Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: a Strategic Approach

Home , Landsat 1, Landsat 4, Landsat program, MetOp, Nimbus program, Remote sensing

Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

September 1994 OTA-ISS-607 NTIS order #PB95-109633 GPO stock #052-003-01395-9 Recommended citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach, OTA-ISS-607 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP. Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16 -045310-0 Foreword

ver the next two decades, Earth observations from space promise to become increasingly important for predicting the weather, studying global change, and managing global resources. How the U.S. government responds to the political, economic, and technical0 challenges posed by the growing interest in satellite remote sensing could have a major impact on the use and management of global resources. The United States and other countries now collect Earth data by means of several civilian remote sensing systems. These data assist federal and state agencies in carrying out their legislatively mandated programs and offer numerous additional benefits to commerce, science, and the public welfare. Existing U.S. and foreign satellite remote sensing programs often have overlapping requirements and redundant instruments and spacecraft. This report, the final one of the Office of Technolo- gy Assessment analysis of Earth Observations Systems, analyzes the case for developing a long-term, comprehensive strategic plan for civilian satellite remote sensing, and explores the elements of such a plan, if it were adopted. The report also enumerates many of the congressional decisions needed to ensure that future data needs will be satisfied. In undertaking this effort, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum of knowledgeable individuals and organizations. Some provided information; others reviewed drafts. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intellectual effort. OTA also appreciates the help and cooperation of officials with the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (7+AzQ. . ROGER C. HERDMAN Director Advisory Panel

Rodney Nichols, Chairman David Goodenough Alan Miller Chief Executive Officer Chief Research Scientist Director New York Academy of Sciences Pacific Forestry Center The Center for Global Change Forestry Canada University of Maryland James G. Anderson Professor Donald C. Latham Raymond E. Miller Department of Chemistry Vice President Professor Harvard University Loral Corp. Department of Computer Science University of Maryland William Brown Cecil E. Leith President Livermore, CA Kenneth Pederson ERIM Research Professor of International Affairs John H. McElroy Georgetown University Ronald Brunner Dean of Engineering Washington, DC Professor of Political Science The University of Texas at Center for Public Policy Research Arlington University of Colorado David T. Sandwell Molly Macauley Geological Research Division Scripps Institute of Oceanography Joanne Gabrynowicz Fellow Associate Professor Resources for the Future Department of Space Studies Dorm Walklet University of North Dakota Earl Merritt President President TerrNOVA Int. Alexander F. Goetz Space Systems Markets Director Albert Wheelon Center for Aerospace Sciences Montecito. CA University of Colorado

iv Project Staff

Peter Blair Ray Williamson CONTRIBUTOR Assistant Director, OTA Project Director Mark Suskin Industry, Commerce, and International Security Division Arthur Charo CONTRACTORS Alan Shaw Mark Goodman Director International Security and Cynthia Allen Space Program Paul Bowersox Leonard David Madeline Gross Russell Koffler Paula Kern Pamela L. Whitney

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Jacqueline Robinson Boykin N. Ellis Lewis workshop Participants

A National Strategy for Civilian Space-Based Remote Sensing

Scott Pace, Chairman Ronald G. Isaacs Philip Schwartz Policy Analyst Vice-President for Applied Head The RAND Corporation Research Remote Sensing Division Atmospheric and Environmental Naval Research Laboratory Research, Inc. Ghassem Asrar EOS Program Scientist Brent Smith National Aeronautics and Space David Johnson Chief Administration Study Director International and Interagency Committee on National Weather Affairs Service Modernization Col. Bill Campbell National Environmental Satellite, National Academy of Sciences Office of the Undersecretary of Data, and Information Service, Defense for Acquisition and National Oceanic and Technology Russell Koffler Atmospheric Administration Department of Defense Consultant Washington, DC William Townsend Gary Chesney Deputy Assistant Administrator Director of Business Development Berrien Moore for Mission to Planet Earth LORAL Corporation Director National Aeronautics and Space Institute for the Study of Earth, Administration Frank Eden Oceans, and Space Robert Watson EOS Project Scientist The University of New Hampshire Associate Director, Office of Martin Marietta Astrospace Science and Technology Policy Carl Schueler Executive Office of the President Manager John Hussey Advanced Development Programs Director Hughes Santa Barbara Research Milt Whitten Office of Systems Development Center Manager, DMSP/NOAA Programs National Environmental Satellite, Lockheed Missiles and Space Data, and Information Service Company National Oceanic and Chris Scolese Atmospheric Administration Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President

vi Acknowledgments

This report has benefited from the advice of many individuals. In addition to members of the advisory panel and the workshops, the Office of Technology Assessment especially would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support. The views expressed in this paper, however, are the sole responsibility of OTA.

Richard Beck Linda Moodie Jack Sherman National Aeronautics and National Oceanic and National Oceanic and Space Administration Atmospheric Administration Atmospheric Administration

Donald Blersch John Morgan Ashbindu Singh Anser Corp. Eumetsat GRID

Dixon Butler Jeffrey Rebel Milton C. Trichel National Aeronautics and National Oceanic and ERIM Space Administration Atmospheric Administration Hassan Virji Barbara Cherry Eric Rodenberg START Secretariat National Aeronautics and World Resources Institute Space Administration Greg Withey Lisa Shaffer National Oceanic and Lt. Col. Laura Kennedy National Aeronautics and Space Atmospheric Administration U.S. Air Force Administration

vii ———— .——-—

c ontents

Executive Summary 1 Elements of a Strategic Plan 1 Data Collection 3

1 Findings and Policy Options 5 Need for a Strategic Plan 10 Structural Elements of a Strategic Plan 13 Limitations of a Strategic Plan 21 Monitoring Weather and Climate 22 Land Remote Sensing 28 Ocean Remote Sensing 32

2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities 37 - National Uses of Remote Sensing 38 U.S. Remote Sensing Capabilities 44 Matching Capabilities to Needs 52

3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems 57 A National Strategic Plan for Environmental Satellite Remote Sensing Systems 58 Monitoring Weather and Climate 63 Land Remote Sensing and Landsat 86 Ocean Remote Sensing 95

4 International Cooperation and Competition 101 International Remote Sensing Needs 103 The Benefits and Risks of International Cooperation 104 International Competition in Remote Sensing 110 National Security Issues 112 Options for International Cooperation 116

ix A NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth 129

B Survey of National and International Programs 131 c Convergence of U.S. POES Systems 142

D A Brief Policy History of Landsat 145

E Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy 148

F Clinton Administration Policy on Remote Sensing Licensing and Exports 152

G Abbreviations 155 E xecutive Summary

ver the past two decades, data from Earth sensing satellites have become important in helping to predict the weather, improve public safety, map Earth’s features and infrastructure, manage natural resources, and study envi- ronmentalo change. In the future, the United States and other countries are likely to increase their reliance on these systems to gather useful data about Earth. U.S. and foreign satellite remote sensing systems often have overlapping requirements and redundant capabilities. To improve the nation’s return on its investment in remote sensing technologies, to meet the needs of data users more effectively, and to take full advantage of other nations’ capabilities, Con- gress may wish to initiate a long-term, comprehensive plan for Earth observations. A national strategy for the development and operation of future remote sensing systems could help guide near-term decisions to ensure that future data needs will be satisfied. By harmonizing individual agency priorities in a framework of overall national priorities, a strategic plan would help ensure that agencies meet broad-based national data needs with improved efficiency and reduced cost. ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGIC PLAN A comprehensive strategic plan would endeavor to:

■ incorporate the data needs of both government and nongovernment data users,

■ improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of space and data- handling systems, ■ involve private operators of remote sensing systems, n incorporate international civilian operational and experimental remote sensing programs, and 1 2 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

■ guide the development of new sensor and for future remote sensing systems, the federal spacecraft technologies. government may wish to take into account the needs of private-sector data users, who provide an I Meeting Data Requirements important source of innovative applications of remotely sensed data. To provide the foundation for a strategic plan, the U.S. firms are now developing land and ocean federal government should aggregate and consid- sensing systems with new capabilities. If private er specific data needs from all major data users. systems succeed commercially, they are likely Options for strengthening the process for setting to change the nature and scope of the data mar- data requirements include: ket dramatically. Congress could assist the re- m developing methods to increase the interac- mote sensing industry and enhance its internatio- tions among users, designers, and operators of nal competitiveness by: remote sensing systems, directing federal agencies to purchase data ■ involving a broader range of users in discus- rather than systems from private industry. sions of requirements, and providing oversight to ensure that federal agen- ■ developing a formal process for revising cies do not compete with industry in develop- agency satellite programs in response to ing software, providing analytic services, and emerging capabilities and needs from a broad- developing remote sensing systems, and ened user base. supporting the development of advanced technologies to assist government remote sensing programs and private-sector needs.

International Cooperation Federal government civilian operators and To reduce costs and improve the effectiveness data users of remote sensing programs, a strategic plan Scientists should include mechanisms for exploiting in- Operational users (e.g., resource managers, planners, geographers) ternational capabilities. The open exchange of Military and intelligence users data is essential to international cooperation in re- Private industry mote sensing, especially for weather forecasting, Value-added companies global change research, ocean monitoring, and Data suppliers other applications that require data on a global Commercial data users scale. To enhance the benefits of international State and local governments cooperation in remote sensing, the United States Nonprofit sector could consider pursuing one or more of the fol- Universities lowing: Environmental organizations ● increase U.S. efforts to promote sharing of data gathered from national systems, m participate in a formal international division of 9 Private Sector labor, which would allow countries to special- A strategic plan for Earth observations should ize in the types of data they collect, and capitalize on the expertise resident in private ● support development of an international re- industry. The collection of private firms that sup- mote sensing agency, to which each participat- ply data-processing and -interpretation services is ing nation would contribute funding to devel- small but growing rapidly. In setting requirements op an international satellite system. Executive Summary 13

The convergence plan would continue U.S. cooperative relationships with Europe through Eumetsat, which plans to operate the METOP-1 Canada polar-orbiting meteorological satellite system be- European Space Agency (ESA) ginning in 2000. The plan also increases U.S. de- European Organisation for the Exploration of pendence on Europe for meteorological data. Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat) (ESA) France DOD’s desire to control the flow of data from U.S. Germany sensors aboard the Eumetsat METOP during Japan times of crisis may impede the completion of a Russia U.S.-Eumetsat agreement. In the future, the United States United States and Eumetsat may wish to expand their cooperative satellite program by including L. Japan and/or Russia as partners. DATA COLLECTION The U.S. government has few examples of suc- As part of its strategic plan, the United St ates cessful long-term, multiagency programs. Ensur- needs to improve its programs for: ing stable funding and stable management in pro- ■ collecting atmospheric data to support weather grams that now involve multiple agencies and forecasting and severe-weather warning, multiple congressional authorization and ap- ■ monitoring the land surface, propriations committees will challenge Congress ■ monitoring the oceans and ice caps, and the Administration. Nevertheless, conver- ■ collecting data to support research on global gence of the polar-orbiting programs could serve environmental change, and as an important experiment in determining the ■ monitoring key indicators of global change and feasibility of developing and executing a long- environmental quality over decades. term strategic plan for Earth observations.

B Converging the Polar-Orbiting I Land Remote Sensing Meteorological Satellite Systems Despite significant advances in remote sensing The Clinton Administration’s plan to consolidate technology and the steady growth of a market the two polar-orbiting systems operated by the for data, the United States continues to ap- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- proach the Landsat program more as a re- tion (NOAA) and the Department of Defense search effort than a fully operational one. As (DOD) is one important component of a broader currently structured, the Landsat program is vul- strategic plan. DOD, NOAA, and NASA will con- nerable to a launch-vehicle or spacecraft failure. It tribute personnel and funding to an Integrated has also suffered from instability in management Program Office within NOAA, which will operate and funding. The current management arrange- the converged polar-orbiting system. ment, in which responsibility for satellite procure- This proposal arose from the desire to reduce ment, operation, and data distribution is split program redundancy and costs. Yet, convergence among NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological of the agencies’ satellite programs into a single Survey, risks failure should differences of opinion program could have several benefits even if it about the value of Landsat arise among these achieved no cost savings. These include the insti- agencies or the appropriations committees of the tutionalization of mechanisms for moving re- House and Senate. search instruments into operational use, the devel- High system costs have prevented the U.S. opment of long-term environmental monitoring government from committing to a fully operation- programs, and the strengthening of international al land remote sensing system. To reduce taxpayer partnerships. costs, the government could: 4 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

= return to an EOSAT-like arrangement, in which also do ocean fishing companies, private shipping the government supplies a system subsidy but firms, and operators of ocean platforms. Europe, allows the firm to sell the data at market prices, Japan, and Canada are emerging as primary

■ contract with industry suppliers to provide data sources of ocean and ice data for research and op- of specified character and quality, erational purposes. If Congress wishes to support = create a public-private joint venture in which a U.S. commitment to civilian operational ocean the government and one or more private firms and ice monitoring, it could direct NASA, NOAA, cooperate in developing a land remote sensing and DOD to: system, and/or ■ broaden their scope for monitoring ocean and ■ lead the development of an international land ice on existing systems, remote sensing system with one or more for- ■ develop a comprehensive national ocean ob- eign partners. servation system, ■ take part in developing an international ocean 1 Ocean and Ice Remote Sensing monitoring system, The United States may eventually wish to provide ● purchase data from commercial satellite opera- ocean and ice data on an operational basis. Not tors, or only do NASA, NOAA, and DOD have applica- ■ rely primarily on data exchanges with other tions for scientific and operational data, but so countries. and Policv Options 1

atellite systems supply information about Earth that as- sists federal, state, and local agencies with their legislatively mandated programs and that offers numerous additional benefits to commerce, science, and the public welfare.s To provide these benefits, the U.S. government current] y operates or plans to develop five major civilian Earth sensing systems (table 1-1 ). Three agencies—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DOD)-currently operate remote sensing systems that collect unclassified data1 about Earth.2 These and other U.S. agencies make extensive use of the remotely sensed data that these systems generate. In addition, foreign countries and regional agencies have satellite programs that generate remotely sensed Earth data for national and global use (appendix B).3 Existing remote sensing satellite programs are characterized by having overlapping requirements and redundant instruments and spacecraft. This is the natural outgrowth of the way the United States divides responsibilities within the federal government and an authorization and appropriations process that has encouraged agencies to develop and acquire space-based remote

1 l%i~ report is not concerned with any satellite system built exclusively for national security purposes, except for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), whose data are available to civilians. 2 Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories also develop sensors that are incorporated into operational and research satellites, 3 Canada expects to join this group in 1995 with the launch of Radarsat, now under 15 development. 6 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Existing systems Operator Primary objective status Geostationary Operational NOAA Weather monitoring, severe- Two operational (one bor- Environmental Satellite System, storm warning, and environ- rowed from Eumetsat); (GOES) mental data relay. GOES-8 (GOES-Next) launched in April 1994; operational in October 1994. Polar-orbiting Operational NOAA Weather, climate observa- Two partially operational; two Environmental Satellite tions; land, ocean observa- fully operational, launch as System (POES) tions; emergency rescue, needed.

Defense Meteorological Air Force, for Weather, climate observa- One partially operational; two Satellite Program (DMSP) DOD tions. fully operational; launch as needed,

Landsat EOSAT, NASA, Mapping, charting, geode- Landsat 4 and 5 operational; NOAA, USGSb sy; global change, environ- Landsat 7 under develop- mental monitoring, ment—-planned launch date 1998.

Mission to Planet Earth NASA

Upper Atmosphere NASA Research on upper-atmo- Launched September 15, Research Satellite (UARS) sphere chemical and dy- 1991; still operating. namical processes, TOPEX/Poseidon NASA/CNESC Research on ocean topogra- Launched in August 1992; still phy and circulation. operating,

Earth Observing System NASA Global change research, EOS AM platform in advanced (EOS) planning; launch in 1998; EOS PM in early planning; launch in 2000, CHEM in early planning, launch in 2002. Earth Probes (focused NASA Global change research, TOMS planned for launch in process studies) 1994; TRMM planned for launch in 1997; others being planned. a The five major Earth sensing systems are GOES, POES, DMSP, Landsat, and EOS The United States also collects and archives Earth data for non-U S satellites b EOSAT, a private corporation, operates Landsats 4 and 5 for the government Landsat 6, launched in September 1993, failed to achieve orbit when launched NASA, NOAA, and the U S Geological Survey will develop and operate a future Landsat 7. c TOPEX/Poseidon IS a joint project between NASA and the French Space Agency, Centre National of dÉEtudes Spatiales (CNES) SOURCE U S Congress, Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994.

sensing systems uniquely suited to their particular System (EOS), to gather data in support of re- needs. NOAA’s two environmental satellite sys- search to understand and predict the effects of hu- tems serve the needs of the National Weather Ser- man activities on the global environment. The vice and the general public. NOAA’s data are also Landsat system, developed by NASA and now distributed free of charge to the larger internatio- operated by the private corporation EOSAT under nal community. DOD’s Defense Meteorological contract to NOAA, provides multispectral data Satellite Program (DMSP) is designed to provide about Earth’s surface for a wide variety of research similar weather data to support the surveillance, and applied uses. Other countries and organiza- war-fighting, and peacekeeping operations of tions have developed similar satellites with dis- U.S. military forces. As part of its Mission to tinct, but often overlapping, capabilities. Planet Earth program, NASA plans to build a se- The United States now spends about $1.5 bil- ries of satellites, including its Earth Observing lion per year to collect and archive remotely Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options 17

■

■ reflected from the surface

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994 sensed data. To maximize the nation return on its grams that serve national data needs, not just investment in remote sensing technologies (box the narrower interests of individual agencies. l-l; figure l-l), to meet the needs of data users As envisioned in this report, a strategic plan for more effectively, and to take full advantage of the remote sensing would provide a general frame- capabilities of other nations, Congress may wish work for meeting U.S. data needs for a diverse set to initiate the development of a long-term, com- of data users in the public and private sectors. A prehensive strategic plan for civilian satellite re- comprehensive strategic plan should remain flex- mote sensing.4 A national strategy for the devel- ible enough to respond effectively to changes in opment and operation of future remote sensing remote sensing technologies and institutional systems could help guide near-term decisions structures, and to improvements in scientific to ensure that future data needs will be satis- knowledge. However, developing such a plan car- fied. By harmonizing agency priorities with ries certain risks. Without careful attention to the overall national priorities, a strategic plan hazards that have jeopardized previous efforts to would help ensure that agencies carry out pro- coordinate programs that affect many participants,

4 u S. .Congress, ()~ce ofTechnolo~y Assessment, The Future ofRemote Sensingjiom Space: ci~tilian Satellife syStem.S and Applications, OTA-ISC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’.S Ear[h Ob.\er\[ng Sysfem, OTA-BP-ISC- 122 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1 993). 8 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Geosynchronous weather satellites

GOES-W (USA) GMS 1 12%V (JAPAN) b 14CPE -NOAA (usA) \

/LA (USA) *OT(FRANcE) \ METEOR (RUSSIA) I

MOS-2 (JAPAN) \ JERS-1 (JAPAN) I

~~ METEOSAT (EUMETSAT) 0’

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994 a comprehensive plan could result in a cumbersome tion; the House and Senate Appropriations Sub- management structure that is overly bureaucratic, committees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and rigid, and vulnerable to failure. It could also un- Urban Development, and Independent Agencies; dermine existing operational programs that have and the House Permanent Select Committee on met the needs of individual agencies. Intelligence. This report, the last in a series of Office of This chapter outlines the elements that any stra- Technology Assessment (OTA) reports and tegic plan for satellite remote sensing must ad- background papers about civilian Earth re- dress and considers how the United States can best mote sensing systems (box 1-2), examines ele- position itself to achieve its short-term and long- ments of a comprehensive long-term plan for term goals for space-based remote sensing. It U.S. satellite-based remote sensing. The assess- summarizes the assessment and analyzes policy ment was requested by the House Committee on options for congressional consideration. Science, Space, and Technology; the Senate Com- Remotely sensed data provide the basis for mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta- unique kinds of information (box 1-3). Such ap- . . ——

Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 9

Reports

■

1, 2 3 4 5 6

8 9 10 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

placations of remotely sensed data are mirrored NEED FOR A STRATEGIC around the world. Chapter 2: National Remote Several factors underscore the importance of im- Sensing Needs and Capabilities introduces ap- proving the U.S. approach to its remote sensing plications of remotely sensed data and summa- efforts: rizes the primary characteristics of the satellite systems that provide them. It also discusses the 1. The expanding need for more and better data process for determining what data are needed by about Earth. The experimental remote sensing the federal government and other data users, and work of NASA, NOAA, and DOD in the 1960s considers the potential role of the private sector in and 1970s demonstrated that gathering environmental and other Earth data from space was meeting data needs. Chapter 3: Planning for Future Remote both feasible and desirable (figure 1-2). Sensing Systems provides an overview of institu- NOAA’s and DOD’s experience with collecting tional and organizational issues surrounding the data on an operational basis has led to ever development of operational environmental satel- more capable remote sensing systems and the lite remote sensing programs. In addition, the development of a broad base of data users who chapter discusses the potential for creating a strong- need reliable and accurate data for a varied set er partnership than now exists between NASA as of applications. Future long-term operational the developer of satellite research instruments and data needs include:

NOAA as the operational user. The chapter further ■ Monitoring of weather and climate for accu- explores the present and future status of the Land- rate weather forecasting, which will contin- sat program, the involvement of the private sector ue to be important to the U.S. economy and in remote sensing, and the potential for operation- national security. In addition, the United al ocean sensing. States has a developing interest in monitor- Because Earth remote sensing already has a ing the global climate. strong international component, a strategic plan 8 Monitoring of the land surface to assist in must consider the role of international partners global change research: management of nat- and competitors. Chapter 4: International ural resources; exploration for oil, gas, and Cooperation and Competition examines the minerals; mapping; detection of changes; part played by non-U.S. agencies and companies urban planning; and national security activi- in gathering and applying remotely sensed data. It ties. identifies the most important benefits and draw- D Monitoring of the oceans to determine such backs of increased cooperation, including their properties as ocean productivity, extent of impact on national security and the competitive ice cover, sea-surface winds and waves, position of the U.S. remote sensing industry. Fi- ocean currents and circulation, and ocean- nally, it analyzes a range of options for strengthen- surface temperatures. Ocean data have par- ing international cooperation in remote sensing, ticular value to the fishing and shipping in- including a possible international agency or con- dustries, as well as to the U.S. Coast Guard sortium for remote sensing. and Navy.

5 Operational programs have an established community of data users who depend on a steady or continuous flow of data products, long- tenn stability in funding and management, a conservative philosophy toward the introduction of new technology, and stable data-reduction algorithms. 2. The increasing concern over regional and global environmental changes. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related international efforts grew out of a growing interest among scientists and the public over the potentially harmful effects of human-induced regional and global environmental change. Satellite data, combined with data gathered in situ, could provide the basis for a deeper understanding of the underlying processes of regional and global change, leading to useful predictions for the policy debate. Today, scientists understand too little about Earth’s physical and chemical systems to make confident predictions about the effects of global change, particularly the effects on regional environments. Data from NOAA’s and DOD’s satellites systems will continue to be very useful to global change scientists, yet these data are not of sufficient breadth or quality to discern subtle changes in climate or other components of Earth’s environment. As its contribution to the USGCRP, NASA has developed the EOS satellite program, which will provide more detailed, calibrated data about Earth over a 15-year period (appendix A). NASA designed craft and ground-based facilities,6 and the the EOS program to improve scientists’ under- cooperation and involvement of other nations, standing of the processes of global change by both to collect critical environmental data and complementary airborne and ground-based to share program costs. measurements. 4. The increasing pressures, in the United States 3. A growing consensus within the scientific and abroad, to improve the cost-effectiveness community on the need for long-term, cali- of space systems. Congress and the Clinton brated monitoring of the global environment. Administration have reached consensus that to Although EOS is not structured to collect envi- control so-called discretionary spending in the ronmental data over the decadal time scales sci- federal budget, funding for space systems must entists believe are needed to monitor the health remain steady or decrease. As noted in an earli- of the global environment, it would provide the er OTA report, a declining NASA budget is basis for designing an observational satellite likely to force the Administration and Congress program capable of long-term, calibrated envi- to make difficult decisions about NASA’s Mis- ronmental observations. A long-term global sion to Planet Earth program, which competes monitoring program will also require a coordi- for funding with other NASA programs such as nated program of measurements taken by air- the Space Station or the Shuttle.7 NASA’s

6 U.S. Congre\s, Offke of Technology Assessment, Global Chunge Research and NASA’s Earrh Ob.~er\’ing Sjstem, op. cit., pp. 4, 13 7 U.S. Congre\\, Office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remote Sensin,gjiom Space, op. cit., pp. 18-23. 12 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

FY 1995 proposed budget for Mission to Planet new institutional arrangements. Non-U.S. Earth is $1,238 million, compared with its instruments now fly on U.S. satellites, while FY 1994 budget of $1,024 million, an increase European and Japanese satellites fly U.S. of 20 percent. instruments. This pattern will continue in the NOAA’s funding for satellite programs is future. In particular. NASA’s Mission to Planet projected to remain between $410 million and Earth, including its EOS program, has a major $460 million (in current dollars) until the end international component.9 Participating coun- of the decade. NOAA’s budget is constrained tries share the data to support scientific re- by potential conflict with other agency pro- search. NOAA has long pursued cooperative grams, such as NEXRAD,8 and by planned activities as a way to increase its capabilities of budget increases in other Department of Com- supplying environmental data. It is currently merce programs, such as the National Institute negotiating an agreement with Eumetsat to of Standards and Technology (NIST). These supply an operational polar-orbiter (ME- pressures and declining defense budgets have TOP- 1 ) in the year 2000 that would allow led Congress and the Clinton Administration NOAA to operate one satellite, rather than to propose consolidating the Polar-orbiting two. 10 Opportunities for further expansion of Operational Environmental Satellite System cooperative activities could increase as other (POES) and the DMSP system as a way to re- countries gain experience in remote sensing duce the costs of the nation’s meteorological and confidence in international cooperation. programs. The data gathered by DOD’s DMSP 6. The introduction of privately operated remote and NOAA’s POES are similar, and the United sensing systems to collect remotely sensed States faces the challenge of making these data on a commercial basis. Private firms have programs more efficient without losing im- played a major role in the development of the portant capabilities that now exist or that remote sensing industry. They serve both as are being developed. contractors for government-developeds systems 5. The increasing internationalization of civil- and as service providers that process raw satel- ian operational and experimental remote lite data, turning them into useful information sensing programs. Budget pressures within (i.e., the so-called value-added industry). First most countries and the desire to improve the EOSAT and then SPOT Image have operated scope of national remote sensing programs remote sensing systems developed by govern- have led to increased international interest in ments and have marketed the data worldwide. sharing satellite systems and data. This interest Recently, U.S. firms have received govern- has increased U.S. opportunities to exploit for- ment approval to operate privately financed eign sources of satellite data and to develop satellite systemsl1 and to market geospatial

8 me Next (jenera[i~n wea~er Radar, ~ ~e[w~rk of advanced Doppler radar s[~[ions for rneaiuring w intis re~ponsiblc for severe weather, It is a joint program funded by NOAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and DOD. 9For example, tie first major Eos Satelll[e, [he so-called AM platfoml, will carry the Japanese Advan~~d Spaceborne Thermal Emi~~i~n and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER). Instruments built by NASA and the French \pace agency, Centre Natiomil d’Etudes Spatiale\ (CNES), w ill fly on the Japanese Advanced Earth Observing System (ADEOS ) satellite, developed b}( Japtin’s Nalional Space D(velopnmnt AgcIIcy (~’A:jDA ) and its Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI ). 10 Eume(sat’s Me(eoro]~gi~al C)wrational S:l[e]]i[e (~~TOP) w OLJ]~ fl~ in a w-c~]}c~ morning orbit, crossing the equator at about ~:~() ~.nl. NOAA’s POES satellite would fly in the afternoon orbit. The Clinton AdnliniwWion’\ con~ ergcnce plan a~sunle~ completion of this ttgreement. 11 u s. Congress, Office of Technolog) A\se\\ment, Renlott’1)” SCtI.\Cd J9UIU.’ T(J(}III01OS], ~ i4an(Jqenlcn/, and,WurLcrs, OTA-ISS-6(M (Wa\h- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994j, ch. 4. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 13

data12 to government and industry customers restrictions on the civilian development and around the world. If successful, they will use of remote sensing technologies. As noted change profoundly the international market- above, the United States has also undertaken place for remotely sensed data. Even now, in- the consolidation of DOD’s DMSP system ternational commerce in remotely sensed data with NOAA’s POES; similar efforts fell short shows signs of rapid change as foreign compa- in the past, in part as a result of national securi- nies also begin to explore the potential for de- ty considerations during the Cold War. 15 veloping commercial remote sensing systems.13 7. The end of the Cold War era, which has forced STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS reexamination of the role of space technolo- OF A STRATEGIC PLAN gies in promoting national security and U.S. The existing collection of satellite remote sensing technological prowess. Much of the existing systems, both nationally and internationally, has structure of U.S. space efforts grew out of the evolved in response to a variety of independent Cold War tensions between the United States needs for data about Earth. Consequently, system and the former Soviet Union. The breakup of capabilities may overlap, as they do in the polar- the Soviet Union has resulted in new opportu- orbiting environmental satellites operated by nities for cooperation instead of competition DOD and NOAA. Some capabilities are also com- with the former Soviet republics. The United plementary. For example, both Europe and Japan States has now brought Russia into its partner- operate synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites, ship with Canada, Europe, and Japan in build- but the United States has no civilian SAR system 16 ing an international space station. Other coop- in operation. Hence, for its SAR data, the United erative projects, including Earth observations, 1 States now largely relies on Europe’s and Japan’s are likely to follow as well. 4 satellites. NASA was developed as an independent, ci- A strategic plan would consider the short-term vilian agency to separate civilian and military and long-term needs of all major data users. As interests in the development of science and noted earlier, future data needs are likely to in- technology. Among other things, this separa- volve: tion allowed the military and intelligence agencies to pursue their space agendas largely out of ■ collecting atmospheric data to support weath- the public view. As a result, NASA and DOD er observations and forecasting, often developed similar technologies indepen- ■ monitoring the land surface, dent y. With the end of the Cold War and other ■ monitoring the oceans, changes in the political makeup of the world, ■ collecting data to support research on global the United States has eased many of its earlier environmental change, and

12 Geospatia] da(a are data (hat are organized according tO their location on Earth. 13 p, Seitz, “New Ventures Tempt European SPace Firms! “ Space Ne\+s, May 23-29, 1994, p. 3. I -1 ~c United States ~d Russia are ~unent]y ~orklng together on a modest scale in Em remote sensing. Russia flew a Total ozone Map- ping Spectrometer (TOMS) aboard one of its Meteor polar-orbiting satellites in 199 I and has agreed to do so again.

IS DOD and NOAA have ~o]]a~rated in eight previous convergence studies, most of which contributed 10 operational improvements and closer cooperation between DOD and NOAA. However, attempts to meld the systems always failed on grounds that such a move would w eahen U.S. national security without appreciably lowering overall system costs. 16 me United Sta(e$ has recently flown advanced SAR in~tmments, the Shuttle Inlaging Radar (SIR-A, B. C), on the Space Shuttle, but tht?\c instruments do not provide continuous data collection. In 1978, NASA also orbited the experimental ocean rcmote sensing satellite. Seasat. which operated for only 3 months in 1978. See chapter 3. 14 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

H long-term monitoring of key indicators of with each other on subjects of mutual interest. The global change and environmental quality. collaborative USGCRP demonstrates such an in- Programs for gathering needed data are dis- teragency mechanism. Through it, agencies can cussed in later sections of this chapter. This sec- tackle much larger problems than could any tion discusses structural and institutional issues agency acting alone. However, such collaboration that would affect the development of a strategic requires a certain accommodation to the needs of approach to remote sensing. For example, How other agencies so that facilities and information can the United States most effectively identify and can be shared efficiently .17 aggregate its data requirements? What role, if any, One of the benefits of developing a strategic should private firms have in supplying data? How plan for Earth observations is the opportunity to can the United States make the most effective use identify mutual interests and to strengthen coop- of the capabilities of other countries in meeting erative relationships by sharing systems and data important data needs? more effectively. The Clinton Administration’s Plans for meeting national data needs will be efforts to consolidate NOAA’s and DOD’s polar- developed within the context of other national pri- orbiting satellite programs provide an important orities such as reducing the federal budget deficit example of how one aspect of a strategic plan by working more efficiently in space, defining the might function. By including NASA in the Inte- U.S. role in international cooperative activities, grated Program Office that will operate the com- increasing U.S. competitiveness, improving bined polar-orbiting system, the Administration scientific understanding of the global environ- has the opportunity to use NASA’s expertise in de- ment, improving the U.S. technology base, and veloping new sensors and spacecraft to enhance maintaining U.S. national security. the collection of useful satellite data. The section “Monitoring Weather and Climate,” later in this ~ Interagency Coordination chapter, examines issues related to convergence of and Collaboration the polar-orbiting systems in more detail. A strategic plan for Earth observations would The convergence of polar-orbiting satellite weigh the potential contributions of every federal systems is one important aspect of a strategic agency. NASA, NOAA, and DOD each fund the plan for U.S. remote sensing. Congress must development and operation of satellite remote also decide the future of U.S. efforts in land and sensing systems in response to agency mission re- ocean remote sensing and determine the U.S. quirements for specific types of data. Yet, the data role in long-term climate monitoring. The sec- these systems provide have applications far be- tions on land and ocean remote sensing in this yond the needs of the agency generating them. chapter examine such issues. Congress will also Agencies also have overlapping interests in the be interested in NASA’s and NOAA’s plans for collection and application of data. Further, each cooperating with international organizations and agency has developed certain areas of expertise. non-U.S. agencies in sharing costs and capabili- For example, NOAA and DOD have considerable ties in remote sensing. Finally, Congress will also expertise in providing operational satellite data. wish to understand what options it might have for NASA has particular strength in developing new assisting U.S. industry’s efforts to supply remote- instrumentation and satellite platforms. To share ly sensed data to a global marketplace in the face their respective strengths, agencies develop of national security concerns over the wide dis- mechanisms for coordinating and cooperating tribution of high-resolution geospatial data.

17 For the USCjCRp, the Su&ommj[tee on Global Change Research of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research of the National Science and Technology Council in the executive branch has provided oversight to assist collaboration. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options 115

I Data Users and the Requirements Process As noted earlier, the use of remotely sensed Earth data extends well beyond the federal government, to include state and local agencies as well as a variety of nongovernment users (box 1-4). Each data user has a range of requirements for satellite instruments and operations. To develop the foundation for a strategic plan, specific data needs will have to be aggregated and considered as part of a broad-based process. Mechanisms for improving the process for developing data requirements process should be a central element of a national strategy for remote sensing. The federal government now has no established institutional means for considering overall needs for Earth observations. The current process for establishing requirements for these observations occurs mainly within individual agencies and involves specific groups of users who are responsible for those agencies’ missions. needs in the context of changing national prior- This process can lead to inefficient decisions, as ities. seen in a broad, national context, by limiting the ability to make tradeoffs between costs and re- 1 The Private Sector quirements and excluding users outside the agen- The activities and plans of private industry need to cies. Chapter 2 discusses several options for be considered in developing a strategic plan for strengthening the requirements process: Earth observations. The value-added sector of the ■ Increasing the interaction among users, de- remote sensing marketplace, which provides data signers, and operators to improve the ability processing and interpretation services, is relative- to make tradeoffs between requirements and ly small ($300 million to $400 million per year) costs. This can occur over time with successive but growing rapidly as federal, state, and local generations of operational programs, but it is government agencies and private firms discover difficult to achieve with new programs. the value of satellite data in a variety of applica- ■ Including a broader range of users in discus- tions. 18 U.S. companies developed most of the sions of requirements. This could involve es- geographic information system (GIS) and other tablishing formal channels for seeking outside software used for processing geospatial data. input into agency processes or formal inter- They have been a major force in increasing the ca- agency reviews of requirements. pability and reducing the costs of such software. ■ Developing a formal process for revising U.S. industry, therefore, has a strong foothold in agency missions in response to emerging ca- the development of the value-added industry; it pabilities and needs. This could involve estab- supplies both software and information to a wide lishing an independent panel of experts to reex- range of government and private customers. In amine periodically agency capabilities and setting requirements for future remote sensing

1~ U.S. Congrc\f, Office of Technology Assessment, Rernotelv Sensed Data: Technology>, Management and Markets, op. cit.. p. 107. 16 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

systems, the federal government may wish to take permits the companies to sell data worldwide, into account the needs of private data users be- with several restrictions, including the possible cause they are an important source of innovative limitation of data collection and/or distribution applications of remotely sensed data. during times of crisis. Private firms could also play a substantial role The policy also allows for the sale of “turnkey” in expanding overall U.S. remote sensing capabil- systems to the governments of other countries, ities and in supplying data for government needs. which would be able to gather whichever images As noted above, private U.S. firms are now devel- they wish. However, Administration policy on oping land remote sensing systems with new ca- such systems is much more restrictive than it is on pabilities. At least three private firms expect to be U.S.-owned and -operated systems. The Adminis- able to offer higher-resolution, more timely tration will consider export of turnkey systems to stereoscopic data19 and to charge much less for other governments only on a case-by-case basis such data than existing systems do. These firms and under the terms of a government-to-govem- have targeted international markets now served ment agreement. primarily by aircraft-imaging firms, especially in NASA has recently contracted with TRW. Inc., applications that require digital data for mapping, and CTA, Inc., to build and operate two remote urban planning, military planning, and other uses. sensing systems under its Smallsat Program.20 If private systems succeed commercially, they These represent two very different approaches to are likely to change the nature and scope of the satellite remote sensing. The TRW system will data market dramatically. carry a sensor capable of gathering data of 30-m The United States faces significant opportuni- resolution in 384 narrow spectral bands from the ties, challenges, and risks in assisting with the de- visible into the near-infrared. NASA will pay velopment of these systems. The federal govern- TRW $59 million for the satellite system, which ment has the opportunity to facilitate the will test a variety of new remote sensing technolo- development of a robust U.S. remote sensing in- gies, including new materials, sensors, and space- dustry, one that provides high-quality, spatial data craft components. The data from this system will and information to customers throughout the be of considerable interest to scientists working world. If it decides to do so, it faces the challenge on global change research and to many current us- of devising the appropriate technological, finan- ers of Landsat data, including farmers, foresters, cial, and institutional means to help this fledgling and land managers.21 industry to compete with foreign governments The CTA spacecraft, which will cost $49 mil- and companies. Because the data from commer- lion, will carry a sensor identical to the World- cial systems would have significant military util- View Imaging Corporation sensor now in produc- ity, however, the United States faces the risk that tion for a 1995 launch. The CTA system will be unfriendly nations might use the data to the detri- capable of collecting land data of 3-m resolution ment of the United States or its allies. (panchromatic). In contracting for these satellite Current Administration policy (appendix F) al- systems, NASA is attempting to demonstrate its lows for the licensing of U.S. companies to sell capacity to encourage the development of innova- imagery with resolution as fine as 1 meter (m) and tive, lightweight satellite technology, and to do it

19 Stereoscopic data make it possible for data analysts to generate topographic maps of a region directly from satellite data.

z~ L. Tucci, “NASA Awwds Smallsat Work,” Space News, June 1319, 1994, pp. 3,29.

