in Remote Senwng and Water Management, Proceeding No 17,American Water Resources Assoc]atlon, June 1973

●

●

●

Snow pack extent was mapped in California usingLandsat data, resulting in reduced errors in streamflow forecasts. ’Landsat data have been effectively used in SouthDakota to model soil erosion. Landsat’s uniquecontribution was in delineating land cover in thebasin. ’Landsat data have been used to enforce waterpollution regulations. In this case they providedthe extent of pollution and turbidity levels at aplume in Lake Champlain; these data were usedin a court case against a New York papermill.

These examples are only a small sample of the totalapplications of Landsat data to hydrology. The limita-tions of the Landsat system in its applications tohydrology are similar to those in agriculture: timelycoverage may not be available because of the 16-dayrepeat cycle. Part of this limitation can be overcomeby using meteorological satellite data.

Conjoint Applications of Landsat andNOAA Polar-Orbiting Data

Used together, Landsat and NOAA polar-orbiterdata offer a formidable resource survey tool. As in ap-plications to agriculture, the role of Landsat data isto calibrate the more frequently gathered but poorerresolution meteorological satellite data. Some specificexamples include:

●

●

●

✎�

Use of Landsat data to calibrate the snow/nosnow boundary. Once a reflectance value hasbeen calibrated defining the reflectance of thesnow boundary, then the NOAA polar-orbiterdata can be used with high accuracy to map thesnow boundary at less cost with greaterfrequency.The same rationale outlined for snow mappingworks for flooding-i .e., Landsat spectral data—can be used to define a signature for flood-dam-aged vegetation and actual water areas where veg-etation may be seen through the water. Once cal-ibrated with the Landsat data, polar-orbiter spec-tral data can be applied to map the flood bound-aries.Land cover and deforestation which may influ-ence a watershed runoff can be mapped using the

6A. Rango and P. O’Nelll, “Effective Watershed Management Using RemoteSensing Technology, ” in Remote Sensing for Resource Management, SOI1 Con-servation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1982.

‘B. J. Ripple and S Miller, “Remote Sensing and Computer Model]ng forWater Quality Plannlng in South Dakota, ” In Remote Sensing for ResourceMarragement, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1982

737

Landsat system, but a calibrated NOAA polar- proved delivery of data sets from the NOAA polar-orbiter data set can be used at less cost. orbiting metsat and Landsat systems would open the

Clearly the polar-orbiting metsat-Landsat mix of- way for significant increases in the use of such mixes.fers many advantages that are yet to be applied. Im-

Appendix F

Forestry

Remote-sensing techniques have been widely usedby forestry companies and individual consultants formany years. The most frequently used type of remote-ly sensed data are black-and-white panchromatic aerialphotos, usually having a scale of 1:15,840 (i.e., 4inches = 1 mile). Such photos show a tremendousamount of detail about the forest and other surfacefeatures; stereo pairs of photos can be used to obtaininformation about the species of trees present, numberof trees per acre, area] extent of the forest stands, loca-tion and characteristics of existing or needed transpor-tation networks, etc. Although a tremendous amountof highly useful information can be obtained from aer-ial photos, much of this information requires imageryhaving high levels of spatial detail—individual treecrowns, topographic characteristics of the terrain, etc.It is largely for this reason that many people have ques-tioned the value of Landsat data for meeting informa-tion needs in forestry, since the ground resolution ofeach Landsat pixel is approximately 59 X 79 meters.

However, several different levels of detail are neededin characterizing or evaluating the forest resource. Atthe most detailed level, one must obtain actual meas-urements in the field from a sample of individual treesto estimate the merchantable timber volume per acrein individual stands of timber. On the other end of thescale, knowledge of the location and extent of foreststands is also important. It is this type of informationfor which Landsat data are of particular value, sincethe location and extent of forests can change dramati-cally over the course of a few years or even from oneyear to the next.

In other words, the average rate of growth of indi-vidual species of trees is known. Once the species com-position of a specific stand has been determined, thechanges in stand volume can be predicted reasonablywell, barring unforeseen changes due to fire, insects,or disease. These unforeseen changes, from natural orhuman causes, require periodic assessment of the arealextent of forest lands; this can best be accomplishedquickly and cost effectively by remote sensing. Tradi-tionally, the forest industry has used aerial photog-raphy.