2 I If ~uccessfu], me system should, among other things, generate data capable of distinguishing types of plants and trees from space by comparing responses from different spectral bands. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 17

quickly and efficiently.zz NASA officials empha- sure that both taxpayers and private satellite re- size their intent to stimulate the market for remote sensing firms are well served by its actions. motely sensed data. In the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA Several private firms have argued that with re- has entered into a different contracting arrange- gard to the CTA system, the market does not need ment with Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) in such stimulation: private firms have already em- which NASA has agreed to provide funding of barked on similar, competing systems. Further, $43.5 million up front in return for 5 years of data these firms argue that NASA’s entry into an en- from OSC’S SeaStar satellite. SeaStar will carry deavor so closely connected to ongoing commer- the Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor (SeaWiFS) cial pursuits is already making it difficult for them ocean-color sensor for gathering multispectral to raise needed capital in the financial markets. data about the surface of the ocean. NASA will use The y complain that NASA is, in effect, competing SeaStar data in its studies of global change. OSC with them.23 NASA counters that the two satel- will market data from SeaStar to fisheries and oth- lites will test a range of new technologies that er ocean users, who will use them to locate the could contribute to the usefulness of remotely most productive ocean areas and assist in ship sensed data. routing. The NASA-OSC “anchor tenant” agree- Although the two NASA satellites may im- ment has allowed OSC to obtain additional fund- prove the utility of remotely sensed data over the ing from the financial markets to complete its long term, in the short term, the CTA system, es- project and will, if the satellite proves successful, pecially, could also inhibit the ability of firms to deliver data of considerable interest to NASA sci- develop their own systems. Whether these sys- entists. Congress may wish to consider encour- tems help or harm markct development will de- aging NASA and other agencies to use the pend in large part on the perceptions the venture mechanism of data purchase to stimulate the capital market has regarding NASA’s intentions market for data. Such a mechanism has the ad- and on NASA’s plans for making the data avail- vantage of providing the government with able to customers. For example, if NASA makes needed data while assisting private firms in de- these data available only for experimental pur- veloping new Earth observation systems. poses for a limited period of a few months, it could stimulate market interest. If, on the other hand, NASA makes the data available for longer peri- I international Cooperation ods. it would effectively compete with private ef- and Competition forts. Yet, if NASA limited the distribution of data An effective strategic plan will also include con- from the CTA satellite to a few NASA users, Con- sideration of how the United States cooperates gress might well consider the $49 million COSt of and competes with other nations. Over the past the satellite too high. For example, DOD would be decade, satellite remote sensing has become in- a likely major user of data of 3-m resolution.24 It is creasingly international: the European Space hard to see how NASA could limit DOD’s use of Agency (ES A), the European Organisation for the data paid for by taxpayers. Congress may wish to Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eumet- monitor NASA’s Small sat Program closely to en- sat), France, India, Japan, and Russia now operate

‘2 K. S;iw>ur. “l;or NASI\ “Snutlluit\,’ a Commercial Role,” The \4h\hIn,qIon Po\/, June 9, 1994. p. A7. ~~ L. TuccI. ‘“NASA Rctuw\ To Sell Clark. Industry LJp@ with Agenc) Smallwt Inqcry Advantage. ” Si)ace ,Velt f, June 27- JUIJ 3, I 994, pp. 3.2 I ‘~ Indeed. 1X)11 ii I ihcl> to bc a nui]or customer of data from Wrorld\’icw, Space Imaging. Inc., and Eyeglass International. See chapter 3. 18 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

satellite systems; others, such as Australia, Brazil, over the types and quality of available data. It also Canada, China, Germany, Italy, South Africa, risks the loss of some data by relying on the con- Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have devel- tributions of other countries and poses additional oped considerable expertise in remote sensing burdens of meeting the requirements of other instrumentation and the application of remotely countries. sensed data but do not currently operate remote Data exchange is essential to international 25 sensing systems. Countries have become active cooperation in remote sensing. The open ex- in remote sensing to improve control over their in- change of data is particularly important for weath- formation sources and applications, to obtain data er forecasting, global change research, ocean not otherwise available, to develop capabilities in monitoring, and other applications that require advanced information technologies, and to assist data on a global scale. For this reason, the United their national security forces. States has had a long history of sharing remotely International remote sensing activities have sensed data with other nations. Because some also become increasingly interactive: countries governments view data as a valuable commodity cooperate to expand their own access to remote whereas the U.S. government and others treat sensing capabilities; they also compete for com- them as public goods, the international remote mercial advantage or technological prestige. In sensing community faces a challenge in coordi- this new international environment, the United nating data access and pricing policies. Failure to States, which once was the only supplier of re- coordinate and reach substantial commonality in motely sensed data, no longer dominates the policies on data access and exchange could greatly technology or the data markets. These circum- complicate access to data and undermine the ef- stances require greater give-and-take in managing fectiveness of remote sensing programs.26 This is international cooperation and increased attention especially true for global change research, which to the opportunities for maintaining and improv- requires large quantities of different kinds of ing the U.S. competitive stance. data to develop and verify global environmental models. International Cooperation Stronger institutional arrangements could enhance the benefits of international cooperation in Because remote sensing satellites pass over large remote sensing. Two questions will be critical. portions of the Earth without regard to political First, can countries share control over cooperative boundaries, remote sensing is inherently intern- satellite programs in a way that meets their over- ational in scope. Cooperation among countries lapping but distinct requirements? Second, can offers the opportunity to reduce costs and im- countries share the costs of these programs in a prove the effectiveness of remote sensing pro- way that is fair and alleviates the pressures for cost grams. International cooperation can reduce costs recovery that can lead to restrictive data policies? by eliminating unnecessary duplication among Options for strengthening the institutions of in- national programs. Cooperation can also improve ternational cooperation in remote sensing include the effectiveness of remote sensing by uniting the the following: complementary strengths of national programs and eliminating data gaps that might otherwise oc- ■ An international information cooperative, cur. However, international cooperation carries which is a set of institutional arrangements for certain risks because it entails some loss of control the open sharing of data and information and

ZS Bra~i], however, has ~ agreement wl~ China tO &VelOp a polar .orbiting remote sensing satellite, and Canada will launch its Radarsat spacecraft in early I 995. 26 us congress, Office of Technology Ass~ssnlent, R~~o(~/y sensed Data: Tech~/ogy, ~a~gemenl, and Markets, op. cit., ch. 5. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options 119

the voluntary sharing of responsibility for data SAR sensing of land and polar ice cover. Divid- management. The prime example is the World ing up the tasks and labor among many coun- Meteorological Organization (WMO), which tries would encourage those countries to make has developed agreements for the open dis- formal arrangements for sharing data from a tribution of basic meteorological data, whether wide variety of instruments in support of in- they come from satellites, ground stations, or ternational monitoring efforts. other sources. The Committee on Earth Ob- ■ An international remote sensing agency. Sev- servations Satellites (CEOS) is a more informal eral experts have suggested that the United 27 organization, which has pursued agreements States should take the lead in establishing an in- on common principles for data exchange for ternational remote sensing agency to provide global change research and environmental some global remote sensing needs.28 An in- monitoring. Building on those agreements, ternational remote sensing agency might focus CEOS could provide the basis for a broad in- on a narrow set of objectives, such as land re- formation cooperative for sharing satellite data mote sensing,29 or it could deal with broad on the atmosphere, land, and oceans. needs for data about the land, ocean, and atmos- ● A formal international division of labor. phere. Such an agency would allow countries to Countries already specialize to some degree in pool resources for a satellite system that meets their remote sensing programs. Japan has de- their overlapping needs without the unneces- voted particular attention to ocean observa- sary duplication that characterizes current ef- tions, whereas Europe focused initially on ob- forts. However, establishing such an agency servations of atmosphere and land surface. In would require great ingenuity in devising an ef- scaling back its initial plans for the Mission to ficient organizational structure that gives each Planet Earth, NASA has developed a program member country a fair share of control. For the that complements these foreign efforts. A for- next several years, experience in working with mal division of labor could allow countries to CEOS and other international arrangements specialize further in the types of data they should provide insight into the ultimate work- choose to collect without risking a loss of ac- ability of an international remote sensing cess to other types of data that are collected by agency. other countries. In the future, such arrangements could be Russia has a long and wide-ranging tradi- extended to make efficient use of the special- tion of remote sensing and could be a strong in- ties developed within each country. For exam- ternational partner. The United States has a two- ple, the United States has considerable exper- decade history of cooperation with the former tise in weather and climate observations; Soviet Union, but Cold War tensions limited the Europe and Japan are developing strengths in scope of this cooperation. Current U.S.-Russian ocean sensing and synthetic aperture radar space activities involve cooperation in the use of (SAR) technology; Canada, which will soon data for Earth science and planned flights of U.S. launch its Radarsat, is focusing attention on instruments on Russian spacecraft. These activi-

~7 No formal intergo~ emmental agreements are involved. Government agencies and nongovemment organizations send representatives to ][s meetings. 28 J.H. McElroy, “IN TELSAT, INMARSAT, and CEOS: Is ENVIROSAT Next?” In Space Re

ties could provide the basis for the future integra- provides an example of such cooperation.31 Such tion of Russia into international remote sensing strategic commercial alliances are likely to ex- programs. Because of the potential benefits to pand the global market for remotely sensed data. the United States of cooperating with Russia on The U.S. private sector has been a world leader in remote sensing programs, Congress may wish the development of sensors and spacecraft and is to urge NASA and NOAA to explore the poten- likely to maintain its dominant, competitive posi- tial for closer cooperation in operational pro- tion for some time. However, the development and grams. In particular, the United States might ex- operation by other nations of rnultispectral and plore the potential for including Russia in its SAR satellite systems will give the private sectors cooperative program with Eumetsat in polar-or- of those countries considerable incentive to build biting satellites (see below, “Monitoring Weather their own systems and market data from them. and Climate’ ’).30 Ongoing cooperative activities Experience with research and practical ap- on the international space station and other areas plications of data creates a strong synergy be- of space technology have given U.S. officials con- tween the creation of a data market and the de- siderable insight into Russian capabilities and mand for the development of satellite systems. provide optimism that cooperative efforts would Such experience also extends to systems devel- be highly beneficial for both countries. However, oped for national security needs. For example, uncertainties in Russia’s political relationships several countries in Europe are cooperating in de- and the capacity to sustain its space programs ar- veloping and operating the French-led HELIOS-1 gue for particular caution in undertaking coopera- surveillance satellite, which reportedly will be ca- 32 tive programs with Russia. Projects should be pable of l-m panchromatic ground resolution. well-defined, the benefits to both sides should be This experience will enhance the capabilities of clearly articulated, and plans to handle contingen- non-U. S. government laboratories and private cies should be developed. firms to field highly capable remote sensing systems and to use the data in a wide variety of civil- International Competition ian applications. If foreign private firms enter the Despite the advantages of international coop- marketplace with data from privately operated eration noted above, commercial competition systems, they are likely to do so with the strong fi- and national security considerations may limit nancial backing of their governments. If Con- the scope of intergovernmental cooperation in gress wishes to assist in maintaining U.S. com- remote sensing. For example, commercial activi- petitiveness in remote sensing systems and ty in land remote sensing will likely limit the de- data-management software, it has several op- velopment of intergovernmental cooperation. Yet, tions. It could: commercial firms and government agencies from = direct U.S. agencies to purchase from private various countries will likely cooperate on a vari- industry the multispectral data needed for op- ety of activities, including marketing data and de- erational purposes in monitoring the land and veloping technology and processing algorithms. oceans,

The recent marketing agreement between EOSAT ● provide oversight to ensure that federal agen- and the National Remote Sensing Agency of India cies do not compete with private firms in devel-

30 U.S. congress, office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remofe Sen.$ingfiorn SPace, oP. cit i P. 31. 3] “EOSAT To Market Indian Data,” EOSATNotes, falh’winter 1993, pp. 4-5. 32 Fr~ce exwcts [0 launch HELIOS. ] in ] 995. Ge~~y has just announced its willingness 10 cooperate in the de~ e]opmem of a fOlhJW-On system, HEL1OS-2. See “Germany Ready To Take Role in Helios Pro gram,” Space News, May 23-29, 1994, p. 2. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options 121

oping software and in providing data process- as NOAA’s POES and DOD’s DMSP with re- ing and other value-added services, search programs such as NASA’s EOS.34 ■ provide oversight to ensure that federal agen- Integration of smaller programs into larger, cies do not compete with private firms in devel- comprehensive ones to accommodate research oping remote sensing systems, and and development or operations goals tends to in- ■ fund the development of advanced sensors that hibit adaptation to external challenges because would assist government remote sensing pro- more groups have to be persuaded of a particular grams and private-sector needs. course of action. Further, although integration into larger systems tends to deter budget cuts, LIMITATIONS OF A STRATEGIC PLAN when cuts come they can undermine the entire By linking different government environmental program. By contrast, cuts in an isolated program remote sensing programs, as well as private-sector may have few adverse effects beyond the program developments, a national strategic plan for envi- cut. Developing and executing a comprehensive ronmental satellite remote sensing might assist in strategic plan would be a major challenge because the creation of an integrated remote sensing sys- the existing institutional structure tends to resist tem that is less susceptible than current systems to change and integration into a larger whole. Each single-point failure or changing priorities—a agency has developed a set of priorities for its pro- more “robust and resilent” system for Earth ob- grams, which then becomes incorporated into the servations. If, on the other hand, it resulted in a work of the authorization and appropriations com- large, single system, a comprehensive strategic mittees of the House and Senate. These commit- plan might make Earth observation plans more tees thus have a stake in the development of new susceptible to failure. NASA’s initial, large EOS priorities and, therefore, may resist efforts to make program, for example, was restructured twice to changes that would reduce their influence over the make it more resilient to technical failure and to agencies for which they are responsible. lower funding expectations. The Space Station Finally, as the experience with the USGCRP program has been cited as an example of the diffi- has demonstrated, the development of a well- culties of funding and managing a large, single project incorporating several interest groups.33 In coordinated plan within the executive branch does addition, by forcing operating agencies to coordi- not necessarily mean that the program will be con- nate among themselves and with data users even sidered as a whole when the federal budget reach- more intensively than they now do, the process of es Congress. Each committee has its own priori- developing and executing a national strategic plan ties and may either enhance or cut the budget of a for remote sensing has the potential to result in an given program, independent of the funding bal- overly bureaucratic approach to Earth observa- ance agreed upon by the Clinton Administra- tions. Furthermore, as noted in chapter 3, the Clin- tion.35 In other words, the very structure of the ton Administration faces technical and program- U.S. government may make the development matic risks in merging operational programs such and execution of a strategic plan difficult. The

s~ R.D. Bmnner and R, Byerly, Jr., ‘The Space Station PrOgrarnme,” Space Policy 6(2): 131-145, 1990. 34 ~ [he other hand \clen[ists have noted that data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) ~ensor a~flrd INOAA’\ POES are extremely ufeful for certain aspects of global change research and that better calibration of the instrument would enhance [heir research. Hence, a mechanism for including research interests in operational systems would be beneficial. 35 1n tie Ca$e of the USGCRP, the programs of some agencies have been sharply cut and others enhanced as the rcwlt of congrcifional action. Appropriations subcommittees do not nece~sarily consider the effects of cuts or increases on the overall USGCRP program. See (-1, S. Congre\\, Office of Technology Asse\$ment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Ear~h Obser\/ng 5\,\renl, op. cit., p. 9. 22 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

USGCRP has succeeded in increasing overall The proposals to consolidate the polar-orbiting funding for global change research. It remains to programs arose from the desire to achieve cost be seen whether a coordinated plan devoted in part savings and greater program efficiencies. Never- to increasing efficiency in Earth observations will theless, the consolidation of NOAA’s, DOD’s, function as well. and NASA’s satellite programs could have several benefits even if it achieved no cost savings. MONITORING WEATHER AND CLIMATE These include the institutionalization of mecha- NOAA’s Polar-orbiting Operational Environmen- nisms to develop research instruments and move tal Satellite (POES) System and DOD’s Defense them into operational use, the potential for devel- Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) have opment of long-term (decadal-time-scale) envi- distinct but similar capabilities for gathering data ronmental monitoring programs, and a potential on weather and climate. Since the 1970s, succes- strengthening of international partnerships that sive administrations have attempted, with only could facilitate new cooperative remote sensing partial success, to merge these two systems. programs. Consolidation of DOD and NOAA meteoro- 1 Convergence logical programs involves more than merging To reduce federal spending, Congress36 and the programs, spacecraft, and sensors. The Clinton Clinton Administration’s National Performance Administration’s convergence plan calls for Review recommended the consolidation of the DOD, NOAA, and NASA to cooperate in setting “various current and proposed remote sensing up an Integrated Program Office (IPO) within programs.” 37 The National Performance Review NOAA to operate a converged polar-orbiting sys- also recommended that NASA “assist in ongoing tem. Each agency has different priorities, data re- efforts to converge U.S. operational weather satel- quirements, user communities, perspectives, and lites, given the benefits of streamlining the collec- protocols with respect to technology develop- tion of weather data across the government.”38 ment, acquisition, and operations-differences The Administration released its plan in May 1994 they have developed during more than two de- (appendix C). Administration officials will at- cades of cooperative, but independent, operation. tempt to achieve total savings of up to $300 mil- Therefore, consolidating space activities from lion by the year 2000 and $1 billion over a decade DOD, NOAA, and NASA is as much a “cultural” by consolidating POES and DMSP (figure 1-3).39 and institutional challenge as a technical one.

36 In 1993, two congressional committees requested a review of the NOAA and DOD polar-orbiting satellite programs to explore possible cost savings. See G.E. Brown, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, letter to D.J. Baker, Administrator of NOAA, Feb. 22, 1993; J.J. Exon, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Deterrence, Arms Control and Defense Intelligence, letter to R. Brown, Secretary of Commerce, June 2, 1993; OTA also suggested consolidation of the two programs as an option for reducing federal spending. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remore Sensing ji-om Spact’, op. cit., p. 16. 37 A, Gore, From Red Tape to Resu/(s: Creating a Government 7’hut Works Better and Costs Lt’ss, report of tie National perform~ce Review (Washington, DC: OffIce of the Vice President, September 1993), Department of Commerce Recommendation 12: Establish a Single Civilian Operational Environmental Polar Satellite Program. 38 of fIce of tie Vice Resident, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, accompanying report of the National performance Review (Washington, DC: OffIce of the Viced President, September 1993): “By considering MTPE research activities in context with operational weather satellite programs, cost savings are possible through convergence of the current operational satellite fleets. Convergence of the Nation- al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Polar Metsat and NASA’s EOS-PM (Earth Observing SystemAfternoon Crossing [De- scending] Mission) will eliminate redundancy of measurements, enhance the capability of NOAA’s data set and potentially result in cost savings. ” 39 A. Gore, From Red Tape t. Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, op. cit.: “TO reduce duplication and save taxpayers a billion dollars over the next decade, various current and proposed polar satellite programs should be consolidated under NOAA.” Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 23

~ ‘V7RR Thermal control pinwheel louvers IMU =Q%$K/, SAR IMP antennas

HIRS - LEll&

(scanner) ‘“~D~ ‘-” v / ‘~ j- REA(4) ERBE \~ (non scanner) VRA

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993.

The principal challenge in converging the polar-orbiting satellite systems is likely to be the development of organizational and institutional mechanisms to ensure stable funding and stable management in programs that now involve multiple agencies and multiple congressional authorization and appropriation committees. The government has few examples of successful long-term, multiagency programs .40 The recent failure of the joint NASA-DOD management of the Landsat system suggests that proposals to consolidate NOAA, NASA, or DOD programs should, at the very least, be viewed with great caution. Under the IPO set out in the Clinton Adminis- tration’s plan (figure 1-4), each agency would take the lead on one aspect of the operational system—technology development, procurement, and operations—but each functional office would include representatives of all agencies. The con- SOURCE: Department of Defense, 1993 verged system would be funded by the three

M NEXRAD, ~ program funded joint]k .b} .NOAA, the Federal A\iation Administration (FAA), and DOD, ha~ functioned relati~’el~f ~’ell. Howe\er, unlike the converged polar-orbiting sy~tem, the components of NEXRAD are relatively smerable. If one agenc} pro~es unable to fund its portion. the program can \till proceed at a reduced le~ e]. 24 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

I-E4

System program director‘T Principal deputy director I Program system Program engineering and control integration

Associate director Associate director for Associate director for acquisition technology transition for operations

1 I ➤ ✍I ✌

Ground & C3 Space c1segment c1segment Ezl Ezzl

agencies. Such an arrangement ensures that each Although the planning for convergence has al- agency has a role and a stake in ensuring system ready begun, a converged system will not be fully success. On the other hand, it suffers from the operational until 2005 or later. Near-term savings weakness of depending on three different sources are, therefore, likely to be modest. The Adminis- of funding to support the system. Within the Of- tration estimates savings of up to $300 million fice of Management and Budget (OMB), the from a total projected outlay of about $2.2 billion budgets of each agency are handled by different between FY 1996 and FY 2000. If implemented examiners, who must perform a budget crosscut to successfully, convergence could eventually lead ensure that the total funding for the IPO is ap- to greater savings. It might also lead to more effec- propriate. Within Congress, the programs and tive programs as talent and resources are pooled. budgets of each agency receive oversight by two Perhaps as important as cost savings, however, committees in each chamber; three subcommit- would be the opportunity to strengthen the tees of the House and Senate appropriations com- relationship between NASA and NOAA in de- mittees appropriate funds. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options 125

veloping the technology that will be needed for the converged system to use sensors and/or the future operational spacecraft. Before the spacecraft adapted from the NASA EOS-PM mid- 1980s, NASA funded the Operational Satel- satellite, which NASA is developing to support lite Improvement Program (OSIP), which devel- its two-decade study of global change (appen- oped technology and flight-worthy instruments dix A).43 The first satellite in this series, PM-1, for NOAA’s operational systems.41 During the is too far into development for modification to Reagan Administration, NASA sharply reduced be cost-effective. The second, PM-2, is sched- its support for OSIP.42 Currently, NOAA has the uled for launch in approximately 2005; there- lead role in managing operational programs, but it fore, it and PM-3, which might be launched in lacks the funds and in-house expertise to develop 2010, are the most likely candidates for inclu- the instruments it will need to carry out potential sion in a combined research-operational satel- new Earth observation programs, such as ocean lite program. monitoring and long-term monitoring of Earth’s 8 Sensor and spacecraft convergence. A con- climate. verged meteorological satellite would have to Once the Integrated Program Office is orga- satisfy DOD needs for advanced imagery sen- nized and staffed in October 1994, it will need to sors and NOAA’s requirements for highly cali- address many technical and programmatic issues, brated sounders. For example, NOAA and including program synchronization and the devel- DOD may find designing an optical imager opment of new sensors and spacecraft. suitable for the needs of both agencies particu-

● Synchronizing programs. To maintain the op- larly difficult technically. Existing NOAA and erational status of their systems, both NOAA DOD optical scanners generate images differ- and DOD have satellites in storage and in vari- ently and differ in their capabilities to operate ous stages of construction. Before the Clinton at low light levels.44 Accommodating NASA’s Administration’s convergence proposal was science research agenda in an operational pro- announced, both systems had been scheduled gram would add further technical and financial for so-called block changes, or major redesigns challenges. of new sensors and satellites, by about 2006. ■ The transition from research to operational The Administration now plans to prepare a systems. The possibility of implementing a single spacecraft design by 2005 or 2006 that combined DOD and NOAA operational pro- will satisfy the requirements of both NOAA gram with NASA’s EOS-PM science research and DOD. This approach could require the de- program adds both opportunities and complica- velopment of new sensors and a new space- tions to instrument and spacecraft design. A tri - craft. The timing of the spacecraft might enable agency research-operational satellite program

‘$1 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Fumre of Remote Sensingfiom Space, op. cit.. PP. 38-39.

Q Throughout the 1970s, NASA helped develop NOAA’s operational satellites through the NASA OSIP. For example, NASA built and paid for the launch of the first two geostationary operational satellites, which NOAA operated. OSIP ended in the early 1980s as NASA placed its emphases elsewhere and may have contributed to the subsequent difficulties NOAA expienced in the development of “GOES-N ext,” an advanced geostationary satellite that suffered schedule delays and cost overruns. The first GOES-Next was launched in April 1994 and w ill go into operation in October 1994. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Future ofRemote Sensingfiom Space, op. cit., pp. 38-39, for a discussion of the GOES-Next program. 43 EOS-pM Camles instmments &Signed to collect data on weather and climate. See chapter 3. 44 me DOD operational LinesCan system, for examp]e, generates images with approximately constant resolution acro~~ the field of ~’ ie~. Images from NOAA’s AVHRR degrade in resolution toward the edges of the field of view. Both characteristics are the re~ult of tradeoffs between achieving data of particular interest to the missions of each agency and added cost and complexity. 26 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

would present challenges that include the need MODIS is unlikely to fit within NOAA’s budget to: and would produce data that would tax the processing capabilities of operational users. NASA ■ satisfy operational needs with relatively unproven instruments, and NOAA would likely have to redesign MODIS D accommodate the different production stan- to make its characteristics more compatible with dards and data and communication proto- NOAA’s needs. NASA designed its EOS program cols that, so far, have distinguished opera- to provide data for the research and policymaking tional and research instruments, communities rather than to serve as a test bed for

■ develop advanced instruments that meet advanced technology. With or without conver- NASA’s research needs but are affordable to gence, NASA, NOAA, and DOD would find NOAA and DOD, many challenges in adapting EOS instruments to

■ develop instruments that meet the more lim- serve both research and operational needs. ited space and volume requirements of the The Clinton Administration’s convergence smaller, cheaper launch vehicles used in op- plan maintains and could even strengthen U.S. erational programs, and cooperative relationships with Eumetsat,

■ accommodate demonstrations of new tech- which plans to operate the METOP-1 polar-or- nology and prototyping of spacecraft that biting meteorological satellite system begin- are being used for operational programs. ning in 2000. At the same time, the plan in- Operational systems require a predictable, creases U.S. dependence on Europe for steady supply of data. Historically, the transi- meteorological data. As the IPO develops its de- tion from research instrumentation to opera- tailed plans for convergence, it will have to ad- tional instrumentation has been successful dress certain questions, including the following: when it has been managed with a disciplined, ■ What arrangements can the United States and conservative approach toward the introduc- Eumetsat make to prevent its adversaries tion of new technology. In addition to minimiz- from using these meteorological data during ing technical risk, minimizing cost has been an times of crisis? Who determines when such important factor in the success of operational pro- times exist and how? Previous efforts at con- grams, especially for NOAA. vergence failed in part because DOD wished to Convergence provides an opportunity to re- control its source and distribution of weather store a successful partnership between NASA and data, especially in times of crisis. Current plans NOAA in the development of operational envi- call for Eumetsat to include three U.S. sensors ronmental satellites, expanding that partnership to on METOP.45 DOD has argued that it needs the include DOD operational requirements. However, capability to deny useful weather data to adver- even with convergence, tensions could arise, as saries in times of crisis. During such times, both NOAA and NASA face difficulties in recon- DOD proposes to encrypt data from U.S. sen- ciling the inevitable differences in risk and cost sors. It would release the data a few hours later, between instruments designed for research and when they could no longer be used to assist ad- instruments designed for routine, long-term mea- versaries’ war-fighting capabilities. surements. For example, the Moderate-Resolu- Even if control over data is achieved, the tion Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), a key growing capabilities of other countries to ac- EOS instrument, could eventually replace quire sophisticated weather data and informa- NOAA’s AVHRR. Yet, as currently designed, tion may reduce the advantage DOD would

45 AVHRR, the High-Resolution Infitied Sounder (HIRS), and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU). Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 27

have in controlling weather data.46 Eumetsat is Previous NOAA-Eumetsat experience in pro- dubious of such data control because it would viding backup satellites and services for each sharply reduce the capability of the METOP other in times of need will provide important system to supply data to Eumetsat’s contribut- guides for future plans. ing partners, the weather bureaus of each coun- In the future, the United States may wish to try. Eumetsat has linked this issue to “the open consider expanding its international cooperation issues between NOAA and Eumetsat regarding on weather satellites. It already cooperates closely data policy for both geostationary and polar 47 with Japan and with Eumetsat on supplying data satellites.” Before disclosing the plans for from the geostationary weather satellites. Recent- convergence on May 6, 1994, the United States ly, officials from both Japan and Russia have in- opposed the encryption of data on either the quired informally about the possibility of broad- geostationary or the polar-orbiting satellites on ening the arrangement for the polar-orbiting grounds that such data should be available to 48 systems. Japan has a very active remote sensing all users. program in support of operational applications ■ How will the United States reconcile Euro- and scientific research, cooperating closely with pean desires for self-sufficiency in sensors the United States on global change research.49 Ja- and spacecraft with U.S. needs for consistency of data among spacecraft? Although three pan does not currently operate polar-orbiting U.S. sensors will fly on METOP-1 and ME- weather satellites, but it is interested in the long- TOP-2, Europe plans to develop its own sen- term operation of ocean monitoring satellites. Ja- sors for future METOP spacecraft. Data users pan currently depends on data from the U.S. polar require consistency in format and calibration. orbiters. Russia operates the Meteor series of po- To maintain consistent data, IPO officials will lar-orbiting weather satellites that provide data have to coordinate closely with Eumetsat and similar to the U.S. POES. One of the Meteor satel- European Space Agency officials concerning lites now carries a Total Ozone Mapping Spectrom- the technical characteristics of new sensors. eter (TOMS) instrument, provided by NASA. to

● What contingency plans are necessary should assist in monitoring atmospheric concentrations delays occur in the launch of METOP or of ozone. In the next few years, Congress may should it fail at launch or on orbit? As the wish to explore the opportunities for expanded U.S. and European experience has demon- international cooperation in the polar-orbiting strated, space operations risk occasional delays program in an effort to improve the gathering and failures. Hence, the United States and Eu- and distribution of Earth observation data. metsat will have to work out a detailed contin- Other countries could supply sensors, space- gency plan to ensure full operational status. craft, or both.

~ National security re~trlctions on technica] capabilities of land remote sensing systems ha~e relaxed considerably since the 197[)~. in ]ar& part because other countries have gained capabilities once controlled only by the United States and the former Soviet Union. France, for c\anl - ple, currently operates the SPOT Image satellite system, w hich collects data of much higher ground resolution than the comparable L’.S. Landsat system. As noted earlier in this chapter, the French HELIOS surveillance satellite reportedly will achieve 1 -m ground resolution. Other countries are steadily improving their weather monitoring systems as well. ~T J, Morgan Director of Eunletsa[, letter to E.F. Hollings, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. ~1.s. Senate, Washington, DC, June 10, 1994. ~ D,J, Baker, Under SecretaV of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, h’a[ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. lc~tlnlonj presented at hearing son convergence before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington. DC, June 14, 1994.

@ U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remofe sensing from Space, Op. cit.. PP. 177-178. 28 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

I Long-Term Options Each of these options would streamline the If the federal government were structuring an congressional authorization and appropriations institution to develop and operate environmental process. The last three might lead to greater fund- satellites de novo, it would probably not create as ing stability for a global environmental monitoring system. None would undercut efforts to in- complicated an administrative arrangement as the crease international participation in such a Integrated Program Office. However, the Admin- system. As the United States gains experience istration is attempting to bring two satellite sys- with the near-term arrangement as outlined in the tems, each with its own requirements, objectives, Administration plan, arrangements more suitable and procedures, under a single institutional struc- for the long term can be considered. Experience ture. By including NASA in the structure, it is also may also show that none of these options is able to attempting to increase the success of incorporat- give sufficient attention to DOD’s needs for data ing instruments from EOS satellites in future po- that support its missions. The Administration’s lar-orbiting spacecraft. This arrangement could near-term plan gives heavy emphasis to DOD’s also benefit NASA’s EOS program by tying it data requirements and adopts many elements of more closely to an operational program. DOD’s process for determining data require- Experience with the Administration’s plan, ments. Decisions about a long-term plan do not which provides near-term direction for conver- need to be made for several years; in the mean- gence, will guide future long-term plans. For ex- time, Congress will have ample opportunity to as- ample, experience with the IPO arrangement may sess the progress made in bringing these programs demonstrate that DOD’s needs for timely meteo- together. rological data can be met with a civilian-operated system. In addition, the international proliferation LAND REMOTE SENSING of environmental satellite systems may increase U.S. government efforts to develop operational, the sources of high-quality weather data, thereby civilian, space-based land remote sensing systems reducing the need for a strong DOD presence in have proved technically successful but chaotic in the operational system. Thus, over the long term, terms of policy. Since 1972, first NASA, then Congress may wish to consider eventually NOAA, and now EOSAT have operated the Land- placing the development, acquisition, and op- sat system—the U.S. satellite system for collecting multispectral data (figure 1 -5) about the sur- eration of the nation’s polar-orbiting environ- face of Earth (appendix D). NASA, NOAA, and mental satellite system entirely within a single the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are now col- civilian agency. Long-term options for this shift laborating on procuring and operating the newest of responsibility include (see box 1-5): Landsat system, Landsat 7. Because Landsat data ● incorporate the Integrated Program Office constitute the longest continuous record of the into a NOAA office, state of the world’s land and coastal areas, they are ■ integrate NOAA'S operational satellite ser- extremely important in monitoring regional and vices into NASA, global change. Many federal and state agencies ■ develop an independent agency focused on now depend on Landsat data to carry out their leg- Earth observations, or islatively mandated programs. Hence, maintain- ● incorporate Earth remote sensing efforts into ing the continuity of data from Landsat should a Department of the Environment. continue to be a priority for the United Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 29

●

■

■ 30 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

I The Future of the Landsat Program As currently structured, the Landsat program is vulnerable to a launch-vehicle or spacecraft failure. The Landsat program has also suffered from instability in management and funding. Indeed, the Landsat program still bears more re- semblance to an experimental program than an operational one. As a result of the loss of Landsat 6 and the lack of a backup satellite, the United States now faces the prospect of losing data continuity before Landsat 7 can be built and launched in late 1998. In addition, as demonstrated by its policy history, the Landsat program is highly vulnerable to the breakdown of institutional relationships. Responsibility for satellite procurement, operation, and data distribution is currently split among three agencies—NASA, NOAA, and USGS. Thus, the Landsat program could be in jeopardy should differences of opinion about its value arise within NASA, the Department of Commerce, or the Department of the Interior, or within the appropriations subcommittees of the House and Senate.51 Indeed, the report of the Senate Ap- propriations Committee for NASA’s FY 1995 ap- SOURCE O 1993 by EOSAT propriations expresses concern over whether NOAA will have sufficient funding to support the operations of Landsat 7.52 Ensuring the future of States. 50 If the United States is to maintain the fu- the Landsat program will require close coopera- ture continuity of data delivery from Landsat, it tion among NASA, the Department of Com- will have to develop an operational system. How- merce, the Department of the Interior, and the six ever, despite significant advances in remote appropriations subcommittees of the House of sensing technology and the steady growth of a Representatives and the Senate. market for data, the United States lacks a co- The United States has a few short-term op- herent, long-term plan for a fully operational tions for improving Landsat program resilien- land remote sensing system. cy. As one option, the United States could also

some Land Remote Sensing po]icy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555, 106 Stat. 4163-41 80; 15 USC 5601, sec. 2. Findings) strongly suppo~ tie “continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space” in the belief that such data are of “major benefit in studying and understanding human impacts on the global environment, in managing the Earth natural resources, in carrying out national security functions, and in planning and conducting many other activities of scientific, economic, and social importance.” 51 NASA’S appropriations Origina(e in tie Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Develop- ment, and Independent Agencies; NOAA’s originate in the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary; and USGS’s originate in the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. 52 me Committee recommended removing 4’$ I () million from program reserves for Landsat. In the operating plan, NASA should indicate whether sufficient support exists in NOAA’s committees of jurisdiction in the Congress to support NOAA funds for Landsat 7. Without such assurances, the viability of Landsat 7 as a joint project is questionable.” Report 103-31 I of the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for FY 1995, p. 126. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 31

rely on non-U. S. sources of data. Land remote new, more cost-effective technology or by sharing sensing became broadly international in the 1980s costs with other entities, the government might be with the development of the French SPOT, the able to maintain the continuity of delivery of Russian Resurs-F, and the Indian Remote Sensing Landsat-type data. Satellite (IRS) systems. Some data users would be As noted earlier, several firms plan to build and able to substitute digital data from the French operate commercial remote sensing systems.54 SPOT system or from the Indian IRS system, Because these firms focus on providing data of which EOSAT now distributes worldwide. SPOT comparatively high resolution, only a few or no data are already in wide use in the remote sensing spectral bands, and limited spatial coverage, community. However, SPOT data do not have the these systems cannot substitute for the Landsat spectral or spatial range of Landsat. Few users system, which collects calibrated multispectral have experience with IRS data, which nearly du- data over a large field of view. However, these plicate the resolution and spectral response of the systems are likely to provide data that would com- first four spectral bands of Landsat TM data. To plement data from Landsat and similar systems. determine whether IRS data could serve as backup Ultimately, the United States may wish to develop to the Landsat system, data users will have to ex- a new system concept for Landsat, one that incor- periment with the data in their specific applica- porates both wide-field multispectral observation. NASA, USGS, and other U.S. agencies tions and narrow-field, stereo panchromatic ob- could assist such users by carrying out a series of servations. experiments with the IRS data to determine how well they would function as backups to Landsat D Options for Reducing the Costs of data. Federal Land Remote Sensing Alternatively, if the Thematic Mapper (TM) sensors or the X-band data transmitters aboard One way to cut costs in land remote sensing would Landsats 4 and 5 fail, before the launch of Landsat be to enter into partnership with a U.S. private 7 in 1998, it will still be possible to collect data firm or firms. Four broad options are possible: from the low-resolution Multispectral Scanner 1. Contract with a private firm to operate a sys- (MSS) sensor, which could likely be reacti- tem, paid for by the federal government, that vated. 53 Such data would still be useful for certain distributes the data at the cost of fulfilling user global change studies and other applications requests .55 where fineness of resolution is not a major con- 2. Return to an EOSAT-like arrangement in cern. which government supplies a subsidy and spec- In the long term, the United States may wish ifies the sensor and spacecraft but allows the to develop a fully operational system that pro- firm to market the data, setting its own prices vides for continuous operation and a backup according to market forces. satellite in the event of system failure. In the -.3 Make a data-purchase arrangement in which past, high system costs have prevented the U.S. the government purchases data of specified government from making such a commitment. If character and quality from a private-sector sup- system costs can be sharply reduced by inserting plier.

53 EOSAT ha~ deactivated the ,MSS sensor, MSS data could be collected agalIl if the MSS sensor and the S-band transmitter that transrllit~ MSS data continue to operate properly. EOSAT stopped collecting data from these wnwlr~ in December 1992 because demand for these relatively low-resolution data was low. 5J see .~~e pri~ ate Sector” section. ss In other ~ordj, accor~jng to the guidance of OMB Circular A- 13~. 32 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

4. Create a public-private joint venture in which technology as called for in the Land Remote- the government and one or more private firms Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555, Title cooperate in developing a land remote sensing III), it should continue to develop new technol- system. ogy for the Landsat program as well as for EOS The U.S. government could also enter into part- and other programs. nership with one or more foreign governments.56 Interest in enhancing national prestige and the OCEAN REMOTE SENSING prospect of being able to make remote sensing a The oceans cover about 70 percent of Earth’s sur- commercially viable service have heretofore pre- face and, therefore, make a significant contribu- vented the United States and other countries from tion to Earth’s weather and climate. The oceans in- developing cooperative land remote sensing sys- teract with the atmosphere, land, and ice packs, tems. Yet, systems such as Landsat that produce constantly exchanging heat and moisture with calibrated multispectral data of moderate resolu- them. Yet Earth’s oceans remain much more of a 57 tion may never be commercially viable, even mystery than its atmosphere. Scientists know very though the data are of great interest to global little about the details of the oceans’ effects on change scientists and other users who require cov- weather and climate, in part because the oceans erage of relatively large areas. Hence, cooperation are monitored only coarsely by satellites, ships, on systems that primarily serve the public good and buoys. Sea ice covers about 13 percent of the may eventually be in the best interests of several world oceans and has a marked effect on weather countries. Possible candidates include Canada, and climate. Measurements of the thickness, ex- which is developing Radarsat; France, which is tent, and composition of sea ice help scientists un- operating the SPOT system; Germany, which has derstand and predict global trends in weather and developed several sensors but has no satellite sys- climate. More detailed geographic coverage and tem; India, which now operates IRS-1; Japan, more timely delivery of ocean and ice data would which operates Japan Earth Resources Satellite- 1 significantly enrich scientists’ understanding of (JERS-1) and Marine Observation Satellite-2 both realms. (MOS-2); and Russia, which has a long history of Improving the safety of people at sea and man- using photographic remote sensing systems but aging the seas’ vast natural resources also depend whose multispectral digital systems have yet to on receiving better and more timely data on ocean prove themselves. Alternatively, a system might and sea-ice phenomena. For example, until satel- be provided by a consortium of several countries. lite measurements became available, the difficul- In addition to paying greater attention to im- ties of monitoring characteristics of the ice packs proving organizational efficiencies and reducing from ground- or aircraft-based observations were costs, the United States may wish to institute a fo- major impediments to understanding the behavior cused program to develop remote sensing technol- of sea ice, especially its seasonal and yearly varia- ogies. If the United States wishes to maintain tions. Table 1-2 summarizes some of the data that and improve its capabilities in remote sensing ocean-ice satellite sensors can provide.

S6 N. Helms and B. Edelson, Op. cit. 57 M c. Tfiche]. ERIM, has Sugges[ed th~( al~ough Lan&l as currently conceived may not be a candidate for commercialization because of its 16-day revisit period and its 1970s technology, a Landsat replacement using lightweight advanced technology might be commercially successful (personal communication, 1994). NASA’s experience with the data from a hyperspectral smallsat built by TRW may help determine whether the market would support such a system. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 33

Sensor —. Data Science question Application Ocean-color sensor Ocean color. Phytoplankton concentration, Fishing productivity, ocean currents, ship routing, monitoring ocean surface temperature; coastal pollution. pollution and sedimentation

Scatterometer Wind speed, Wave structure, Ocean waves; wind direction currents, wind patterns. ship routing, currents, ship, platform safety

Altimeter Altitude of ocean El Niño onset and structure Wave and current fore- surface, wave height, casting. wind speed.

Microwave Imager Surface wind speed, Thickness, extent of ice cover; Navigation information, ice edge, internal stress of ice; ice growth ship routing, wave and precipitation and ablation rates surf forecasting

Microwave radiometer Sea-surface Ocean-air interactions. Weather forecasting temperature.—. — - SOURCE U S Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

I Operational Monitoring nuity of data over time is ensured and the data for- of the Oceans and Ice mats change only slowly), but so also do private The development and operation of NASA’s Seasat shipping firms and operators of ocean platforms. system, the first satellite devoted solely to mea- Knowledge of currents, wind speeds, wave surements of ocean-ice phenomena, demonstrated heights, and general wave conditions at a variety the utility of continuous ocean observations, not of ocean locations is crucial for enhancing the only for scientific use, but also for navigating the safety of ocean platforms and ships at sea. Such world’s oceans and exploiting ocean resources. data could also decrease costs by allowing ship Seasat failed after only 3 months. Nevertheless, its owners to predict the shortest, safest sea routes. operation convinced many that an operational Information about ocean biological productivity ocean remote sensing satellite would provide sig- would help guide commercial fishing to promis- nificant benefits.58 Although the capabilities of ing fishing grounds and assist in maintaining fish- land and ocean sensing systems are not entirely eries yields. separable, 59 agencies have developed satellite Despite repeated proposals for operational systems with specialized applications in order to ocean satellites, the United States has not yet optimize the sensors and spacecraft. made the commitment to ocean monitoring out- 60 In the long term, the United States may wish to side of meteorological applications. In the provide ocean-ice data on an operational basis. meantime, other entities, such as ESA, Japan, and Not only do NOAA and DOD have applications Canada, are emerging as primary sources of ocean for data in an operational mode (i.e., where conti- data for research and operational purposes (figure

‘x D, Montgomery}. “Commercial Applications of Satellite Oceanography,” oceunus 24(3), 198 I: Joint Oceanographic Institutions, “Oceanography) from Space: A Research Strategy for the Decade 1985- 1995”’ (Washington, DC: Joint Oceanographic Institutions, 1984). S9 ~lo,t ~en(or~ prc)~,ide \ome data about both land and tie oceans. 60 me Nationa] oceanographic Sate]]ite System (NOSS), deve]o~d in the late 1970s by NASA, NOAA, and the Navy, was canceled in 1981 in part becau~e of it~ co~t. A similar fate befell the Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite (N-ROSS) in 1988. 34 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

data about the surface of the ice and oceans, these capabilities could be expanded to include additional useful data about ocean-surface wind speeds and currents, and more precise characterization of the boundaries and thickness of sea ice. The IPO could increase its capabilities for collecting such data incrementally by improving existing instruments and by adding additional ones as needs arise. Develop a comprehensive national ocean observation system, which would be the most costly option because it would require the U.S. government to develop instruments and a spacecraft that it does not now possess. How- ever, a national system would allow the greatest independence in developing programs to meet U.S. national needs. The United States has started out on this course twice in the past,61 only to step back as the costs mounted. Take part in an international ocean monitoring system, which would be much less expensive than creating a national system because the U.S. government would share the burden of

SOURCE: © 1992 by ESA. satellite systems with other countries. For example, the United States could deploy satellites 1-6). Growing experience with these data for op- for ocean color, scatterometry, and wave alti- erational uses and for global change research metry while relying on other countries for SAR could increase U.S. interest in ocean monitoring data on sea ice. This type of approach would and could build confidence in relying on these build on existing mechanisms for international (and other) foreign services. In addition, growing data exchange to provide data from various experience with land remote sensing has demon- types of sensors to all participants, but it would strated to a wider set of users the utility of remote require expanding the capacity for data proc- sensing for operational purposes. essing and transmission, both domestically and internationally. 1 Options for Operational Purchase data from commercial satellite op- Ocean Monitoring erators, which might reduce costs and strengthen the U.S. private sector. However, to If Congress wishes to support a U.S. commitment reduce the risk to potential contractors, this op- to civilian operational ocean monitoring, it could: tion would require a long-term commitment

■ Expand the mandate of the IPO to include an from the government to acquire specified types ocean and ice monitoring capability. Al- and quantities of data. The novel arrangement though the POES and DMSP satellites collect between NASA and Orbital Sciences Corpora-

~1 For ~xamp]e, with [he proposed joint civilian-military NOSS ~d with the Navy’s N-ROSS. Chapter 1 Findings and Policy Options I 35

(ion for the development of the SeaStar system United States will make a long-term commit- will provide a test of this approach. ment to ocean monitoring. Cost has been a criti-

■ Rely primarily on data exchanges with other cal factor in the inability to maintain past pro- countries, which means that the United States posed programs, which may have been overly could also continue to forego any major com- ambitious. The emergence of satellite ocean ob- mitment of resources to satellite ocean moni- servation programs in other countries presents toring beyond existing meteorological pro- the opportunity to develop a less expensive strat- grams. This approach offers the lowest up-front egy for ocean monitoring. Experience with data cost, but it also provides the United States with from the European Remote-Sensing Satellite-1 the least influence over the future of ocean (ERS-1 ), JERS-1, MOS, and Radarsat, as well as monitoring programs and related data-ex- from the U.S. SIR-C synthetic aperture radar change policies unless it is tied to other activi- flown on the Space Shuttle,62 will provide addi- ties with these same countries. The eventual tional information regarding the desirability of cost in limited data access or high data prices an operational system. That information, when might surpass the initially low costs. considered in light of overall U.S. goals for Earth Whichever path Congress chooses for the fu- observations, could provide the basis for decid- ture of U.S. ocean monitoring activities, the ing whether or not to pursue an operational most important question is whether the ocean-ice monitoring program.