In recent years, as the quality of both aerial camerasand film has improved, and as the capability forobtaining photos from high-altitude aircraft has beendeveloped, the use of relatively small-scale (e.g.,1:120,000) aerial photos has been of interest to forestindustries because of the relative economy of suchphotography for many applications.

132

For example, in Maine, the Great Northern TimberCo. uses 1:120,000-scale color infrared photos for awide variety of timber land and road network assess-ments, and for monitoring logging operations (i. e., theextent and location of clearcut areas). The companyconverts the information derived from these aerialphotos into digital form and adds it to a data basewhich is part of a highly sophisticated GeoreferencedInformation System (GIS). The foresters at GreatNorthern are highly interested in the potential of Land-sat data to supply much of the information they need,but they have yet not incorporated them into their pro-cedures because of their concern about the continuedavailability of Landsat data in a standardized format,and the recent very large increases in the cost of thecomputer-compatible types (CCTs), If the price fordigital Landsat data rises too high, they will continueto rely on aerial photography, where the cost of ob-taining the necessary data and the source of data areknown, predictable factors.

The Southern Timberlands Division of St. RegisPaper Co. (headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla. ) hasalso developed a sophisticated GIS, which is tied intothe corporate computer network. St. Regis foresterswere interested in integrating the data from such a sys-tem into their forest management operations. Becausesome of the early research results appeared promis-ing, St. Regis submitted a proposal to the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration to evaluate theuse of such data for meeting some of the informationneeds of the forest industry. St. Regis asked PurdueUniversity to work with them on this project.

Researchers set up a three-phase evaluation of theLandsat data and digital-processing techniques. PhaseI involved a detailed assessment of the benefits andlimitations of using Landsat data to meet operationalinformation needs of the Southern Timberlands Divi-sion. Specifically, the division wished to know the ac-curacy and reliability of identifying coniferous forestcover, the optimal times of year to obtain Landsatdata, and the accuracy and reliability of acreageestimates. In addition, it had many questions concern-ing the procedures for incorporating such data into theexisting resource management system, the cost andavailability of hardware and software for utilizingLandsat data, personnel and training requirements, etc.They also wished to know the cost and timeliness aswell as the continued availability of the Landsat data.

When dealing with a new technology such as this,a myriad of unknowns, both technical and financial,

133

must be examined before it becomes reasonably clearthat the technology can meet operational needs for spe-cific types of information. The results of Phase I indi-cated that Landsat data and computer analysis tech-niques could provide useful input to a Forest ResourceInformation System (FRIS)–a computer-based GIS;approval was given to proceed with Phase 11 and III.

In Phase II, a computer terminal in Jacksonville wasconnected to the main computer at the Laboratory forApplications of Remote Sensing (LARS), Purdue Uni-versity, where appropriate data analysis software ex-isted. The staff at LARS trained St. Regis personnelin analyzing Landsat data. After St. Regis obtained ad-ditional equipment to implement completely the St.Regis FRIS, the “umbilical cord” to Purdue was cut.During Phase III, St. Regis tested and made the entiresystem completely operational.

Integrating Landsat remote-sensing technology intoFRIS required St. Regis to spend over $1,300,000 forhardware and to hire two data specialists (one analystand one programmer). However, the company esti-mated that these costs would be recovered in approx-imately 8 1/2 years through: 1 ) increased efficiency inforest mapping, and 2) considerable improvement inefficiency of field operations. By using Landsat data,the company was able to identify areas where onlyminor changes in the area or condition of the forestcould be better defined, and to assign less field workto them. This decreased the total amount of field-crewtime required and enabled more effective use of thefield crews in areas where significant changes wereoccurring.

The utilization of Landsat data in the FRIS wasdescribed in detail at a symposium held in Jackson-ville in May 1981, to which key personnel from all ofthe forest industries in the country were invited. Asan indication of the widespread interest in the possi-ble use of Landsat data, all except one of the forestindustry companies sent representatives (usuallysenior-level executives) to the symposium. Two differ-ent types of users can be defined: the larger forestrycompanies like St. Regis or Great Northern, whowould develop their own capability to analyze and useLandsat data, and the smaller companies who wouldlike to have access to the same type of information,but cannot afford such an operation themselves. Thesmaller companies would be interested in purchasingvalue-added services. Companies specializing in analy-sis of Landsat data as a service to forest industriesmight have considerable demand for their products.

To date, however, forestry companies other thanSt. Regis have made little progress in incorporatingLandsat data into their information system. Value--added companies have not increased their business

with forest companies significantly. The reasons forthis may be varied and complex, but two factors pre-dominate:

1<

2.

It

There is no commitment by the U.S. Governmentor any private group to supply data promptly ona continuous basis, and forest industries are notyet ready to modify their entire method ofmonitoring the resource base. *Potential users of the data are worried about thecost of the primary data. As previously indicated,because of the number of decades required togrow a crop of trees to merchantable size and thefact that periodic inventories of the resource baseare necessary, the resources that can be allocatedto any one inventory are minimal. At $200 perCCT, the cost of the price of digital data was veryreasonable, even when the forested areas of in-terest involved only a small portion of the areacovered by that particular frame of Landsat data.However, the announced price of $4,400 perframe of Landsat 4 thematic mapper data {start-ing February 1985 ), makes the cost of obtainingthe data a major issue for forestry companies, es-pecially when there seems to be no indication thatsuch data costs will stabilize. If the Landsat sys-tem is transferred, cost increases will remain amajor concern.seems clear that the forest industries are not about

to commit themselves to use a data-collection systemsuch as Landsat unless the long-term implications ofsuch a commitment are clear, and that the cost, avail-ability, and utility of the data can justify such a changein their current methods of obtaining needed informa-tion.

The forest industry will not begin to use satellite dataon a regular basis until it is assured that they will meetforestry information needs. Unfortunately, many in-dividual studies have shown the benefits and limita-tions of Landsat data, but most of these have been ofa research or a one-time demonstration nature; veryfew involved industry-defined operational constraints.Therefore, there is still a major need for development,demonstration, and evaluation of the technologyunder operational conditions. For instance, in the St.Regis project, researchers found that wintertime Land-sat data were superior to spring or summer data be-cause the primary information need was for stands ofconiferous rather than deciduous forest cover.

As the St. Regis project and other studies haveshown, Landsat data for forestry purposes have con-

‘ lk[ auw (>I annual c } CIL+ <,! lndl.~t r} i~p{ r~t l(,n~ th{ p{>t{nt jai ftlr obt<])nIng I andwt data r. It h] n ~ rc..i+( )nable t imt, at ter It I\ c <lII{Jc ted IS (~t c tjn( ernThe corslstenc) 0 1 Iormat I> JIW) 0 1 L (Inc .rn because t~l the ( ,wts (lt rev)i)n~s(~tt~i are and h,irdii ar( w hene~ er c h.in~e+ In t ht, I t,rm~t (~t the ddt a LX L ~i r

134

siderable potential. The St. Regis project used geomet-rically rectified Landsat data overlaid onto a landown-ership map. Areas of coniferous, deciduous, and othercover types were then identified and these results werecompared with existing cover-type maps to locateareas where differences existed between the two datasets. Field crews then concentrated their efforts in theseareas of discrepancy. Landsat data from a second datewere overlaid onto the first data set, and used to deter-mine the extent of logging and reforestation opera-tions, and whether the field records agreed with theresults obtained from the first Landsat data set. Areasin which no significant changes in forest cover oc-curred were also defined; this led to modifications ofthe statistical sampling strategy for field inventories.

Landsat data have been applied to selecting the op-timum location for a paper pulpmill in relation to thepotential timber supply and transportation network.Such procedures may also prove effective for locatingpotential sources of wood supply for existing mills andthen arranging a mutually beneficial long-term forestmanagement lease with the owner.