62 S[R.C flew for fie firit time on me SpXC Shuttle in April 1994. 1(s second flight is scheduled for December 1994. National Remote I Sensing Needs and Capabilities 2

comprehensive strategy for satellite remote sensing must take into account the specific features of remote sensing technologies and applications. Remote sensing A satellite systems have historically been expensive to develop and operate, involving long time lines for planning, procurement, and integration into operations. 1 The process of developing, operating, and using the data from remote sensing satellites involves complicated and indirect linkages among many actors at many levels, including system contractors, commercial and government satellite operators, data managers, and the ultimate users of the derived information. Remote sensing satellite systems serve a variety of purposes, depending on their specific design characteristics (box 2-1 ). Sys- tems designed for one purpose often differ markedly from those designed for other purposes. Thus, for example, land remote sensing systems are quite different from systems designed to gather meteorological data. The requirements of different applications often overlap in complicated ways, so systems designed for one purpose can serve a range of other purposes, perhaps with some modifications. For example, the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion’s (NOAA’s) Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Sat-

‘ Pro\pectl\ c pri~ ate-sector \upplier\ of remotely sensed data are attempting to \hort- en the time taken to dellvcr a satellite to orbit. On June 8. 1994, the National Aeronautics tmd Space /\dmin istra[ion (NASA ) announced contract awards for two new Smallwit Earth obserl :i(ion satelli[e~. NASA expects them to demonstrate ad~anced ~ensor technologic~. cojt Iesf than $60 million each, and be defeloped, launched, and deli~ ered I 37 on orbit in 24 months or le~$ on a Pegasus launch vehicle 38 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

■

●

■

ellite (POES), designed primarily to measure sensing capabilities to data needs and discusses cloud cover and surface temperatures, can also possible improvements in that process. monitor land vegetation on a global scale. The distinct but often synergistic requirements of remote NATIONAL USES OF REMOTE SENSING sensing applications lead to complicated policy As described in chapter 1, remote sensing pro- decisions, where choices made regarding a partic- grams serve a variety of national needs, including ular application of data have important effects on national security, technology development, and other potential applications. economic growth. This section concentrates on This chapter begins with a discussion of the the direct application of civilian remote sensing uses of remote sensing, including its use in exist- systems to meet national needs for weather fore- ing operational and research programs. It then re- casting, scientific research, and other purposes. It views the satellite programs of the agencies that describes the uses of satellites for these purposes develop and operate remote sensing systems. Fi- and the federal agencies and other institutions re- nally, it describes the process for matching remote sponsible for them. Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 39

I Monitoring Weather and Climate Global Change Research Global change research aims to monitor and un- Weather Forecasting derstand the processes of natural and anthropo- 3 Satellites are used to observe and measure a wide genic changes in Earth’s physical, biological, and range of atmospheric properties and processes to human environments. Satellites support this re- support increasingly sophisticated weather warn- search by providing measurements of stratospher- ing and forecasting activities. Imaging instru- ic ozone and ozone-depleting chemicals: by providing long-term scientific records of Earth’s ments provide detailed pictures of clouds and climate; by monitoring Earth’s radiation balance cloud motions, as well as measurements of sea- and the concentrations of greenhouse gases and surface temperature. Sounders collect data in sev- aerosols; by monitoring ocean temperatures, cur- eral infrared or microwave spectral bands that are rents, and biological productivity; by monitoring processed to provide profiles of temperature and 2 the volume of ice sheets and glaciers; and by mon- moisture as a function of altitude. Radar altime- itoring land use and vegetation. These variables ters, scatterometers, and imagers (synthetic aper- provide critical information on the complex proc- ture radar, or SAR) can measure ocean currents, esses and interactions of global environmental sea-surface winds, and the structure of snow and change, including climate change. ice cover. The U.S. Global Change Research Program Several federal agencies have distinct but over- (USGCRP) was established as a Presidential Ini- lapping mandates for monitoring and forecasting tiative and by congressional mandate in 1990 to weather. The National Weather Service of NOAA encourage the development of a more complete has the primary responsibility for providing se- scientific understanding of global environmental vere storm and flood warnings as well as short- changes and to provide better information for and medium-range weather forecasts. The Federal policymakers in crafting responses to those changes Aviation Administration provides specialized (box 2-2). The USGCRP coordinates the activities forecasts and warnings for aircraft. The Defense of 11 federal agencies and organizations, although Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) at the NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense (DOD) supports the spe- and the Department of Energy will contribute 91 cialized needs of the military and intelligence ser- percent of the funding in FY 1995. NASA alone is vices, which emphasize global capabilities to expected to contribute 68 percent of the total. monitor clouds and visibility in support of combat and reconnaissance activities and to monitor sea- Long-Term Monitoring of Climate surface conditions in support of naval operations. and Other Earth Systems Several private companies also provide both gen- Scientists recognize the need for continuous, eral and specialized weather forecast services global, well-calibrated measurements of a broad commercially. NOAA, the Air Force, and the range of critical environmental indicators over pe- Navy share responsibility for processing the data riods of several decades. from NOAA and DMSP satellites: NOAA for The Earth undergoes major processes of soundings, the Air Force for cloud imagery, and change that are reckoned in scales of decades to the Navy for ocean-surface data. millennia. Decades of continuous calibrated

o Generally, the larger the number of chtinnels, the better the vertical resolution of the sounder. Hence, the proposed Advanced Infrared Sounder (AIRS) has 2,3(K) channel~ compared with 20 channels in the High-Resolution Infrared Sounder (HIRS) it would replace. 40 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

cally located sites on the Earth’s land and oceans this long-term operational task. No federal agency will be required to document climate and eco- has the combination of mission focus and re- system changes and for differentiating natural sources needed to support long-term monitoring. variability from human-induced changes.4 An operational satellite program is ideally suited 1 Land Remote Sensing to these purposes. Yet, NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), the principal space-based compo- Mapping and Planning nent of the USGCRP, is scheduled to operate for The development of highly capable computer only 15 years. EOS will gather data on climate and workstations and mapping software known as other environmental processes, which will help geographic information systems (GIS) has spurred

4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program aniiNASA’s Earth Obser\ing S>’stem, OTA-BP- ISC- 122 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1993), p. 3. Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 41

much of the current interest in satellite remote The Army Corps of Engineers makes extensive sensing. 5 Within the federal government, the U.S. use of remotely sensed data and GIS to map proj- Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of ect sites and assess the condition of dams, river the Interior (DOI) has the primary responsibility channels, and levies in major watersheds. The for civilian mapping whereas other agencies use Corps has projects throughout the world that make GIS for more specialized purposes, including mil- use of remotely sensed data. itary and intelligence applications. USGS also Terrestrial Monitoring and leads an interagency coordination effort through Natural Resource Management the Federal Geographic Data Committee to devel- Remotely sensed land data support an extremely op a National Spatial Data Infrastructure,6 which diverse set of natural resource monitoring and would provide a consistent nationwide basis for management applications. 8 This diversity reflects geographic data and information. the diversity in natural, agricultural, residential, The U.S. Department of Transportation and and other land-use types. It also leads to a diverse state and local transportation departments make set of data requirements and data-processing tech- use of remote] y sensed data from a aircraft and from niques, making it difficult to develop a common SPOT (Système pour I ’Observation de la Terre) set of requirements for a single land remote sens- and Landsat to assist in planning major highways ing sysem. As small, relatively inexpensive satel- and other transportation routes. Pipeline compa- lites increase in capability, they will be designed nies use similar data sets to help plan pipeline to target “niche” markets for satellite data. routes and monitor development near pipelines.7 Crop monitoring State and local governments make extensive use Using data from two channels of NOAA’s of remotely sensed data for land-use planning and AVHRR sensor or from the Landsat sensors yields for general infrastructure development. a vegetation index—roughly, “greenness’ ’—which The Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) has the provides information on the condition of vegeta- primary responsibility for creating maps used in tion. More detailed information can distinguish military assessment and planning and for fighting among various crop types. The Foreign Agricul- wars. During the Persian Gulf Conflict, DMA tural Service at the U.S. Department of Agricul- generated maps of the Persian Gulf region based ture (USDA) combines the vegetation index with on SPOT and Landsat data. Because these maps meteorological information to forecast crop pro- were created using unclassified data, the U.S. mil- duction around the world. USDA’s National Agri- itary was able to share them with U.S. allies with- cultural Statistics Service relies on aerial photography to provide higher-resolution information on out fear of compromising classified data or the domestic crops and to monitor compliance with means of generating these data. 9 agricultural land-use restrictions.

5 U.S. Congrc\\, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotel> Sensed Dutu: TK}~nolog>, Murrugement, and Markets, OTA-l SS-604 (N’ash- ingtcm. DC- [J. S. Got emment Printing Office. September 1994), ch. 2.

() ~econlrllcn(iiiti on” DO].q in the ~ationa] performmce Review (,4. Gore, From Red Tupe to Re.\ulr~: creating u Gol’ernntenl T}IUI ~~~r~~ Better [Jnd C()\/\ l.~ \ j, report of the National Performance Review (Washington, DC: Office of the Vice president, Sept. 7, 1993 )) and Executi\ e order 12906, Apr. I 1, I 994. 7 For a d[wu\\ion of the u\e of remotel) sen~ed data for pipeline planning and management, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As- w\wnent, Rcmotcl] Sen$e(i Dutu: Te(hnoiog>, M(inugernent, and Murke(~, op. cit., app. B. X lbId., appi. B and C. ‘) The European Umon u~ei data from France’s SPOT satellite system for this purpose. 42 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Managing federal lands Private Sector USDA and DOI use satellite data in managing fed- Small private firms have provided processing and eral lands. The Forest Service and the National analytic data services since the beginning of satel- Park Service each incorporate data from various lite remote sensing. These so-called value-added land remote sensing systems and other sources companies take raw remotely sensed data and add into GIS to monitor forest harvests, natural habi- other goespatial data to them to generate informa- tats, and conditions that pose the risk of wild- tion of value to a wide selection of governmental fires. ’” The Bureau of Land Management per- and private customers. State and local govern- forms similar functions on other federal lands, ments have made significant use of the informa- including forests and range land. The Army Corps tion provided by these firms, generally in the form of Engineers uses satellite imagery to monitor in- of maps used for monitoring and planning. This land and coastal waterways for flood control, flow small but rapidly growing sector of the U.S. econ- management, and coastal erosion management. omy has helped fuel the development and use of GIS and imaging-processing software. ’l The Environmental regulation United States leads the world in the development Satellite monitoring can also support programs of the remote sensing value-added industry. for regulating the use of private activities on public and private lands. The United States has programs for protecting wetlands, endangered spe- I Ocean Remote Sensing cies, and erodible farmlands administered by the In addition to providing greater understanding of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOI, ocean processes for global change research, the NOAA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and use of satellite data for ocean monitoring can sup- USDA. These programs rely on onsite monitoring port a variety of operational activities. Ocean-col- as well as aerial and satellite remote sensing. or sensors can observe coastal pollution and provide a measure of biological activity for fishing Geology and Mining and for the management of fisheries. Measure- Satellite observations support a variety of geolog- ments of sea-surface winds, waves, currents, and ical observations. Moderate-resolution, multi- ice can be critical both for shipping and for weath- spectral land remote sensing systems can distin- er forecasting. Monitoring the processes that un- guish among mineral types based on their infrared derlie the El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenome- reflectivity y and can observe large-scale geological non could lead to greatly improved seasonal and features such as fault regions. These measure- interannual weather forecasts. NOAA and the ments are useful both scientifically and for miner- U.S. Navy have the principal responsibility for the al prospecting. The Laser Geodynamics Satellite United States’ operational ocean monitoring and (LAGEOS) and the Global Positioning System rely primarily on in situ measurements from (GPS) satellites also provide precision measure- ground stations and radiosonde balloons and on ments of position that can be used to monitor tec- sea-surface wind and temperature data from the tonic activity and earthquake risks. NOAA and DMSP meteorological satellites.

10 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets, Op. cit., app. c.

I I sales Of remote sensing value-added firms totaled an estimated $300 million in 1992. They are growing at rates between 15 and 20 percent per year. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely Jensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets, op. cit., ch. 4. Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 43

~ Other Needs African food-assistance programs. Similarly, the African Emergency Locust/Grasshopper Assist- Public Safety ance Program uses vegetative-index data to fore- Severe storms, floods, fires, earthquakes, and vol- cast the risk of insect infestations. USAID also canic eruptions can seriously disrupt the orderly provides technical assistance to developing coun- flow of commerce and can cause displacement tries in the use of remotely sensed data, particular- and great hardships in people’s lives. In the United ly in GIS, and uses information from these sys- States. the Federal Emergency Management tems to monitor the effectiveness of its Agency (FEMA) has the responsibility for man- programs. 14 aging the federal responses to public emergencies. FEMA is beginning to use remotely sensed data Research and Education from aircraft and from satellites to assess damage Universities have played a major part in conduct- from natural disasters and to plan appropriate re- ing research on the use of remotely sensed data. sponses. GIS technologies have proved especially Not only have university teams experimented useful in creating geographic overlays that show with the characteristics of the data and determined the extent of damage, the locations of potential their advantages and limitations, they have devel- emergency centers, and the best routes for moving oped applications in a variety of disciplines such people and emergency supplies through affected as archaeology, agriculture, forestry, geological areas. State and local governments feed into the exploration, mapping, and soil conservation. Uni- development of the GIS by supplying data about versities have been the principal force behind pro- the locations of state and local facilities. 2 For ex- viding a trained workforce for processing and ample, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and analyzing remotely sensed data. state agencies collaborated on assessing damage Public interest groups such as Ducks Unlimit- from the 1992 floods along the Missouri and Mis- ed, the World Wildlife Fund, World Resources sissippi Rivers. Such assessments helped in deter- Institute, and Conservation International have mining which areas were most severely affected used remotely sensed data from aircraft, Landsat, and how to allocate disaster-relief funding. and SPOT in their conservation efforts, both in the United States and abroad. The availability of rela- International Development Assistance tively inexpensive software and hardware has Information provided by satellites can be ex- made remote sensing data and techniques much tremely useful in planning and administering in- more accessible in the 1990s than before, and it ternational relief and development-assistance has helped public interest groups use the data. programs. The U.S. Agency for International However, the work of universities and public in- Development (USAID) uses low-resolution vege- terest groups has been inhibited by the relatively tative-index data from satellites in its Famine Ear- high cost of Landsat and SPOT data compared ly Warning System (FEWS) program to monitor with what they can budget for the data. Such possible famine conditions in several regions of groups and universities look forward to much Africa. Information from FEWS helps in planning cheaper, more accessible data in the future. 5

1: See 1;.S, Congres\, Office of Technology Assessment, Rernotel> Sensed DUIU: 7i’chn[)loq), Muna,qernenr, and Markets, op. cit., app. B. 1 ] Ibid., ch. 5. ] 4 Ibid.. app. B. 15 L“, s. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, In[emational Securitj and Space Program, Renwel)’ sensed Data from space: ~i.$- rrIhII/I{)n, Pr/(/n,q, und Applicaflcms, background paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Awcwment, July 1992), p. 17. 44 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

U.S. REMOTE SENSING CAPABILITIES POES consists of two polar-orbiting satellites Several federal agencies and private firms are in- (figure 2-2), each of which carries an imager for volved in developing and operating the satellites clouds and surface-temperature measurements and managing the data systems necessary to meet and a pair of sounders for measuring the atmo- the needs of users. In some cases, the operational spheric temperature and moisture content, as well agency is the same as the agency responsible for as other instruments (box 2-4). These satellites using the data, but for many applications, there is provide critical inputs to the National Weather little or no overlap between the user and supplier Service’s global weather forecast models. agencies. NOAA also operates ground systems for processing, disseminating, and archiving meteorolog- ~ National Oceanic and Atmospheric ical data. It processes sounding data from both the Administration NOAA and DMSP systems as part of the NOAA- DOD Shared Processing Network and makes the NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, processed data available worldwide. NOAA’s Na- and Information Service (NESDIS) is responsible tional Climatic Data Center, National Geophysi- for managing the environmental satellite systems cal Data Center, and National Oceanographic used to fulfill NOAA’s missions in environmental Data Center serve as archives for environmental These systems forecasting and stewardship. l6 data from these and other satellite systems and consist of the Geostationary Operational Environ- make those data available worldwide. mental Satellite (GOES) System and the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) System,17 both of which were developed ~ Department of Defense by NASA, along with their associated data and in- The Air Force developed and operates two DMSP formation systems. satellites in polar orbits (figure 2-3), which pro- GOES consists of two operational satellites in vide DOD, the individual armed services, and the geostationary orbits. One, called GOES-West, is intelligence community with global information stationed over the eastern Pacific Ocean and the on clouds, visibility, and ocean conditions, in ad- other, GOES-East, is stationed over the Atlantic dition to weather forecast information (box 2-5). Ocean. 18 These two satellites provide continuous On the ground, the Air Force processes the visible, images of clouds over North and South America infrared, and cloud imagery; the Navy processes and the nearby oceans (box 2-3). GOES-8, the sea-surface data; and NOAA archives the data. launched in April 1994 and the first satellite in the The Navy developed and operated the Geodetic upgraded GOES-Next series (figure 2-1 ), was de- Satellite (Geosat) from 1985 to 1989 to provide signed to produce higher-resolution images, tem- detailed ocean altimetry and to map Earth’s gra- perature measurements, and soundings. GOES-8 vitational field for military purposes. Geosat data will replace the current GOES-East in early 1995 were initially classified, but some have since been after extensive in-orbit testing and calibration. made available to oceanographers for studies of

16 NOAA>S strategic pl~ lls~ seven Prlnclpal missions in IWO broad categories. For the env ironrnental prediction, monitoring, and as:,essment category, NOAA has defined its missions as short-term environmental forecasting and warning, seasonal to interannual climate forecasting, and global change monitoring over periods of decades to centuries. Ile environmental protection category includes the environmental management of fisheries, endangered species, and coastal ecosystems, as well as navigation and positioning missions. IT The poES sate] ]ites were known initially as Television Infrared Observing Satellites (TIROS) and are often referred to by that name.

18 Afier GOES-6 failed in 1989, Europe made Meteosat 3 available to NOAA in place of GOES-East.

19 For a description of he ho]dings of these archives, which also serve as World Data Centers of the International Council of Scientific Unions, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely .Wnse(i Data: Tec}mology’, Management, and Markets, op. cit. Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 45

ocean topography and dynamics. The Navy is de- mospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic remote sens- veloping a Geosat Follow-On (GFO) satellite for ing. However, NASA has no formal charter to launch in 1996. operate these systems on a continuing basis.20 The Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) forms the 1 National Aeronautics and Space focus of NASA’s current remote sensing activi- Administration ties. It includes the major EOS platforms (appen- NASA’s mission in remote sensing has tradition- dix A), scheduled for launch beginning in 1998, ally focused on research and development. In the and several earlier observational projects. These 1960s and 1970s, NASA developed NOAA’s prin- include two ongoing projects: the Upper Atmo- cipal operational systems, TIROS (now POES) and spheric Research Satellite (UARS ) for measuring GOES, as well as the NIMBUS, Landsat, and Sea- stratospheric chemistry and ozone depletion and sat systems to demonstrate new capabilities in at- the U.S.-French TOPEX/Poseidon for measuring

20 mere is one ~xceptlon t. [his ~]e. NASA has the mi$~ion of pro~iding con[inuou~ g]~b~l ozone ~a[a from [he Total O/011~ Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS ). 46 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Telemetry and control antenna Trim tab L-P’=.. /kbvv2-

Solar array

Iar I

NOTE: GOES-Next IS the new generation of geostationary meteorological satellites developed for NOAA and built by Ford Aerospace

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994.

ocean topography and currents. A series of small- NASA also has a traditional role as the devel- er Earth Probes will begin with the Total Ozone oper of new technologies for civil remote sensing, Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) Earth Probe in from the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960 and late 1994.2] the first Landsat satellite in 1972 to the new sys- Recognizing the challenge of using the massive tems being developed as part of MTPE. NOAA’s quantities of data to be produced by EOS, NASA environmental satellite systems reflect the legacy has devoted a large fraction of the EOS budget to of NASA’s technology-development efforts. the EOS Data and Information System (EOS- NASA has two programs that support the de- DIS).22 EOSDIS is designed to provide ready velopment of commercial remote sensing applica- data-access and data-processing capabilities to tions. The Centers for the Commercial Develop- global change research scientists supported by ment of Space include the Space Remote Sensing NASA. It will also provide access for other users Center located at the Stennis Space Center in Mis- of remotely sensed data, including foreign re- sissippi, which is developing commercial applica- searchers. tions for agriculture and environmental monitor-

2 I me ]aunch of tie TOMS Eti proIx has ken delayed pending review of a recent failure of its Pegasus launch vehicle.

22 U.S. Congress, Offlce of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Dutu: Technology, Management, und Markets, op. cit., ch. 3; Nation- al Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, EOSDIS: EOS Data and Information System (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1992); National Research Council, Space Studies Board, Panel to Review EOSD/SPlans, Fi- nal Report (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994). Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 47

AVHRR Z Advanced Very High /

Ssu Stratospheric Sounding Unit \ SBUV Solar Backscatter UHF Data Ultraviolet Radiometer Collection \ System AMSU Antenna Advanced Microwave Sounding Units

USE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

1 ( I I Land albedo and temperature

L!!ii!L. ~ Sea surface Ocean temperature AVRR circulation Snow and Hydrology and ice cover ice warning [ Cloud extent 1 H

I I I I

Atmospheric HIRS humidity I I 1 )

r I i 1 1 I Search and Beacon position SAR rescue H kd I I I I I I 1 1 1

Solar storm Solar output SEM warning I Ik--iI 1 {1 )

SOURCE Martin Marietta Astrospace 1993 48 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

■

—

Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 49

SSIES SSM/1 Ion and Electron Scintillation Monitor~ - Microwave Imaqer o

OLS Or3erational - ‘“’“E Llnescan

‘Ystem,%!llve’par Humidity Sounder \ SSM SSMIT-1 \ Magnetometer Microwave ‘ Temperature SSBX-2 Sounder Gamma and X-ray Spectrometer

USE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

‘1 Cloud extent , I OLS I1- ,—— —— —— —. Atmospheric temperature ,-- ~ ::~_—1

,. I tmospheric Weather and humidity 1~ sea state 1 E ~- forecasting I Ice and 1 snow extent“---1 I Wind speed I at sea surface I l–-— ------mI 1 1 —-–~ I Precipitation rate P

Global Earth’s SSM magnetospheric magnetic field [ model 1- ,1 r Flux and energlesl Characterize of electrons I SSJ aurora [- ~ and ions -— Monitor SSBX-2 nuclear events I I IZ!”!J!!J 1 1 ~— - .— — Long-haul Space plasma ‘ ”-– ~ communlcatlons; above lono- i SSIES 1 OTH radars ~ spheric F region 1 L---——J . — SOURCE Martin Marietta Astrospace 1993 50 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 51

ing, and the Center for Mapping at Ohio State Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Pegasus launch University. 23 The Earth Observation Commercial vehicle by agreeing to purchase a specified num- Applications Program (EOCAP) provides match- ber of launches on the new vehicle. ARPA has ing federal funds for privately proposed projects been attempting to develop a new, common small designed to demonstrate the commercial applica- spacecraft that could be used in a variety of ap- tion of remotely sensed data.24 Through its Small plications, including for remote sensing.26 Satellite Technology Initiative (SSTI) in the Of- Several DOD and Department of Energy labo- fice of Advanced Concepts and Technology, ratories have a long history of developing sensors NASA has awarded two contracts to develop and spacecraft for defense purposes. For example, small remote sensing satellites. These satellites Los Alamos National Laboratory developed the are to demonstrate technologies that could be used Alexis satellite system for detecting charged par- in future commercial projects.25 ticles and for observing other characteristics of the near-Earth space environment. Lawrence Liver- 1 Landsat more National Laboratory has created sensors for detecting the launch of missiles. Derivatives of Since the launch of Landsat 1 in 1972, the Landsat these sensors, developed for the Strategic Defense system has provided a continuous record of multi- Initiative, found their way into the highly success- spectral, moderate-resolution land-surface data. ful Clementine satellite that recently mapped the Throughout its history, the continuation of the moon in 11 spectral bands.27 The sensor devel- Landsat system has been uncertain, as NASA, oped for the WorldView commercial remote sens- NOAA, DOD, USGS, and the private company ing satellite now under development grew out of EOSAT have at various times had responsibility sensor research carried out at Livermore. for system development, operations, and data management and distribution (appendix D). Un- D Private Sector der current plans, NASA is responsible for the development of Land sat 7, NOAA for ground opera- Private firms have long served as contractors to tions, and USGS for data-archive management the federal government, designing and building (see chapter 3). sensors, communications packages, and spacecraft for both civilian and national security government remote sensing programs. Hence, they 1 The Advanced Research Projects have developed considerable expertise in space- Agency and the Defense Laboratories craft and instrument design. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) In recent years, private firms have begun to ex- is charged with assisting the development of new plore the market potential for building and operat- defense-related technologies that might not be un- ing their own remote sensing systems (see box dertaken by the private sector without government 3-7). Orbital Sciences Corporation, WorldView assistance. For example, ARPA helped develop Imaging Corporation, Space Imaging, Inc., and

23 “Commercial Development: NASA Centers for the Commercial Development of Space.” Space Technolog) Innmation, May-June, 1994, p. 14. 24 For example, NASA is sponsoring the Cropix program to demonstrate the use of satellite data to manage individual farms. See U.S. Con- greis, Office of Technology Assessment, Remorel> Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen~, and Markets, op. cit., app. B; and ‘bRemote Sensing program Offer\ Partnership Advantages,” Space Technology lnno~’ation, May-June 1994, pp. 8-9. 25 K. Sawyer, “’For NASA ‘Smallsats,’ a Commercial Role,” The Washing/on Pos(, June 9, 1994, p. A7. 26 U.S. Congres\,Office of Technology Assessment, The Future ofRemore Sensing from Space: Ci\iliun Salellite Systems andApplicut[on.~, OTA-lSC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993), app. B. 27 me Naval Research Laboratory built the Clementine satellite. 52 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Eyeglass International, Inc., have all received li- This arrangement also meshes well with the con- censes from the Department of Commerce to op- gressional authorization and appropriations proc- erate remote sensing systems. These new business ess, by allowing a single authorizing committee or ventures, formed largely from companies with appropriations subcommittee in each house to previous experience building systems for the gov- deal with the missions assigned to a given agency. ernment, expect to orbit highly capable spacecraft Through their experience in continuous satel- in the next few years and to sell data from these lite operations and repeated system upgrades, the systems in the global data market. If they succeed agencies with operational remote sensing mis- commercially, these companies are likely to revo- sions have developed disciplined processes for lutionize the delivery and use of remotely sensed developing and refining requirements. These data from space (see chapter 3). processes rely on the accumulated knowledge of data users as well as the availability of proven sat- MATCHING CAPABILITIES TO NEEDS ellite technologies. The requirements processes for NOAA and the The array of uses of satellite remote sensing sys- Defense Meteorological Satellite Program are tems matches only imperfectly the missions of the now being merged. Before the current conver- agencies that develop and operate those systems. gence effort began, NOAA’s requirements process Matching the requirements of data users with the would begin with requests for each NOAA line capabilities of satellite systems presents an ex- and program office to define its needs for data. tremely important challenge. OTA finds that NOAA would then analyze these requirements for mechanisms for improving the requirements technical feasibility and cost before a review that process should be a central element of a nation- established mission priorities. Weather forecast- al strategy for remote sensing. ing has the highest priority because of its importance for public safety. NOAA’s offices are also I The Requirements Process expected to represent the interests of the many The United States currently has no national proc- outside users who rely on data from the agency’s ess for developing remote sensing satellite re- environmental satellite systems, but NOAA has quirements. Instead, each agency has developed no formal mechanism for gathering information its own mechanism for matching its individual on outside needs. missions with programmatic resources to deter- The requirements process for DMSP has been mine data requirements and satellite-design speci- more formalized than NOAA’s: the Air Fore’e ini- fications. The development of systems to collect tiates the process of generating an Operational Re- needed data depends in turn on the legislative and quirements Document (ORD), which then passes administrative processes for developing and refin- it to the Army and Navy for comment before final ing agency missions and on the budgetary process review by the Air Force Space Command and the for allocating resources. The Office of Manage- Air Staff. This process went through three stages ment and Budget has initiated occasional budget at increasing levels of detail (ORD- 1. -2, and reviews for specific policy issues concerning land -3)-corresponding to major development mile- remote sensing, the convergence of polar-orbiting stones—for assessing cost, feasibility, and prior- meteorological satellites, and global change re- ity. At each stage, requirements had to be formally search. Congress has also weighed in on these is- validated as essential to support established mili- sues, but there have been few formal, comprehen- tary missions. This interservice process could pro- sive reviews of Earth observations needs. vide a model for interagency coordination, al- The current system has important strengths. though its hierarchical structure has had the effect For critical national needs, it is simpler and more of separating users from designers. efficient to assign each mission to a single agency The requirements processes for NASA’s Mis- with the resources and authority to carry it out. sion to Planet Earth derive not from operational Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 53

experience but from mission priorities established the needs of those users. NOAA uses sounding through the U.S. Global Change Research Pro- data primarily as input to weather forecast gram. NASA uses a variety of mechanisms, in- models and is reluctant to undertake the long- cluding scientific conferences, technical work- term commitment of meeting the more refined shops, and internal and external review panels, to requirements of climate monitoring without refine these into scientific priorities and require- additional funding. ments. The agency then solicits proposals for Inefficiencies from overlapping capabilities. instruments that will meet these requirements and For example, the POES and DMSP satellites selects proposals according to feasibility, cost, serve primarily the purposes of operational and mission priority. NASA also makes effective weather forecasting, and the EOS-PM plat- use of science teams that combine observational forms will collect more refined atmospheric users with engineering designers during the de- data for research purposes. A coordinated pro- sign and development process. gram to meet the combined mission require- Despite its strengths, the current agency-cen- ments should be cheaper over the long run than tered approach to requirements has several weak- three separate systems. This is the impetus for the nesses that affect the processes of reaching agree- convergence proposal, discussed in chapter 3. 28 ment on high-level requirements and of linking Inability to aggregate diffuse requirements. those requirements to design specifications. This happens when several agencies or other

■ Insufficient weight given to the requirements users have requirements for similar data, but of outside users. An instrument designed for none of those agencies can afford the satellite one purpose often produces data that can serve system needed to acquire those data. The diffi- other purposes, though doing so may require culties in funding the Landsat system provide some modifications in its design or in its a clear example. Although many agencies use associated data systems. As noted above, Landsat data, historically, no single agency has AVHRR data from NOAA’s POES platforms found its data needs compelling enough to fund can provide a measure of vegetative condition a satellite system of its own. Because of this, re- through a vegetative index.29 Although the in- sponsibility for the Landsat program has dex was not a primary goal of AVHRR devel- shifted from agency to agency and still lacks opment, several programs, including the For- the robustness that operational users need eign Agricultural Service and the USGCRP, (chapter 3). now use it for global vegetation monitoring. Inefficiency in making tradeoffs between NOAA has accommodated this application by costs and requirements. The current require- making minor modifications of the spectral ments process often separates the phase of bands for the next-generation AVHRR/3, drawing up user requirements from the phase of though not with the improved radiometric cal- engineering design. This separation makes it ibration some users need. In general, however, difficult for users and designers to discuss the requirements process is geared to a specific tradeoffs between requirements and costs. For group of users and will give a higher priority to example, a slight adjustment in requirements

2R High-level requirements are intermediate between broad mission statements and the detailed requirements used in in~trument de~ign. For the broad mis~ion of cl i mate monitoring, for example, the high-level requirements would be to improve the accuracy of temper-ature w)unding data to a few tenths of a degree, whereas the engineering requirements would be to describe the radiometric calibration and \pecIra! band~ of W sounding instrument. 29 me N~rma]ized Difference Vegetative Index was originally derived from two spectral bands of Landsat ‘S Multi \pectrtil s~alln~r ( h~ss ). but it applie~ to other sen~ors with similar bands, \uch as AVHRR. The difference in intensities in the green and red bands. normali~ed by the total intensity, providej a rough index of plant “greenness.” 54 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

could result in a major reduction in cost, or a tious requirements for GOES-Next led to sig- substantial improvement in capabilities could nificant delays and cost overruns that threat- be accomplished at modest additional cost. Pri- ened the continuity of the GOES program.32 vate industry has used this process of concurrent engineering to meet market demands more 1 Coordination Mechanisms 30 efficiently. These tradeoffs can occur in op- There are several options for improving the re- erational programs through many iterations of quirements process and limiting the drawbacks of the process of developing and refining require- the current agency-led approach, without altering ments for successive generations of satellites the organizational structure of the agencies. Some but are harder to accomplish for new satellite of these mechanisms are already in place for glob- systems. Several systems under development al change research through the USGCRP and were later canceled because stated require- could be expanded; others could be implemented ments led to unaffordable costs.31 at the agency level. For example, the Committee m Difficulty in establishing national priorities. on the Environment and Natural Resources The current institutional arrangement for meet- (CENR)33 could expand its purview to include ing national priorities allows each agency to oversight and coordination of agency-based re- make tradeoffs among its own missions and mote sensing programs. budget constraints but provides no mechanism ~ Improve mechanisms for communicating re- for establishing priorities and making tradeoffs quirements of outside users. The agency re- among the programs of several agencies. The sponsible for operating a satellite could solicit problem is especially acute when an agency is data requirements from users or from art advi- attempting to establish new missions and the sory committee on data requirements. Either budgets to carry them out. For example, NOAA process would give the agency information on may be the appropriate agency to pursue long- the data needs of other agencies and of users term monitoring of global change, but it cur- outside the federal government. The agency rently lacks the budget to carry out that mis- could undertake this process on its own initia- sion. Conversely, NASA has a substantial tive, or CENR or Congress could mandate that budget for research and development but no it do so. Even with information on the require- charter for long-term operational missions. ments of outside users, however, operating

● Lack of agency expertise. The agency responsi- agencies generally give a higher priority to ble for operating a satellite system may lack ex- their own data needs than to the needs of out- perience and expertise in the design of satellite side users. systems. This has been true for NOAA, which ■ Improve interactions between the setting and relies on NASA for the development of new implementation of requirements. A more di- instruments. Partly for this reason, the ambi- rect channel of communication between data

30 me Bwing Compmy recently made effec[lve u5e of Concumen[ engineering and computer-aided design in designing and building its Boeing 777 aircraft. See P. Proctor, “Boeing Rolls Out 777 to Tentative Market,” A\iafion Week, Apr. 11, 1994, pp. 36-37.

~ ] me High Resolution Multiswctral 1mager (HRMSI) originally planned for LandSat 7 was one of these, as were tWO paSt pI’OgrWIIS fOr developing operational ocean observing satellites, the National Ocean Satellite System (NOSS) and the Naval Remote Ocean Satellite System (N-ROSS).

32 For a summv of tie hlstog of ~ES-Next, see us, congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The F-U/Ure of Remo(e ~ensing from Space: Ci\’ilian Satellite Systems and Applications, op. cit., pp. 38-39.

33 CENR, pm of tie National Science ~d Technology council (NSTC), is tie descendant of the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), established under the Federal Coordinating Committee for Science, Education, and Technology (FCCSET), the predecessor to NSTC. CENR already oversees the USGCRP. Chapter 2 National Remote Sensing Needs and Capabilities I 55

users and satellite engineers could improve could protect operational programs from the cost-effectiveness by permitting tradeoffs be- risk of having their missions diluted or tween system costs and capabilities to occur eroded. 34 These baseline requirements will gen- early in the design process. For example, satel- erally arise from each agency’s operational mis- lite engineers could play a formal role in the sions but may require high-level policy input if in- process of defining requirements, and data teragency negotiations do not lead to agreements users could be involved in the major engineer- to protect those requirements. ing-design milestone reviews. This concurrent Beyond revising the requirements process, a engineering process provides away for the data national strategy for remote sensing could include users and the satellite designers to understand new agencies or interagency programs. The long- and respond to each other’s perspective on sat- term stability of interagency programs depends on ellite design and operations. When pursued continuing political commitments from the par- early in the development process, such interac- ticipating agencies, which in turn rest on the agen- tions can lead to more effective satellite design. cies’ abilities to meet their essential requirements.

■ Institute a formal interagency process for set- The Integrated Program Office proposed for a ting and implementing requirements. The converged meteorological satellite program pro- coordination processes of CENR or the vides an example of how this might work (see USGCRP would function most effectively for chapter 3). setting high-level requirements. However, the detailed implementation of high-level require- 1 Market-Oriented Options ments depends on the cooperation of the As mentioned above, budgetary processes under- agency or agencies involved. The history of ef- lie many of the inefficiencies of the agency-ori- forts to converge civil and military meteorolog- ented requirements process. Unless they receive ical satellites demonstrates how difficult it can funding to do so, agencies are unwilling to meet be to achieve this cooperation (see chapter 3). requirements that go beyond their established ■ Improve mechanisms for assigning and up- missions. Market-oriented financing mechanisms dating agency missions. USGCRP and CENR would allow users to pay a part of satellite system can address these issues on an interagency ba- costs, either directly or through data purchases. sis, but where agencies fail to reach consensus, This could give users some leverage over the de- they may require decisionmaking at” a higher sign and operation of satellite systems, provided level. Congress could assist this process the users clearly indicate their requirements and through authorizing legislation that specifies their willingness to pay for meeting them. agency roles in meeting new national missions ● Facilitate interagency payments by data for environmental data collection. users. This would provide a way to aggregate Each of these options has the advantage of resources and to give the agencies using the making the requirements process more responsive data some financial leverage for influencing the to a broader set of needs, but the options also risk development of system requirements and capa- undermining established operational programs by bilities. So far, using interagency payments has diluting the role of agency missions in the iterative not been a common practice in the federal process of establishing and refining system capa- budget process. In the late 1980s, the Office of bilities. Defining a baseline set of requirements Management and Budget attempted to con- that are essential to each operational mission vince agencies that use significant quantities of

34 me C]lnton Administration’s convergence proposal assigns each requirement one of three levels of priority. Baseline requirements essential to each agency mission are called “key” requirements, whereas lower-priority requirements are labeled “threshold” and “objective.” 56 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Landsat data to help pay for a next-generation would be the largest data purchase yet and the Landsat satellite, but even agencies that rou- first to cover the capital costs of satellite devel- tinely purchase Landsat data commercially opment and launch. were unwilling to make a such a financial com- 35 Government data-purchase arrangements raise mitment in advance. the question of data access for third parties, which ■ Allow commercial data sales by federal agen- affects whether the supplier can also sell data comm- cies. Other countries, particularly in Europe, ercially. In the case of SeaWiFS, Orbital have developed commercial data-access poli- Sciences expects to make a profit by selling timely cies that allow government agencies to recover operational data to commercial fishing operations some of the costs of satellite systems through while NASA uses the same data on a longer time data sales (see chapter 4 for a discussion of in- scale for global change research. For terrestrial ternational data policies). These data-access data, timeliness of data access does not distin- policies give those agencies an incentive to meet commercial data requirements. This op- guish as clearly between commercial and gover- tion would be difficult to institute in the United nmental data needs, so the question of whether third States because of long-standing policies36 and parties may have access to data purchased by the traditions that forbid commercial data sales by government becomes an important subject for ne- federal agencies; U.S. agencies can charge data gotiation between the government and the com- users, but only for their marginal costs of fulfil- mercial data suppliers. ling user requests for data. Data collected by Market mechanisms also pose several prob- government agencies are considered to be in lems. Increased data costs for commercial users in the public domain (that is, they may be freely the short run could hold down the demand for data reproduced and transmitted to third parties) and and impede the development of the information are made available as a public good. market. Furthermore, government agencies will ■ Encourage federal agencies to purchase data continue to be the largest users of remotely sensed from commercial suppliers. This may be much data. Budget and policy constraints may prevent easier for federal agencies than attempting to agencies from paying more for the data they use, sell data commercially.37 Furthermore, it may even if the national need for their use of the data be easier for the private sector than for gover- continues or grows. Finally, data-purchase ar- nment agencies to respond to market forces as it rangements pose anew set of risks to agencies and designs systems to meet user needs. Users of contractors: for agencies, the loss of control over land data already do this on a small scale, but data supply, and for contractors, uncertainties in NASA’s arrangement to purchase SeaWiFS the long-term continuity of data demand. Chapter data from the Orbital Sciences Corporation 3 addresses these issues in greater detail.