In summary, Landsat data have been or could beof benefit in monitoring field records and rapid up-

dating of maps, improved efficiency of field opera-tions, timber supply monitoring, and long-term plan-ning. It must be emphasized, however, that the effec-tive use of Landsat data by forest industries involvesdeveloping entirely new information management sys-tems that integrate Landsat data with many other typesof data obtained from a variety of sources.

The decision to use Landsat data therefore representsa very major change in the data-collection and infor-mation analysis techniques of a corporation. In spiteof many potential uses of Landsat data, it is clear thatsuch satellite data will not entirely replace aerialphotography because the characteristics and informa-tion content of the two data types are quite different,each having unique advantages and significant limita-tions. The key to effective use of Landsat data involvestheir appropriate integration with other data. How-ever, unless concerns over continued data availabili-ty (in a standardized format that does not change atfrequent intervals), and the future cost and timelinessof the data are effectively addressed to the satisfac-tion of corporation executives, many potential usersof Landsat data will continue to use other forms andsources of data for their information systems.

—

Appendix

Monitoring Desertification Processes

The Landsat remote-sensing system has provenuniquely effective for measuring and determiningchanges in the global landscape. It is particularly ap-plicable to monitoring and assessing processes that leadto desertification. About one-third of the Earth’s sur-face is arid or semi-arid and therefore highly vulnerableto a variety of degradation processes. Such stresses,if continued unchecked, may lead to ecological impov-erishment and, ultimately, to desert-like conditions.

Most commonly, desertification is triggered or in-tensified by periods of drought, and exacerbated bypoor land-use practices such as rapid land clearing foragriculture or fuel. As food production becomes moreimportant, large land areas run the risk of becomingless and less productive as a result of losing forest. Un-til recently, attempts to quantify and map the loca-tions of desertification were based on fragmentary andhighly local data subject to differing interpretation.Land remote sensing from space could provide thenecessary information to monitor desertification.

The Conference on Desertification, held in Nairobi,Kenya, in 1977, recognized the need for developinga means for systematic land assessment. Agencies ofthe U.S. Government, especially the Agency for In-ternational Development and the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration, have since experimentedwith using the Landsat system as a primary landsurvey tool to monitor desertification.

The global dimensions of desertification are not pre-cisely known but, by any account, are grave indeed.Each year, as many as 14 million acres of previouslyproductive land become barren. Acreage lost to pro-duction represents a substantial economic loss to theglobal economy. One study2 estimates $7 billion inlosses from loss of range and pastureland and $9 billionin lost agricultural production each year. Financiallosses in industrialized countries are paralleled byadverse human and social consequences in arid landsof the less developed world.

With the advent of satellite multispectral scanners(MSS) it has become possible to sweep Earth’s surface

-—..——‘ [)esert, t,c at lon IS the sustained dec!ine and d e s t r u c t i o n c~f the h]t>l[)~]cal

Pr{ductlvlt} [ t dr},ldnds c>wlng t[~ stress cauwd b} h u m a n s ~(~met ]rnes Inc t~n]unc t lt~n w]t h extreme weather or drought

‘ ~J N ( c)nterence on IIewrtlt !{ atl[)n Septemher 1 Q77 Rt~undup P l a n (~f

Actl(\n a n d Resolutions !’-!ew }’(~rh, lQ78‘Desert Ii icat Ion paper~ prepared ft )r the Na]rob] St, mlnar on Uewrt ]t I( a

tlc)n Prlw illa Relnlng ~ed ) Amerl( an 14SWN latlon It)r the A d v a n c e m e n t (~t%lence ki’ashlngt(~n 1) L I Q78

G*

by Landsat—

repetitively, depict the scene in pixels about 1 acreacross, determine surface reflectance characteristics inmultiple bandwidths, and process these data rapidlyby computer for interpretation and presentation. Basedon this capability, desertification specialists, meetingunder the international auspices of the U .N. Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) and the U.N. Envi-ronmental Program (UNEP), have concluded that landcondition should be expressed in gradation of geo-graphical units. 3 The objective is to enable land com-parisons on the basis of vegetation complexes, ecosys-tems, soil associations, and other qualities amenableto identification by remote sensing. They have createdmodels which permit Landsat data to be combinedwith meteorological and other data to determinegeneral conditions over relatively vast and sometimesremote areas. Use of this new technology presently of-fers the only economical y feasible method for obtain-ing synoptic information over wide areas, which isessential to understanding and controlling desertifi-cation.

The special properties of the Landsat system whichpermit development of a global data base and themeans for accomplishing resource inventory and con-tinuing monitoring are summarized as follows:

• perspective over a range of selected scales,● combination of spectral bands for categorization

and identification,● repetitive coverage under comparable viewing

conditions,● direct measurement based on one set of reflectance

conditions for a wide area,● signals suitable for digital storage and subsequent

manipulation, and● accessibility over remote and difficult terrain and

across political divisions.With the establishment of baseline conditions it is

possible to monitor the severity, rate, and trends basedon standard sets of indicators (see table G-1 )4 T h eabsence of this type of information in the early 1970’scontributed to the failure to institute relief measuresin the drought-stricken Sahel region of West Africa

135

136

Table G-1 .—lmplementation of Desertification Indicators With Remote Sensing

Detailed

SOIL ‘1. Mosaic coloring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Surface seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Major dust storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.Sand drift, dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Remobilized dunes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Obliteration of field patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.Salt crust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water1. Falling water tables or increasing saline

ground water (depth or stress on phreatophyte)2. Abandonment of irrigated lands based on

ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Waterlogging moist ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Abandoned land in irrigated systems . . . . . . . . .5. Surface water changes in extent and duration .6, Silting ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Turbidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Extension of gully sytems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. Regional changes in seasonal limits on

rainfall (climate and water balance) . . . . . . . .

Vegetation:1. Changes in cover or perennial vegetation . . . . .2. Changes in distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Annual vegetation (crops) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Denuded areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Biomass of crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Animals:1. Key species, populations, herd composition

(larger animals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land use:1. Changes in irrigation . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .2. Changes in dryland area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Proportion of fallow to cropland . . . . . . . . . .4. Stressed rangeland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Devegetation of mined areas . . . . . . ... . . .6. Ground disturbance around mines . . . . . . . .7. Mine waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Deforestation around settlements . . . . . . . .9. Deforestation in relation to sand drift . . . . . . . .

10. Tourism and recreation (ground disturbance) . .11. Change in settlements (new settlements,

expansion of existing settlements, andabandonment of settlements). . . . . . . . . . . .

Key +can be used– cannot be used

NotesDetatied = scale 1 10,000, Iow.level aircraft

Reconnaissance Synoptic Repetition Rate

+—+++—+

+

+++++++

+++++

+

++++++++++

+

+++++++

+

+++++++

—

+++++

++++++++++

(ma; ormay notbe seen)

—++ dai ly– annual or longer+ annual+ annual– annual

– annual

+ annual– annual+ annual+ half monthly+ annual+ half monthly, event related+ 5 years

+ half monthly, daily over long period

+ dry season, 5 years– dry season, 5 years+ half monthly+ half monthly+ seasonal

– annual

+ annual or longer+ annual or longer+ annual+ annual+ 5 years

annual– 5 years+ annual+ annual– annual

(+) annual

Reconnaissance = scale between 120,000 and 1 100,000 (Landsat.TM or SPOT-M LA)Synoptic = scale 1250,000, satellite (Landsat.MSS)

SOURCE UNEP, Report of Expert Meeting on Methodology for Desertiflcation Assessment and Mapping

137

until after thousands had died of starvation and manymore had been forced to migrate, a condition that ledto enormous social and political instability in the area.

With U.S. help, several international organizationsare attempting to monitor and understand desertifica-tion. s A Global Environmental Monitoring System(GEMS) is being coordinated under the U.N. Earth-watch Program. FAO has under construction a GlobalInformation and Early Warning System aimed at miti-gating the effects of famine around the world. Thesesystems will not become fully operational until civiliansatellite remote sensing attains greater maturity. Landand meteorological satellites and a full panoply ofaerial and ground observations will eventually be re-quired to carry out the objectives of these ambitiousbut feasible programs.