35 In FY ] 989, sel,eral user ~gencies did contribute funds 10 pay for continued operation of Landsats 4 and 5. For a more detailed account of the history of Landsat, see U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Fu[ure oJLund Remote Sen.s/ng Sutellite Sy.Sfem (Lund.wr), 9 I -685 SPR (Washington, DC: The Library of Congress, Sept. 16, 1991 ~,. 36 This ~licy is outlined in OMB Circular A- 130 and reaffirmed in TAe Global Change Data Exchange principles. J1 u .s .congress.! office of Technology Assessment, T}le Future ofRemote Sensingfrom Space: Ci\’i/ian .$alellite S?’.ilem.$ an(lAp[)lrcation.s, op. cit., ch. 6. Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems 3

his chapter provides an overview of institutional and organizational issues surrounding the development of operational environmental satellite remote sensing pro- T grams. In particular, the chapter examines issues related to the development of a multiagency weather and environmental monitoring satellite system and its place in a national strategic plan for environmental satellite remote sensing programs. Three themes emerge from the discussion in this chapter. First, the United States does not have an institutional mechanism for identifying national environmental remote sensing interests, ordering them by priority, and fashioning a coordinated approach to managing them. In May 1994, the Clinton Admin- istration announced its proposal to coordinate several existing environmental satellite remote sensing programs by consolidating (“converging”) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration’s (NOAA’s) and the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) polar-orbiting operational meteorological programs and capitalizing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) experimental remote sensing programs.2 However, with its focus on just three federal agencies and only weather and

] Operu(ionul programs are distinguished from experimental programs by having long-term stability in funding and management, a conservative philosophy toward the introduction of new technology, stable data-reduction algorithms, and, most importantly, an established community of data uwm who are dependent on a steady flow of data products 2 The operational programs are NOAA’\ Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Program (POES) and DOD’S Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). The NASA program mo~t relefant to the convergence effort is the Earth Observing Sys- 157 tern (EOS). 58 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

climate monitoring, this proposal is not intended Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found to serve as a comprehensive approach to satellite- that converging programs could have several based environmental remote sensing. benefits even if there were no cost savings. These Second, the proposed consolidation of include the institutionalization of efficient mecha- NOAA’s and DOD’s polar-orbiting meteoro- nisms to develop research instruments and man- logical programs raises both “cultural” and age their transition to operational use, the institu- technical issues. The technical issues center on tionalization of long-term (decadal-time-scale) developing an affordable and reliable spacecraft environmental monitoring programs, and a and sensor suite that will meet the different re- strengthening of international partnerships that quirements of the two agencies. This challenge is would facilitate new cooperative remote sensing exacerbated—perhaps even dominated—by prob- programs. lems inherent in combining programs that originate in agencies that serve different user commu- A NATIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN FOR nities. NOAA’s and DOD’s meteorological ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE REMOTE programs have different priorities, different per- SENSING SYSTEMS spectives, and different protocols for acquisition and operations. These differences developed in In an era of fiscal austerity, designing programs to over two decades of independent operation and perform space activities more efficiently and with have manifested themselves in numerous ways— greater return on investment has emerged as a key most visibly in the different instruments that cur- element of national space policy. Greater program rently make up satellite sensor suites. integration, both domestically and international- Third, the principal challenge to NOAA, ly, has the potential to reduce costs and redundan- DOD, and NASA in implementing a joint- cy. However, it can also add such risks as program agency satellite system to monitor Earth’s delays, increased costs, and the possibility that weather and climate will be to develop organ- program goals will be compromised. In the past, izational mechanisms that ensure stable, mul- the development of new or improved sensors and tiyear funding and stable management. Histor- spacecraft has proceeded according to the specific ically, executive branch agencies and their needs of the funding agency. The nation is now en- congressional authorization and appropriation com- gaged in a reexamination of this model as it con- mittees have provided long-term stability in the siders the risks and benefits of multiagency pro- management and funding of operational programs. grams and the emerging possibilities of engaging Joint-agency operational programs would require the private sector in providing satellite services. 3 similar continuity in management and funding. In an earlier report, OTA observed that the However, the involvement of multiple budget ex- need to maximize the return on investments in re- aminers within the Office of Management and mote sensing was spurring calls for the creation of Budget (OMB) and the involvement of multiple a single, flexible, national strategic plan for re- authorization and appropriation committees with- mote sensing. The elements of such a plan, OTA in Congress (all operating on an annual budget suggested, should include mechanisms to: cycle) create new risks of program disruption. = guarantee the routine collection of high-quality The Clinton Administration’s proposal to con- measurements of weather, climate, and Earth’s solidate the nation’s current and planned weather surface over decades; and climate satellite remote sensing programs had ■ develop a balanced, integrated, long-term pro- its origins in a desire to reduce costs. However, the gram to gather data on global change that in-

3 U,S, congre~~, Offlce of Technology Assess~nt, The Future ofRemole Sensingflom Space: Civilian Sateliile SYstems an~APplications* OTA-ISC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993). Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 59

eludes scientifically critical observations from other “global change” phenomena to resource ground-, aircraft-, and space-based platforms; management and urban planning.

■ develop appropriate mechanisms for archiving, Meeting the data needs of the next century is integrating, and distributing data from many likely to require new remote sensing spacecraft different sources for research and other pur- and sensors in addition to upgraded versions of poses; and current systems. The first priority of future envi- ■ ensure cost savings by incorporating new ronmental satellite remote sensing missions will technologies in system design developed in ei- be to continue the present collection of operation- ther the private or the public sector. al meteorological data for weather prediction and A coherent plan for future environmental monitoring. However, to support state-of-the-art remote sensing systems can help guide the numerical weather prediction models, as well as near-term decisions that are necessary to en- other applications, these systems will need ex- sure that the data needs of users in the early panded capabilities, including sensors with higher part of the 21st century will be satisfied. A par- spatial, spectral, and radiometric resolution.6 In ticular challenge in the development of a national addition, the environmental remote sensing sys- strategic plan would be to address the needs of an tems of the 21st century are likely to have to meet expanding and diverse “user community.” Several new observational needs for data over the oceans 5 attendees of an OTA workshop stressed the im- and land surface. These include: portance of the early involvement of frequent us- ■ Monitoring of the oceans—for example, ers of remotely sensed data for research, opera- ocean productivity, ice cover and motion, sea- tions, and applications to inform the process that would set national policy and establish a strategy surface winds and waves, ocean currents and for developing national remote sensing capabili- circulation, and ocean-surface temperature. ties (see chapter 2). NOAA’s and DOD’s monitoring systems cur- Users of environmental remotely sensed data rently gather data related to several of these are not just agencies of the federal government; variables; however, the data are not sufficient they also include academic researchers, busi- to support such high-priority scientific con- nesses, and state and local governments. Increas- cerns as understanding the phenomena respon- ingly, the user community for remotely sensed sible for the onset of ENSO (El Niño and the 7 data also includes foreign governments. The di- Southern Oscillation) events. Improved ocean versity of users reflects the varied applications of monitoring data would also have commercial environmental remotely sensed data, which range value, especially to the fishing and shipping in- from investigations of the physical and chemical dustries. More generally, an expanded set of processes responsible for ozone depletion and observations over the oceans is necessary to

4 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Obxer\’ing S.vstem, OTA-BP-l SC- 122 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1993). 5 A ,Vatl{)nul Srrafeg\,jor Cib,lllan ,$pace-Ba.~ed Remote Sensing, OTA workshop, Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC, Feb. I 0, 1994. 6 De\lgners of remote sensing systems are forced to make compromises and tradeoffs among several p~ameters tia[ characterize \~\tem performance. These parameters include spatial resolution, spectral resolution (the capability of a sensor to categorize e!ec(romagnctic \igntils by their wavelength), radiometric resolution (the accuracy with which intensities of signals can be recorded), and the number of \pectral bands (a spectral band is a narrow wavelength interval). (See box 2- 1.) 7 For example, by monitoring sea-surface levels in the Pacific Ocean, a satellite altimeter can detect the equatorial waves that tend to precede the onset of El Niilo. See D.J. Baker, Planet Earrh: The View’jiwn Space (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 70-71. 60 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

improve understanding of the role of oceans in private-sector developments, a national strate- the global carbon, biogeochemical, and hydro- gic plan for environmental satellite remote logic cycles, and in regulating and modulating sensing might assist in the creation of an inte- Earth’s climate. grated remote sensing system that is less sus-

■ Monitoring of the land surface with new op- ceptible than current systems to single-point erational sensors such as a synthetic aperture failure or changing priorities—a more “robust radar (SAR)8 and with follow-ons and addi- and resilient” system for Earth observations. tions to the Landsat series. Future visible and For example, NASA has designed the Earth Ob- infrared imaging systems are likely to feature serving System (EOS) program with the assump- higher spatial resolution, improved radiomet- tion that it will be complemented by Landsat. ric sensitivity, stereo imaging, and a larger However, the failure of Landsat 6 and recent bud- number of spectral bands than does the current getary problems have demonstrated that Landsat Landsat. Such systems would support opera- has not acquired the characteristics of an operational needs to manage nonrenewable and re- tional program, which include relatively stable newable resources. The systems would also budgets, spacecraft and launcher backups, and a support applications such as mapping and land- “launch-on-failure” capability to ensure continu- use planning. ity of operation. Similarly, programs such as the

■ Monitoring of key indices of global change, Navy Geosat follow-on are vulnerable to budget especially changes in climate, through pro- cuts in a time of rapidly changing security require- grams designed to measure ozone concentra- ments. tion and distribution, Earth’s “radiation A national strategic plan might also assist in the budget," and the atmosphere’s aerosol con- development of new sensors and advanced tent and characteristics. Meeting these needs technologies. In some cases, government and pri- will require the development of affordable vate-sector partnerships are needed to develop 10 spacecraft and finely calibrated instrumenta- specific systems. In others, such as the develop- tion that can be flown in a continuous series for ment of an affordable multifrequency SAR, these periods measured in decades. Future systems partnerships may have to be extended internatio- will also have to support detailed “process nally. More generally, there is an urgent need to studies” to improve scientific understanding of coordinate efforts among researchers in gover- the complex physical and chemical ocean-land- nment laboratories, academia, and the private sec- atmosphere processes responsible for global tor to reduce the size, weight, and resultant cost of change. This will require a mix of both satellite satellite remote sensing systems. To lower costs, and in situ measurement systems.9 future systems should accommodate demonstra- By linking different government envi- tions of advanced technologies. However, the ten- ronmental remote sensing programs, as well as sion between continuing past observations and in-

8 A SAR would Provide a unique all-wea~er, day-and-night capability to make high-spatial-resolution global measurements of Earth’s surface. As discussed below, it would complement visible and infrared sensors. 9 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Obsert’ing System, op. cit., pp. 3, 13. lo For example, Unpi]o[ed air vehicles. Govemmen( and private-sector partnerships might also assist in the development Of new technologies for Earth observation, which are described in appendix B of U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Fuwre ofRemote Sens- ingfiom Space: Ci\i/ian Satellite Sysrerns and Applications, op. cit. NASA is pursuing technology demonstration as part of its Landsat 3 program and through its Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology. On June 8, 1994, NASA announced contract awards for two new Smallsat Earth observation satellites that will demonstrate advanced sensor technologies. NASA expects them to cost less than 950 million each and be developed, launched, and delivered on orbit in 24 months or less on a Pegasus launch vehicle. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 61

fusing new technology continues to be among the aries. As a result, programs that cut across agency most challenging aspects of planning future re- boundaries or are perceived as peripheral to the mote sensing programs. agency's central mission are vulnerable regardless A national strategic plan would recognize ex- of how important they may be to the federal gov- plicitly that Earth observations cross agency ernment as a whole (see discussion of Landsat be- boundaries. For example, NOAA’s operational low). environmental satellites currently focus primarily A national strategic plan should also strive to on measurements of atmospheric variables. How- achieve an appropriate balance between “hard- ever, the study of Earth as a system will require ware” and “software” development. Sensors col- complete coverage of both Earth’s surface and the lect data, but models and algorithms are necessary atmosphere, with instruments tailored in mea- to translate these data into useful information. surement frequency and duration to the particular Several participants at an OTA workshop 12 noted local, regional, or global phenomena under study. the tendency to meet new requirements for envi- For example. meeting the objectives of the U.S. ronmental remote sensing systems by “pushing Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)l1 the technology” and neglecting (by comparison) will require integrating satellite data and in situ less costly software solutions. Meeting new re- data with validated models to derive global data quirements for environmental remote sensing products that may be compared over periods rang- systems in the most cost-effective manner will ing from seasons to centuries. require an examination of the “end-to-end” A comprehensive plan for environmental process that turns data into information. satellite remote sensing would help ensure that NOAA has historically been the lead agency in program and instrument choices were driven managing civil operational satellite programs. by truly national needs instead of the some- However, NOAA has lacked the budget authority times parochial interests of individual federal and the in-house capability to develop and flight- agencies. Currently, the United States does not test instruments for new operational programs. have an adequate system for allocating funds to The majority of NOAA’s funding is currently di- programs that serve data users who are outside the rected at meeting its principal mission, which is to normal program bounds of the operating agency, provide reliable short-term weather forecasting nor does it have a reliable system for allocating and weather warning. Without new budget author- funds to programs that cut across agency bound- ity, NOAA might have difficulty funding expen- aries. Under the existing system for appropriating ditures for new climate and ocean monitoring federal program funds, the agency responsible for instruments and spacecraft, or even for such im- a program must defend that program to the office provements as upgrading the calibration and num- of Management and Budget and to congressional ber of spectral channels of the Advanced Very committees. Programs compete for funding and High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor to attention both within and outside agency bound- make it better suited for land remote sensing

I 1 For ~ ~e~crlptlon of the U’jG~’Rp, \ec us Congress. office of Techn~l~g} Asse\\ment, G/~b~l/ C/lufl,qe Re.\earch and ,VASA’.S Eur/}z Ob\cr\ in~ .$)s(cm, op. cit., and references therein. 62 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

(box 3-1) or for being better able to determine frequently the factor that limits the extent of these cloud type. 13 applications. For example, better calibration Higher stability and better calibration of satel- might allow climate trends to be discerned from lite sensors will also be required by global change an analysis of sea-surface temperatures, which are researchers attempting to distinguish real changes derived from weather satellite data.14 A national from instrument-induced effects. In addition, ex- strategic plan for environmental remote sensing perience has shown that satellite data can be ap- may be useful in reaching a consensus on how best plied to a host of applications for which they were to fund and develop improvements such as better not originally intended; instrument calibration is calibration of satellite sensors.

13 Cloud ty~ is determ~ed from analysis of mul[ispectra]-image data from instruments on OWratiOna] meteorological satellites. CUITently, the number of spectral channels available and the calibration is insufficient for unambiguous determination of some clouds (for example, polar clouds). Several proposed EOS instruments may help in cloud classification. See Committee on Earth Obser~’ution Satellites (CEOS) 1993 Dos- sier—Volume C: The Relevance of Satellite Missions to Global En\’ironmental Programs (September 1993), p. C-34. 1A R*H. ~omas, Po/ar Researchflom Sate//ites (Washington, DC: Joint Oceanographic Institute, February 1 ~ 1). Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 63

MONITORING WEATHER AND CLIMATE in complementary, circular, sun-synchronous polar orbits, with morning and afternoon equator B NOAA’s Polar-orbiting Operational crossings that designate the spacecraft as AM and Environmental Satellite Program15 PM (box 3-2). Since its inception, NOAA has operated its meteorological satellites to serve the In 1960, the United States launched the world’s public good. This has resulted in continuity of first weather satellite, TIROS-1 .16 TIROS pro- weather observations and public availability of vided systematic cloud-cover photography and weather warnings (figure 3-1 ). observations of Earth with broad-band visible and The POES system primarily provides daily infrared imagery. Images obtained in visible global observations of weather patterns and envi- wavelengths gave researchers global views of the ronmental conditions in the form of quantitative structure of weather systems and weather move- data that can be used for numerical weather analy- ment. Infrared sensors allowed these views to be sis and prediction. As a result, NOAA’s principal extended into hours of darkness. Combining both requirements for POES are high-quality imaging, types of imagery allowed a determination of cloud primarily at optical wavelengths, and high-resolu- type and the relative altitudes of the uppermost tion temperature and humidity “soundings.”18 cloud layers. Although considered experimental, U.S. weather models are initialized with satellite the success of TIROS- 1 led to operational uses of temperature and humidity measurements immedi- the data, which the U.S. Weather Bureau pursued ately to the west of the United States in the eastern simultaneously with NASA’s research and devel- Pacific Ocean at times corresponding to the re- opment satellite-improvement program. lease of weather monitoring balloons (00 Green- As noted in chapter 2, NOAA operates its cur- wich mean time (GMT) and 12 GMT). Therefore, rent satellite programs primarily to support the NOAA has a particular need for afternoon (PM) data needs of the National Weather Service for temperature and humidity measurements over the weather warning (the geostationary satellites) and eastern Pacific. For similar reasons, European global forecasting (the polar satellite program). To weather organizations need morning data ac- support its Polar-orbiting Operational Environ- quired over the Atlantic Ocean. mental Satellite Program (POES), NOAA oper- The key instruments and services available ates two Advanced TIROS-N (ATN) 1 7 spacecraft from the two operational POES satellites have

IS For ~ Ovewiew of NC)AA and DOD pro~rarns, see D.J. Baker, Planer Earlh: The Vie~from Space, op. cit. A detailed description of sensors and spacecraft design appears in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ENVIROSAT-2000 Repor[: Comparison of De- fense Meteorological Sarellite Program (DMSP) and the NOAA Polar-orbltin.g Opera ~ional Environmental Salellite (POES) Program (Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1985). lb T/ROS is tie acronym for Television and Jnfrared Observing Satellite. In this chapter, the term T/ROS salellite is used interchangeably with the term (NOAA ) POE-S sarellire, T] ROS was the culmination of a project begun under the Department of the Army, which was then transferred to a newly created NASA and completed by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

17 TIROS-N, ]aunched in 1978, was tie prototype for the modem NOAA polar-orbiting environmental satellite. The ATN, which dates to 1984, is an enhanced version of TIROS-N. lts increased capacity allowed the addition of the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV ) instrument, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) instrument~, and the search and rescue system, SARSAT. 18 Data on tie tem~rature and humidi(y \tmcture of the atmosphere are necessary to understand the stability of the weather patterns and to forecast short- and long-term changes. Satellite instruments used to remotel y probe the temperature and moisture structure of the atmosphere are generally refereed to as sounding instruments. To determine the temperature of the surface of Earth, infrared or microwave observations are made at wavelengths at which the atmosphere is transparent. To determine the temperature structure of the atmosphere, observations are made at wavelengths where there is absorption and emission by a uniformly mixed gas. Atmospheric moisture distributions may be monitored by sensors that detect emissions from water \apor. See National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration, Space-Based Rcmo/e Sensing of Ihe Ear/h: A Report to /he Con,

changed only slightly since the launch of TI- ers (HIRS—High-Resolution Infrared Sounder, ROS-N in October 1978. The principal instru- SSU—Stratospheric Sounding Unit, and MSU- ments on recent POES satellites are an optical sur- Microwave Sounding Unit (box 2-4)). 19 face and cloud imager (i.e., AVHRR) and infrared NOAA’s current POES satellites are built with and microwave temperature and humidity sound- a design life of 2 years, which has usually been ex-

19 HIRS measures scene radiance in 20 spectral bands, permitting the ciildatbn of the vertical temperature profile from Earth’s surface [o about 40 km altitude. SSU is used to measure the temperature distribution in the upper stratosphere between 25 and 50 km. MSU gives NOAA an all-weather (i.e., cloudy or clear condition) capability for temperature and moisture measurements. NOAA is developing a completely new Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) for POES to improve the quality of temperature and humidity sounding. Ibid., pp. 60-68. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 65

ceeded.20 To ensure continuous availability of weather data, NOAA attempts to procure these satellites at intervals that would allow launch within 120 days of “call-up.” The NOAA-J spacecraft and the enhanced NOAA-K, -L, and -M are in production or test. The launch vehicle for future POES satellites (and for DOD’s Defense Meteoro- logical Satellite Program (DMSP)) is the Titan 11,2 The cost of the K, L, M series is approximately $100 million per satellite. Before the Clinton Administration’s convergence proposal was announced, agreement in principle had been reached between Europe, represented by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Organisation for the Exploita- tion of Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat), and the United States, represented by NOAA, to transfer responsibility for the morning (AM) segment of NOAA’s polar-orbiting constellation in approximately the year 2000.22 The United States entered this arrangement to reduce costs and to gain the benefits of shared data, mutual backup, and some simplification in operations. The Adminis- tration’s convergence proposal has not altered the U.S. desire to enter into an arrangement with Eu- The proposed convergence of NOAA and DOD rope to provide the morning meteorological satel- weather satellites has also not altered either lite; however, it has prompted the parties involved agency’s plans to implement major upgrades to start renegotiating the terms of the agreement. (block changes) in next-generation systems. For At the time this report was written, several issues example, NOAA had planned to use the extra ca- relating to implementation of the agreement had pacity of satellites O, P, and Q to fly an upgraded not been resolved. In particular, issues regarding complement of its current instruments while test- U.S. control of real-time data from U.S. instru- ing new instruments that would be candidates for ments on board the European METOP23 satellite future operational use. At one time, the O, P, Q se- had not been fully settled (see below). ries had been scheduled for launch starting in

~o For example, NOAA’S primaV PM and AM mission spacecraft, NOAA-1 1 and NOAA- 12, are still operational after launch in September 1988 and May 1991, respectively. However, the next satellite in this series, NOAA- 13, which was launched into a PM orbit cm Augu\t 9.1993, failed on August 21, 1993, because of a power system failure. 21 Titan II rep]aces the Atlas-E. 22 The first launch of an operational European spacecraft, METOP- 1, is scheduled for December 2000. plms cdl for ,METOP ~o Caq ~ U.S. operational instrument package in addition to European-supplied instruments. Europe has also agreed to \upply a high-latitude ground station. Thi\ arrangement will eliminate blind orbits—that is, orbits where data transmission is not possible because the satellite is not in the line of sight of a ground \tation. 23 A term derived from metrological @rational Mission. 66 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

2000. However, when the series was delayed until first satellite in the DMSP series was launched in 2005, NOAA developed plans to launch “gap-fill- 1976. The current system includes satellites and ers,” designated as NOAA-N and -N’, to ensure sensors; ground command and control (distinct continuity between K, L, M and the block up- from NOAA’s); Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, grade. It now appears that satellites N and N’ will and Navy fixed and mobile tactical ground termi- serve as gap-fillers between J-M and a converged nals; and Navy shipboard terminals .24 Operation- system (table 3-1). al users of DMSP products obtain data via a centralized system (AFGWC, for Air Force Glob- al Weather Central); direct links to DMSP are also possible. DMSP satellites support the needs of classified NOAA satellite Projected launch date/status surveillance programs and the tactical needs of the J (PM) September 1994/under contract fighting forces for information about the weather. K (AM) September 1995/under contract Data from DMSP are used by the military to: L (PM) September 1997/under contract M (AM) September 1998/under contract ■ detect and forecast the absence or presence of N (PM) September 2000/under contract clouds, anticipated ■ determine wind speed over the open ocean, N’ (PM) September 2003/under contract anticipated ● provide precipitation data to determine cross- O (PM) September 2005/old baselinea country mobility of armor forces, P (PM) September 2008/old baseline ■ optimize performance of electro-optical sen- .—Q (PM) September 201 l/old baseline sors, a Schedule before the Clinton Administration’s convergence ● proposal was completed, If the convergence plan IS provide data for artillery and missile targeting, executed, NOAA will terminate the planned launch of satel- ✘ provide input data for weather forecasts over lites O, P, and Q and instead incorporate features of this block change into the proposed NOAA-DOD-NASA national data-denied or enemy territory, and polar-orbiting environmental satellites ● provide space environmental data to support 25 Source National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, space systems operations. 1994 The DMSP space segment normally consists of two satellites in 833-km, circular, sun-synchronous polar orbits that are similar to the POES sat- DOD’s Operational Meteorological ellites, but with different equator crossing - Program times.26 Unlike NOAA, DOD has designed its Like NOAA, DOD has an operational require- satellites to be flexible in orbit crossing times to ment for meteorological data. As executive agent support changing mission requirements.27 DMSP for a joint-service program to provide global carries payloads that are specific to DOD require- weather data, the U.S. Air Force operates a series ments for data encryption, survivability, launch of meteorological satellites under its DMSP. The responsiveness, flexibility in orbit selection,

24 Most DMSP terminals can also receive NOAA satellite data directly. 25 G.R. Schneiter, Director, Strategic and Space Systems, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), U.S. Department of De- fense, testimony before the Subcommittee on Space of the Committee on Sc ience. Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, U.S. Con- gress, Nov. 9, 1993. 26 The most recent DMSP launches had local equator crossing times of 0530 ~d 0730. 27 NOAA’s principal requirement for gathering data for its numerical weather forecasts does not require flexible orbit crossing times (in fact, NOAA weather models are designed to be initialized at the same time of day). Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 67

low-light imagery, and constant-resolution cloud and development of significant weather systems; imagery for automated data processing (box the location of jet streams, troughs, and ridges; 2-5).28 and areas of potential turbulence and icing. DMSP The primary sensor carried on every DMSP sat- satellites also carry an advanced passive millime- ellite is a visible and infrared imager known as the ter-wavelength microwave imager, the Special Operational Linescan System (OLS), which was Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I), that provides first flown in 1976 on Block 5D spacecraft. OLS information concerning sea states and ocean imagery is used to depict cloud types and cloud winds, polar ice development, precipitation, and distribution and to locate cloud-free areas. OLS soil moisture estimates, data that are of great inter- data are also used to identify the location, extent, est to a wide variety of users (box 3-3). SSM/I is

1~ See ~pa~ment of Defense comments in U.S. General Accounting OffIce, Wearher Sarel/ires: Economies A~’uilable b}’ Con\’ ergin.~ Go~-

ermnenf ,t~elec~rcjl~~,ql(tll Sa/ei/I/c\, GAO NSIAD-87- 107 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), p. 51. 68 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

also used for hurricane and typhoon characteriza- constructed .32 Assuming that the historic reliabil- 29 tion. DMSP carries two passive microwave ity of DMSP spacecraft continues, the last DMSP sounding instruments—SSM/T-l and SSM/ under construction could be launched in 2006 or T-2—that provide data that allow derivation of later. vertical temperature and tropospheric water vapor profiles of the atmosphere, respectively. I Comparing NOAA’s and DOD’s Historically, to support tactical operations and Polar-Orbiting Operational other missions, one of the two operational DMSP spacecraft has had an equator crossing at dawn and Meteorological Programs the other has been operated at varying crossing Differences between NOAA’s and DOD’s meteo- times later in the morning (for example, 0830). rological programs in part reflect the comparative- These satellites meet DOD’s particular needs for ly greater importance DOD attaches to cloud imagery at a time when clouds are less likely to imagery (to support tactical operations) than to obscure the ground. DOD also uses data from the sounding measurements of atmospheric tempera- DMSP satellites and from NOAA’s PM satellites ture and moisture. Although NOAA shares as inputs to numerical forecast models. Together, DOD’s requirement for cloud imagery, it has a DMSP and POES weather satellites meet DOD’s particular need for high-accuracy temperature and requirements for 4-hour refresh rates for cloud- moisture profiles of the atmosphere. These data imagery data and DOD-NOAA requirements for initialize NOAA’s twice-daily global numerical 6-hour refresh rates for sounding data. weather forecasts. Four DMSP satellites are in storage and five are The differences between NOAA’s and DOD’s under construction: S 11, S 13, S14, and S15-S20. requirements are reflected in the instrument suite S11, S13, and S14 are Block 5D-2 design; on board DMSP and POES satellites. For exam-- S 15-S20 are Block 5D-3.30 The recurring cost of ple, POES satellites use high-resolution infrared each 5D-3 satellite is approximately $134 mil- soundings complemented by microwave sound- lion.31 DOD expects the DMSP spacecraft to ings for their weather models, whereas DMSP sat- achieve 4 years of operation on-orbit for the space- ellites use only the lower-resolution microwave 33 craft in storage and 5 years for the spacecraft being soundings. NOAA plans to introduce an ad-

29 SSWI is p~icular]y Usefi] in monitoring the pacific ocean, where it has replaced more costly aerial reconnaissance as a way to track typhoons. Although sometimes characterized as a “Navy” sensor, SSM/I is used by many federal agencies and serves a diverse user community. Workshop participants at a joint DOD-NOAA conference on DMSP retrieval products were, in fact, primarily civilian and international users. See R.G. Isaacs, E. Kalnay, G. Ohring, and R. McClatchney, “Summary of the NMC/NESDIS/DOD Conference on DMSP Retrieval Products,” Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society 74(1):87-91, 1993.

los. 12 is already in orbit. S-15 is designated as a 5D-3 design because It uses the 5D-3 spacecraft bus. However, its instrument package is identical to that found on 5D-2 satellites. 3 I 1992 dollws. 5D-2 satellites cost approxima[e\y $120 million in 1992 dollars. T’hese figures refer only to recurring costs of the spacecraft and sensors. They do not include one-time initial startup costs such as RDT&E (for research, development, test, and evaluation), nor do they include costs associated with the ground segment, such as the costs of ground terminals and of the satellite command, control, and commun ica- tions network. ~z me ~ES satelll[es have an on-orbit design life of 2 years, but they generally last longer. ~~ Microwave sounders complement infrared sounders because they can penetrate clouds. For example, recent POES satellites have COm- bined data from infrared sounders HIRS/2 and SSU, with MSU, a four-channel radiometer (sounder) that makes passive microwave measurements in the 5.5-mm oxygen band. DOD, having less need forhigh-resolution soundings and being most interested in an “all-weather” capability, has pioneered the development of microwave sounders (for example, the SSM/1). T’he infrared and microwave instruments on POES satellites are capable of resolving temperature differences in the vertical structure of the atmosphere of approximately 1.5 to 2 degrees kelvin {K), even in the presence of clouds. DMSP instruments can resolve approximately 3 K. Note that the all-weather capability of DMSP does not refer to seeing through precipitation. The millimeter wave instruments carried by DMSP will operate through clouds, but not rain. In fact, this property can be used to estimate rainfall. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 69

vanced microwave sounder, AMSU, which will As noted above, the primary sensor carried on have a higher resolution than DOD microwave every DMSP satellite is the Operational Linescan instruments. DMSP and POES satellites are also System (OLS). OLS provides day and night cloud built differently for at least three other reasons: imagery from two sensors, which operate in the 35 1. The DMSP system must meet DOD’s specifi- visible and longwave-infrared regions . OLS has cation that it provide global visible and infrared several features that distinguish it from the cloud data through all levels of conflict. There- AVHRR on NOAA’s POES satellites. First, OLS fore, components in DMSP must meet require- has a photomultiplier that allows DOD to generate ments for hardening and survivability that are visible imagery from scenes illuminated at low light levels (as 1ittle as the light from a one-quarter not present in POES. 36 2. DMSP satellites are built to military specifica- moon). Second, OLS is the only operational tions (“mil-spec’’).34 imager capable of nearly constant spatial resolu- 37 -.3 DMSP satellites contain specialized electron- tion across its data swath width (box 3-4). ics, such as those needed to implement encryp- Constant resolution and other unique features of tion schemes that support DOD’s requirement OLS result in expedited delivery of images direct- to control real-time access to data. ly to the field and reduced time for weather fore- 38 This last difference affects NOAA’s and DOD’s at- casts. Third, the sensor cooler on OLS is de- titudes toward international data exchanges. In signed to operate at a range of sun angles, contrast to DOD’s approach, the Department of allowing operation at different equator crossing Commerce’s weather forecasting (through times and, therefore, at different sun angles with NOAA) relies on international partnerships to respect to the spacecraft as needed. Thus, OLS is fulfill its data needs and those of other U.S. somewhat more flexible than AVHRR with re- agencies, including DOD. Indeed, these partner- spect to the orbits it can support. ships, which have their historical basis in U.S. de- The current series of DMSP and the POES TI- ROS-N satellites are built with a similar space- cisions to treat meteorological data as a public 39 good, have been part of U.S. foreign policy since craft “bus” and several subsystems (an excep- the Kennedy Administration. tion is the command and data-handling subsystem).

34 DMSp,, ~I~o built [() Iast longer than pOES, but this added cost ma) be balanced by the need for fewer satellites during the cour~e of the progrum. For a dctalled comparison of POES and DMSP, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, E,VV/ROSAT-2000° Reporr: Compur[ i(m t~[~ql~n.~e Ve[corologi(’ul Sutellite Progrum (DMSP) und the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operurionul .En\ironmentul Sutellite (POES) Pro,qrumt op. cit. 75 OL\ is used L(l pr[)~lde cloud i[nagcrl,, cloud-top temwrature, sea-surface temperature, and auroral image~f. OLS ‘f visible-near-infrared \en\or operate\ in the 0.4-1. I -pm band; the infrared sensor operates in the 10 13-Lnl band. Three spectral band~ are chosen to enhance the ability to distinguish among clouds, ground, and water. The extension of the vijible band to near-infrared wavelengths is chosen to enhance the ability to distingui~h tropical \ cgeta(ion from water. ~@lJS ]Ow.light capabi] it} is n. ]Onger considered advanced technology. In fact, it is a feature of the recently launched NOAA GOES-8. HOW e~ er, design ~tudics w ]11 be-needed to determine whether this feature can eaiily be incorporated into an instrument that replaces AVHRR and 01.S on a conk erged NOAA and DOD satellite.

?7 ~1 .s ij ~Wrated 1. Pr{)duce a near]} ‘.onjtant ().6-km \patia] rejo]u[ion acro~s it~ approximate) 3,000-km data SW ah. Direct readout data at fine (0.6-knl ) and “wnoothcd ” (2.8-km) resolution can be received at tactical terminal~; data can also be recorded on board the spacecrtift at both fine and Smoothed resolution for transmission to central receiving stations. I.OW -light-level nighttime v isible data are at 2.8-km resolution. 78 ~:or ~xanlp]e constant resolution \inlp] ifiej the ground processing that would otherwise be needed, es~ciall~ if a user recei~ Cd imWW’ data al the edge of the field of VICW of the OLS (see di$cu$sion and figure in bm 3-4). 3Y The ~pacecraft bu~ carri~~ the pavload and inc]udej s} ~tenl~ ~nd subs~itenls that provide \e\eral “housekeeping” functions. ‘ncludill~ . propul~ion: electrical power generation, conditioning, and distribution; communications (tracking, telemetry, and command): attitude deter- mintition and control: thermul control; and command and data handling. See E. Reeves, “Spacecraft Design and Sizing.” Space Al[.sslon An(Jl>I- \I.\ und I)es[,qn. V’.J, Larwm and JR. Wertz (eds. ) (Torrance, CA: Microco\nl, Inc., 1992). 70 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

NADIR

%’ Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 71

Before the Clinton Administration’s convergence proven, these technologies are candidates for proposal was announced, the Air Force had been NOAA’s operational missions. planning a block change for DOD’s meteorologi- The principal spacecraft in the EOS program cal satellites. Like NOAA, DOD planned to initi- are comparatively large, multi-instrument plat- ate this upgrade after the satellites in storage and forms designated AM, PM, and CHEM. Plans call under construction had been exhausted. Although for the 5-year lifetime AM, PM, and CHEM recent DMSP and POES satellites have increased spacecraft to be flown successively three times. their use of common systems and subsystems, the Under the current schedule, the first flight of AM follow-ons that DOD and NOAA had planned would occur in 1998 (figure 3-2), the first flight of would have resulted in systems with less in com- PM would occur in 2000, and the first flight of mon than the current series. For example, Block 6 CHEM spacecraft would be in approximately 40 DMSP and NOAA-O, -P, -Q satellites would like- 2002. Instruments on AM are intended primarily have been built with different buses and would ly for Earth surface observation (characterization have had a greater number of different compo- of the terrestrial and oceanic surfaces; clouds, nents and subsystems. These differences are note- radiation, and aerosols; and radiative balance); worthy because they suggest that before the Ad- instruments on PM are intended primarily for ministration’s convergence proposal was made, study of global climate (clouds, precipitation, and the two agencies had been on a course that would radiative balance; terrestrial snow and sea ice; sea- have resulted in distinctive meteorological satel- surface temperature; terrestrial and oceanic productivity; and atmospheric temperature); and lites and perhaps fewer opportunities for program instruments on CHEM are intended primarily for savings through economies of scale. study of atmospheric dynamics and chemistry (ocean-surface stress and atmospheric chemical 1 NASA’s Weather- and Climate-Related species and their transformations) .41 Programs EOS program officials have stated that they ex- The Administration has involved NASA in pro- pect some research instruments to evolve into the posals to converge operational meteorology pro- next generation of instruments for routine and grams for three reasons. First, NASA is funding long-term data collection. In particular, the EOS and developing the Earth Observing System of PM series, scheduled for launch beginning in satellites, which carry instruments that may later 2000, 42 will fly instruments that have potential be modified for use on operational weather satel- application for operational weather and climate lites. Second, NASA currently develops the data collection.43 (However, as discussed below, POES satellites for NOAA. Third, NASA has NOAA officials express concern about the high historically been the agency that funds, develops, cost of flying EOS instruments as part of a system and demonstrates prototype advanced remote for long-term, routine data collection.) Consider- sensing technologies for civil applications. Once ation of converging EOS PM satellites with

40 Re\coplng the EOS Program has pa~lcular]y affected the CHEM mission. See G. Asrar and D.J. Dokken (eds. ), EO.$Reference Handb~~~~~ (Washington, DC: NASA Earth Science Support Office, i993). ~IFor ~ description of EOS \pacecraft and ins[mmen[s, see G. Asrar and D.J. Dokken (eds.), EOS Reference Hand~oo~. ibi~. 42 However, [igh[ EOS budgetj may force NASA to delay PM-1 by at least 9 montis.

43 pM c] i mate monitoring in~tmments include ~ atmospheric infrared sounder to measure Earth ‘S outgoing radiation (AIRS); an advanced microwave radiometer to provide atmospheric temperature measurements from the surface to some 40 km (AMSU); and a microwa} e radiometer to provide a(moipheric water \ apor profiles (MHS). AMSU, which is actually three modules, will replace the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU ) and the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU ) on POES satellites, starting with NOAA-K. MHS is a European instrument that will be flown on the European morning polar weather \atellite, METOP. 72 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

MOPITT Measurements of pollution in the troposphere

CERES Clouds’ radiant

MISR Multi-angle imaging spectro-radiometer

USE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT m

m-- I dynamics I

Volcanic eruptions and v

SOURCE Martin Marietta Astrospace, 1993 .

Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems 173

NOAA and DOD operational satellites might oc- and NASA. These agencies have generally cur starting with PM-2 or PM-3, which are sched- succeeded in providing a workable mix of capabil- uled for launch in approximately 2005 and 2010, ities to meet their own needs: DOD has managed respectively. This plan would allow PM- 1 to serve the operational and research and development as a demonstrate ion platform for subsequent opera- (R&D) programs dedicated to national security tional instruments. The year 2005 also lies within purposes; NASA has undertaken the sometimes the approximate period when DOD and NOAA risky development of the enabling technologies had been considering block changes in their cur- for new remote sensing programs; and NOAA has rent programs. In principle, PM-1 could be de- used the technical services of both NASA and signed to meet both the needs of the research com- DOD to develop and operate the civil operational munity and the needs of NOAA and DOD for environmental satellite system. On occasion, operational weather data: however, NASA, NOAA and DOD have provided backup capabili- NOAA, and DOD have concluded that employing ties in support of each other’s programs. unproven research instruments in operational uses Management and operation of the nation’s civil is too risky. operational weather satellite system has histori- NASA is also sponsoring competitive “Phase cally been vested in NOAA.45 In general, the B“ studies aimed at developing a common space- technologies that NOAA needs to conduct its sat- craft for EOS PM-1, CHEM- 1, and AM-2,3. ellite operations are the products of the R&D work These studies are examining the possibility of already completed by NASA and DOD. NOAA launching EOS payloads on either an intermedi- also depends on the resources of NASA and DOD ate-class expendable launch vehicle (IELV), such to procure and launch its spacecraft. For example, as the Atlas IIAS planned for AM-1, or a smaller NASA administers the contracts for NOAA’s sat- medium-class expendable launch vehicle ellites, and Air Force crews launch NOAA’s polar- (MELV), such as the Delta II. Although these orbiting satellites from Vandenberg Air Force studies are independent of convergence studies, Base. they are driven by a similar necessity to accommo- NOAA reimburses NASA and DOD for the date constrained budgets. As discussed below, an personnel and other costs they incur when helping EOS PM series adapted for launch on an MELV NOAA meet its space mission. Overall and specif- might allow for a common spacecraft bus to be de- ic agreements between NOAA and NASA and be- veloped for EOS PM and a converged NOAA- tween NASA and DOD (launch agreements are DOD meteorological satellite. between NASA and DOD) govern the responsibilities and costs of the support provided to NOAA. 9 Efforts To Converge NOAA’s and DOD’s NOAA is responsible for determining the require- Polar Weather Satellite Programs44 ments of users of its satellite services, specifying The United States has conducted Earth environ- the performance of the systems needed to satisfy mental remote sensing satellite programs for over requirements, and obtaining the necessary funds 30 years: for most of this period, the programs to build and operate both the space and ground have been under the auspices of NOAA, DOD, segment of its systems. These arrangements are an

JJ Thl~ \cc[lon draw J on material prepared for OTA by R. Koffler.