The World Weather Watch (WWW) provides an im-portant input to monitoring desertification through theGlobal Observing System (GOS). WWW is a collab-orative effort by which 145 member nations poolmeteorological capabilities and the data from 8,500synoptic stations and other sources. GOS acquires datafrom both polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites.

In the United States, desertification is a major landproblem for substantial portions of 17 Western States.The United States and Mexico have made the combat-ting of desertification in their common arid ecoregionsa major continuing item of technical cooperation, andhave placed particular emphasis on common use ofLandsat imagery. The Department of State has beenresponsible for organizing periodic joint meetings ofexperts, and has directed U.S. contributions tomonitoring activities.

Within the United States, a number of agencies andinstitutions are active in studying, assessing, andmonitoring desertification processes. Those mostprominent are:

● U.S. Department of Agriculture— Soil Conservation Service—National Forest Service

● Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Bureau of Indian Affairs

‘Intern<it l{~ncll \\mp[ ,.]um I ,n I{rnlt]te %nslng [If Fnvir(~!lment Conterem et ~n Rt,m ( )1 [ >t,ns] n~ t~t .Arj(] .] n(i $em-,~lrl{] 1 and~ Nc~vember ] Q8 ] Calrt>

t,x\ pt

—U.S. Geological Survey—Office of Surface Mining

● Department of Commerce—Climate Change Assessment—National Weather Service—National Environmental Satellite System

In April 1982, a comprehensive interagency studypublished by BLM reported the status of desertifica-tion in the United States. ’ It emphasized monitoringneeds and statutes mandating land condition-monitor-ing projects including:

1. the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Actof 1977 (RCA), Public Law 95-192;

2. the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 (RFP); and

3. the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of1976 (FLPMA).

Collectively, the RCA, RPA, and FLPMA direct invery specific terms the preparation and maintenanceof continuous resource inventories by the Federal agen-cies. Congress has further recognized the importanceof effective coordination of the collection and analysisof natural resources information. One active vehiclefor accomplishing this was provided by the Interagen-cy Agreement Related to Classifications and Inven-tories of Natural Resources, which was signed by fiveleading land agencies in 1978. It has produced severalstandard manuals. The product of a single nationalland satellite system, has helped pull together resourcespecialists who are addressing different tasks using thesame basic data.

BLM, custodian of 427 million acres of public land,provides one specific example of response to monitor-ing requirements. BLM joined with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey in modeling and categorizing Landsat digitaldata for purposes of mapping and describing wildlandvegetation for a large section of the arid southwest.Strict cost records were kept, and the task was ac-complished at a favorable rate of $0.07 per acre, in-cluding labor, computer time, and cost of tapes.

— — —‘L” S [ d e p a r t m e n t (>t tht intcrlt~r Buria(j <~f I an(l hl.inagt,m{,nt I)c,wrtl-

t Icatlon In the L] S S t a tu \ an~! l~sut,~ \t’JstJln~tt,n [> (- Apr]] IQ8J

Appendix H

El Nino and Climatic Variations-——— ———-——

Periodically, the failure of the Eastern Trade Windsto develop in the eastern equatorial Pacific causes ab-normal weather and climate, especially in Peru, as thePeruvian Current, an upwelling nutrient-rich system,gives way to a warm easterly flowing current. Thisextreme condition is called El Nine. Because of itsstrength and widespread effects on global weather pat-terns, the El Nino of 1982-83 has been labeled by someas the most remarkable climatic event of the cen-t u r y .1 2 3 Satellite-derived sea-surface temperatureswill eventually allow scientists to monitor the develop-ment and extent of the change and lead to better un-derstanding, and hence predictions, of El Nino condi-tions. New techniques of measuring sea-surface tem-perature from the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrations (NOAA) satellite sensors were inau-gurated in November 1981 by the National Environ-mental Satellite Data and Information Service

‘kl A Cane, “Oceanographic Events During El Nmo “ .%wrrce 222, 1983,pp 1189-1194 .