4.5 me ,$ ~rjd,~ fir~t ~) Pratlona] ~,ea(her satellite, E7J,SA. 1 ( for Environmental Sciences Semices Administration- I ; ESSA was the predeces- wr to Nt3~\A ), was launched on Februa~ 3, 1966. The system was brought to full operational capability with the launch of ESSA-2 on Februarj ZX, 1 ~~~, The owra[lonal” }ttu[h[,r satel]ite prOgram has ken in continuous existence since these Iaunche\: however, as its capabilities v’cre upgraded, II wa~ referred to as the operational enlrronmenful satellite program. NOAA’S policy to allow unrestricted collection of weather information by any grtmnd station in the line of sight of its satellites dates to policies enunciated by President John F. Kennedy. 74 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

outgrowth of agreements first reached by the three weather systems acquire different kinds of data at agencies in the 1960s. different times of day to support different users. The distinction between NOAA operational The 1973 study based assessments of the tech- satellites and NASA research satellites dates to nical feasibility and costs of a converged system 1963, when NOAA rejected NASA’s NIMBUS on NOAA, NASA, and DOD analyses. The study satellite as the basis for an operational program concluded that no option could maintain current because of delays in its development and because performance levels while providing significant it was judged too complex and expensive. cost reductions. In addition, policy concerns ar- Throughout the 1960s, DOD was developing gued for the two programs to remain separate.47 weather satellites specific to its needs. By 1972, The 1973 review did, however, result in the Nixon the DMSP weather satellite system, which for the Administration directing NOAA to use the DMSP first time included atmospheric sounders in addi- Block SD spacecraft bus, then under development tion to cloud imagers, was supporting centralized by the Air Force, as the basis for the next-genera- and field ground stations. At the same time, tion series of polar-orbiting satellites. In addition, NOAA was launching the first of a series of se- NOAA and DOD were instructed to coordinate cond-generation operational satellites (denoted as the management of the separate programs more the Improved TIROS Operational Satellite closely. (ITOS)). 46 Development of a third-generation se- On eight occasions since 1972, the Depart- ries of operational satellites was also under way— ments of Commerce and Defense have studied an atmospheric-sounder instrument array, in part convergence and implemented recommendations provided by the United Kingdom, was under development; an upgraded visible-infrared imager designed to increase coordination and avoid un- was being designed; and plans called for the use of necessary duplication in their respective polar-or- a data-collection system that would be provided biting environmental programs. The 1973 study by France. and subsequent studies have resulted in programs In 1973, a national space policy study led by the that have similar spacecraft with numerous com- Office of Management and Budget and the Na- mon subsystems and components. In addition, tional Security Council examined the fiscal and both programs now use a common launch vehicle policy implications of conducting separate DOD and share responsibility for creating products and NOAA operational weather satellite pro- derived from the data. The two programs also grams. Before the study, some officials had antici- work together closely on R&D efforts and provide pated that a merged system could meet both agen- complement environmental information. How- cies’ requirements (because each had a similar ever, until now, foreign policy and national securi- requirement to acquire imagery of clouds) while ty concerns have precluded full convergence.48 providing an overall savings to the government. The latest proposal to consolidate NOAA’s and As noted above, however, NOAA and DOD DOD’s meteorological programs is more likely to

46 In 1972, ITOS/NOAA.2 became the first operational polar-orbiting satellite to convert from the use of a television camera to a scanning radiometer, permitting day and night imaging and quantitative sea-surface and cloud-top temperature measurements. 47 DMSpdata were not shared wi~ o~er nations. However, the United States had pledged to maintain an open CIVll weather Satellite system. Additionally, the NOAA system was a visible demonstration of the U.S. “cysen skies” policy, and it satisfied long-standing U.S. obligations to exchange Earth data with the meteorological agencies and scientific organizations of other nations. ~ D.J. Baker, Under Secretaw for oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Com- merce, testimony before the Subcommittee on Space of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, Nov. 9, 1993. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 75

succeed than past attempts because of the conflu- therefore, consolidation of separate programs ence of several factors, including: (convergence) could involve a range of options. m Extremely tight agency budgets in an era of For example, convergence could occur at the level fiscal austerity. Officials from NOAA, NASA, of data processing and dissemination if common and DOD agree that this is the most important data requirements, standards, and distribution factor spurring convergence. systems were established. Convergence might also occur at the instrument level if common re- ■ Calls from members of Congress and the President to streamline government and ef- quirements and designs for the acquisition of fect cost savings. Satellite environmental re- instruments were mandated. At a still higher level, mote sensing programs were among the pro- convergence could involve the merging of opera- grams targeted for cost savings in the tional programs under the direction of a single President’s National Performance Review.49 agency or a single new organizational entity. Fi- nally, a fully converged system would do all of the ■ Plans to make substantial upgrades (“block changes”) in both the DMSP and POES pro- above and use common spacecraft and instru- grams during approximately the same period ments to satisfy what are now separate operational after the turn of the century. and research needs. There are two principal scenarios for consoli- ■ A changed international security environment. The importance of this factor is uncer- dating meteorological programs. The first would, tain. DOD requirements for meteorological in effect, involve combining plans for DOD data have not changed in the post-Cold War era. DMSP Block 6 with NOAA-O, -P, and -Q meteo- Nevertheless, some analysts believe the rological satellites. The principal technical chal- changed security environment has encouraged lenge in this convergence scenario would be meet- DOD to moderate its historical objection to ing DOD’s requirement for constant-resolution shared military-civil systems. imaging and NOAA’s requirement for calibrated imaging and atmospheric sounding. For example, Two other factors influencing the current conver- DOD and NOAA have both studied concepts that gence effort are: 1) the involvement of NASA, es- would improve their respective imagers; conver- pecially through the potential use of its EOS PM gence would require a new study to determine instruments, and 2) the involvement of foreign whether a single imager could be developed to governments. especially through the planned use meet both agencies’ needs at an acceptable cost, or of Europe’s METOP satellite. whether to fly two separate imagers would be more practical. 50 1 Issues and Options for Convergence The second scenario would involve developing Satellite environmental remote sensing systems a common satellite and spacecraft bus and modi- consist of both a ground and a space segment; fied EOS sensors that would satisfy NOAA’s and

“) A. (;or-e, “From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less,” report of the National Performance Rc\ ICW ( W’mhington, DC: Office of the Vice president, Sept. 7, 1993). See also National Performance Review, OffIce of the Vice President, .\’atIonal Aer<)nuufIc.\ und Space Administration: Accompunylrrg Reporl of the National Performance Re\ie\*v (Washington, DC: Office of the \“Icc Pre\ldent, September 1993). $( )Thl\ \ccti[)n draw, on intern iew~ and briefings from NOAA, NASA, DOD, and industry officials. It also draWS on briefing papers pro- ~ lded by attendeei of an OTA Workshop, A National Sfralegy for Cit’ilian Space-Bared Remote Sensing, held Feb. 10, 1994. For a review of technlca] und policy iisues specifically related to the Clinton Adminiswation’s convergence plan, see D. Blersch, DMSP/POES: A Posr Cold khr ,45 icj ttnent (A Re-Examination of Tradi!lonal Concerns In a Changing En~’ironment) (Washington, DC: ANSER Corp., June 1993); and H. Kottler. J.R. Llfslt~, J.J. Egan, and N.D. Hulkower, Perspective.\ on Convergence, Project Report NOAA- 10 (Lexington, MA: Massachusetts In\tltutc of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, Feb. 8, 1994). See also U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, Nu/iona/ .5’tru/c,q\ /f~r RemoIe Serning 1.s Needed, AIS-0003-O-0006 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Februa~ 1991 ). 76 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

DOD’s operational requirements and NASA’s sci- would be an essential part of any comprehensive ence research missions. Attention has focused on long-term plan for U.S. satellite-based environ- NASA’s planned PM series of satellites because mental remote sensing. these satellites will carry instruments that have previously been identified as candidates for future National Security Considerations and the NOAA weather and climate monitoring needs. Role of International Partners NASA is studying the practicality of reconfigur- Historically, meteorological programs at NOAA ing EOS payloads into smaller MELV Delta II- and DOD have differed in their reliance on coop- class expendable launch vehicles. This “three- erative international ventures and in their policies way” convergence scenario would offer greater toward sharing data. NOAA has a long record of savings to the government than NOAA-DOD con- international cooperation in its environmental re- vergence because it would use a common bus and might use EOS instruments to satisfy both opera- mote sensing programs. Indeed, international tional and research objectives. Several economies cooperation has proved essential to NOAA in its of scale would also result if a converged Delta II- geostationary operational environmental satellite class spacecraft and bus were suitable for all three system (GOES). By an agreement signed in July agencies. 1993, ESA and Eumetsat are making METEO- The Clinton Administration’s convergence SAT-3 available to replace the failed NOAA geo- 51 proposal combines the two scenarios outlined stationary satellite, GOES-6. Similarly, by in- above. It seeks to consolidate NOAA’s and DOD’s ternational agreement, meteorological data from meteorological programs while capitalizing on NOAA’s POES satellites are provided to the U.S. NASA’s EOS technologies. Any convergence National Weather Service and to foreign weather plan—whether the Administration’s or one of its services. As noted ealier, convergence has not al- many permutations-has several generic ele- tered the U.S. intent to use European METOP sat- ments that raise a common set of issues. The fol- ellites to satisfy a requirement for an AM polar or- lowing section provides an overview of these is- biter. Plans call for METOP to carry sues, giving particular attention to questions U.S.-supplied sounders and imagers as well as Eu- about program synchronization, program imple- ropean payloads.52 mentation, and the effect of combining U.S. civil In addition to the foreign policy benefits usual- and military programs with European civil pro- ly associated with successful international ven- grams. The future of Landsat, options for converg- tures, foreign cooperation in meteorological and ing future land remote sensing programs with the climate monitoring programs may benefit the EOS AM series, and potential ocean monitoring United States by reducing expenditures for opera- systems are not part of the Administration’s pro- tional programs (e.g., METOP replaces NOAA posal. They are discussed in this report because, as AM satellites) and by increasing opportunities to noted earlier, land and ocean monitoring systems flight-test advanced technologies (on METOP-1

51 Cument]y, five geostationaw Satellites orbi( Earth; two are operated by Europe, and the United States, Japan, and India each operate OIW. If GOES-6 had not failed, the United States would be operating two satellites to monitor regions of Earth of interest to NOAA weather forecasters. 52 Europe Originally p]anned to launch a polar-orbiting Earth observation satellite, denoted as POEM. METOP, whose primary mission is operational meteorology, and ENVISAT, which is primarily an atmospheric chemistry mission, resulted when the POEM platform was di~ ided into two smaller platforms. Before the Administration’s convergence proposal was announced, the United States had planned to fly the following instruments on METOP- 1: AVHRR/3 (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer); AMSU-A (Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A, a U.S. instrument that will be flown on NOAA POES satellites beginning with NOAA-K in 1996 andon EOS PM- 1 in 2000);” and HIRSf3 (High- Resolution Infrared Sounder). VIRSR (Visible and Infrared Scanning Radiometer), an upgraded version of AVHRR/3, had been scheduled for inclusion on METOP-2. It could be replaced by anew sensor to match the needs of both NOAA and its pwtner in convergence, DOD. However, partly to achieve economies of scale, ESA may wish to make METOP-2, in effect, a clone of METOP-I. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 77

and its successors). European, Japanese, and Ca- coordinate closely with Eumetsat and ESA of- nadian cooperation is also essential if the long- ficials concerning the technical characteristics term objectives of NASA’s Mission to Planet of new sensors. Issues related to technology Earth and the U.S. Global Change Research Pro- transfer may also arise, especially if the United gram are to be fulfilled (chapter 4).53 States concludes that meeting NOAA’s and Plans to use European satellites for NOAA’s DOD’s requirements in a converged program AM mission—in effect, an international “conver- will require that METOP carry a new advanced gence’’—were in place well before the Adminis- visible and infrared imager. tration initiated its convergence studies. It is not Does the plan address European concerns about known yet whether a convergence plan that com- data access while satisfying DOD needs for bines NOAA’s and DOD’s meteorological pro- data protection during times when U.S. nation- grams with European programs will require al security interests would be threatened by changes in the U.S.-supplied portion of METOP’s open access? Who decides when such times ex- payload. In particular, the question of whether ist? What happens if an agreement cannot be successors in the METOP series would carry an reached? instrument combining the functions now per- What contingency plans are needed should de- formed by NOAA’s AVHRR and DOD’s OLS re- lays occur in the launch of METOP- 1, and what mains unresolved. This issue is independent of the contingency plans are needed to maintain ser- more general question of whether Eumetsat will vice should a launch or on-orbit failure occur? agree to U.S. conditions regarding control of data In particular, when should METOP-2 be avail- from U.S. instruments on board METOP.54 able to ensure continuity with METOP- 1, and Maintaining international cooperative rela- what are the European plans beyond ME- tionships in environmental remote sensing is TOP-2? an important consideration in any conver- The Administration’s convergence proposal gence proposal. Therefore, any convergence pro- answers many of these questions. However, one posal must address the following questions: issue in particular remains unresolved: DOD’s ap-

■ What contingency plans are needed if delays proval of European involvement in the converged arise from the U.S. development of a combined program is subject to Europe’s acceptance of sev- payload-spacecraft for NOAA, DOD, and, per- eral conditions relating to data access and control. haps, EOS PM?

■ Does the plan reconcile European desires for Program Synchronization self-sufficiency in sensors and spacecraft with The last satellite in the current NOAA POES se- U.S. needs for data consistent among space- ries is scheduled for launch near the end of 2005. craft? Although the United States and Eumetsat Similarly, the last of the current series of DOD plan to fly three U.S. sensors on METOP-1 and DMSP satellites under development or contract METOP-2, Europe plans to develop its own (S11-S20) may be launched around this time or sensors for future METOP spacecraft. To main- later. This schedule focuses attention on the possi- tain consistent data, U.S. officials will have to bility of redesigning NOAA-N and -N as merged

53 scc G, A\r~r ~n~ D.J. Dokken (eds. ), EOS Reference Handbook, op. cit.

54 Mo\[ ]ike]y, 1( is ~]ready too ]a[e [0 develop new ins(mmen(s for inclu~ion on METOP- 1, ~hl~h is Under d~\ c] OpnlClll, ~ Itll a ~~ll~~ulcd launch in 2(XK). Whether Eumetsat would agree to a new instrument in METOP-2 was unknown at the time thii report waj completed (July 1994). METOP-2 is also under development; its scheduled launch is 2005, How ever, if DOD and NOAA merge thclr weather progranl\. the United State\ may ask that METOP-2 be available sooner to ensure continuity of \cn ice }$ ith MET OF- 1. This M ould rcducc the IInlr ay al Iahle to make change~ in METOP. In addition, for reasons noted above, European space offlcia] \ ma) bc reluctunt to charrgc N1 ETO1>- 2. 78 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

NOAA and DOD meteorological satellites.55 It going studies, the PM satellite could either be a also raises such issues as whether it would be cost- NOAA-DOD meteorological satellite or a com- effective to redesign DMSP satellites for joint bined NOAA-DOD-NASA satellite that would

missions,56 whether a new spacecraft should be satisfy current and anticipated needs for opera- developed, and whether instruments on NASA’s tional meteorological and climatological data. PM satellites could be adapted to satisfy NOAA’s Land remote sensing is not part of the current and DOD’s operational requirements. PM-2 is convergence effort, but it could be part of a future scheduled for launch in approximately 2005; effort to coordinate polar Earth observation pro- therefore, it and PM-3 would be the most likely grams. NASA hopes to launch Landsat 7 by the candidates for inclusion in a combined research- end of 1998. Assuming a 5-year satellite lifetime, operational satellite program. An added com- a Landsat 8 might follow in approximately 2004. plication in these issues is the possibility that Given the advanced state of preparations for EOS NOAA’s and DOD’s satellites will exceed their AM-1, scheduled for launch in 1998, AM-2, expected lifetimes. scheduled for launch in approximately 2003, To meet NOAA’s and DOD’s requirements, the would be the first opportunity to converge land re- Administration’s convergence plan calls for three mote sensing programs. The many issues polar-orbiting satellites, with local equator cross- associated with developing follow-ons in the ing times of 0530, 0930, and 1330, to replace the Landsat series are discussed below. current constellation of four satellites. Europe’s METOP satellite is scheduled to assume the Impact of NASA’s Redesign of EOS morning NOAA mission beginning in 2000 (as- Originally, NASA planned to launch the largest suming the successful resolution of ongoing ne- EOS satellites—AM-l,2,3; PM-1,2,3; and gotiations). National security and other consider- CHEM-1,2,3-on intermediate-class expendable ations unique to DOD missions (see above) launch vehicles such as the Atlas IIAS. As noted effectively foreclose the possibility y of a combined above, NASA is now determining whether these DMSP-METOP AM mission. Therefore, it is missions (except AM- 1, which is too far into de- most likely that convergence would result in a sys- velopment) can be launched on a smaller MELV tem architecture consisting of both U.S. and Euro- such as a Delta II. However, the more restrictive pean AM satellites, with the U.S. satellite de- volume and weight constraints of the Delta II signed to satisfy DOD’s imagery needs and the might force NASA to reduce the size, weight, and European AM satellite (carrying U.S. instru- capability of instruments such as MODIS and ments) designed to satisfy NOAA’s and DOD’s AIRS.57 Such “descoping” might also prove nec- sounding needs. Depending on the results of on- essary even if NASA retains IELVS because the

S5 NOAA.N and -N were ‘bgap-fil]ers” [ha( were intended to maintam continuity between NOAA’s last scheduled PM spacecraft In the current ATN series and the block change. They are now supposed to serve as gap-fillers before the first launch of a converged satellite. Currently, NOAA and DOD do not plan to attempt to redesign N or N’ as a converged satellite. M For example, according t. a DMSP Offlclal, tie SD-3 bus was not designed to carry the heavier NOAA ins[~ment~.

57 AIRS an inshment designed for determining global atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles, would effectively be a much more capable version of NOAA’s HIRS (box 2-4). Its improved capabilities include an increase by a factor of 2 in ground resolution (13 km looking nadir). These and other improvements would support NOAA’s desire to extend its weather predictions to 7 to 8 days. MODIS is considered a “keystone” instrument for the EOS program. It is a multispectral instrument for measuring, on a global basis every 1 to 2 days, biological and physictil processes on the surface of Earth, in the oceans, and in the lower atmosphere. MODIS may be thought of as a highly advanced, or next-generation, AVHRR. It is being designed with 36 visible and infrared bands (from 0.41 to 14.4 pm) compared with AVHRR’S five bands and will incorporate extensive on-board “end-to-end” calibration features. These calibration features, which are not present on AVHRR, are designed to give MODIS unprecedented spatial and radiometric accuracy across its spectral bands. As a result, MODIS should be able to distingui~h instrument effects from subtle changes in the various processes researchers hope to study. Modifications to the MODIS focal plane and wunning mode might also allow it to serve as a replacement for DOD’s OLS. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 79

AIRS and MODIS original y planned for flight by launched on an IELV as currently planned in 2000, NASA had capabilities that exceeded NOAA’s but that experience could be used to determine the “core” requirements and would have strained practicality of modifying EOS research instru- NOAA’s budget. Operational programs typically ments to make them smaller, less expensive, but require the launch of a series of spacecraft that ac- highly reliable operational instruments suitable quire data over periods measured in decades.58 In for converged spacecraft launched on an MELV. their original configuration, AIRS and MODIS The end result of such an exercise would be to de- would likely have been unaffordable. In addition, velop versions of PM-2,3 that satisfy the needs of they would have strained NOAA’s data-proces- both research and operational users of environ- sing capabilities. These “descoping” options af- mental data. A critical, as yet unresolved, question fect convergence proposals because AIRS and is whether such a payload suite is practical. MODIS have long been identified as candidates for future operational instruments. Instrument Convergence Several options would satisfy NASA’s desire to A converged meteorological satellite will have to accommodate its EOS payloads on a smaller, less satisfy DOD’s needs for advanced imagery sen- expensive launch vehicle and the Administration’s sors and NOAA’s requirements for highly cali- goal to consolidate polar-orbiting satellite pro- brated operational and affordable sounders (table grams. For example, PM-1 could be developed and 3-2).59 Accommodating some of the EOS tech-

a Agency and mission —Sensor Attributes NOAA MuItispectral Imagery (cloud, vegetation) AVHRR Calibrated, multispectral imagery Temperature and humidity (initialize numerical TOVS High spatial resolution, cross-track scanning (PM weather prediction models) equator crossing) DOD Visible and infrared cloud imagery (cloud- OLS Constant field of view, Iow-light (early AM equator detection forecast, tactical imagery dissem- crossing) ination) Microwave imagery (ocean winds, precipta- SSM/I Conical scan tion) Temperature and humidity (electro-optical SSM/T- 1 Low spatial resolution, cross-track scanning propagation, initialize numerical weather pre- SSMT-2 diction models a AVHRR = Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer, TOVS = TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder, OLS = Operational Linescan System SSM/ I = Special Sensor Microwave/lmager Special Sensor Microwave/T-1 = SSM/Temperature Sounder Special Sensor Microwave T-2 = SSM Water Va- por Sounder

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1994

58 version of AIRS now planned for flight on EOS satellites will be supplied by LORAL Infrared and Imaging Systems. AIRS was “descoped” in 1992 to reduce its cost; the current design will better match NOAA’s requirements than the original EOS design (the changes involved a reduction in the spectral coverage, but not the sensitivity}. of the instrument). NASA’s EOS MODIS instrument will be supplied by Hughes Santa Barbara Research Center. MODIS has not been redesigned; NASA scientists envision flying MODIS to determine how best to design a version suitable for operational missions. 59 A combined en~ ironmental Satel]i[e would ]ikc]~ also carry instrument~ for search and rescue and space environment nlOnitOrlng. but these instruments are \mall and do not appear to pre$ent significant technical challenges. 80 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

nology demonstration and science research pro- DOD instruments on a converged satellite maybe grams in an operational satellite program would possible, but not without weight and volume pen- add to this challenge. Issues related to the devel- alties. This scan-method mismatch has its roots in opment of an appropriate suite of instruments the instrument heritage and acquisition strategy for converged environmental satellites cannot peculiar to NOAA and DOD. It maybe viewed as be fully resolved until the technical require- a manifestation of the cultural differences that ments for a joint program are finalized. If con- have developed between the two agencies. vergence efforts were to be integrated into a broad- Another issue relates to the possible U.S. use of er effort to coordinate operational, scientific, and MIMR (Multi-frequency Imaging Microwave commercial remote sensing efforts (that is, if con- Radiometer), a more capable version of SSM/I be- vergence was subsumed into a larger national stra- ing developed in Europe for use in both METOP tegic plan), then the NOAA and DOD search for a and, under a Memorandum of Understanding be- common set of requirements would also require tween NASA and ESA, for use on EOS PM-1. consultation with the broader scientific communi- MIMR uses advanced millimeter-wave technolo- ty and with other users of remotely sensed data gy. Millimeter-wave environmental sensing is a (see chapter 2). However, several reviewers of a DOD technology that is highly developed in draft of this report expressed concern that broad- DMSP spacecraft. Some experts in this technolo- ening the focus of convergence would complicate gy expressed concern about ceding its continuing the already difficult process of determining joint- development to a foreign partner. agency operational requirements. Implementing a combined NOAA-DOD op- The principal technical challenge in designing erational program with NASA’s EOS PM science a suite of instruments to meet the current NOAA research program would add both opportunities and DOD requirements is the imager for supply- and complications to instrument and spacecraft ing data now provided by AVHRR and OLS (box bus design. A tri-agency converged satellite pro- 3-4). Another issue is how to meet DOD’s and gram would present challenges that include the NOAA’s needs for high-resolution wide-area mi- need to: crowave imaging and high-resolution sounding, 8 satisfy operational requirements for data conti- respectively. DOD now uses the SSM/I to meet its nuity with comparatively unproved instruments; microwave-imaging needs. An upgraded version m accommodate the different production stan- of SSM/I, whose features include a wider ground dards and the different data and communication coverage, is also under development by DOD.60 protocols that heretofore have distinguished However, the scanning method used by these operational and research instruments; instruments differs from the type of scanning m develop instruments that meet NASA’s re- NOAA sounders use. Because NOAA require- search needs but are affordable to NOAA and ments dictate the use of their particular scanning DOD; method, instrument designers would face a prob- ■ develop instruments that meet the more limited lem designing a common DOD-NOAA micro- space and volume requirements of a medium- wave imager-sounder.61 Separating NOAA and class expendable launch vehicle; and

bf~ SSMIIS ~il] replace SSM/1, SSMIT. 1, and SSM/T-2 on DMSP 5D-3 spacecraft. It will have improved equatorial coverage, which is particularly important to the Navy because storms originate in the equatorial legions.

~1 NOAA weather forecast models require near-simultaneous infrared and microwave sounding measurements through a particular dumn of air. Because the NOAA infrared sounder on recent POES satellites, HI RS, uses a “cross-track” scan, the NOAA microwave sounder, MSU (and the AMSU to be flown on NOAA’s K-N series), is also a cross-track scanner. However, DOD’s microwave imager, SSM/1, and its planned upgrade, SSM, IS, execute a conical scan to generate images. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 81

■ accommodate technology demonstration and NOAA’s, NASA’s, and DOD’s environmental re- prototyping on operational spacecraft. mote sensing programs originate within separate parts of the Office of Management and Budget and Program Funding and Management are submitted yearly for authorization to several The overriding consideration in the current round different congressional authorization committees of convergence proposals is reducing program in the Senate and the House of Representatives.62 costs. If implemented successfully, convergence Budgets are then authorized by three different ap- might also lead to more effective programs as tal- propriations subcommittees in the House of Rep- ent and resources are pooled. Perhaps as important resentatives and three different appropriations as cost savings, however, would be the opportuni- subcommittees in the Senate. OMB, NOAA, ty to strengthen the relationship between NASA NASA, and DOD can develop mechanisms for in- and NOAA to enable them to develop the technol- tegrating budget submissions; however, the con- ogy that will be needed for future operational gressional authorization and appropriations pro- spacecraft. Historically, NASA funded, devel- cess would still involve multiple subcommittees. oped, and demonstrated space technology and The current authorization and appropriations flight-worthy instruments and spacecraft that process is not designed to formulate a national were then used for operational missions. Current- weather and environmental satellite system. ly, NOAA has the lead role in managing opera- There is no congressional organizational struc- tional programs, but it lacks the funds and in- ture parallel to that of the executive branch, house expertise to develop the instruments and where the Office of Science and Technology spacecraft it will need to carry out new missions, Policy and the Office of Management and such as ocean monitoring and long-term monitor- Budget seek to coordinate policy across the dif- ing of Earth’s climate. ferent departments and agencies. 63 Currently, Convergence also poses risks, especially the congressional committees long familiar with disruption in operational programs that, by defini- NOAA, NASA, and DOD oversee each agency’s tion, are designed to provide stable data products particular needs and problems. Thus, joint man- on a routine basis. The principal challenges in agement of satellite programs will add new ele- implementing converged operational satellite ments of uncertainty in the authorization and ap- remote sensing programs are not technical propriations process. Disputes between different (that is, developing an instrument suite and committees that result in a shortfall in one spacecraft suitable for joint programs). Instead, agency’s budget would affect all participating the challenges are likely to be centered in pro- agencies. gram management and program funding. Under the current congressional authorization Developing joint program management struc- and appropriations process, a joint program tures that will mesh with existing congressional would, in effect, be considered in pieces, with and executive branch budgeting procedures may each agency contribution analyzed in the context prove particularly challenging. Currently, of the agency’s overall budget, rather than in the

~J 1n the }+ou~e ()[ Rcpre\cnta[i\ c~, ~Ycr\ight for R&D activitic~ related to Landsat and NOAA operational satellite programs (pOES ~d GOES ) Ilcs In the Houw Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (HSST). NASA R&D activities are also overseen in the House by HSST. Howe\ cr. HSST (loc\ not hai c jurisdiction o}’er basic research conducted by DOD, which is overseen by the House Armed Services Committee, A slmil~r ~ltuation ex iit~ on the Senate ~ide, with the Cormmittce on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (SCST) playing a role an:ilogt)u~ to HSST’\ tind the Senate Armed Ser\ice\ Committee playing a role analogous to the House Armed Sen ices Committee’s, See Car- neg 1~ ~“omm i~ilon on SC j~n~c, T~chno]og)” . and Government, .Sc[cnctj, Ttchnolo,q>. and Congres r.. Orgun[:arion and Procedural Reforms ( Ncw Yorh: Ctirncgic Commi\\ion on Scicncc, Tcchnologj, and Government, February 1994), “3 Ibid. 82 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

context of its contribution to the joint program. tration’s plan assigns NASA the lead role in Historically, federal agencies have been reluctant technology transition efforts and DOD the lead to fund systems 1) that do not fit completely into role in system acquisition. This division of re- the framework of their missions, 2) that carry a sponsibilities represents a significant change from price tag disproportionately high for the good they current practices only with respect to acquisi- do for the agency, or 3) that commit large sums tion-currently, NASA manages satellite acquisi- over many years to another agency’s control. The tion for NOAA. government has few examples of successful The Administration’s plan is organized with multiagency programs-recent problems with mutual interdependence and shared interests as joint NASA-DOD management of the Landsat key objectives. Such arrangements are designed to system suggest that proposals to consolidate minimize the chances for a repeat of the break- operational programs should, at the very least, down in joint program management that occurred be scrutinized with great care. between NASA and DOD in the development of Before the announcement of the Clinton Ad- Landsat 7 (see box 3-5). Nevertheless, they still ministration’s convergence proposal, NOAA, leave open the possibility that in a constrained fis- NASA, and DOD officials had stated that a single cal environment, agencies or appropriations com- agency should lead a joint-agency environmental mittees will fully fund only those programs per- satellite program. NOAA’s assignment as the lead ceived to be of highest priority (“burden shifting”). agency was made, in part, to ensure the continua- In a previous report, OTA described how the tion of successful international partnerships in Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences operational meteorology programs. The Adminis- (CEES) coordinated the U.S. Global Change Re- Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 83

search Program (USGCRP).64 The CEES mecha- mental satellites. However, requirements for sat- nism for reducing redundancy and coordinating ellite data depend not only on the sensors, but also disparate efforts among some dozen federal agen- on how sensor data are analyzed (the “retrieval” cies engaged in global change research is general- algorithms used to translate measurements into ly considered to have “worked,” at least on the useful information) and how data are assimilated executive branch side. However, agencies partici- into the models by users.65 Thus, establishing a pating in the USGCRP may have supported the common set of requirements for NOAA’s and CEES process, despite some loss of control over DOD’s meteorological systems will require an ex- the global change portion of their budget, because amination of the hardware and software in- CEES delivered increased funding through its volved—from data acquisition to data analysis— multiagency “cross-cut” budget. In contrast, con- in both the space and ground segments of the vergence is an effort to reduce overall government POES and DMSP systems. expenditures. Whether this will affect the success The differences between NOAA and DOD of the tri-agency management plan remains to be practices noted earlier-different priorities, dif- seen. Administration officials note the success of ferent user communities, different perspectives, aground-based interagency remote sensing effort, and different protocols with respect to acquisition NEXRAD (Next-Generation Weather Radar), as a and operations—will complicate the effort to ar- model for how convergence might work. In NEX- rive at a mutually satisfactory set of requirements. RAD, the Departments of Commerce, Transporta- For example, NOAA had planned for its next-gen- tion, and Defense cooperate on the purchase and eration POES satellites (O, P, and Q) to provide operation of powerful radar systems. However, a improved global atmospheric temperature and hu- joint-agency environmental satellite program midity profiles to support state-of-the-art numeri- would differ from NEXRAD in at least one impor- cal weather prediction models.66 However, DOD tant way: the nation is less dependent on NEX- requirements for infrared sounding had been set RAD radars than it is on its weather satellites. Fur- only to meet those of the current 5D-3 satellites.67 thermore, the failure of a single radar or a delay in The resolution of this and similar differences will the introduction of radar upgrades would affect directly affect sensor selection and cost. As dis- the ground radar system to a far less degree than cussed below, another complication in setting re- would a similar problem with the weather satel- quirements is determining the role of NASA in a lites. tri-agency satellite program.

Establishing Common Requirements Cost Savings To implement a convergence plan, NOAA and The Administration expects convergence to DOD will have to establish a common set of re- achieve economies by developing and procuring quirements for converged operational environ- common space hardware from a single contractor,

6J US, Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA Earth Ohsert’irrg System, op. cit. @ November 23, 1993, pre~l~cn[ C]hrton announced the establishment of the National Science and Technolog} Council. With this announcement, coordination of the USGCRP transferred from CEES to the newly formed Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources Research (CENR). M ~c federal .Ovemment o~rate~ ~ree oWrationa] numerica] weather prediction centers: NOAA’S National Meteorological Center (NMC), the Navy Fleet Numerical Oceanographic and Meteorological Center (FNMOC), and the Air Force Global Weather Center (A FGW’C ). The way that satellite data is used by these centers is somewhat different; however, there is a Memorandum of Understanding coordinating a Shared Processing Network among the centers. 66 For ~Aample, tie ~equlrement~ of tie Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, which ha~,e ~en set to meet NOAA’S requirements, call for vertical resolution of I km, temperature accuracy of I K, and ground resolution of 13 km—al] approximately a factor of 2 better than what is now available. ThI\ w III ~upport NOAA’s desire to extend its weather prediction models to 7 to 8 days. ~T DOD’S DMSp B]ock 6 Upgrade emphasized Cost savings and enhanced microwave-imaging capabilities over enhanced sounding capabilities. 84 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

reducing the number of spacecraft (the current to- lays occurred in the design or adaptation of tal of four DOD and NOAA operational meteoro- sensors, spacecraft buses, and launch vehicles. logical satellites in orbit simultaneously would be reduced to two), and reducing the cost of launch Transition from Research to services. The Administration also expects savings Operational Satellites to accrue from reductions in the cost of program A principal requirement for operational satellite and procurement staff, consolidation of ground systems is the unbroken supply of data. Therefore, control centers, and economies of scale related to operational systems require backup capability in data-receiving and -processing hardware and soft- space and on the ground and a guaranteed supply ware. Common instruments and data formats would allow increased production volumes for of functioning hardware. In turn, these require- data-capture terminals and related equipment that ments translate into maintaining a proven produc- would service a broader community. However, in tion capability when new versions of operational the next several years, convergence would offer satellites are introduced. They also require a paral- only limited opportunities for savings—for exam- lel effort to improve system capability continu- ple, from the termination of parallel design efforts ously without jeopardizing ongoing operations. for block changes and new spacecraft bus designs Finally, new technology must be introduced within both the POES and DMSP satellites. A tri- out placing an undue financial burden on the op- agency convergence plan would also consolidate erational system. Historically, the transition from some of NASA’s planning for its PM satellites. research instrumentation to operational instru- Implementing convergence would also require mentation has been successful when managed funding several new activities. Requirements with a disciplined, conservative approach toward studies, instrument-tradeoff studies, the develop- the introduction of new technology. In addition to ment of new instruments, a new spacecraft bus (or minimizing technical risk, minimizing cost has the adaptation of an existing bus), and the possible been an important factor in the success of opera- 68 adaptation of MELVS to launch converged tional programs, especially for NOAA (box 3-6). spacecraft would be “upfront” costs that would be During the 1960s and 1970s, the development incurred before the longer-term savings from con- of NOAA’s operational weather satellites was as- vergence could accrue. Moreover, because the ar- sisted by both a vigorous R&D program within chitecture and instrument complement of con- the agency and by strong ties to several NASA verged spacecraft programs are not finalized,69 programs, especially OSIP (Operational Satellite estimates of the savings expected from reduced Improvement Program) and NIMBUS. The NIM- numbers of launches and spacecraft are more un- BUS program began in the early 1960s. Initially, certain than are estimates of the additional costs of NASA conceived of NIMBUS as an Earth ob- implementing convergence. Therefore, Con- servation program that would provide global data gress may wish to examine estimates for the net about atmospheric structure. In addition, NASA savings of convergence with particular atten- intended NIMBUS to replace its TIROS satellite tion to the question of how these estimates and to develop into an operational series of weath- would change if unexpected problems or de- er satellites for NOAA. However, NOAA chose to

- 68 For example, launchlng a converged EOS-PWmEs/DMsp satellite on a Delta II MELV might require redesigning and testing an en larged fairing. ~y Even when program details are announced, there will still be uncertainty surrounding the introduction of technology to be demonstrated by EOS-PM. Technical studies to resolve issues such as how to meet DOD’s and NOAA’s imaging and sounding requirements can be completed in less than 1 year; however, the on-orbit record of EOS PM instruments will not be available until 200 I or later. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 85

■

●

develop TIROS as its operational system, in part For example, NASA built and paid for the launch to minimize technical risk. Both programs then of the first two geostationary operational satellites went forward, with NASA developing NIMBUS (called SMS, for synchronous meteorological sat- as a research test bed for observational payloads. ellite) that NOAA operated. TIROS-N, the proto- Eventually, NASA launched a total of seven NIM- type for the modern NOAA POES satellite, also BUS satellites with payloads that have matured started out at NASA and was transferred to into advanced research and operational instru- NOAA. OSIP ended in 1981 as NASA, faced with ments for current and planned spacecraft includ- a tightly constrained budget (in part, the result of ing POES, DMSP, UARS (Upper Atmosphere Shuttle cost overruns), withdrew from its inter- Research Satellite), and EOS.70 agency agreement with NOAA. NASA’s support Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, NASA for NOAA operational programs continued but also assisted with the development of NOAA op- was carried out with NOAA reimbursing NASA. erational satellites through its funding for OSIP. The end of the NASA-NOAA partnership may

To For example, NIMBUS 7, ]aunched in &tober ] 978 and partially operational 15 years later, carried the Scanning Multi frequency Micro- wave Radiometer (SMMR) that became the SSM/I on DMSP. It also earned the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet and Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (S BUV/TOMS) and the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS). SBUV is now carried on TIROS, and CZCS is the predecessor for the planned SeaWiFS ocean-color-monitoring instrument. Other NIMBUS 7 instruments were predecessors to instruments now fl} ing on UARS or planned for EOS. See H.F. Eden, B.P. Elero, and J.N. Perkins, “Nimbus Satellites: Setting the Stage for Mission to Planet Earth,” Eos, Trurr.~ucr/on.~, American Geoph?s{cal Union 74(26):281 -285, 1993. 86 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

have contributed to the subsequent difficulties instrument designed for NOAA than it is to demo- NOAA experienced in the development of nstrate a research instrument and then “de- “GOES-Next” (GOES I through M).71 It also scope” its capabilities.72 Unlike NIMBUS, marked a lessening of support within NASA for NASA’s EOS program was not conceived as a the development of operational meteorological test bed for advanced technology. EOS is pri- instruments. Instead, as illustrated by the precur- marily a system designed with the research and the sor and planned instruments for the EOS series, policymaking communities in mind. With or NASA became more focused on experimental re- without convergence, NASA, NOAA, and DOD search instruments designed to support basic will face challenges in adapting EOS programs to scientific investigations. serve both research and operational needs. Convergence provides an opportunity to re- As noted in the introduction to this chapter, fu- store what had been a successful partnership ture operational missions are likely to include between NASA and NOAA in the development monitoring the land surface and monitoring the of civil operational environmental satellites. oceans. The last two sections of this chapter dis- However, even with convergence, tensions will cuss several issues related to the development of likely arise in the new relationship. NOAA and these programs, with particular attention to the NASA will face difficulties in reconciling the in- Landsat program—a quasi-operational system evitable differences in risk and cost between that illustrates both the promise and the challenges instruments designed for research and instru- of implementing new operational programs. ments designed for routine, long-term measurements. For example, NASA considers MODIS, a LAND REMOTE SENSING AND LANDSAT key EOS instrument, a potential successor to NOAA’s AVHRR. However, MODIS is unlikely Land remote sensing from satellites began in the to fit within NOAA’s budget. late 1960s with the development of the Earth Re- NASA’S NIMBUS program was successful sources Technology Satellite (ERTS). NASA in facilitating the transition between research launched ERTS-1, later renamed Landsat 1, in and operational instruments because the 1972. Throughout the 1970s, NASA and other instruments that flew on Nimbus did not re- U.S. agencies demonstrated the usefulness of sat- quire extensive modification after they were ellite-based multispectral remote sensing for civil turned over to NOAA. In contrast, EOS instru- purposes, using expensive mainframe computers ments such as MODIS would likely have to be re- and complex software to analyze data from Land- structured to be affordable to NOAA or other op- sat multispectral scanner (MS S). NASA also en- erational users. This raises the obvious question of couraged the development of Landsat receiving whether it is more cost-effective to develop a new stations around the world (figure 3-3), both to col-

71 ~oblems with the ~ES program beg~ with the addition of a sounding capability to the visible and infrared spin scan radiometer (WSSR), which became the VISSR Atmospheric Sounder (VAS). See U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remore Sensingfiom Space, op. cit., pp. 38-39. 72 Reviewers of ~ eti]y daft of this Chapter raised two other issues. One stated, “If one accepts the earlier arguments about adding ocemic, terrestrial, and cloud imaging requirements to the operational satellites, there are two options to fulfill these requirements. First, building three independent instruments to meet specific requirements of each discipline (i.e., AVHRR, CSC2YSeaWiFS and Landsat). Second, build a single instrument to meet all these requirements (i.e., MODIS). A cost, technology, and requirements analysis should reveal which option is optimum.” A second reviewer noted, “Until MODIS, or some instrument with similar capabilities, is flown, it will not be possible to define the instrument that NOAA really needs. Only by using MODIS, with its high spectral resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and excellent calibration to acquire an extensive data set, can we establish what spectral bands, what SNRS, and what calibration accuracies are required for what i~pplica- tions. . . . Atmospheric remote sensing instruments can be designed almost from first principles . . . but the utility of land remote sensing instruments for many applications really cannot be assessed without acquiring the large-scale data sets that only satellites can provide.” Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 87 r------~=. KIRUNA I

SOURCE: EOSAT, 1994 lect data for U.S. needs and to encourage wide- per (TM), a sensor with more spectral bands and spread use of the data.73 For example, NASA and higher ground resolution (table 3-3).75 Landsats 4 the U.S. Agency for International Development and 5, which were launched in 1982 and 1984, re- collaborated on Landsat demonstration projects spectively, carried both the MSS and TM sensors. and training in developing countries.74 These ef- Until the first French Système pour l’Observation forts made the advantages of satellite data for de la Terre (SPOT-1) satellite was launched in mapping, resource exploration, and managing 1987, Landsat satellites provided the only widely natural resources well known around the world. available civil land remote sensing data in the Landsats 1, 2. and 3 carried the MSS. In the world. The SPOT satellites introduced an element 1970s, NASA also developed the Thematic Map- of market and technological competition by pro-

73 NASA*~ Lan~sat ~[icpr ~aj ~ (’o]~ W’ar ~(r:iteg; (0 .~emonstrate the Superiority of U.S. technology ~d to promote the open sharing of remotely sen~ed data. 7J For a discussion of ~everti] Land\a[ projec[i in dei eloping countrief, see U.S. Congress, Office Of Technology Asse~~ment, R~)nI~jfe

Sensing and rhe Pritu[e Sectc)r: Ijjucijiw DI\f14t\ic~n, OTA-TM-ISC-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984), app. A. 75 users of MSS data had argued that nlore \Fc[ra] bands and higher ground re~olution ~ou]d ]ead (CI wider use of remoteiy sensed data. 88 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Sensor Satellite Spectral bands, resolution Multispectral Scanner (MSS) Landsat 1-5 2 visible, 80 m 1 shortwave Infrared, 80 m 1 Infrared, 80 m Thematic Mapper (TM) Landsat 4, 5 3 visible, 30 m 1 shortwave Infrared, 30 m 2 Infrared, 30 m 1 thermal, 120 m Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) Landsat 6 (failed to reach orbit) 3 visible, 30 m 1 shortwave Infrared, 30 m 2 Infrared, 30 m 1 thermal, 120 m 1 panchromatic, 15 m Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus Landsat 7 3 visible, 30 m (ETM+) 1 shortwave Infrared, 30 m 2 Infrared, 30 m 1 thermal 60 m 1 panchromatic, 15 m High Resolution Multispectral Landsat 7 2 visible, 10 m (stereo) Stereo Imager (HRMSI) 1 near Infrared, 10 m (stereo) (proposed but since 1 Infrared, 10 m (stereo) dropped from the satellite) 1 panchromatic, 5 m (stereo) SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994 vialing data users with data of higher resolution During the 1990s, continuing improvements in and quasi-stereo capability.76 information technology and the proliferation of In the 1980s, the development of powerful on-line data-distribution systems have increased desktop computers and geographic information dramatically the accessibility of remotely sensed systems (GIS) sharply reduced the costs of proc- data and other geospatial data.79 As a result of the essing data and increased the demand by potential maturation of the market for remotely sensed data users in government, universities, and private in- and the development of lower-cost sensors and dustry. In the late 1980s, India entered into land re- spacecraft technology, several U.S. private firms mote sensing with its launch of the Indian Remote are now poised to construct and operate their own Sensing Satellite (IRS)77 and the Soviet Union be- remote sensing systems. These firms expect to gan to market data from its photographic remote market remotely sensed data on a global basis. De- sensing systems.78

76 me S~T satel]ltes are capable of collecting data of 10-m resolution (panchromatic) and 20-m resolution in four visible and near-infrared multispectral bands. 77 Howey.er Untl] 1994, India had not made data from its system readily available beyond its borders. In fa]l 1993, Eosat signed ~ agreement with the National Remote Sensing Agency of India to market IRS data worldwide. T~ Through tie Russian firm Soyuzkarta. 79 U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment, Rernotcl> Sen.redDa[a: Techrrologj, Management, andMarket.\, OTA-1SS-604(Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, September 1994), ch. 2. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 89

spite these technical advances and the steady tured, the Landsat program is vulnerable to a growth of the market for data, the United launch system or spacecraft failure and to in- States still lacks a coherent, long-term plan for stability in management and funding. Despite providing land remote sensing data on an op- the Administration’s resolve to continue the Land- erational basis. This section explores the ele- sat program, the earlier difficulties in maintaining ments of a long-term plan for U.S. land remote the delivery of data from the Landsat system (ap- sensing. pendix E) provide ample warning that the path to a fully operational land remote sensing system is I Future of the Landsat System full of obstacles.

After more than two decades of experimentation ■ Technical vulnerabilities. As illustrated by the with the operation of the Landsat system, during loss of Landsat 6, the existing Landsat system which the government attempted but failed to is vulnerable to total loss of a spacecraft in the commercialize land remote sensing80 (appendix critical phase of launch and spacecraft deploy- E), the Clinton Administration has now decided to ment. If historical patterns hold, even the most return the development and procurement of Land- successful of expendable launch vehicles will sat to NASA and has assigned NOAA the respon- occasional y suffer catastrophic failure and loss sibility of operating the Landsat system. The U.S. of payload.84 Furthermore, the failure of Geological Survey’s Earth Resources Observa- NOAA-1 3 after a successful launch85 demon- tion System (EROS) Data Center will distribute strates the additional risk of spacecraft hard- and archive data.81 NASA plans to launch Landsat ware failure. The failed part was designed in the 7 (figure 3-4) in late 1998.82 1970s and had flown repeatedly without inci- Since 1972, Landsat satellites have imaged dent on earlier spacecraft. Despite attempts to most of Earth’s surface in different seasons at res- design and build launch vehicles and spacecraft olutions of 80 or 30 meters (m).83 Because a with a high degree of reliability, operations in spacecraft in the Landsat series has been in orbit space are inherently risky. continuously, the Landsat system now serves an In contrast to the Landsat system, in which established user community that has become de- designers planned to fly only a single satellite 86 pendent on the routine, continuous delivery of at any time and did not plan for a backup sat- data. However, the Landsat system is only qua- ellite, the NOAA POES satellites have suffi- si-operational and has been developed without cient backup that NOAA can replace a failed the redundancy and backup satellites that satellite within a few months of the failure. The characterize NOAA’s and DOD’s operational decision not to provide a backup Landsat satel- meteorological programs. As currently struc- lite was driven by the relatively high costs of

X[) see U.S. Congress, office of Technology Assessment, The Furure of Remore Sen.$[ng from Space, op. cit., PP. 48-52. ~ I ~csldentla] Decision Directive NSTC-3, May 5, 1994. xl ~and~at 7 had ken ~cheduled for launch in ]a[e 1997. The slip in schedule is the reSUlt both Of the recent policy turmoil and ‘he ‘eed ‘it Landsat into NASA’S budget for Mission to Planet Earth.

X3 me Ad, ~ced \7ev H,gh Resolution Radiometer sensors that have been orbi(ed on NOAA’S POES Sate]litef ha~ c a]so prot ided multl- spectral imaging (two \ isible channels; three infrared channels) but at much lower resolution ( I km and 4 km). X4 At a rate of approximately, z ~rcent of (o[a] launches. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ac~r.~.\ 10 .$PUCC: Ttl~l Fulure of L’. S, Space Tran.\porra[/on ~~}.i[em$, OTA-ISC-41 5 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1990), p. 22.

X5 NOAA-l j ~ as ]aunche(f on ALIgu\[ 9, 1993. It suffered a failure on August 21, 1993. w Land\at 5 ~aj launched ~n]) ~ ~ear~ after Land\a[ 4 reached orbit because Land\at 4 had experienced a ~ub~} ~tem failure and NOAA ~~ as unwre how long it would continue to function. 90 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

ETM+ / Enhanced thematic mapper

USE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT

Land albedo and temperature at 1 Laf’lduse l– high spatial monitoring and spectral r resolution Mineralioil exploration }

Hydrology I F Environmental monitoring }

I Cartography \ I I

SOURCE: Martin Marietta Astrospace, 1993

the Landsat spacecraft compared with the doc- Comparing the experiences of foreign gov- umented need for the data. Lack of agreement ernments in developing systems similar to within the U.S. government over the need for Landsat is also instructive. Noting U.S. diffi- the Landsat system also influenced this deci- culties with Landsat, Centre National d’Études sion. The mid- 1980s effort to commercialize Spatiales (CNES), the French space agency, de- Landsat also played a role in the decision to signed a cheaper, simpler system and Com- forego a Landsat backup. mitted initially to building three satellites. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 91

SPOT was a technical success, providing better it has not routinely generated and distributed resolution than Landsat’s and the ability to operational data products to an established gather quasi-stereo data.87 In part because the community of data users. Rather, as demon- system was designed from the start as a com- strated by its long history of successfully oper- mercial venture, CNES officials also placed a ating the GOES and POES satellite systems premium on designing SPOT as an operational (developed by NASA), NOAA has the requi- entity, capable of delivering data on a routine site operational experience. However, NOAA basis. Three SPOT satellites are now in orbit. has no established constituency of users either SPOT-2 and SPOT-3 are operational. SPOT-1, within or beyond the agency to defend its Land- which has been in orbit since 1989, can be reac- sat budget in competition with other agency tivated to provide data during times of heavy priorities. use of the system, such as the spring growing The proposed arrangement for Landsat 7 season. was arrived at through consultations among

■ Institutional vulnerabilities. The TM sensor NOAA, NASA, DOD, and the Department of aboard Landsats 4 and 5 was designed to gather the Interior, overseen by the Office of Science data that would be appropriate for many uses. and Technology Policy. Although a Presiden- When combined with other remotely sensed tial Directive such as the one that President data, such as the 10-m panchromatic data from Clinton signed regarding the development and SPOT, higher-resolution aircraft data, or other operation of Landsat 789 can be a powerful geospatial data,88 TM multispectral data method for creating new interagency coopera- constitute a powerful analytic tool. Indeed, the tive institutions, such institutions remain vul- data already serve most federal agencies in ap- nerable to a change of Administration. As the plications such as land-use planning; monitor- experience with providing long-term funding ing of changes in forests, range, croplands, and for the USGCRP demonstrates, interagency hydrologic patterns; and mineral resource ex- cooperative programs are also vulnerable to ploration (chapter 2), However, the very dif- changes in program balance as budgets are al- fuseness of the customer base for Landsat data tered in congressional committees.90 There- has made the process of developing an opera- fore, ensuring the future of the Landsat pro- tional system extremely difficult. gram will require close and continuing DOD has historically been a large Landsat cooperation among NASA, the Department of data user, but DOD officials do not want to be Commerce, and the Department of the Interior responsible for funding the entire system. Al- and among the three appropriations subcom- 91 though NASA developed the Landsat system, mitties. procuring and launching Landsat 7

87 me spfJT Sa[e]]jte is capable of ~in(ing off nadir, which enables SPOT ]mage, the operating entity, tO generate stereo imagc~ on different passes. However, the SPOT system has the limitation (compared with Landsat) of having only four spectral bands. It also covers an area of onl) 60-by-60 km per scene, compared with Landsat’s 185-by-170-km coverage. 88 ~ese mlgh[ include data a~u[ soils, terrain elevation, zoning, highway networks, and other geospatial elements. 89 presidential Decision Directive NSTC-3, May 5. 1994.

90 u s. congress,. Office of Technology Assessment, The I’J.S. Global Change Research program and NASA ‘.7 Earth Obser\in~ S)’.YtCm, Op. cit., p. 9. 91 NASA’S appropfiatlons Ofiginate in the House Appropriations committee subcornrni[[ee on veterans Administration, Housing and Ur- ban Development, and Independent Agencies; NOAA’s appropriations originate in the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary; USGS appropriations originate in the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Interior. 92 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

will cost NASA an estimated $423 million, Landsat series. According to the earlier Land- 92 spread over 5 years. NOAA estimates that sat Program Management Plan, Landsat 8 was constructing the ground system and operating anticipated in approximately 2003. Although the satellite through 2000 will cost about $75 still in the early stages, planners are consider- million. ing advanced capabilities, such as greater num- The need to improve Landsat program resil- bers of spectral bands, stereo data, and much iency. Because the United States has never better calibration than the existing Landsat has. committed to a fully operational land remote It is not too early to begin planning for the char- sensing system, its land remote sensing effort acteristics needed for a follow-on Landsat sat- faces the significant risk of losing continuity of ellite. data supply. In the long term, the United States One option for demonstrating new technolo- may wish to develop a fully operational system gy will be available on Landsat 7. Landsat 7 that provides for continuous operation and a was not redesigned after the DOD decision to backup satellite in the event of system failure. withdraw from the program and the subsequent In the past, high system costs have prevented cancellation of the HRMSI (High-Resolution the United States from making such a commit- Multispectral Stereo Imager) sensor. As a re- ment. If system costs can be sharply reduced by sult, the spacecraft will have the room and the inserting new, more cost-effective technology electrical power needed to incorporate an addi- or by sharing costs with other entities, it might tional sensor. NASA is offering to fly an exper- be possible to maintain the continuity of Land- imental sensor paid for by other federal agen- sat-type data delivery. Options for sharing costs include a partner- cies or by private firms. This represents an ship with a U.S. private firm, or firms (dis- opportunity for testing new technology at rela- cussed below), and/or a partnership with anoth- tively low cost. The Department of Energy er government. The high costs of a truly (DOE) laboratories have been exploring the de- operational land remote sensing system have, velopment of different sensors that might be from time to time, led observers to suggest the candidates. In addition, NASA is exploring the option of sharing system costs with another potential of using small satellites for Earth ob- country. 93 However, national prestige and the servation through its Small Satellite Technolo- prospect of being able to make such a service gy Initiative. Recently, NASA awarded two commercially viable94 have generally pre- contracts to teams led by TRW and CTA, both vented the United States and other countries of whom will demonstrate advanced technolo- from cooperating. gy and rapid development in low-cost, Small- The need to insert new technology into the sat-based satellite remote sensing. A variety of Landsat program. The Land Remote-Sensing technical developments, including increasing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555) calls for a capabilities for on-board processing and the po- program to develop new technology for the tential to fly small satellites in formation, may,

92 R. Roberts, NASA Landsat Office, personal communication, August 1994. 93 N, Helms and B. Edelson, “’An International Organization for Remote Sensing,” pre$ented at the 42ndAn)~u

in the longer term, allow small satellites to per- Private firms have had an important part to play form some of the missions now accomplished throughout the development of land remote sens- with comparatively largr and expensive Earth ing technologies. The information industry has observation satellites.95 developed powerful computers and software, ca- Other future land sensors that the United States pable of handling large remotely sensed data files may wish to develop and operate include an opera- quickly and efficiently. Through firms that con- tional synthetic aperture radar. The proposed EOS vert raw data to information (so-called value-add- SAR, based on technology demonstrated in air- ed firms), the information industry has also ex- borne and Space Shuttle experiments, was can- panded the utility of remotely sensed data celed in large part because of its high cost. The acquired from spacecraft. Aerospace firms have EOS SAR would have been capable of making also served as contractors for government civil multiangle, multifrequency, multi polarization and classified remote sensing systems. Hence, measurements.96 These capabilities allow more they have contributed to the technology base that information to be extracted from an analysis of ra- now enables private firms to develop their own re- dar backscatter and have more general application mote sensing systems. Government laboratories than do currently operational Japanese and Euro- pursuing related technologies have also assisted in pean single-frequency, single-polarization satel- the creation of this technology base. lite-based SARS. The Canadian Radarsat, planned Three privately financed land remote sensing for launch in 1995, will also carry a single-fre- systems are now under development (box S-7). quency, single-polarization SAR. In contrast to These systems focus on providing data of compar- the broad-based capabilities of an EOS SAR, atively high resolution with only one ‘-panchro- which would be particularly suited to global matic” visible band, or a few multi spectral bands change research. these SARS are designed for spe- over relatively narrow fields of view. As a result. cific applications, such as mapping sea ice and they cannot substitute for the Landsat system, snow cover. which collects calibrated multi spectral data over a large field of view. The privately financed systems 1 Role of the Private Sector are not intended or designed to supply the repeat. By launching Landsat. NASA created the poten- multi spectral, global coverage that is the mainstay tial for a new market in remotely sensed data. of Landsat. However, if these systems operate as However, as the policy history of the Landsat pro- planned, they will provide data for many applica- gram demonstrates, commercial markets cannot tions, including those now served primarily by be developed solely by government policy. aircraft imaging firms. These systems especially Among other elements, growth in commercial target international markets that require digital data markets requires technological innovation data for mapping, urban planning, military plan- and the ability to tailor production to user needs. ning, and other uses.98 Government policy can either impel or impede the For one or more of these systems to be success- development of markets that will support new ful. they will have to overcome hurdles of market technologies. 97 acceptance. competition with systems from firms 94 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

that supply similar data acquired from aircraft, the licensing of foreign Landsat ground sta- and competition among themselves. If they can tions pays for satellite operations and provides deliver data in a timely manner and at low prices, EOSAT’S profit. EOSAT is free to charge mar- one or more are likely to be highly successful. Ul- ket rates for the data as long as it makes data timately, the U.S. government may wish to move available on a nondiscriminatory basis to all to a new partnership with the private sector in pro- customers, according to U.S. remote sensing viding land remote sensing and other data that policy. l00 have commercial value. Four broad options are Create data-purchase arrangements. Under possible: this arrangement, the government would speci- Contract with a private firm to operate a gov- fy data characteristics and would contract with industry to provide a stream of data for a speci- ernment-supplied system. Under this arrangement, the government would procure the satel- fied period for an agreed-upon price. NASA lite system and submit a request for proposal has chosen this path in a contract with Orbital (RFP) for a private firm to operate the system Sciences Corporation to provide data about the ocean surfaces. OTA has explored this option and distribute data. Data would be made avail- 101 able at the cost of reproduction, according to in two earlier reports. the direction of OMB Circular A-130. This ar- DOD had expected to use the data from the rangement is very similar to current plans for HRMSI sensor aboard the earlier version of Landsat 7 in which NOAA will operate the sat- Landsat 7 to support its needs for mapping and ellite and the EROS Data Center will archive other applications. If WorldView is successful and distribute the data.99 Proponents of pri- in providing data from its 3-m/l 5-m system, vate-sector operation contend that such an ar- these data may fit DOD’s needs and be avail- rangement would make the operation and dis- able 2 years before the HRMSI sensor would tribution of Landsat data more efficient. have flown under the previous interagency ar- However, when NOAA operated Landsat 4 and rangement. In like manner, DOD may wish to 5, much of the actual operation and the distribu- purchase data with even higher resolution from tion of Landsat data was carried out by private either the Lockheed or the Eyeglass system, firms under contract to NOAA and the EROS should either or both prove successful (box 3-7). Data Center. Hence, some of the potential effi- Create government-private partnerships. In ciency of private-sector involvement had al- this arrangement, the government and one or ready been realized. more private firms would enter into a partner- Return to an EOSAT-like arrangement in ship to build, operate, and distribute data from which government supplies a subsidy and a land remote sensing satellite. This partner- specifies the sensor and spacecraft. This ar- ship would have the advantage of enlisting pri- rangement would capture most details of the vate-sector innovation and ability to target ap- existing EOSAT contract in which EOSAT op- plications markets while supplying the erates Landsats 4 and 5 under contract with the government’s data needs. It would also have Department of Commerce and markets data the advantage of reducing the financial risk of worldwide. Income from data sales and from the private firm. The experience of the French

w ~e~ldentia] ~cision Directive NSTC-3, MaY 5, 1994. 100 See U.S. Congress, Offlce of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Data from Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, International Securi[y and Space Program, July 1992). 10I u s. Congress,. Office of Technology Assessment, The Furure ofh’emofe Sen.\ingfiom Space, Op. cit., p. 5; U.S. cOngItSS, Oflce of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Data: Techrrolog>’, Management, and Markets, op. cit., ch. 4. Chapter Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 95

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1994 space agency, CNES, and SPOT Image (figure opment unless the distribution of data from the 3-5) provides one possible model of such an ar- satellite was severely restricted. rangement. However, U.S. firms that are already building a remote sensing system would OCEAN REMOTE SENSING likely charge that such an arrangement would The impetus for ocean monitoring comes from us- be unfair competition (unless the system’s ers of remotely sensed data in both the civil and characteristics guaranteed them a niche in the military communities. As D. James Baker wrote: 102 data market). For example, NASA’s contract The large-scale movement of water in the with TRW to build a small satellite capable of oceans, also called “general circulation,” in- gathering data of 30-m resolution in many fluences many other processes that affect human spectral bands would serve the needs of the life. It affects climate by transporting heat from government and probably enhance the private the equatorial regions to the poles. The ocean market for such data. However, as noted in also absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmos- chapter 1, NASA’s similar arrangement with phere, thus delaying potential warming, but how CTA could actually impede commercial devel- fast this occurs and how the ocean and atmos-

102 D.J, Baker, Plunet Eurth: The Vieit’ from SpfJCe, Op. cit.. p. 66 96 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Scientific, commercial, and government users of remotely sensed data have long argued for an operational ocean monitoring system. An ocean monitoring system would facilitate the routine measurement of variables related to ocean productivity, 103 currents, circulation, winds, wave heights, and temperature. In turn, these measurements would allow scientists to study and characterize a range of phenomena (figure 3-6), including those described above by Baker. The development of an operational system that would assist in the prediction of the onset of El Niño and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (box 3-8) is of particular interest. The distinction that is sometimes made between satellite-based “atmosphere,” “ocean,” and “land” remote sensing instruments is somewhat 104 arbitrary. U.S. ocean monitoring is currently carried out on a routine basis by sensors on POES and DMSP. In addition, ocean data are being provided by satellite-borne altimeters on board the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, SARS that are part of phere interact in this process depend on surface the instrument suite on the European ERS-1 and currents, upwelling, and the deep circulation of the Japanese JERS-1, and Shuttle-based observa- the ocean. Fisheries rely on the nutrients that are t ions using the multi frequency, polarimetric SAR, carried by ocean movement. Large ships, such SIR-C.105 NOAA is especially interested in sea- as oil tankers, either use or avoid ocean currents surface temperature imagery, which is acquired by to make efficient passage. The management of analyzing AVHRR data. Because its ships travel pollution of all kinds, ranging from radioactive waste to garbage disposal, depends on a knowl- through and on the surface of the ocean, the Navy edge of ocean currents. And the ocean is both a has a particular interest in DMSP (especially hiding place and a hunting ground for subma- SSM/I) and altimetry data, which allow mapping rines. of the ocean’s topography and assist in detecting

los In a process simi]w IO photosyn~esis on ]and, phytopkmkton in the ocean convert nutrients into plant material through an lnteraCtlOn between sunlight and chlorophyll. Measurements of ocean color provide estimates of chlorophyll in surface waters and, therefore, of ocean productivity. Ocean-color measurements are also used to help detect ocean-surface features. Satellite ocean-color data have not been available since the failure of the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) in 1986. NASA has contracted with Orbital Science Corporation (OSC) for the purchase of data resulting from OSC’S launch of SeaWiFS (Sea-viewing, Wide-Field-of-view Sensor), a follow-on to CZCS.

104 Al~ough in some cases, orbit requirements differentiate one type from another. For example, an EOS rev iew committee recently concluded that “the science objectives of EOS land-ice altimetry and ocean altimetry dictate that these sensors be on separate spacecraft. Polar orbits with non-repeating or long-period repetition ground tracks are requiled for complete ice sheet surface topography, while lower inclination orbits with reasonable values for mid-latitude and equatorial ground track crossover angles are required to achieve optimal recovery of ocean surface topography.” B. Moore 111 and J. Dozier, “A Joint Report: The Payload Advisory Panel and the Data and information Sy\tem Advisory Panel of the Investigators Working Group of the Earth ObservinS System,” Dec. 17, 1993. This report is available through NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth.

105 u,s. congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The F“ulure of Renw/e Sensingfrom SpuCC. op. cit., app. B. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 97

SPACE

\ Atmosphere Terrestrial radiation

H@, N , 02, 2 ~ COZ, O, etc., ‘recipi’””n aerosol

Broken arrows lndlcate those lnfitiences external to the Earth or altered by human actlwtles

NOTE Adapted from Joint Oceanographic Commission, Global Atmospheric Research Programme A Physical Baslsfor Cllmate and Cllmate Mod e w GAW Pub/ Ser 76 [1975) 98 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

large-scale ocean fronts and eddies, surface ocean for a similar National Oceanic Satellite System currents, surface wind speed, wave height, and the (NOSS). NOSS instruments included a SAR, a 106 edge of sea ice. Radar altimetry data have also scatterometer, an altimeter, a microwave imager, been used to estimate ice-surface elevations in po- and a microwave sounder. This effort was can- lar regions. celed in 1982, as was a subsequent proposal for a U.S. efforts to develop satellites suitable for less costly Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite ocean monitoring have lagged behind those for (NROSS).108 land-surface monitoring. Seasat,107 a notable suc- As noted above, the only U.S. systems that rou- cess during its 3 months of operation, was tinely monitor the oceans are the weather satel- followed by a NOAA, DOD, and NASA proposal lites. Of particular interest for this report is the de-

1(~ DJ, Baker, P/ane( Earrh: The View’from Space, Op. cit., pp. TO-T 1.

I(J7 SeaSat, which was designed in pafl to demonstrate the feasibility of using radar techniques for global monitoring of oceanographic phenomena, carried an altimeter, a scatterometer, a seaming multichannel microwave radiometer, a SAR, and a visible and infrared radiometer. An electrical failure caused the satellite to fail prematurely. See D.J. Baker, Plane/ Earth: The View fiorn Space, op. cit., pp. 66-71.

1~~ NROSS was canceled in ] 986, reinstated in 1987, and terminated in 1988. NROSS Would have been less costly than NOSS. primarily because of the elimination of the SAR. Chapter 3 Planning for Future Remote Sensing Systems I 99

velopment of new operational satellite-borne sensor, to monitor ocean productivity. Box 3-9 instruments for ocean monitoring. These include gives an overview of applications of radar altime- an altimeter, to continue the TOPEX/Poseidon ters and scatterometers for ocean monitoring. Ap- mission; a scatterometer, to measure sea-surface plications of SAR and lidar are discussed in a pre- wind vectors; a lidar (laser radar), to measure tro- vious OTA report. l09 pospheric winds; a SAR, for a variety of high-spa- NOAA currently lacks the budget authority to tial-resolution measurements (meters to tens of undertake major expansion of its operational sat- meters) in ice-covered waters; and an ocean-color ellite program. Early in NASA’s planning for 100 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

EOS, when it was still a broad-based earth science servations, apart from the long-standing efforts program, the program appeared to be a vehicle for in the visible and infrared sea-surface tempera- developing instruments that would become an op- ture observations and microwave sea ice mea- erational ocean monitoring program. However, surements (both of interest to short-term fore- cutbacks to the EOS program and its subsequent casting), there is no effective mechanism for the “rescoping” to emphasize climate change l10 have systematic development or transfer of technology from research to operations. Some mecha- resulted in the cancellation, deferral, or depen- nism must be found to routinely collect such ob- dence on foreign partners of several instruments servations that are important to the NOAA with oceanographic application. Rescoping ac- mission. NOAA will need additional funding to tions include the cancellation of EOS SAR (less carry out these observations, and a partnership capable European and Japanese SARS are avail- arrangement will be necessary to identify the es- able and Canada plans to launch a SAR in 1995); sential variables to be observed. transfer of the U.S. scatterometer to a Japanese In summary, with respect to ocean monitoring satellite; and deferral of development of next-gen- systems, OTA finds that the development of a na- eration microwave-imaging radiometers (the tional strategic plan for Earth environmental re- United States will use European and Japanese instruments). In addition to scientific losses, sev- mote sensing offers an opportunity to: eral reviewers of this and previous OTA reports on ■ provide coherence, direction, and continuity to Earth Observing Systems were concerned that al- disparate programs that have previously suf- lowing the U.S. lead to slip in these technologies fered from fits and starts; would harm the nation technology base for envi- ■ assist in the selection and enhance the utiliza- ronmental remote sensing. tion of EOS sensors; Observing this situation, the Ocean Studies ■ assist in the development of advanced technol- Board of the National Research Council wrote:111 ogies; and ■ A major obstacle for marine science lies in the restore a beneficial relationship between difficulty of development and managing space- NASA and NOAA to manage the transition be- borne instruments over the next decades. Histor- tween research and operational instruments ically, NASA developed meteorological space- more effectively (the same benefit noted above craft that evolved into operational systems for other environmental remote sensing instru- managed by NOAA. However, for marine ob- ments).

110 U.S. Congress, Offlce of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’S Earth Obseri’ing system, op. cit. I I I Ocem Resemch Counci] of tie National Rese~ch Council, Oceanography in the Next Decade: Building New Partnerships (Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press, 1992). International Cooperation and Competition 4

U.S. national strategy for satellite remote sensing must take into account the increasing importance of international remote sensing activities. The growing number of A countries that are active in remote sensing and the increasing number and depth of international interactions among remote sensing programs have created expanding opportunities for the United States to benefit from international cooperation in remote sensing. The changing international scene also poses new challenges to U.S. competitiveness in commercial remote sensing and force a reconsideration of national security interests in remote sensing technologies. Several factors have led to the increasing international interactions in remote sensing, which include both cooperation among governmental programs and competition in commercial activities. First, the market for satellite data is naturally a global one, in terms of both supply and demand. The supply is global because satellites are capable of viewing the entire globe as they orbit Earth. 1 The demand is global because users around the world are making increasing use of satellite data and because many of the

] Not all $atcllites ha~ e global scope, but all are capable of viewing very large regions of Earth. Stitelllte\ m polar orbit can observe the entire globe as Earth rotates under their orbits: tho~e in IOW er-inclination orbits misf regions that are too far north or south; those in geosynchronous orbit view continuously the same region—roughly a third+f Earth”s surface. ArtIclc 11 of the Outer Space Treaty (United Nations, Treuf} on Principles GuftJ.. 72chn(~l{~,q.v, Munaxemenf, fJrd Murkels, OTA-ISS-604 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gover- I 101 nment Printing Office, Augu\t 1994), box 5-3. 102 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

applications of satellite data, such as weather fore- dination of data policies. 2 The development of casting and global change research, depend on the successful data-exchange policies will be criti- availability of global data sets. cal to future international cooperation in re- The national pursuit of technological self-suffi- mote sensing. ciency has helped produce a second factor behind These three factors have led to programs of in- the internationalization of remote sensing: the international cooperation and plans for continuing creasing international diffusion of technical capa- the expansion of international cooperation in re- bilities. Although commercial firms are playing mote sensing. The ultimate scope and direction of an increasingly large role in satellite remote sens- this cooperation will depend on several factors: ing, national governments continue to predomi- II nate. Canada, Europe, India, Japan, and Russia all the ability to preserve effective data-exchange have substantial and overlapping capabilities in mechanisms; remote sensing. This creates new opportunities II the ability to share equitably both the costs of for international cooperation in remote sensing, developing and operating remote sensing sys- but it poses challenges to U.S. leadership. U.S. tems and control over those systems, without policies and practices no longer determine in- creating cumbersome financial and administra- ternational standards by default. Instead, the tive arrangements; United States faces the more difficult task of pro- ■ the confidence of all international partners in viding leadership through consensus building and their ability to rely on one another (thus, the accommodating the interests of other countries. United States needs to judge the reliability of The third critical factor affecting international its partners and to strive to be a reliable partner remote sensing activities is the worldwide interest itself); and in reducing costs. This leads to two competing im- ● the uncertain political and economic stability of pulses: Russia. the growing interest in international coopera- International cooperation will evolve slowly tion in order to increase the cost-effectiveness through successive generations of satellite sys- of remote sensing programs, particularly to tems as experience determines whether the eliminate unnecessary duplication among vari- United States can work effectively with other ous national programs; and countries on remote sensing programs. the tendency toward commercialization, pro- This chapter begins with a brief discussion of vided by government agencies to recover some international interests and activities in satellite re- of the costs of developing and operating remote mote sensing. The following sections discuss the sensing systems. risks and benefits of expanded international coop- These two impulses are in conflict because in- eration in remote sensing, with particular atten- ternational cooperation relies on the relatively tion to the implications for commercial markets open exchange of data, while commercialization and for national security interests. The concluding depends on the ability to limit data access only to sections apply these considerations to an analysis paying customers. Because of this conflict, efforts of a range of options for future organizational to promote international cooperation in an era of structures to support enhanced international coop- multiple suppliers have focused first on the coor- eration in remote sensing.

2 U.S. Congress, Offlce of Technology Assessment, Remo/ely Sensed Data: Technology, Marwgement, and Marke[s+ oP. cit., ch. 5. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 103

INTERNATIONAL REMOTE SENSING applied in widely dispersed locations, often re- NEEDS quire nearly identical types of data. With their For the most part, international uses of remote global coverage, satellites offer an economy of sensing are similar to those in the United States scope in meeting data needs in different parts of (see chapter 2). Some of these applications have the world. Despite this, the desire for technologi- data requirements that are truly international in cal development and autonomy has led many character. In other cases, the data requirements are countries to develop independent capabilities in essentially local, although the needs of some for- land remote sensing. These countries have taken a eign users, particularly in developing countries, range of approaches to the public and private-sec- are qualitatively different from those of U.S. data tor roles. users. Other international differences arise from con- Weather forecasting is the most established in- trasting data needs in different parts of the world, ternational application of satellite remote sens- particularly in the developing world. Poorer, de- ing.3 The related endeavors of scientific studies veloping countries often lack fundamental in- and operational monitoring of oceans and climate, formation about land cover, land use, and natural as proposed under the planned Global Climate resources and have limited administrative and fi- Observing System (GCOS) and Global Ocean nancial resources for collecting that information Observing System (GOOS),4 also require data on their own.7 Providing this basic information that are international in scope, as would a pro- through remote sensing could improve substan- posed Environmental Disaster Observation Sys- tially the ability of developing countries to man- tem (EDOS).5 These global applications require age their natural resources and develop their econ- operational mechanisms for the international ex- omies in ways that respect the natural change of raw and processed data, including the in environment,8 although it could also be used to situ data6 that remain critical to the quantitative strengthen the control of authoritarian regimes. interpretation of satellite data. Accomplishing development and resource man- Many applications of remote sensing—partic- agement goals involves much more than simply ularly land remote sensing—require only local or providing satellite data; it often requires foreign regional data. Yet these uses of remote sensing, assistance in developing national capabilities to

~ For more information on the data-exchange requirements and mechanisms used in weather forecasting, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology A~\essment, Rernotel) Sen~ed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets, op. cit., ch. 5. ~ p]ans for GCOS ~d GoOS, Which are cumen[]y under development, will probably reIy on a mixture of new sate]] ite and In situ instruments and in~truments planned for other purposes. For information on GCOS, see Joint Scientific and Technical Committee for GCOS, GCOS: Re- sponding to the Needfcjr Cl/inure Obser}arions, WMO No. 777 (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, 1992); f’or information on GCOS, see D.J. Baker, “Toward a Global Ocean Observing System,” Oceans 34(1 ):76-83, spring 1991; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration, Ftr,sl Steps Tb\~ard a U.S. COOS: Report of a Workshop on U.S. Contributions to a Global Ocean Obser\’ing S>’.stem, October 1992 (available from Joint Oceanographic Institutions Inc., Washington, DC). 5 For a history of this idea, see J. Johnson-Freese, “Development of a Global EDOS: Political Support and Constraints,” Space Policv IO( 1 ) 1 :45-55, 1994. EDOS would not necessarily require a new, dedicated system of satellites, but could rely on timely access to data from satellites de~igned primarily for other purposes. ~ In contrast t[~ remotely .\en\ed data, in situ data are measured at the location of the phenomenon that is being observed. T India is tie nlain exception (. this ~le, ~lth a \ub\tantia] commitment to developing its own remote sensing capabilities. China and Brazil also have significant remote \en\ing program~. * Committee on Earth Ob\en ations Satellites, ‘The Relevance of Satellite Missions to the Study of the Global Environment,” paper presented at the United Nations Conference on En\ ironment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992. 104 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

make effective use of data from satellites and of in festiveness of their national programs. This situ data.9 cooperation has taken a variety of forms (box 4-1). Each cooperative arrangement has dealt with THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF the problem of facilitating data exchanges and INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION harmonizing data-access policies among the par- These common interests in remote sensing, com- ticipating agencies (box 4-2). These efforts to bined with the equally common desire for techno- coordinate satellite remote sensing programs and logical independence, have led an increasing their associated data policies form the foundation number of countries to undertake civilian space- for a steady expansion of international coopera- based remote sensing programs (appendix B). The tion. programs have often begun as independent ef- International cooperation in remote sensing forts, but many countries have pursued interna- presents the United States with an array of benefits tional cooperation as a way to increase the cost-ef- and risks. Many of these benefits and risks apply

9 See the section on international development in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remofely Sensed Daru: Technology, Munugemenf, und Murke[s, op. cit., ch. 5. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 105

equally (o interagency coordination within the programs to eliminate unnecessary duplication U.S. government. but some issues are unique or and, thereby, to reduce their overall cost. more pronounced in an international context. An Reducing technological and program risk. expansion of international cooperation should Some degree of redundancy is necessary, par- aim to enhance the benefits of cooperation with- ticularly for meteorological and other opera- out adding unnecessary risks. tional satellite programs. The exchange of backup satellites between the National Oceanic I Benefits of Cooperation and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and = Reducing cost. Many of the agencies involved its European counterparts is a case in point: in remote sensing share common goals and NOAA provided a backup geostationary satel- have developed overlapping satellite pro- lite, the Geostationary Operational Environ- grams. Facing budget constraints, these agen- mental Satellite (GOES), when Europe had cies are looking for ways to coordinate their problems with its Meteosat program, and Eu- 106 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 107

— 108 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

rope returned the favor when NOAA faced problems with its GOES program, lending Me- teosat 3 to NOAA in place of GOES-East (see a appendix B). Because the United States and Agency or country Budget ($ million) Europe could rely on each other for backups, they avoided more serious disruptions in their NASA 938 NOAA 320 operational programs while maintaining the DOD (Landsat and DMSP) 150 deliberate pace of their satellite-development Total United States 1,408 programs. ESA 354 ● Increasing effectiveness. The elimination of Eumetsat 143 unnecessary duplication can also free up re- France 415 sources and allow individual agencies to match Germany 88 Italy 66 those resources more effectively with their mis- United Kingdom 127 sions. This reallocation of resources can elimi- Total Europe 1,193 nate gaps that would occur if agency programs Japanb 396 were not coordinated. International discussions Canada 95 can be valuable even if they merely help to Russiac 228 identify such gaps, but they can be particularly China 128 India 90 useful if they lead to a division of labor that re- Others d 39 duces those gaps. Cooperation on data collec- Total 3,577 tion and exchange, especially for data collected a NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NOAA = Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DOD =Department in situ, can also provide important benefits. of Defense, DMSP = Defense Meteorological Satellite Program ESA = ● Sharing burdens. International cooperation European Space Agency b Including $150 million estimated for the Japan Meteoroloical can lead to a more equitable sharing of costs for Agency existing remote sensing programs. One organ- c From Anser - $100 million estimated for Meteor d From Anser ization, the International Polar Operational Meteorological Satellite organization (IPOMS), SOURCES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Natiion- was founded largely for this purpose. IPOMS a Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, 1994, Anser Corporation, 1994, Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994 was disbanded in 1993, having accomplished its mission with Europe’s commitment to polar meteorological satellite programs, particularly ropean Space Agency (ESA) and the European the Meteorological Operational Satellite (ME- Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteoro- TOP).10 The growing interest and activity by logical Satellites (Eumetsat) has allowed Euro- other countries in remote sensing has also pean countries to pursue much more ambitious helped to equalize this burden. In 1993, U.S. and coherent programs than any of them could programs accounted for roughly 40 percent of have accomplished alone. The need to aggre- worldwide spending for civilian remote sens- gate resources is particularly great for remote ing (table 4-1 ). sensing programs, such as the Earth Observing ■ Aggregating resources. International coopera- System (EOS), that are organized into large, tion can also provide the means to pay for new multi-instrument platforms. In addition to ag- programs and projects that individual agencies gregating financial resources, cooperation can cannot afford on their own. This has been the also allow countries to combine complementa- case in Europe, where the formation of the Eu- ry technical capabilities.

10 The Coordlnatlon Group for Meteorologica] Satc]lites (CGMS ) assumed the remaining coordination functions of IPOMS Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 109

■ Promoting foreign policy objectives. Coopera- in order to meet the requirements of an intern- tion in space also serves important foreign ational program, or it may have to defer desired policy objectives, as exemplified by the in- programs of its own. ternational space station program. 11 Important H Potential unreliability of foreign partners. cooperative remote sensing activities grew out Complementing the loss of autonomy is the of the space station programl2 and from the concern over the reliability of foreign partners agreements on space cooperation signed in and their commitments. An attempt by one 1993 by Vice President Albert Gore and Rus- partner to reduce or withdraw its commitment sian Prime Minister Viktor Chemomyrdin.13 to a joint program could jeopardize the entire Cooperation on data exchange helped the program, including portions that had been pro- United States promote the ideal of openness ceeding steadily as separate national programs. during the Cold War. This could pose particular difficulties when cooperation rests on political arrangements of 1 Risks of Cooperation uncertain stability, as is now the case with Rus-

■ Decreased flexibility. The planning, develop- sia. The reliability of U.S. commitments is also ment, and operation of a major remote sensing a concern to potential foreign partners. given project require a substantial long-term commit- recent uncertainties over U.S. commitments to ment of resources and do not allow a great deal the space station and other major international of flexibility. International coordination could science and technology programs. 14 further reduce that flexibility y by making the de- n Decreased scope for private markets. As dis- cisionmaking process more complicated, lead- cussed in chapter 3. one way to meet the gov- ing to inefficient choices that limit the potential ernment’s remote sensing data needs is to pur- reductions in cost and risk. chase data from the private sector. This has

■ Increased management complexity. Interna- particular advantages when the aggregate de- tional cooperation can introduce an extra layer mand for a certain type of data is large but no of complexity to the management of a remote single agency can afford the satellite system. sensing program. Not only does the decision- International agreements to fund remote sens- making process become more complicated, but ing systems jointly could eliminate an impor- the political and budgetary processes of coop- tant opportunity for the private sector. On the erating agencies in different countries may be other hand, agreements to discuss common re- difficult to reconcile. quirements and meet those requirements

■ Decreased autonomy. The commitment of a through coordinated data purchases could stim - substantial portion of an agency’s budget to in- ulate private-sector activities. ternational activities reduces its ability to 8 Increased technology transfer. Although modify its programs in response to changing many countries now possess the technical abili- needs or budgets. An agency may be forced to t y to build remote sensing systems oft heir own, compromise on meeting its own requirements the United States maintains a substantial lead

I I Lr s .congress, Office Of Technology Assessment, Remote/}? Sensed Duta: TtJchnolog>, Mtitzugcmctit, LJtJd tf(lrkef$, OP. cit.. box ~- 1. ‘ 2 In particular, the Earth Observation International Coordination Working Group (EO-ICWG) grc~ out ofthc international polar platforms of the international \pacc \ta[ion program.

1‘I white House, Plan for Ru.yTlan.Anlerjcun C(x)p(,rutjje pro,qrarns in E(Jrt}l .y(’ien(’e UII(/ ~

I ~ me Cancc]]a[lon of the SuFrconduc[ing Supercol}ider may ~ lnstructl~ e in :it lc~~t t~~o \\r:i}$. Fir\[, I])C \J II ]III:IIC\\ of ~ongrci~ to ~’iill~~l a large ongoing project casts some doubt on the U.S. abi I ity to make the needed commitment to Iwge coupcrati~ c prt~gran~i. Second, unccrtmnt) over the U.S. commitment to thif project deterred other countriei, particularly Japan, from taking part. 110 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

in several critical technologies. Cooperative prowess, and political symbolism. This section programs require some sharing of technologi- focuses on the more concrete issue of international cal information, and simply working together competition in the commercial aspects of satellite inevitably promotes the exchange of techno- remote sensing. logical knowledge. This transfer could, in turn, The United States dominated the development undermine U.S. national security interests as of scientific, operational, and commercial ap- well as the technological advantages of U.S. plications of remote sensing as part of the Landsat companies in the international market. program in the 1970s and early 1980s. The Land International cooperation offers many of the Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 same benefits and risks as cooperation among (P.L. 98-365) and the emergence of the French U.S. agencies, with one important difference: In- Systéme pour l’Observation de la Terre (SPOT) ternational agreements have no central au- system in 1987 helped launch an international thority like the U.S. federal government to set market in remote sensing. More recently, enter- the agenda and adjudicate disputes. Central au- prises in Europe, Russia, and Japan have at- thority in the U.S. government is relatively weak, tempted to break into the commercial market, and and interagency discussions often resemble in- several U.S. firms have announced plans to sell ternational negotiations, but national political de- high-resolution land imagery (box 3-7). cisions can intervene to resolve disputes. For ex- Current markets for remotely sensed data are ample, the planned convergence of polar becoming more specialized, with the develop- meteorological satellites was dictated by a Pres- ment of a variety of niche markets, each with its 15 idential Decision Directive NSTC-2 (appendix own requirements. The growth in commercial C), and NOAA and the Department of Defense data markets has been stimulated by the most rap- (DOD) must answer to presidential and congres- idly growing sector: the value-added firms that sional authority in carrying out that decision. convert raw data into usable information. Euro- Two areas that deserve special attention as po- pean value-added firms are playing a growing tential constraints on international cooperation in role,16 although U.S. firms continue to dominate remote sensing are the potential effects on emerg- the market for Geographic Information Systems ing commercial markets and on national security. (GIS).17 The next two sections deal with these issues in National governments continue to dominate more detail. both the supply and the demand for remotely sensed data. Because of this, national remote sens- INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION ing policies play a major role in international data IN REMOTE SENSING markets. To compete in international markets, Countries compete in remote sensing for many U.S. firms must confront markets that are shaped reasons, including military power, technological in part by foreign governments. European coun-

IS For Cxanlple, agricultural] users require moderate-resolution multispectral images with short revisit times. The mapping and p]anning market often requires high-resolution stereoscopic images, but timeliness is less important. For an outline of the differing requirements for ‘some commercial markets, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remote!}’ Sensed Dula: Technology, Manu,gemenr, and Markers, op. cit., ch. 4. I h me Countfies of Eastern Europe have demonstrated their interest and capabilities in software development, particularly in analyzing data for operational purposes. See R. Armani, Managing Director of Vitro-SAAS Kft., testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Not ember 1993. 11 GIS are flexible, computer-based mapping software systems that allow users to manipulate and combine information of different types that comes from a variety of sources, including satellite images. For a more detailed discussion of GIS, see U.S Congress. Office of Techncllogy A\\mwnent, Remotel) Sensed Data: Technology>, Management, and Markets, op. cit., ch. 4. Chapter 4 international Cooperation and Competition I 111

tries in particular have strikingly different policies also poses a danger for U.S. firms, particularly in from the United States on pricing and access to the value-added market. Although heavy data- data from government-funded systems, as well as telecommunication and data-processing demands on the role of governments in commercial mar- currently make SAR data too expensive for most kets. 18 commercial purposes. SAR systems could open Furthermore, government standards for data up a range of new commercial applications.22 Eu- format and quality can have major effects—bene- rope, Canada, and Japan all have experience oper- ficial or detrimental----a data markets. They are ating SAR systems, and Europe has promoted the beneficial when they reduce market risks by en- development of new SAR applications through couraging users to coalesce around a predictable public-private partnerships. Each of these coun- set of data requirements, and they can be detri- tries has designated a specific firm23 to market the mental if they discourage the emergence of new data for commercial purposes, and these firms markets that require different types of data. 19 could have a particular advantage in the value- Recent events pose several dangers for U.S. -added market. firms in the international market. First, the failure As described in chapter 3, the United States has of Land sat 6 has created great uncertain y over the several options in order to avoid being left out of continuing supply of Landsat-type data and has the SAR data and value-added market, including encouraged many users to seek other sources of deploying its own SAR and funding the purchase supply, including SPOT data. Any interruption in of SAR data for the development of commercial the data supply could undermine established val- applications. In addition, the United States could ue-added firms and make it difficult for U.S. data push for international agreements on equal access suppliers to break back into a reshaped market. to SAR data from foreign sources. Ideally, such Chapter 3 identified several options for miti- agreements would prevent foreign countries from gating these risks, including strengthening gov- charging higher rates to U.S. commercial users or ernment support for continuation of the Landsat giving preferential access to designated compa- system, developing public-private partnerships nies. for a possible Landsat successor or gap-filler, and Finally, U.S. firms could face obstacles in in- using long-term data-purchase contracts. Alterna- ternational markets because of the data policies tively, the United States could attempt to prevent and commercial subsidies that other governments any data gap by exploring the use of data from for- provide to their national firms. These issues arise eign satellite systems.20 frequently in international trade negotiations. and The lack of a U.S. source for operational a range of trade policy tools is available to address synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite data21 them.