‘E M Rasmussen and J M Wallace, Meteoro]og]cal Aspects ot the ElNlno Southern Osclllatlon, ’ Scmnce 222, 1983, pp 1195-1202

‘R. T Barber and F. P Chavez, ‘ B]ologlcal Consequences ot El Nlno, ’Science 222, 1983 pp. 1203-1210

(NESDIS), The 1982-83 El Nino began to develop overthe central equatorial Pacific during June and July1982, but it did not reach the South American coastuntil September 1982.

Several excellent NOAA-7 images have enabled de-lineation of surface thermal patterns off the SouthAmerican coast (figs. 5 and 6 in ch. 5). These temper-ature patterns agree with buoy temperatures and per-mit an integrated picture of this climatic anomaly.With extensive monitoring by satellites, bouys andships, this, the most significant El Nino of moderntimes, has been documented, studied, and understoodbetter than any other El Nine.

The 1982-83 El Nino has temporarily destroyed thelush fishing industry of Peru, thereby harming theeconomy of that nation. It also produced torrentialrains in desert areas, triggering mudslides and floods;devastated the adobe housing of most of the rural in-habitants; and generally disrupted transportation. Ab-normal rains related to El Nino patterns have alsoplagued Central America and California. The circula-tion patterns producing this El Nino have extended allaround the world.

138

— - ——. .———. —.

Appendix 1

Monitoring Volcanic Activity

Until the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helensin Washington State on May 18, 1980, most Americansregarded volcanoes as curious geologic features thataffected other countries. The eruptions of Mount St.Helens have renewed public interest in this spectacularform of geologic catastrophe.

Within minutes after the initial blast from MountSt. Helens the geostationary meteorological satellite(GOES) began recording this awesome event at half-hourly intervals from 22,OOO miles above the Equator(fig. I-1 ). A vast plume of ash and smoke rose into theatmosphere and was carried by the winds for hun-dreds, even thousands of miles. Each half hour theprogress of the dust veil was recorded by GOES, al-lowing meteorologists to advise those downwind whatto expect in terms of ash fallout and when it might ar-rive. Aircraft were rerouted. In fallout areas, localgovernments issued advisories. The magnitude of theblast alerted hydrologists that rivers could changecourse, lakes could drain, and floods were both prob-able and imminent.

Other volcanic eruptions that have been studied bysatellites include the Krafla, Iceland r eruption ofFebruary 1981; the Heckla, Iceland, eruption of April1982; the Alaid, U. S. S. R,, eruption of 1981; the Gal-unggung, Indonesia, eruption of July 1982 (fig. 1-2);and the El Chichon, Mexico, eruption of April 1982.

The Icelandic eruptions tended to be in the form oflarge lava flows, and were best detected by the ther-

mal infrared channels on the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration’s (NOAA) polar orbiter.The Alaid eruption sent a plume of ash across theNorth Pacific for hundreds of kilometers. El Chichonsent a plume of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfidegas high up into the stratosphere, where it girdled theglobe in about 28 days, then spread slowly over allthe Northern Hemisphere in the form of sulfuric aciddroplets. This highly unusual eruption is being moni-tored carefully all over the world because of its poten-tial for temporarily altering the climate of the North-ern Hemisphere. The stratospheric migration of thisatmospheric “cloud” was ingeniously tracked byNOAA scientists by noting artificial temperature ano-malies in sea-surface temperatures caused by the at-tenuation of solar energy by the sulfuric acid aerosols.

Galunggung in southwestern Java has erupted in fitsand starts for years, but it made headlines when itsplume was penetrated by a British passenger airlinerwhich nearly crashed when hot volcanic dust cloggedits jet engines. Incredibly, the same airliner 6 monthslater again was victimized by a Galunggung eruptionand again was nearly incapacitated by volcanic dust.

Aviation authorities are seriously considering amonitoring scheme using the World MeteorologicalOrganization’s World Weather Watch satellites to putout aviation alerts on possible volcanic eruptions basedon satellite imagery.

139

140—— —

Figure I.1 .— May 18, 1980, Eruption of Mount St. Helens, Wash., as Recorded by the GOES Satellite, 0845 PDT

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

141— —

N -

0