‘x Ibid.. ch. 5. ‘g L.S. Conge\s, Office of Technolog}f As\e\\ment, International Security and Space Progrwn, lktu }“ormuf .Sfundard.j /i)r Ci\I/Ian R(- mo~c .%n}~rt~ Sufcll/Ic.\, background paper (Washington, DC: OffIce of Technology Assewment, April 1993). ‘(i T%e lndian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) systcm may be one of the closest to LandwH in its technical chara~teri~tic~, b~lt the Ru~\i:m Re\ur\-O or the Jtipancw Advanced Earth Observing Satellite (A DEOS) s> stem could provide a uwble substitute. 2 ] The only U.S. ipace-baseci SAR system is the Shuttle Imaging Radar-C (SIR-C), which has flown on the Space Shuttle. SIR-C is a much more w}phlstlcatcd radar thun anj of [he foreign $y~tenl$. but fire\ onlj in freqwntl). 22 The ability of SAR systems to “see” through cloudi pro~ ide~ a particular ad~ untage o~ cr optical ~> stems in pro} iding prompt and rel]abk imagery when timcline$$ ri critrcal. 23 Eurimagc in Europe, Radar\at ]ntemational rn Canada. and the Remote Sensing Tecbnolog> Center (RESTEC ) in Japan, 112 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES ery to properly equipped troops in the field. National security concerns also pose constraints On-board data storage would allow uninterrupted on the extent of international cooperation in re- records for climate and land-use monitoring to be mote sensing and on U.S. participation in global maintained. markets for satellite data and technologies. Re- The United States would like to be able to con- mote sensing serves a variety of military and other trol the data stream from the European METOP national security purposes, including many that platform as well, and has insisted on control over are similar to civilian applications, such as map- data from U.S.-supplied instruments. For ME- ping and weather forecasting, and many that have TOP- 1, these include the most critical proven me- no obvious civilian counterpart, such as arms con- teorological imaging and sounding instruments: trol verification, reconnaissance, targeting, and the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer damage assessment. Because the technologies (AVHRR), the High-Resolution Infrared Sounder and many of the applications are similar, a nation- (HIRS), and the Advanced Microwave Sounding al strategy for civilian remote sensing must also Unit (AMSU). Initially, Eumetsat has balked at consider national security concerns. this proposal, noting that data from these instru- U.S. military strategy has long relied on tech- ments is currently freely available by satellite nological superiority, including the superior in- broadcast.24 formation that comes from advanced remote sens- The Clinton Administration’s convergence ing systems. The ability to obtain superior proposal calls for U.S. imagers and sounders to information and to deny it to an adversary can be continue to fly on future generations of METOP decisive on the battlefield. For this reason, mili- satellites, but Europe will probably develop some tary approaches to remote sensing emphasize con- of its own instruments. France and Italy are col- trol over both technology and data. As discussed laborating to develop the Interferometric Atmo- below, however, U.S. military requirements may spheric Sounding Instrument (IASI), which could change with the evolving international security 25 environment and the increasing diffusion of tech- become a candidate to replace HIRS. Similarly, nological capabilities. ESA is developing a Multifrequency Imaging Mi- crowave Radiometer (MIMR), which could re- 1 International Issues in Convergence place the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager The likely European role in a converged weather (SSM/I), although budget and satellite size satellite system designed to meet both military constraints have led Europe to review both of 26 and civilian requirements raises two related is- these instruments. sues: control over the data stream, and U.S. re- Operational users would prefer that compatible liance on foreign sources of data. DOD has an ex- data come from the same instruments on METOP plicit requirement that it be able to deny the as are on the U.S. converged weather satellites. If meteorological data stream to an enemy in a crisis Europe wanted to fly its own operational instru- or in wartime (chapter 3). Encryption of the broad- ments, this compatibility could come into ques- cast data stream would accomplish this, while pre- tion. Alternatively, European instruments could serving the availability to broadcast cloud imag- fly on all three satellites, but this would raise con-

2J A. LawIer, “Data COntro] complicates Weather Merger,” Space New’s, June 20-26, 1994, p. 3. 25 The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument currently under development by NASA for EOS PM-1 is another candidate to replace HIRS, as is the Interferometric Tcmperitture Sounder (ITS) proposed by the Hughes Santa Barbara Research Corporation. Chapter 3 discusses the development of future meteorological instruments. 26 Europe currentl) has no plans to develop an imager to replace AVHRR. ... ._—— —. .—

Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 113

cerns over U.S. self-sufficiency in basic meteoro- countries to develop advanced meteorological logical systems. instruments of their own. The use of European imaging and sounding instruments on METOP would reduce U.S. lever- 1 Control of Data and Reliance age over access to and management of the ME- TOP data. Even with a formal agreement on the on Foreign Sources conditions for restricting access to METOP data, Military concerns over control of access to and DOD would lose direct control and would have management of U.S. data and reliance on foreign less confidence in its ability to cut off the data flow sources of data apply to issues beyond conver- during times of crisis. In part for this reason, the gence. Data from government-run civilian land re- convergence proposal calls for the United States mote sensing systems have primarily civilian ap- to operate two of the three operational satellites. plications, although some types of data have 28 Restricting the data flow from these two satel- significant military utility. The U.S.-led coali- lites-either by outright denial or, more likely, by tion used data from Landsat and France’s SPOT delayed access—would reduce the value of the during the Persian Gulf War, and the United States data from METOP alone. Controlling two of three and France restricted the flow of those data to oth- satellites also limits DOD’s reliance on foreign er countries. DOD’s Defense Mapping Agency sources of data. The convergence plan calls for the now relies heavily on SPOT data, but may switch United States to maintain the ability to launch a to U.S. commercial suppliers once their systems spare satellite on short notice, which further re- become operational. duces U.S. reliance on European data sources. The United States will remain a leader in pro- Control over the data flow from a converged viding satellite weather data and will have strong satellite system would not necessarily limit all ac- influence over the shape of cooperative agree- cess to comparable data sources. DOD has re- ments in that endeavor, but the situation could be sisted attempts to make its meteorological imag- quite different in other areas. For example, it may ery available operationally, especially the be difficult to establish a working partnership on sea-surface wind data derived from SSM/I, al- ocean remote sensing that involves two of the though Europe has developed similar capabili- leading players—Japan and the U.S. Navy—be- ties.zT Russia also operates polar satellites in the cause of the Japanese policy to support remote Meteor series, which broadcast some data in the sensing only for peaceful purposes. A lack of op- low-quality Automatic Picture Transmission erational experience with civilian SAR systems (APT) format. and China has deployed exper- could hamper DOD ability to make effective use imental polar weather satellites as well. If these of data from foreign SAR systems. sources continue and improve, the United States Although U.S. security policies have tradition- could lose all ability to restrict access to high- ally relied on superior intelligence and informa- quality meteorological data. However. maintain- tion, some people have argued that open access to ing open access (except in a crisis) to data from the satellite intelligence would provide greater securi- converged satellite system could forestall this de- ty benefits than keeping access restricted. French velopment by limiting the motivation of other and Canadian proposals in the 1980s, which were

27 The .ActI\c Nlicrowave ln~trument (AhlI ) on bowl ERS- I can function af a watterometer, measuring \ea-surface wind speeds. 2X LJ.S. Congrc\\, Office of Twhnologj Asw\\ment, The Futl/rc ofl?emotc Scnfln

never realized, called for an international satellite Russian satellites, with 2-m resolution or less,32 monitoring agency to help verify arms control and from the French HELIOS satellite. agreements and promote openness in military de- ployments in order to defuse military tensions and U Diffusion of Technological Capabilities 29 deter surprise attacks. U.S. export-control policies have been designed to prevent the spread of technologies with critical I Licensing Commercial Data Sales military applications, including remote sensing. The differences in technical capability between The United States leads the world in many specif- military and civilian remote sensing systems are ic sensor technologies, in the development of narrowing, particularly in the light of proposed lightweight sensors and satellite systems, and in high-resolution civilian systems. The Land Re- the hardware and software of signal process ing.33 mote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555) These advantages are important for the commer- reiterated the authority of the Department of Com- cial competitiveness of U.S. industry as well as for merce to license commercial sales of remotely national security. However, the spread of these sensed data. This act presumes that a license technological capabilities as other countries pur- should be granted, with possible restrictions on sue remote sensing programs has reduced these data access. As noted in chapter 3, several firms U.S. advantages substantially. have since applied for and received licenses to sell The United States no longer leads in all aspects data with resolutions as high as 1 to 3 meters (m). of remote sensing technology, and increasing for- In March 1994, the Clinton Administration an- eign investments in remote sensing technology nounced its policy on licensing the sale of remote- are likely to narrow the gaps. For example, the ly sensed data (appendix F). This policy requires United Kingdom is the world leader in active the satellite operator to keep records so that the cooling of infrared sensors. For the type of U.S. government can know who has purchased technology involved in international remote sens- what data, and it authorizes the government to re- ing partnerships, technology transfer has become strict the flow of data to protect national security a more equal two-way process in which commer- interests during a crisis or war. cial control of proprietary technologies is more The principal considerations in permitting such important than military control of sensitive data-sale licenses are: 1) the military sensitivity of technologies. the data in question and 2) the availability of com- International partnerships often involve con- parable data through other channels.30 Data with tractual restrictions that forbid those who receive 1 -m resolution could certainly be used to identify technical information to support joint projects targets for military attack, although restrictions on from using that information for other purposes. data access during a crisis or war could limit their Another way to limit the transfer of sensitive use against mobile military targets. Data of simi- technologies is to restrict cooperative programs to lar resolution will soon be available international- less sensitive activities. The imagers and sounders ly, from SPOT 4, with 5-m resolution,31 from NOAA is providing for METOP-1 fall into this

29 This technlca] capability a]one is not enough [0 prevent such attacks. U.S. intelligence satellites d~te~tcd the Iraqi buildup on Kuwait’s border in July 1990 but did not conclude that Iraq was planning to attack Kuwait until a few hours before the attack. 3~ These we [he no~al considerations for all expotl COIltl’OIS.

3 I spOT 4 is scheduled for launch in 1996. See appendix B. han 32 Russia has indicated (hat it might a]so sell images With resolution of less ‘ 1 ‘“ 33 see ~hapter q for a discussion of the r~]e of technology development in the future Of remote sensing. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 115

category. Finally, the use of “black box” arrange- ly, it would offer the recipient country the oppor- ments can minimize the likelihood of inadvertent tunity to gain experience in satellite operations technology transfers. This entails providing as and in data processing and management, while little detail as possible about the internal function- limiting the ability of the U.S. government to re- ing of specific instruments while providing such strict the flow of data. U.S. policy continues to re- essential information as their weight, power restrict the sale of these sensitive technologies (see quirements, data quantity and format, and physi- appendix F). cal tolerances. Such arrangements are generally consistent with the standard engineering practice 1 Export Controls and of modular design, making the components of an Cooperative Projects overall system as independent as possible. Cooperative remote sensing projects often in- With any cooperative project, some technology volve foreign agencies providing instruments to transfer is inevitable, even necessary. Having sci- fly on U.S. satellites or U.S. agencies providing entists and engineers work together is probably instruments to fly on foreign satellites. The trans- the most efficient way to transfer technological fer of instruments for joint projects differs from knowledge, particularly for system-level technol- more sensitive exports in several important ways. ogies such as bus design and spacecraft integra- First, instruments can be transferred under a tion and for signal transmission and processing. “black box” arrangement that minimizes the op- The various instruments on a satellite generally portunities for technology transfer. Second, the share common data-communication channels, sensors involved in joint projects generally have and the exchange of raw and processed data is es- little or no specific military application. Finally, sential to any cooperative arrangement. the United States usually undertakes joint projects National security concerns about technology with allies who often have comparable technical transfer will continue to pose constraints on in- capabilities, so technology transfer is less of a ternational cooperation in remote sensing. Given concern (the placement of the Total Ozone Map- the increasing diffusion of technological capabili- ping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument on a (then) ties, however, the desire to protect competitive ad- Soviet satellite was a significant exception). vantages in international commercial markets Currently, most satellite instruments are treated may take on greater relative importance, and the as munitions under export-control regulations.35 ability to maintain these advantages through For most joint projects, these controls are not ap- technology controls is likely to erode in any case. plied at the time of transfer but at the time when the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) gov- I Licensing Satellite Sales erning a project is being negotiated. Such an MOU Some countries have expressed an interest in pur- gives NASA the authority to license the necessary 36 chasing high-resolution remote sensing satellite transfer of instruments. Complete export con- systems from U.S. companies, and some U.S. trol reviews are still required for certain countries, companies have responded with proposals to sell including Russia (although this may change in re- “turnkey” systems for other countries to oper- sponse to growing U.S.-Russian space coopera- ate. 34 This type of transfer raises issues that go tion). Another option being considered is to treat beyond concerns over the sale of data. Specifical- remote sensing instruments—at least those that do

~~ J H, FrcJ ~esidcn[ of ][ek optical s) s[enl~, testimony before the Senate Se]cct committee on Intel ligcn~c, NOV. 17, 1993, ~s They are lifted on the U.S. Munitions List, which is administered by the Department of State. 36 L Shaffer Ac[lng A\sis(an[ As\ociate Adminis~ator for Extema] Coordination, Office of Mission to planet Eaflh, NASA, Wrsonal cOn~- munication, July 22, 1994. 116 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

not contain sensitive technologies—as dual-use These options are not mutually exclusive, nor 37 technology items rather than as munitions. do they provide an exhaustive list of possible future arrangements. They do provide a framework OPTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL for thinking about the long-term future of interna- COOPERATION tional cooperation in remote sensing. The varia- tions on each of these approaches also illustrate The preceding sections considered the risks and possible paths for evolution toward greater coop- benefits of international cooperation in remote eration. sensing. This section applies those considerations to a range of options for increasing cooperation in 1 International Information Cooperative the future. Modeled on WWW, an international information Current plans for international projects and the cooperative could develop broad institutional agendas of international organizations call for a mechanisms for data exchange and for sharing re- steady expansion of international cooperation in sponsibilities for data and information manage- remote sensing over the next decade and raise the ment. WWW (box 4-3) has three main functional prospect of further long-term growth in interna- elements: 1 ) a Global Observing System, consist- tional cooperation. This section analyzes three ing of the observational equipment whose data principal alternative approaches to the long-term future of international cooperation in remote sens- stream WWW member countries make available for broader use; 2) a Global Data Processing Sys- ing. Each of these approaches uses existing in- tem of forecast centers operated by WWW mem- ternational organizations as models or building bers; and 3) a Global Telecommunications System blocks, for transmitting raw and processed data and fore- ■ Develop an international information coop- cast information among WWW members. The erative for environmental data, modeled on World Meteorological Council meets regularly to the World Weather Watch (WWW). The free coordinate plans for these systems and for other and open exchange of data has been traditional purposes. both in operational meteorology and in the The most important feature of WWW may be earth and environmental sciences but has come its underlying assumption that the mutual benefit under increasing pressure from promoters of of open data exchange is greater than the costs of restrictive data-access policies. providing access to data. WWW members provide ■ Develop formal specialization and division of basic meteorological data and forecast informa- labor, based on the Earth Observation Interna- tion for the general use of all other members in real tional Coordination Working Group (EO- time and at no charge. In addition, all programs of ICWG). The logical extension of current coor- the WWW are carried out through the voluntary dination efforts, this approach would develop cooperation of WWW members. formal commitments outlining specific roles Information cooperatives have significant ad- for each agency. vantages over more-restrictive data-access mech- ● Create an international remote sensing anisms. Cooperatives are well-suited to modern agency, modeled on ESA or Eumetsat. The information technologies that make it easy to pro- long-term need for efficient and reliable in- vide access to data and information but difficult to ternational arrangements could lead to a formal control that access. They also allow for an infor- international organization for satellite remote mal sharing of the burden of data collection that sensing. does not require a strict accounting of costs and

37 ControIs on dual-use [echno]ogy i(ems are administered by the Department of Commerce under the Commerce control List. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 117 118 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

benefits to each party. Furthermore, information access to other sources through bilateral exchange cooperatives facilitate the development of in- agreements. However, the erosion of the WWW formation services in the private sector, such as system could undermine the exchange of in situ Accu-Weather, by reducing the cost of raw data. data as well as efforts to improve the collection of Finally, the open data exchange that would occur high-quality in situ data that are essential for un- under an international information cooperative is derstanding climate change and other aspects of compatible with U.S. government data policies global change. Furthermore, bilateral data ex- and practices.38 changes usually entail restrictions on access by Information cooperatives also carry substantial third parties, which could undermine the ability of disadvantages, however. Some agencies feel that private information services to obtain the data they are bearing a disproportionate share of the they need. costs of data collection and perceive relatively low The International Council of Scientific Unions benefits from the data they receive in exchange. (ICSU) established an information cooperative Others will be tempted to act as free riders, using that is similar to WWW, the World Data Centres freely available data without contributing propor- (WDCS) (box 4-4), to support international col- tionately to the cost of collecting those data. The laboration in earth and environmental sciences greatest potential disadvantage of an informa- and to archive data gathered during the Intern- tion cooperative is that it impedes the emer- ational Geophysical Year in 1957. These centers, gence of a commercial market for data and of which hold both satellite and nonsatellite data, the financial mechanism of data sales that now constitute a valuable resource for global could give data users leverage over the data- change research. WDCS are generally national collection system. data centers, but not all national data centers are Eumetsat has made the strongest objection to WDCS. The WDC system provides open access to the free exchange of data: if Eumetsat makes its data on the basis of reciprocal data exchange data freely available, nonmember countries will have little incentive to join Eumetsat and pay its among centers. Because of their desire to recover operating costs. This is why Eumetsat plans to en- costs through data sales, however, some countries 39 crypt Meteosat data. In addition, some develop- have reduced their contributions of data to the 40 ing countries have reduced their provision of in WDC system. situ data from weather stations. The countries ar- The model of an information cooperative could gue that the benefit goes mainly to developed also be applied to other areas, such as oceanic and countries, so developed countries should pay a terrestrial monitoring. Programs of the Intern- greater share of the cost. These circumstances ational Oceanography Commission (IOC) could have raised fears for the future of the WWW system. provide the basis for operational exchanges of The possible erosion of the WWW system oceanic data, and programs of the Food and Agri- might not have a great effect on the availability of culture Organization (FAO) and the United Na- satellite data to NOAA. As the leading supplier of tions Environment Programme (UNEP) could such data, NOAA would almost certainly retain provide the basis for exchanging data about the

38 u s. ~]lcy. ~lucldated in Office of Managemen[ and Budget Circular A-130, treats information owned by the federal government as being in the public domain and allows agencies to charge those requesting information only the marginal cost of fulfilling user requests. 39 L. Shaffer and ML. Blazek (“International and Interagency Coordination of NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information SYS- tem,” ERIM Symposium on Remote Sensing and Global Environmental Change, Graz, Austria, Apr. 4-8, 1993) argue that European countries already have substantial reasons to join Eumetsat, including national prestige and the opportunity to have a say in Eumetsat decisions. This may explain why 17 countries already belong to Eumetsat, although Austria’s decision to join is generally attributed to Eumetsat’s encryption policy. 4(I For example, Cmada has stopped providing gmrnagmtic data to the WDC for geomagnetism in Boulder* Colorado. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 119

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1994 terrestrial environment. However, interest in the cooperative involving satellite data of all types. A operational use of these types of data has been rel- broad-based information cooperative may be dif- atively weak and fragmented, so these exchange ficult to achieve at a time when many agencies are mechanisms remain largely unexploited for op- emphasizing cost recovery and potential commer- erational purposes. cial applications of satellite data. Congress may Alternatively, the Committee on Earth Ob- wish to monitor international negotiations that servations Satellites (CEOS) could provide the address the challenge of maintaining open ac- basis for a more comprehensive information cess and exchange of data for operational me- 120 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

teorology programs and for global change re- from the independent choices of independent search. agencies. Even this informal division of labor allows the participants to receive the benefits of a 1 International Specialization and comprehensive remote sensing system without Division of Labor any one group bearing all the costs. For example, Rather than pursue comprehensive remote sens- NASA has been able to reduce its costs for EOS ing programs that go far beyond their means, most based on the commitment of other agencies to per- agencies have little choice but to specialize in one form some of its functions. Specifically, NASA way or another. In some cases, such as NOAA and has eliminated or deferred instruments, such as a Eumetsat, this specialization reflects the scope of SAR and HIRIS, based in part on the fact that Eu- an agency’s missions, but frequently, it reflects rope, Japan, and Canada are flying similar instru- deliberate decisions about where to focus limited ments, though these instruments are less capable resources, particularly in relatively new pro- and less expensive than those NASA would have grams. These decisions are based on a variety of flown .42 NASA could also benefit from the coor- factors, including national and regional needs, dination of atmospheric chemistry missions be- technological strengths and opportunities, and the tween NASA’s EOS Chem and ESA’S Envisat.43 potential for commercialization. Even with some division of labor, however, the For example, ESA’S nonmeteorological remote United States may prefer not to rely too heavily on sensing programs place special emphasis on at- foreign sources of data, especially in technologi- mospheric chemistry and the development of cally promising areas such as SAR and hyperspec - SAR technology and applications. Japan has em- tral land sensing.44 phasized observations of ocean color and dynam- Relying on the current division of labor ics and of coastal zones. Canada has focused on without formal commitments from foreign the application of SAR to monitor snow and ice agencies carries significant risks. These risks cover on land and at sea. Even EOS, which the Na- are twofold. First, an agency could eliminate or tional Aeronautics and Space Administration substantially modify its plans so that it no longer (NASA) originally planned as a comprehensive meets U.S. needs. Second, even if the program system, has been “rescoped” in response to budget continues, the data it produces might not be readi- constraints in order to focus on observations rely available to users in the United States. Al- 41 lated to climate change. Although most agen- though formal agreements can also collapse, they cies have activities outside these core areas, the at least provide assurance of an agency intention tendency toward specialization is real and signifi- and make it more difficult politically for that cant. agency to change direction. This specialization arose in part through the Under a formal division of labor, agencies coordination activities of CEOS and the Earth Ob- would agree to take on specialized functions not servation International Coordination Working only for their individual benefit but for the collec- Group (EO-ICWG) and, more importantly, in part tive benefit of all cooperating agencies. This

~1 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Furure of fi’emole Sensing flom space, op. cit., aPP. B.

42 me Japanese Advmced Spaceborne Therlna] Emission and R-flecdcm Radiometer (ASTER) will fulfill some of the functions ‘of [he canceled HIRIS (High-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer), and the SAR instruments on Europe’s ERS- 1, ERS-2, and En\ isa[ and Canada’s Radarsat will fulfill some of the functions of the canceled EOS SAR. J~ Recornmenda[ion of the EOS payload AdViSOV panel Report, Office of Mission to Planet Earth, National Aeronautics and SpaCc Adnlin- istration, Dec. 17, 1993, p. I I.

44 see the earlier section on international competition. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 121

would permit each agency to limit the scope of its EO-ICWG provides a framework that facilitates programs with some confidence that it would not the implementation of instrument exchanges and at the same time narrow the range of data it might joint projects. The mandate of EO-ICWG is quite receive or the applications it might pursue. broad and includes coordinating plans for future A formal division of labor would require a remote sensing programs. This broad mandate structured mechanism for negotiating and reach- would allow the formation of a joint planning ing agreement on the roles of individual agencies. group responsible for coordinating agency plans. EO-ICWG provides an example of how this might The option of a formalized division of labor work (box 4-5). In its ongoing efforts to coordi- raises two principal issues. First, can one agency nate selected agency programs (table 4-2) into an rely on others to meet its data requirements? For International Earth Observing System (IEOS), example, can NOAA rely on ESA, Eumetsat, and

Country or region Agencies a Satellites United States NASA, NOAA EOS-AM, EOS-PM, EOS-Chem, EOS-Alt, EOS-Aero, POES Europe ESA, Eumetsat Envisat-1 Japan NASDA, JEA, JMA, MITI ADEOS, ADEOS-2 Canada CSA Contributor to Envisat-1 Japan, United States NASA, NASDA TRMM aNASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ESA - European Space Agency NASDA National Space Development Agency, CSA = Canadian Space Agency

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Adminitration, 1994 122 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Japan’s National Space Development Agency labor, it would be clearer what each country re- (NASDA) for atmospheric and oceanic data? The ceived in return for its contributions and there long history of convergence efforts for NOAA and would be a mechanism for addressing the division the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program of costs, but it would be difficult to avoid the ten- (DMSP) polar systems shows the difficulties of dency for each agency to value its own contribu- building confidence even among agencies of the tions more highly than what it receives in return. 45 U.S. government. To build that level Of Confi- Furthermore, some agencies have relatively nar- dence, a formal division of labor requires a formal row charters and would not benefit from the data process through which the agencies that develop they receive from others. For example, Eumetsat and operate remote sensing systems can address might not be willing to make data from METOP the requirements of those who use the data. freely available to Japan in return for ocean data The risks of relying on foreign agencies for re- from ADEOS, which would have relatively little motely sensed data are greatest when the data re- value to Eumetsat’s meteorological mission. quirements are the most demanding, particularly Finally, a division of labor might spread the in terms of operational timeliness and reliability. burden too narrowly among the participating Therefore, the challenge of international coor- agencies, and the pressure would remain to spread dination grows with the transition from research the burden more broadly by restricting data access and demonstration to operational monitoring, and charging others for the use of data. whether for global change research, weather forecasting, or environmental management. To meet particularly critical needs, an agency I International Remote Sensing Agency may provide in-kind contributions of instruments Over the years, several authors have proposed es- or share responsibility for data management. For tablishing an international satellite remote sens- 46 example, NOAA is contributing imagers and ing agency or consortium. These proposals gen- sounders to the European METOP platform. erally envision an organization that is broad-based NASA is providing a scatterometer to measure both in the international scope of its membership sea-surface winds for the Japanese Advanced and in the functional scope of its observations and Earth Observing Satellite (ADEOS) platform and their application. It would collect contributions taking responsibility for processing the data from from national governments and, in turn, make data this instrument. Cash contributions are also pos- and information available to those governments. sible, but nations usually prefer to make in-kind This section considers the assumptions that un- contributions in order to develop and maintain derlie these proposals and summarizes some alter- their own technological capabilities. native approaches. The willingness of agencies to continue bear- Many proposals cite the International Telecom- ing the costs of maintaining and operating a sys- munications Satellite Corporation (Intelsat) as a tem they have developed can also be an issue, es- model for an international satellite monitoring pecially if these costs stand in the way of pursuing consortium. Intel sat provides a mechanism for na- new programs. Eumetsat has moved toward a tional telecommunications services to combine more restrictive data policy in large part to spread resources to pay for satellites that provide interna- its costs more broadly. Under a formal division of tional telecommunications links. National ser-

4S See chapter s for a discussion of convergence. % J.H. McElro~, ‘. INTELSAT, INMARSAT, and CEOS: Is ENVIROSAT Next?” In Space Monim-ing ofG/obu/ Change, G. MacDonald and S. Ride (eds.) (San Diego, CA: Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California, 1993); J. McLucas and P.M. Maughan, “The Case for Envirosat,” Space Policy 4(3):229-239, 1988, Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 123

vices receive access to these links in proportion to ■ How much does each member contribute? For their investment in Intelsat. The International example, members of Eumetsat contribute a Maritime Satellite Organization (Inmarsat) plays percentage of their gross domestic product a similar role for mobile and maritime commu- (GDP). Members of ESA contribute to so- nications. called mandatory programs (mostly operations The Intel sat model may not be directly applica- and overhead) on a percentage-of-GDP basis ble to remote sensing because of the nature of the and to other programs on a voluntary basis. service Intelsat provides. It is much more difficult ● What are the procedures for making deci- for remote sensing than for telecommunications sions? ESA and Eumetsat generally require services to distribute the benefits of a satellite sys- consensus among member agencies. which tem in proportion to contributions. Weather fore- often impedes decisionmaking. In contrast, In- casting and global change research provide intelsat makes decisions like a corporation, on the formation as a public good. Furthermore, invest- basis of a majority of share ownership. The de- ors in Intelsat recoup their costs by charging users cisionmaking process is particularly important for the telecommunications service they provide. in establishing system requirements and Other organizations created for international matching those requirements to available re- cooperation in the noncommercial applications of sources. space technology, such as the European organiza- m What are the policies on data access, for mem- tions ESA and Eumetsat (box 4-6), may provide ber and nonmember governments as well as more appropriate models than Intelsat for an infor private organizations? To create incentives ternational remote sensing organization. Further for membership, ESA and Eumetsat give pref- experience with interagency cooperation through erential access—providing data at reduced the Integrated Program Office, planned as part of cost, in a more timely manner, or in a more the convergence of the Polar-orbiting Operational complete form-to member governments. Environmental Satellite (POES) and DMSP sys- ■ What should the agency buy-satellite systems, may also provide important lessons for tems or data-and from whom? Under its structuring such an organization. “juste retour” policy, ESA spends contract In general, an international remote sensing or- money in a member country in proportion to ganization requires a closer, more formal coopera- that country’s voluntary contribution to ESA. tive structure that could increase both the benefits This policy has been criticized as cumbersome and the risks of cooperation. Compared with an in- and inefficient, but it aims to provide techno- formation cooperative or a formal division of la- logical and economic benefits in proportion to bor, an international organization offers a greater national contributions. Intelsat and Eumetsat ability to share costs broadly and equitably47 and a have no such policies. For now, the absence of more formal method for meeting international re- rules on procurement sources would benefit quirements. It could also lead to the most cumber- U.S. aerospace firms, which hold the techno- some administrative arrangements. An interna- logical lead in many areas. But in the long run, tional agency also requires the greatest degree of this approach might not guarantee a continuing trust among its participants. role for U.S. companies in providing the sys- The effectiveness of an international monitor- tems they currently produce. ing agency will depend on how it deals with sever- m How comprehensive should the agency’s mis- al issues: sion be? Eumetsat focuses on weather and c1i-

47 In p~ncip]e, such an organization could lead tO an unfair distribution of costs. However, it is unlikely to impose a greater relati~’e burden than current arrangements do on the United States. 124 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

mate observations, for example, but most pro- (he synergies between different types of mea- posals envision a comprehensive agency that surements and because measurements often encompasses all aspects of operational remote serve multiple purposes, it makes sense to con- sensing. A comprehensive international sider the requirements of multiple applications agency offers several advantages. Because of simultaneously. 48 Defining a program too nar-

~ Sce chapter 2 NASA Origlna]]y planned t. make Eos a mrnprehmslve system but has since narrowed the intended scow of EOS to focus on climate. EOS is meant to be a research program rather than an operational one, although some of its elements may lead to long-term operations. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 125

rowly may make it more difficult to pursue ap- U.S.-European system based on POES, DMSP, plications that have been left out, and it may ul- and METOP. Because these satellites cover the timately be simpler to administer a single entire planet, however, the agency that supports international program under a single set of pro- them might seek a broad global membership in- cedures than to allow special-purpose organi- corporating systems from Russia, Japan, and, zations to proliferate. possibly, China, although this might make it But a comprehensive international agency also difficult or impossible to exercise control over carries significant drawbacks that limit its feasi- data for national security purposes. The fund- bility for the near term. By maximizing the scope ing formula and benefits of participation could of the proposed agency, one also maximizes the be designed to encourage the broadest possible disadvantages that come with cooperation: ad- membership and to discourage free riders. and ministrative complexity and loss of autonomy. the administrative procedures would have to be Furthermore, some of the participating national relatively simple. For example, the internation- agencies have more restricted missions and would al agency might simply contract with the not be willing to take part in an international United States, Europe, or Russia to provide po- organization with a broader scope. lar satellite services. much like the way Inmar- sat, early in its operation, built on preexisting I Options for a More Specialized capabilities, leasing communications channels International Remote Sensing Agency from satellite operators. A narrowly focused international remote sensing Geostationary satellites have a more limited agency could concentrate its cooperative efforts scope and, therefore, present slightly different on those areas where cooperation may offer great- issues. Rather than contributing to a worldwide er benefits, with less risk of disrupting existing na- agency, members might contribute to regional tional programs. Over time, such an agency could agencies centered on the current U. S., Euro- broaden its mandate if member governments saw pean, and Japanese programs. The central an advantage in doing so. Asian region presents a problem because India The main drawback of embarking on a more fo- has not allowed access to its data, and Russia cused mission is that it could fail to take advantage and China have encountered problems in de- 49 An interregion- of the synergies between various remote sensing ploying satellites of their own. missions and capabilities. For example, an ocean al coordinating body could establish minimum monitoring agency might not give adequate agreed standards for these satellites and simpli- weight to monitoring ocean processes that affect fy data exchange across regions. the climate system. However, in the context of An international climate monitoring agency. currently emerging mechanisms to address these Climate monitoring depends on much of the issues in other ways, this drawback may not be same information as weather forecasting but re- critical. The following are several possible in- quires more precise meteorological measure- ternational agencies with more limited scope: ments as well as a broader range of in format ion. 8 An international weather satellite agency. For example, satellite measurements must be Like NOAA’s satellite programs, this kind of validated by comparison with well-calibrated agency could include both polar and geosta- in situ measurements from around the world. tionary satellites. The polar satellite compo- Climate depends on a range of ocean and land nent might grow out of a future converged processes, so climate monitoring requires ob-

w ~c Ru\slm Geo\[atlc)nam Owrationa] McteOro]Ogi~al Sate]li[e (GOMS) has reportedly been ready for launch sin~c 1992 ~nd ‘nay be awaiting forclgn funding. The C“hlnese FY-2 satellite, \chedulcd for launch in April 1994, was destroyed during ground tefting. 126 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

servation of these processes as well. Climate lite agency would make it more difficult to con- also depends on information about atmospheric trol data for national security purposes. chemistry—the concentration of aerosols and An ocean monitoring agency poses some greenhouse gases—which is not essential for unique problems. One is how to determine na- most other applications of remote sensing.50 tional contributions. An island nation such as A climate monitoring agency, which might Japan is naturally more interested in oceanic in- evolve from the proposed Global Climate Ob- formation than is a landlocked country such as serving System, could function in several Austria, although both could be concerned ways. It could operate satellites to collect only about the influence of oceans on climate. This those data unique to climate studies, such as at- suggests that a division of labor based on vary- mospheric chemistry measurements, while ing degrees of’ interest may be more appropriate maintaining archives of high-quality meteoro- than an international agency. However, the logical data and related land and ocean data ob- formation of an international agency could tained from other sources. This would require sidestep the potential problems of direct coop- the cooperation of other agencies or programs, eration between Japan and the U.S. Navy, given which would collect those data. Alternatively, Japan’s policy to support only nonmilitary ap- climate monitoring could be carried out by a plications of remote sensing.

weather forecasting agency; Eumetsat is con- ● An international land remote sensing agency. sidering expanding its mandate to include cli- Internationally as well as nationally, the prob- mate monitoring. Given the broad national lem of aggregating demand is particularly acute commitments to climate research and the scope for terrestrial monitoring, which involves a va- of international cooperation in global change riety of national and local government agencies research, however, such an agency may not be having overlapping but often quite different re- needed. quirements (see chapter 3). Harmonizing these 8 An international ocean satellite agency. This requirements into a mutually agreed to and af- differs from the weather satellite case in that no fordable basic set presents a considerable chal- operational systems now exist, except as ad- lenge. Terrestrial monitoring also faces the juncts to meteorological systems. An interna- greatest overlap between public and private- 52 tional agency could facilitate the establishment sector interests, as well as civilian and mili- of an operational program by aggregating re- tary interests. An international agency could sources from the various interested agencies. also stifle the development of commercial ven- Because proposed requirements led to high tures in land remote sensing.

costs, the United States has been unable to ■ An international data-purchase consortium. make a commitment to an ocean observing sat- Instead of organizing resources to develop and ellite system, but U.S. participation in an in- operate satellite systems, any international re- ternational system should be more afford- mote sensing agency could accomplish its mis- able.51 Like an international weather satellite sion—whether narrow or comprehensive— agency, however, an international ocean satel- through the purchase of data from commercial

so other sa[e]lite instmmen[s Cm also provide important climate information. These include the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), which measures the balance between incoming solar and outgoing thermal radiation from Earth, and the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), which measures the total energy flux from the sun. 51 For a discussion of U.S. options for ocean monitoring, see chapter 1. 52 me Pub]lc sector tends t. ~ more in[eres(ed in LandSat-type imagery (high spectral resolution, moderate spatial resolution) while the private sector may be more interested in high-spatial-resolution imagery prov ided by SPOT and other proposed commercial ventures, but there is no clear line of demarcation between the two. Chapter 4 International Cooperation and Competition I 127

suppliers. NASA is testing this relatively novel formation sharing. An international agency would arrangement with its purchase of data from the formalize the distribution of costs but would re- Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor (SeaWiFS) quire careful design to avoid becoming excessive- (chapter 3). A data-purchase consortium would ly bureaucratic. then operate a data-management, -processing, Over the years, international cooperation in re- and -distribution system to serve its members, mote sensing has steadily expanded. Initially, the but its greatest challenge could be to aggregate open sharing of meteorological and other environ- and coordinate its members’ data requirements mental data from U.S. satellites strengthened the and to match the needs of its members with the WWW information cooperative. The entry of oth- available resources. The principal advantage of er countries with more restrictive data policies this type of agency is that it would stimulate in- threatens to undermine this tradition, but it could ternational private-sector activity by demon- also lead to a more equal partnership based on an strating a guaranteed demand for the data in international division of labor. Such a partnership question, rather than competing with and po- offers substantial improvements in cost-effective- tentially crowding out private-sector activities. ness, providing the participants can accept a rela- A data-purchase consortium would raise the tively open exchange of data. question of data access by third parties, that is, An international agency seems unlikely under nonmember governments and private compa- current international conditions, but the growth of nies or individuals. mutual trust that could emerge from intermediate Any of these proposed organizations could stages of cooperation might make it seem feasible function independently, with varying degrees of or even inevitable in the future. Because remote cooperation with other programs. They could also sensing systems and programs take decades to de- provide manageable steps on the road toward a velop and mature and because some setbacks and more comprehensive international remote sensing disagreements are inevitable, cooperative rela- agency. tionships will probably evolve through gradual, measured steps. I International Convergence Processes Intergovernmental cooperation stands in contrast to the alternative of relying on the private sec- All of these cooperative arrangements-an in- tor for data and allowing individual agencies to formation cooperative, a formal division of labor, fend for themselves in the private-data market. In or an international agency—face several common principle, these markets should provide an effi- challenges. In each case, decisionmakers must cient system of sharing costs without a cumber- consider the tradeoff between the perceived ad- some organizational structure. As discussed pre- vantages of cooperation—increased effectiveness viously, however, private markets for remote and reduced costs—and the drawbacks—reduced sensing take time to develop and mature and have autonomy and the risks of relying on others. not yet demonstrated that they are economically These approaches to international cooperation viable. Furthermore, reliance on private markets also provide alternative methods of dealing with can discourage investments in remote sensing as a the tradeoff between maintaining a manageable public good. organizational structure and ensuring a fair alloca- tion of the burden of paying for it. An information cooperative requires the least formal structure but 9 Cooperation with Russia allows for the greatest inequity in sharing costs. A The United States and Europe have sought to ex- formal international division of labor could re- pand technological cooperation with Russia, for duce but not eliminate these perceived inequities both practical and political reasons. This coopera- and could restore the attractiveness of open in- tion is a symbol of Russia’s reintegration into the 128 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

53 and provides financial international community ■ Arranging future flights of U.S. TOMS and support to maintain the Russian economy and Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment Russia’s skills in science and technology. But (SAGE) instruments on future Russian Russia’s future, including the stability of its politi- spacecraft. 55 cal relationships and its ability to maintain an am- Congress may wish to explore ways for Rus- bitious space program, remains uncertain. This sia to contribute to improving the robustness of situation increases the risk of relying on Russia for existing operational satellite programs. For ex- important remote sensing needs and imposes lim- ample, Russia’s Meteor satellites could provide its on the scope of current cooperative efforts. valuable backup capability for a converged U.S. In 1993, Vice President Gore and Russian and European satellite system. Similarly, Russia’s Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed several RESURS-O satellites could help fill in possible agreements on U.S.-Russian cooperation in space gaps in the U.S. Landsat system. activities. Although these agreements empha- These projects could provide the basis for Rus- sized Russian participation in an international sia’s gradual integration into international coop- space station, they also included agreements to ex- erative programs in remote sensing. But this in- pand cooperation in earth science and remote 54 tegration must overcome major obstacles and Russia has a long history and important sensing. withstand the test of time. Expanding coopera- capabilities in civilian remote sensing. tion with Russia on remote sensing depends on Building on past cooperative efforts, these steadily growing mutual confidence in Russia’s agreements include several possible projects: political relationships and its ability to main- ■ Strengthening Russia’s data-management lain its programs through difficult economic capabilities. limes. ~ Encouraging Russian participation in international projects of global change research.

s~ U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Data: Technolog-y, Management, und MarketA, Op. cit., box 5-1. .5J Whitc House plan f(jr Russ;an.American cooperati~,e Programs in Earth Science and En\’ironrnentul Monitoring from Spuce, op. cit. 55 me Uni[ed states and Russia have agreed in principle tiat a TOMS instrument will fly on a future Meteor satellite, and negOtlatlOnS fOr the placement of a SAGE instrument are under way. Appendix A: NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth A

ASA established its Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) in the late 1980s as part of its program in earth sciences. MTPE includes the Earth Observing System (EOS), N which would consist of a series of satellites capable of making comprehensive Earth observations from space; a series of Earth Probe satellites for shorter, focused studies: and a complex data-archiving and -distribution system called the Earth Observ- ing System Data and Information system (EOSDIS). In the near term, MTPE research scientists will rely on data gathered by other earth sciences satellites, such as the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS), the U.S.-French TOPEX/Poseidon,l Landsat, and NOAA’s environmental satellites. Data from the EOS sensors may provide information that will reduce many of the scientific uncertainties cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--climate and hydrologic systems, biogeochemical-dynamics, and ecological systems and dynamics.2 NASA designed EOS to provide calibrated data sets, acquired over at least 15 years,3 of environmental processes occurring in the oceans, the atmosphere, and over land.

I Thl~ LJ,S,.French cooWra[ive satellite was successfully launched lntO orbit AUgUSt 10, 1992, aboard an Ariane 4 rocket.

2 me u ,s, G]obal ch~ge Research program, our Ch[inging pkm)r: The J-Y 199/ R~- .\eurch Pl~Jn, a report by the Committee on Earth and En\ ironmenttil Sciences, October I 990. 3 NA$A. has ~rop$ed t. bui]d ~d ]aunch two sets of three wtellites. me fir~t set (called the AM satellite because it will follow a polar orbit and cross the equator every morning ) would be launched in 1998, 2003, and 2008. The second jet (called the PM sat- 1129 ellite) would be launched in 2(X)0. 2005, and 2010. 130 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

EOS is the centerpiece of NASA’s contribution vide observations of specific phenomena. Most of to the Global Change Research Program. Man- these satellites pre-date the EOS program and are aged by NASA’s newly created Mission to Planet funded separately. UARS, which has already pro- Earth Office,4 EOS is to be a multiphase program vided measurements of high levels of ozone-de- that would last about two decades. The original stroying chlorine oxide above North America, is EOS plan called for NASA to build a total of six an example of an EOS Phase I instrument. large polar-orbiting satellites, which would fly NASA’s EOS plans also include three smaller sat- two at a time in 5-year intervals over a 15-year pe- ellites (Chemistry, Altimeter, and Aero) that riod. In 1991, funding constraints and concerns would observe specific aspects of atmospheric over technical and budgetary risks narrowed chemistry, ocean topography, and tropospheric EOS’S scope. winds. In addition, NASA plans to include data The core of the restructured EOS consists of from its Earth Probes and from additional copies three copies each of two satellites (smaller than of sensors that monitor ozone and ocean produc- those originally proposed and capable of being tivity in EOSDIS. launched by an Atlas II-AS booster), which would NASA will develop EOSDIS6 so that the sys- observe and measure events and chemical con- tem can store and distribute data to many users si- centrations associated with environmental and multaneously. This is a key feature of the EOS climate change. NASA plans to place these satel- program. According to NASA, data from the EOS lites, known as the EOS-AM satellite (which satellites would be available to a wide network of would cross the equator in the morning while on users at minimal cost to researchers through EOS- its ascending, or northward, path) and the EOS- 1>1S. NASA plans to make EOSDIS a user-friend- PM satellite (an afternoon equatorial crossing), in ly, high-capacity, flexible data system that will polar orbits. The three AM satellites would carry provide multiple users with timely data and that an array of sensors designed to study clouds, aero- will facilitate the data-archiving process critical to sols, Earth’s energy balance, and surface proc- global change research. EOSDIS will require sub- esses. The PM satellites would take measure- stantial amounts of memory and processing. as ments of clouds, precipitation, energy balance, well as extremely fast communications capabili- snow, and sea ice. ties. NASA plans to launch several “Phase I“ satellites in the early and mid- 1990s that would pro-

q cr~~t~d in March 1993 When tie o fflce of space science and Applications was split into the Office of Mission tO pkU’M Earth, tie OffIce of Planetary Science and Astrophysics, and the Office of Life Sciences. 5 National Research Comci], “RepO~ of he Earth observing System (EOS) Engineering Review committee,” SePternber 1991. 6 Hughes Information Technology won the contract to develop the EOSDIS core sYStern in l~z. Appendix B: Survey of National and International Programs B

he level of international activity in remote sensing has grown steadily since the first TIROS weather satellite in 1960. The extent of cooperation among these agency programs has grown in tandem with the increasing number T l of national and regional agencies that have undertaken remote sensing programs. Nations pursue remote sensing programs for both their direct utility and the technological development they stimulate. Remote sensing. therefore, also involves an element of international competition for technological advantage in national security, national prestige, and commercial markets for remote sensing systems and data.

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS AND PLANS This section focuses on the remote sensing programs of non-U.S. agencies (tables B-1 and B-2)2; see chapter 3 for descriptions of the main U.S. programs. Figure B-1 summarizes the existing and proposed U.S. and non-U.S. remote sensing systems. Europe. The French space agency, CNES (Centre National d’Études Spatiales), has the largest national remote sensing program in Europe. CNES was the first European agency to develop and deploy a remote sensing system, the commercially operated

I Here ~TA is ~jlng the terl~l ~i4qtJr1(} [O refer both to national agencies such as NASA and N“OAA and to regional organ ization~ such as the European Space Agency and Eumet- %lt, 2 For more de[aili, see U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment, The Future of Rem{jte .Sen ~ ing frcml .Ypd(c: ~“i~li[un Sutellite S>YfcmS c~nd Appllcutions, OTA- I 131 ISC-588 (W’a\hington, DC: LT.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993). 132 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

a Platform Country — Year Function — Landsat 4 United States 1982 Land remote sensing Landsat 5 United States 1984 Land remote sensing NOAA-1 1 United States 1988 Meteorology (polar) NOAA-1 2 United States 1991 Meteorology (polar) GOES-7 United States 1987 Meteorology (GEO) GOES-8 United States 1994 Meteorology (GEO) UARS United States 1991 Atmospheric chemistry SPOT 1 France 1986 Land remote sensing SPOT 2 France 1990 Land remote sensing SPOT 3 France 1993 Land remote sensing Meteosat 3 Europe 1988 Meteorology (GEO) Meteosat 4 Europe 1989 Meteorology (GEO) Meteosat 5 Europe 1991 Meteorology (GEO) Meteosat 6 Europe 1993 Meteorology (GEO) ERS-1 Europe 1991 SAR and ocean dynamics TOPEX/Poseidon United States/France 1992 Ocean dynamics GMS-4 Japan 1989 Meteorology (GEO) MOS-1b Japan 1990 Land and ocean color JERS-1 Japan 1992 SAR and land remote sensing IRS la India 1988 Land remote sensing IRS 1 b India 1991 Land remote sensing INSAT IIa India 1992 Meteorology (GEO) and telecommunications INSAT Ilb India 1993 Meteorology (GEO) and telecommunications Meteor 2 Russia 1975 (series) Meteorology (polar) Meteor 3 Russia 1984 (series) Meteorology (polar) Okean-0 Russia 1986 (series) Ocean Resurs-0 Russia 1985 (series) Land a GEO = geostationary Earth orbit, SAR = synthetic aperture radar SOURCE: Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) 1993 Dossier--Volume A, 1993

SPOT (Systeme Pour l’Observation de la Terre) the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eu- satellite system. 3 France is also developing the metsat; box 4-6). ESA currently operates ERS- 1 Helios reconnaissance satellite, which may have and is preparing ERS-2 for launch in early 1995. civil as well as military applications. Germany, These are part of an ambitious long-term plan that Italy, and the United Kingdom also have substan- includes Envisat-1, now under development for tial remote sensing programs. launch in 1998, and as yet unspecified future sys- A large portion of Europe’s remote sensing ac- tems. Eumetsat operates the geosynchronous Me- tivities take place through the European Space teosat weather satellite system and is developing Agency (ESA) and the European Organisation for the polar platform METOP-1 for launch in 2000

3 Al~ough SpOT is ~Frated Commercially through SpOT Image, it con(inues to receive subsidies from CNES, which pays tie costs of developing, procuring, and launching new satellites and owns a 40 percen[ share of SPOT Image. Appendix B Survey of National and International Programs I 133

a Platform Country Year Function . NOAA-J United States 1-994 ’-- Meteorology (polar) NOAA-K United States 1996 Meteorology (polar) NOAA-L United States 1997 Meteorology (polar) NOAA-M United States 1999 Meteorology (polar) NOAA-N United States 2000 Meteorology (polar) GOES-J United States 1995 Meteorology (GEO) GOES-K United States 1999 Meteorology (GEO) GOES-L United States 2000 Meteorology (GEO) TOMS Earth United States 1995 Atmospheric chemistry Probe EOS AM-1 United States 1998 Climate, atmospheric chemistry, ocean color, land remote sensing EOS PM-1 United States 2000 Climate and meteorology EOS Aero-1 United States 2000 Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols EOS CHEM United States 2002 Atmospheric chemistry, solar ultraviolet, trace gases, ozone EOS Color United States 1998 Ocean color Landsat 7 United States 1998 Land remote sensing SeaStar United States 1995 Ocean color WorldView United States/ 1994 High-resolution land remote sensing Commercial TRMM United States/ 1997 Climate and tropical precipitation Japan Meteosat 7 Europe 1995 Meteorology (GEO) Meteosat 8 Europe 2000 Meteorology (GEO) METOP Europe 2000 Meteorology (polar) SPOT 4 France 1996 Land remote sensing ERS-2 Europe 1994-95 SAR, ocean dynamics, atmospheric chemistry Envisat- 1 Europe 1998 SAR, atmospheric chemistry, ocean dynamics and color Radarsat Canada 1995 SAR GMS-5 Japan 1994 Meteorology (GEO) ADEOS Japan 1996 Oceans, climate, and atmospheric chemistry GOMS Russia 1994 Meteorology (GEO) Almaz-1B Russia 1996 SAR Almaz-2 Russia 1999 SAR IRS-1 C India 1994 Land remote sensing IRA-1 d India 1996 Land remote sensing MECB SSR-1 Brazil 1996 Land remote sensing (vegetation) MECB SSR-2 Brazil 1997 Land remote sensing (vegetation) a GEO= geostationary Earth orbit SAR = synthetic aperture radar SOURCE Committee on Earth Observayion Satellites (CEOS) 1993 Dossier—Vohxne A, 1993 134 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 135 06 c)7 METEOR-2 Series LANDSAT 4, 5 I,J METEOR-3 Series — In serwce RESURS-O Series Firm/approved, proposed OKEAN-O Series ~~~~~~ Extension beyond planned Ilfetlme SPOT 1 GOES 7 IRS-la METEOSAT 3, 4, 5 NOAA 11-12 GMS-4 SPOT 2 MOS1b ERS-1 IRS-lb UARS JERS-1 INSAT Series TOPEX/POSEIDON STELLA I SPOT 3 4 METEOSAT 6, 7 (8) +1 GOMS Series IRS-I C IRS-P2 GMS-5 NOAA J SeaStar GOES I-M PRIRODA TOMS Earth Probe ERS-2 IRS-P3 RADARSAT 1’ ALMAZ-1 B SPOT 4 ADEOS NOAA K-N CBERS-1 IRS 1-d TRMM 1’ TOMS Earth Probe ENVISAT-1 CBERS-2 EOS-AM 1, 2, 3 I EOS COLOR LANDSAT 7 ALMAZ-2 ADEOS II MSG Series SPOT 5 I EOS-AERO 1-5 I BEST J HIROS J METOP Series I EOS-PM 1, 2, 3 SPOT RADAR EOS-CHEM 1,2, 3 EOS-ALT 1,2,3

- —- I I 1 L SOURCE Committee on Earth Observations Satellites, 1993 iAppendix B Survey of National and International Programs 1135

Instrument Agency or governmenta AATSR-Advanced A-long-Track Scanning Radiometer U. K., Australia AMSU-A—Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit NOM ASCAT—Advanced Scatterometer ESA AVHRR/3—Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer NOM GOMI—Global Ozone Monitoring Instrument ESA HIRS/3—High Resolution Infrared Sounder NOM IAS1—infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer CNES/ASl MHS—Microwave Humidity Sounder Eumetsat MIMR—Multifrequency Imaging Microwave Radiometer ESA ScaRaB—Scanner for Earth’s Radiation Budget CNES/DARA SEM—Space Environment Monitor NOM

a NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ESA = European Space Agency, CNES/ASl = Centre National d'Études Spatiales/Agenza Spaziale Italiana, CNES/DARA = CNES/Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtsangelegenhelit.

SOURCE Committee on Earth Observation Satetellites (CEOS) 1993 Dossier—Vo/ume A, 1993

(table B-3). The European Union is also involved commercial data sales to foreign governments, al- in remote sensing applications and data manage- though the United States will receive free access ment. to Radarsat data in exchange for providing launch Japan. Japan launched its remote sensing pro- services. grams with the Geosynchronous Meteorological Russia. Russia continues several series of sat- Satellite (GMS) series, which began in 1977. ellites inherited from the Soviet Union for observ- Since then, Japan has concentrated on ocean re- ing weather, oceans, and land. This includes the mote sensing, with the infrared and ocean-color Meteor-2 and Meteor-3 series of polar weather sensors on the Marine Observation Satellites satellites, the Okean-O series of low-resolution (MOS-1) and the imaging radar on the Japan Earth ocean observing satellites, and the Resurs-F and Resources Satellite (JERS-1).4 Japan’s remote Resurs-O series of moderate-resolution land re- sensing plans include the Advanced Earth Ob- mote sensing satellites. These series have been servation Satellite (ADEOS), with an internation- quite stable, although the satellites often have al suite of instruments for observing the oceans, short lives or use old technologies. Russia has also atmospheric chemistry, and land surface, and the deployed the Almaz-1 radar satellite and is prepar- joint Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission ing a follow-on Almaz-1b. Since 1992, Russia has (TRMM) with NASA. listed its first Geosynchronous Operational Mete- Canada. Canada has contributed search-and- orological Satellite (GOMS) as ready for launch, rescue instruments to NOAA polar satellites and but funds for this launch have not been forth- plans to deploy Radarsat, its first remote sensing coming. satellite, in 1995. Radarsat will provide synthetic Russian enterprises have attempted to sell data aperture radar (SAR) data for operational pur- from the Resurs-F and Resurs-O series and from poses—mainly for monitoring sea ice cover—and Almaz-1 but have had difficulty meeting commer- for research. The Canadian Space Agency hopes cial demand for timeliness and reliability. Russia to recover some of its operational costs through has also begun offering 2-m resolution land imag-

4 JERS- ] encountered prob]em~ witi i[s antenna and power systems and produces low-quality data. 136 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

ery from intelligence satellites and is reportedly from polar and geostationary meteorological sat- considering offering still higher-resolution imag- ellites. ery.5 India. India has the most active remote sensing JOINT SATELLITE PROJECTS program among developing countries. Telecom- Joint satellite projects are a growing form of in- munications satellites in the Insat series carry a ternational cooperation in remote sensing. Typi- Very High Resolution Radiometer (VHRR) for cally, these projects involve one agency providing cloud cover and infrared images. The Indian Re- instruments for a satellite being developed by mote Sensing (IRS) satellite series, similar to another agency. Joint satellite projects have paved Landsat but with lower resolution and fewer the way for many countries to enter the field of re- bands, is part of India’s commitment to technolog- mote sensing through relatively modest initial ical self-sufficiency. Except for wind data derived steps, which, over the years, has led to more equal from Insat, these data have not been available out- international partnerships. Other forms of partner- side India, but the Indian Space Research Orga- ship include providing launch services and coop- nization (ISRO) recently signed an agreement erating on data management. The partnerships with the U.S. firm EOSAT to market IRS imagery also require coordination in such areas as export outside India.6 controls, the operation of satellite ground stations, China. China has deployed the FY-1 (Feng and the exchange of data. Yun—’’Wind and Cloud”) series of experimental NOAA Polar Series. Canada, France, and polar weather satellites and has developed a geo- Britain have contributed instruments to NOAA synchronous weather satellite (FY-2) as well, but polar satellites for search and rescue, data relay, neither has been very successful.7 In 1988, China and stratospheric temperature soundings. and Brazil signed an agreement to develop two TOMS. The Total Ozone Mapping Spectrome- China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellites ter was developed by NASA and has flown on a (CBERS-1 and 2) for observing land and vegeta- variety of platforms, including the Russian Me- tion, but no firm plans have yet emerged. teor 3 series. It will also fly on the planned Japa- Brazil. In addition to working with China on nese ADEOS satellite and a future Meteor 3. The CBERS-1 and 2, Brazil has deployed a data-relay negotiations for placing the first TOMS on Meteor satellite for collecting environmental data from were complicated by export restrictions on radi- remote ground stations and is developing a fol- ation-resistant electronics included in TOMS. low-on satellite with a camera for vegetation mon- TOPEX/Poseidon. This joint mission be- itoring. tween NASA and CNES provides accurate mea- South Africa. South Africa is developing the surements of ocean topography and, indirectly, lightweight Greensat for commercial sale, with ocean current. NASA and CNES provided instru- both civilian and military applications. ments and NASA built, assembled, and operates Ground Segment. Many countries are active the spacecraft, which was launched by a French in the applications of remote sensing through the Ariane rocket. operation of ground stations for collecting and TRMM. Japan’s National Space Development processing satellite data from Landsat, SPOT, Agency (NASDA) is providing a Precipitation ERS-1, and JERS-1. Hundreds of ground stations Radar for NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measurement around the world receive data of various kinds Mission.

.— 5 B. lonatta, “Russia Expected To Raise Ante in Satellite Image Market,” Space Netis, Apr. 18-24, 1994, p. 18. ~ EOSAT press release, Feb. 28, 1994.

7 chin~’~ P{)ltir \a(cl]ites ~]] failed within a few months of launch, and its first geosynchronous satellite was destroyed during ground test ing. Appendix B Survey of National and International Programs I 137

ADEOS. In addition to NASA’s TOMS instru- no legal authority over its members, and works to ment. the Japanese ADEOS will carry a NASA achieve consensus on a range of issues that focus scatterometer and the POLDER instrument pro- on data policy. The committee also provides a fo- vided by CNES to measure greenhouse gases and rum for its members to discuss these and other is- acrosols. sues with its affiliates, which are international or- ASTER. The Japanese Advanced Spaceborne ganizations of users of remotely sensed data. In Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer recent meetings, CEOS has focused on data poli- (ASTER). a moderate-resolution land imager, cies designed to promote global change research will fly on EOS AM-1. and operational uses for remote sensing. METOP. Eumetsat plans for METOP grew out EO-ICWG. The Earth Observation Interna- of international discussions on sharing the cost tional Coordination Working Group (box 4-5) burden of polar weather satellites. Because of the grew out of remote sensing programs originally need to coordinate with NOAA and because of associated with the international space station Eumetsat’s relative inexperience in satellite de- program but has since become independent of that velopment, METOP will be the most heavily in- program. It aims to coordinate the details of se- ternational remote sensing satellite in history, lected major Earth observation platforms of its with instruments provided by eight separate na- member agencies (table 4-2) into an International tional and European agencies (table B-3). Plans Earth Observation System (IEOS). EO-ICWG has for cooperation depend on future agreements be- reached formal agreement on data policics for tween NOAA and Eumetsat about data-access these IEOS platforms, which would form the basis 8 policy and encryption. for binding agreements applying to specific joint projects. These policies do not apply to platforms INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS such as METOP that are not part of IEOS, al- Several organizations have arisen to promote though such platforms could be included at a later cooperation between government agencies in re- date. mote sensing. Some of these organizations ad- WMO/WWW. The World Weather Watch of dress remote sensing comprehensively, while oth- the World Meteorological Organization is a coop- ers deal with specific applications of remote erative program for worldwide sharing of meteo- sensing. Though they operate with varying de- rological data and information. It operates grees of formality, they all offer mechanisms for through the voluntary cooperation of its members voluntary cooperation among the national and re- to collect, transmit, and process meteorological gional member agencies. g data from satellites and a variety of in situ sources CEOS. The Committee on Earth Observation and to disseminate meteorological forecast prod- Satellites (box B-1: figure B-2) grew out of a 1984 ucts. The WWW depends on a longstanding tradi- summit of the Group of Seven Industrialized Na- tion of open and timely sharing of meteorological tions. It was created to improve coordination data (box 4-3). among those countries’ remote sensing programs. CGMS. The Coordination Group for Meteoro- Its membership has since expanded to include all logical Satellites was founded in 1972 to harmo- the major remote sensing agencies in the world nize the operations of geosynchronous meteoro- (table B-4). CEOS is a voluntary association, with logical satellites in connection with the WMO’S

x SCC ch:iptcr -$,

9 SW [1.S. Congrc\\, Offlcc of Technology As\e\smcnt, Remotcl] SetI.\d D{Ira: Tccllnolocq), W~JrI~J,q[JI~ItIIr, ~~nd ,tfur/wr\, OTAISS-6(M ( W’;i\hington. 1)(’ L“. S. (iot emment Printing Office, August 1994), ch. 5, for more dctuiled kwriptions of mm) of these or:wl]/;ltion\, 138 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP). IOC. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic The mandate of CGMS has since expanded to in- Commission is a U. N.-affiliated organization that elude polar satellites as well. 10 CGMS provides a promotes international cooperation in oceano- forum in which international issues in the conver- graphic research. Several data centers around the gence of weather satellites can be addressed. world serve as archives for oceanographic data,

10 me ~rigina] name of CGMS was tie Coordination of Geosynchronous Meteorological Satellites group. For more details, see Us. (Don- gress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management,andMarkets, OTA-ISS-604(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994). . . .

Appendix B Survey of National and International Programs I 139

n\ A-J L“- ) A I I

u-( a n ESA and Eumetsat members I

SOURCE Committee on Earth Observallors Satel’ltes, 1994 including remotely sensed data, and take part in use satellite data, GEMS and GRID do not have the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Data Ex- the resources to support operational satellite data- change (IODE) program. gathering activities. UNEP. The United Nations Environment Pro- FAO. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Orga- gramme supports two related programs that use nization also supports programs that use remotely remotely sensed data. The Global Environmental sensed data in agriculture, forestry, and environ- Monitoring System (GEMS) collects information mental monitoring. The Global Information Earl y to support international environmental protection Warning Network uses satellite imagery and na- and management programs. The Global Resource tional crop reports to provide early warning of Information Database (GRID) serves as an ar- possible famine conditions. The Forest Resource chive with 10 centers on five continents that pro- Assessment program aims to provide an updated vide environmental data to natural resource man- inventory of tropical forests every 10 years. agers around the world. Although they frequently 140 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

Members Observers Affiliates National Aeronautics and Space Norwegian Space Centre (NSC) International Council of Scientific Administration (NASA) Unions (SCU) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Belgian Office of Science and Technol- International Geosphere-Biosphere Admmistration (NOAA) ogy (BOST) Programme (IGBP) Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Commission of the European Commu- World Climate Research Programme European Space Agency (ESA) nity (C EC) (WCRP) European Organisation for the Ex- Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Global Climate Observing System ploitation of Meteorological Satel- (CCRS) (GCOS) Iites (Eumetsat) Crown Research Institute (CRl)/New Global Ocean Observing System Centre National D’Études Spatiales Zealand (GOOS) (CNES) (France) United Nations Environment Pro- British National Space Centre gramme (UNEP) (BNSC) Intergovernmental Oceanographic: Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtan- Commission (IOC) gelegenheit (DARA) (Germany) World Meteorological Organisation Agenzla Spaziale Italiano (ASI) (WMO) (Italy) Food and Agriculture Organization Swedish National Space Board (FAO) (SNSB) Science and Technology Agency (STA) (Japan) Russian Space Agency (RSA) Russian Committee for Hydrome- teorology and Environment Monitor- ing (Rosgidromet) National Space Agency of Ukraine Chinese Academy of Space Technology (CAST) National Remote Sensing Centre of China (NRSCC) Indian Space Research Organisa- tion (SRO) Commonwealth Scienific and In- dustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (Australia) Instituto Nacional de Pesequias Es- pacials (INPE) (Brazil) SOURCE Committee on Earth Observations Satellites Appendix B Survey of National and International programs I 141

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS plify or moderate climate change, and other im- In addition to the intergovernmental and U. N.-af- portant areas of global change). IGBP projects and filiated organizations that use remotely sensed proposals are beginning to influence national re- data. international scientific organizations’ have search programs. The Human Dimensions of developed research programs involving the use of Global Environmental Change Programme remotely sensed data. Although these programs (HDP), founded in 1991. studies the interactions often involve U. N.-affiliated organizations, they between environmental change and human condi- rely for their effectiveness on personal contacts tions and activities. and an international imprimatur to influence the In addition to these process-oriented programs, research agendas of national research agencies. 12 scientists are pursuing several international pro- The World Climate Research Programme grams to address the related need for long-term (WCRP), founded in 1972, focuses on geophysi- monitoring to assess the state of the global envi- cal aspects of climate change. WCRP projects ronment and its rate of change. 15 These programs such as the World Ocean Circulation Experiment would also address the needs of natural resource (WOCE), the Global Energy and Water Cycle Ex- managers around the world for operational satel- periment (GEWEX), and the Tropical Oceans lite data. The evolving concepts for the Global Global Atmosphere (TOGA)13 form the core of Climate Observing System (GCOS), the Global the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Ocean Observing System (GOOS), and the Glob- International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme al Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) will in- (IGBP) was founded in 1986 to address the gaps in volve a mixture of improvements in existing op- WCRP (specifically, the biogeochemical interac- erational systems and the development of tions that are critical to understanding the effects dedicated new systems. of climate change, the feedbacks] 4 that could am-

11 These are the 1ntematlonal Councll of Sclentlfic Unions (] CSU), which includes nationtil science iicadenlles such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as members, and the International Social Science Council (ISSC), which include, national wcial science organizations such as the U.S. Social Science Research Council.

12 See us, Congress, Offlce of Technology Assessment, Remotel> Sensed Data: Technolo8>, kfuna~emcnl. and )$’furkef.\, op. cit., box 5-9 for more information on these research programs.

I ~ TOGA aims tO monitor and model the El Niho phenomenon.

14 The ~tentlal magni[ude of Warning from the emission of greenhouse gases depends on a variet~’ of feedback effects, ~onle of which ink ol~’e the reaction of natural ecosystems to changes in climate and atmospheric chemistry. See U.S. Congre\\, Office of Technolo: y Assess- ment, OTA-BP-ISC- 122, Global Change Research and NASA’S Eurrh Obser\ing S?.stem (Washington, DC U.S. Got cmment Printing Office. November 1993). 15 ~oce~~-orien(ed research aims t. understand the basic phyfical, biological, and chemical procesws that underlie ~lobal environmental change. Research monitoring aims to provide high-quality measurements to detect subtle change\ in the crl(ica] lndicator~ of global change. Operational monitoring aims to use the data for day-to-day environmental and rewmrce mimagemcnt decisions. Appendix C: Convergence of U.S. POES c Systems

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON May 5, 1994

PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE/NSTC-2

TO: The Vice President The Secretary of State The Secretary of Defense The Secretary of Commerce The Director, Office of Management and Budget The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs The Assistant to the President for Science and Technology The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy SUBJECT: Convergence of U.S.-Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Systems

1. Introduction The United States operates civil and military polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems which collect, process, and distribute remotely-sensed meteorological, oceanographic, and space environmental data. The Department of Commerce is responsible for the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) program and the Department of Defense is responsible for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), through its Earth Observing System (EOS-PM) development efforts, provides new remote sensing and spacecraft technologies that could potentially improve the capabilities of the operational system. While the civil and military missions of POES and DMSP remain unchanged, establishing a single, converged, operational system can reduce duplication of efforts in meeting common requirements while satisfying the unique requirements of the civil and national security communities. A converged system can accommodate international cooperation, including the open distribution of environmental data.

142 I Appendix C Convergence of U.S. POES Systems I 143

Il. Objectives and Principles The United States will seek to reduce the cost of acquiring and operating polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems, while continuing to satisfy U.S. operational requirements for data from these systems. The Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense will integrate their programs into a single, converged, national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system. Additional savings may be achieved by incorporating appropriate aspects of NASA’s Earth Observing System. The converged program shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles: Operational environmental data from polar-orbiting satellites are important to the achievement It of U.S. economic, national security, scientific, and foreign policy goals. Assured access to operational environmental data will be provided to meet civil and nation 11 security requirements and international obligations. The United States will ensure its ability to selectively deny critical environmental data to an adversary during crisis or war yet ensure the use of such data by U.S. and Allied military forces. Such data will be made available to other users when it no longer has military utility. The implementing actions will be accommodated within the overall resource and policy guidance of the President.

III. Implementing Actions a. Interagency Coordination 1. Integrated Program Office (IPO) The Departments of Commerce and Defense and NASA will create an Integrated Program Office (IPO) for the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system no later than Oc- tober 1, 1994. The IPO will be responsible for the management, planning. development, fabrica- tion, and operations of the converged system. The IPO will be under the direction of a System Program Director (SPD) who will report to a triagency Executive Committee via the Department of Commerce’s Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. 2. Executive Committee (EXCOM) The Departments of Commerce and Defense and NASA will forma convergence EXCOM at the Under Secretary level. The members of the EXCOM will ensure that both civil and national security requirements are satisfied in the converged program, will coordinate program plans, budgets. and policies, and will ensure that agency funding commitments are equitable and sustained. The three member agencies of the EXOM will develop a process for identifying, validating, and docu- menting observational and system requirements for the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system. Approved operational requirements will define the converged system baseline which the IPO will use to develop agency budgets for research and development, system acquisitions. and operations. b. Agency Responsibilities 1. Department of Commerce The Department of Commerce, through NOAA, will have lead agency responsibility to the EX- COM for the converged system. NOAA will have lead agency responsibility to support the IPO for satellite operations. NOAA will nominate the System Program Director who will be approved by the EXCOM. NOAA will also have the lead responsibility for interfacing with national and 144 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

international civil user communities, consistent with national security and foreign policy requirements.

2. Department of Defense The Department of Defense will have lead agency responsibility to support the IPO in major system acquisitions necessary to the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system. DOD will nominate the Principal Deputy System Program Director who will be approved by the System Program Director. 3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA will have lead agency responsibility to support the IPO in facilitating the development and insertion of new cost effective technologies that enhance the ability of the converged system to meet its operational requirements. c. International Cooperation Plans for and implementation of a national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system will be based on U.S. civil and national security requirements. Consistent with this, the United States will seek to implement the converged system in a manner that encourages cooperation with foreign governments and international organizations. This cooperation will be conducted in support of these requirements in coordination with the Department of State and other interested agencies. d. Budget Coordination Budgetary planning estimates, developed by the IPO and approved by the EXCOM, will serve as the basis for agency annual budget requests to the President. The IPO planning process will be consistent with agencies’ internal budget formulation. IV. Implementing Documents a. The “Implementation Plan for a Converged Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System” provides greater definition to the guidelines contained within this policy directive for creating and conducting the converged program. b. By October 1, 1994, the Departments of Commerce and Defense and NASA will conclude a triagency memorandum of agreement which will formalize the details of the agencies’ integrated working relationship, as defined by this directive, specifying each agency’s responsibilities and commitments to the converged system.

V. Reporting Requirements a. By November 1, 1994, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, and NASA will submit an integrated report to the National Science and Technology Council on the implementation status of the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system. b. For the fiscal year 1996 budget process, the Departments of Commerce and Defense and NASA will submit agency budget requests based on the converged system, in accordance with the mile- stones established in the Implementation Plan. c. For fiscal year 1997 and beyond, the IPO will provide, prior to the submission of each fiscal year’s budget, an annual report to the National Science and Technology Council on the status of the national polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system. Appendix D: A Brief Policy History of Landsat D

fter winning a policy dispute with the Department of the Interior (DOI) over which agency should operate a land remote sensing satellite, 1 NASA developed the Landsat system during the 1970s, made the data widely available A 2 at low cost, and funded a variety of demonstration projects. Af- ter determining that the system was ready for operational status, Congress and the Carter Administration decided to transfer operational control to NOAA, which had a successful history of managing the weather satellites. Eventually, experts believed, remote sensing technology and the user base would mature to the point that private firms could fund, develop, and operate their own remote sensing systems for government and private markets. In their view, additional experience with the 30-m-resolution data from Landsats 4 and 5 would help pave the way. In the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration attempted to hasten the commercialization process by transferring to a private firm operational control of the satellite and responsibility for collecting and marketing data. In 1983 and 1984, Congress held a series of hearings on the issue, concluded that Landsat was ready for a phased transfer to private-sector development and operation, and passed the Landsat Commercialization Act in 1984.3 After holding a competition, NOAA selected the Earth Observation Satellite Company (EOSAT) in 1985. NOAA retained overall responsibility for system operation. Administration officials

‘ P, Mack. L’[cM In<: the Ear?h: The Sociul Construction of the Landsal Satell\te S>stem (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Prcw, 199(1), ch. 5. 2 Data were either free or delivered at the co~t of reproduction. I 145 s P,L. 98.365 ( I 5 U.S. C, 4201, et seq.). 146 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

and Congess expected that EOSAT, assisted by Landsat 7 would leave SPOT Image in control of the value-added industry, would be able to gener- the international market for remotely sensed data ate sufficient market for data to assume full re- from spacecraft. sponsibility for funding future Landsat satellites. As a result of these and other pressures to con- According to the plan, government officials tinue collecting Landsat data, in 1992, the Admin- would work with EOSAT to develop Landsat 6 istration, with the strong support of Congress, and 7, which EOSAT would operate. EOSAT moved to transfer operational control of the Land- would put some of its capital at risk by providing sat system from NOAA and EOSAT to DOD and partial funding for both satellites, each of which NASA. Under the Landsat management plan ne- would be designed to last 5 years. In 1985, offi- gotiated between DOD and NASA, DOD would cials expected that Landsat 6 would be ready for have funded development of the spacecraft and its launch in 1990 or 1991, followed 5 years later by instruments and NASA was to fund construction the launch of Landsat 7. of the ground-data processing and operations sys- During the late 1980s, Congress, the Adminis- tems, operate the satellite, and provide for dis- tration, and EOSAT made several abortive at- tribution of Landsat data. The Land Remote-Sens- tempts to find a funding plan acceptable to all par- ing Policy Act of 1992,5 passed by Congress and ties. Although the Landsat Commercialization signed into law in October 1992, codified the Act supported the concept of providing sufficient management plan6 and provided for approximate- subsidy to ensure commercial success of the pro- ly equal funding for the operational life of Landsat gram, the operation of Landsat was nearly termi- 7. The act reaffirmed Congress’s interest in the nated several times for lack of a few million dol- “continuous collection and utilization of land re- lars in operating funds. Ultimately, the three mote sensing data from space” in the belief that parties resolved the confused commercialization such data are of ● ’major benefit in studying and un- effort by agreeing to develop only Landsat 6, to be derstanding human impacts on the global environ- launched in 1992. The federal government pro- ment, in managing the Earth’s natural resources, vided most of the funding for Landsat 6. Assum- in carrying out national security functions, and in ing that Landsat 6 successfully reached orbit and planning and conducting many other activities of operated as designed, this plan still left the United scientific, economic, and social importance.”7 States with the prospect of entering the late 1990s Initial NASA and DOD plans called for Land- with no capability to collect Landsat data. Three sat 7 to carry an Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus, circumstances helped convince government offi- an improved version of the Enhanced Thematic cials of the importance of continuing to provide Mapper that was aboard the failed Landsat 6 (table Landsat data. First, multispectral data from Land- 3-3). Later, the two agencies began to consider insat and France’s Systéme pour l’Observation de la cluding a new multispectral sensor, the High Res- Terre (SPOT) proved extremely important in the olution Multispectral Stereo Imager (HRMSI). 1992 Gulf War. These data provided the basis for Cost estimates for developing, launching, and op- creating up-to-date maps of the Persian Gulf.4 erating Landsat 7 for 5 years equaled $880 mil1ion Second, global change researchers began to real- (1992 dollars). Including the HRMSI sensor on ize how important Landsat data are for following the spacecraft would have cost an additional $400 environmental changes. Third, failing to develop million for procurement of the instrument and the

4 Maps ~d ~~er data ~roduct5 made from these civi]ian sys[ems have the advantage that they can be shared amOng U.S. allies in a conflict.

5 P. L. 102-555, 106 Stat. 4163-4180. (1 ] 5 USC 56] 1.

7 15 U.S.C. 5601, Sec. 2. Findings. Appendix D A Brief Policy History of Landsat I 147

ground operations equipment. Because of the high sulting Landsat 7 budget shortfall. As a result of data rates expected for the HRMSI, operating the their disagreement over the Landsat 7 require- sensor would have added significant costs to ments and budget, NASA and DOD subsequently NASA’s yearly ground operations budget. decided that each agency should go its own way. The September 1993 loss of Landsat 6 left the NASA would fund development of Landsat, car- 10 United States with a substantial risk that continu- rying the planned 30-m-resolution ETM Plus. ity of data from Landsat would be lost. Although DOD would decide later whether or not to develop 1 1 the TM sensors on Landsat 4 and Landsat 5 con- a 5-m-resolution sensor on its own. tinue to operate, both have suffered data-transmis- Still undetermined in early 1994 was the ques- sion-subsystem failures and the spacecraft are tion of whether NASA or some other agency substantially beyond their projected operating would operate Landsat 7. NASA needs Landsat lifetimes. 8 They could fail completely at any data to support its global change research pro- time.9 Hence, to maintain the potential for conti- gram. However, Landsat data support many gov- nuity of data delivery, DOD and NASA had to act ernment operational programs and the data needs expeditiously to develop and launch Landsat 7. of state and local governments, the U.S. private However, in September 1993, NASA decided that sector, and foreign entities. Hence, Landsat data the costs of operating Landsat 7 with HRMSI have both national and international value that ex- were too large compared with the benefit NASA tends far beyond NASA’s requirements for global researchers would receive from HRMSI data. change data. HRMSI was of greater interest to DOD and other In May 1994, the Administration decided to re- U.S. national security agencies because it would solve the outstanding issue of procurement and have provided 5-m-resolution stereo data of suffi- operational control of the Landsat system by as- cient quality to create high-quality maps. Hence, signing it to NASA, NOAA, and DOI. Under the NASA decided that it could not support the new plan, NASA will procure the satellite, NOAA ground operations of HRMSI and did not include will manage and operate the spacecraft and sufficient funds in its FY 1995 budget request to ground system, and DOI will archive and distrib- begin developing the data system. In December ute the data at the marginal cost of reproduction. 12 1993, DOD decided that it could not fund the re-

x Both wtteilites were designed to operate for 3 years. Landsat 4 was launched in 1982; Landsat 5 was launched in 1984. 9 HOW ever. i! might still be possible to retrieve data from the MSS aboard both satellites because the MSS sensor is still capable of operating and it uses an S-Band transmitter that is also still operational. lo DOD [rmjfemed $90 nli]lion to NASA for the development of Landsat 7. I I Letter from Undersecretary of Bfense John Deutsch to Congressman George Brown, December 1993. 12 ~esldentla] ~ci~ion Directive NSTC-3, May 5, 1994. Appendix E: Landsat Remote Sensing E Strategy

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON May 5, 1994

PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE/NSTC-3 TO: The Vice President The Secretary of Defense The Secretary of Interior The Secretary of Commerce The Director, Office of Management and Budget The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs The Assistant to the President for Science and Technology The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy SUBJECT: Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy

1. Introduction This directive provides for continuance of the Landsat 7 program, assures continuity of Landsat-type and quality of data, and reduces the risk of a data gap. The Landsat program has provided over 20 years of calibrated data to a broad user community including the agricultural community, global change researchers, state and local governments, commercial users, and the military. The Landsat 6 satellite which failed to reach orbit in 1993 was intended to replace the existing Landsat satellites 4 and 5, which were launched in 1982 and 1984. These satellites which are operating well beyond their three year design lives, represent the only source of a global calibrated high spatial resolution measurements of the Earth’s surface that can be compared to previous data records. In the Fall of 1993 the joint Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion Landsat 7 program was being reevaluated due to severe budgetary constraints. This fact, coupled with the advanced age of Land sat satellites 4 and 5, resulted in a re-assessment of the Landsat program by representatives of the National Science and Technology Council. The objectives of the National Science

148 I Appendix E Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy I 149

and Technology Council were to minimize the potential for a gap in the Landsat data record if Landsat satellites 4 and 5 should cease to operate, to reduce cost, and to reduce development risk. The rcsults of this re-assessment are identified below. This document supersedes National Space Policy Directive #5, dated February 2, 1992, and directs implementation of the Landsat Program consistent with the intent of P. L. 102-555. the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, and P. L. 103-221, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The Administration will seek all legislative changes necessary to implement this PDD.

Il. Policy Goals A remote sensing capability, such as is currently being provided by Landsat satellites 4 and 5, benefits the civil, commercial, and national security interests of the United States and makes contributions to the private sector which are in the public interest. For these reasons, the United States Government will seek to maintain the continuity of Landsat-type data. The U.S. Government will: (a) Provide unenhanced data which are sufficiently consistent in terms of acquisition geometry. coverage characteristics, and spectral characteristics with previous Landsat data to allow quantitative comparisons for change detection and characterization; (b) Make govemment-owned Landsat data available to meet the needs of all users at no more that the cost of fulfilling user requests consistent with data policy goals of P.L. 102-555; and (c) Promote and not preclude private sector commercial opportunities in Landsat-type remote sensing.

Ill. Landsat Strategy a. The Landsat strategy is composed of the following elements: (1) Ensuring that Landsat satellites 4 and 5 continue to provide data as long as they are technically capable of doing so. (2) Acquiring a Landsat 7 satellite that maintains the continuity of Landsat-type data. minimizes development risk, minimizes cost, and achieves the most favorable launch schedule to mitigate the loss of Landsat 6. (3) Maintaining an archive within the United States for existing and future Landsat-type data. (4) Ensuring that unenhanced data from Landsat 7 are available to all users at no more than the cost of fulfilling user requests. (5) Providing data for use in global change research in a manner consistent with the Global Change Research Policy Statements for Data Management. (6) Considering alternatives for maintaining the continuity of data beyond Landsat 7. (7) Fostering the development of advanced remote sensing technologies, with the goal of reducing the cost and increasing the performance of future Landsat-type satellites to meet U.S. Government needs, and potentially, enabling substantially greater opportunities for commercialization.

b. These strategy elements will be implemented within the overall resource and policy guidance provided by the President. 150 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

IV. Implementing Guidelines Affected agencies will identify funds necessary to implement the National Strategy for Landsat Re- mote Sensing within the overall resource and policy guidance provided by the President. {In order to effectuate the strategy enumerated herein, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior are hereby designated as members of the Landsat Program Management in accordance with section 10l(b) of the Landsat Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. 5602(6) and 5611 (b).} Specific agency responsibilities are provided below. a. The Department of C ommerce/NOAA will: (1) In participation with other appropriate government agencies arrange for the continued operation of Landsat satellites 4 and 5 and the routine operation of future Landsat satellites after their placement in orbit. (2) Seek better access to data collected at foreign ground stations for U.S. Government and private sector users of Landsat data. (3) In cooperation with NASA, manage the development of and provide a share of the funding for the Landsat 7 ground system. (4) Operate the Landsat 7 spacecraft and ground system in cooperation with the Department of the Interior. (5) Seek to offset operations costs through use of access fees from foreign ground stations and/or the cost of fulfilling user requests. (6) Aggregate future Federal requirements for civil operational land remote sensing data. b. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will: (1) Ensure data continuity by the development and launch of a Landsat 7 satellite system which is at a minimum functionally equivalent to the Landsat 6 satellite in accordance with section 102, P. L. 102-555. (2) In coordination with DOC and DOI, develop a Landsat 7 ground system compatible with the Landsat 7 spacecraft. (3) In coordination with DOC, DOI, and DOD, revise the current Management plan to reflect the changes implemented through this directive, including programmatic, technical, schedule, and budget information. (4) Implement the joint NASA/DOD transition plan to transfer the DOD Landsat 7 responsibilities to NASA. (5) In coordination with other appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government develop a strategy for maintaining continuity of Landsat-type data beyond Landsat 7. (6) Conduct a coordinated technology demonstration program with other appropriate agencies to improve the performance and reduce the cost for future unclassified earth remote sensing systems. c. The Department of Defense will implement the joint NASA/DOD transition plan to transfer the DOD Landsat 7 responsibilities to NASA. d. The Department of the Interior will continue to maintain a national archive of existing and future Landsat-type remote sensing data within the United States and make such data available to U.S. Government and other users. Appendix E Landsat Remote Sensing Strategy I 151

e. Affected agencies will identify the funding, and funding transfers for FY 1994, required to implement this strategy that are within their approved fiscal year 1994 budgets and subsequent budget requests.

V. Reporting Requirements U.S. Government agencies affected by the strategy guidelines are directed to report no later that 30 days following the issuance of this directive, to the National Science and Technology Council on their implementation. The agencies will address management and funding responsibilities, government and contractor operations, data management, archiving, and dissemination, necessary changes to P. L. 102-555 and commercial considerations associated with the Landsat program. Clinton Administration Policy on Remote Sensing F Licensing and Exports

On March 10, 1994, the White House released a statement of policy on two issues: the licensing of commercial remote sensing systems and the export of remote sensing technologies. This statement fol- lows verbatim:

1 U.S. Policy on Licensing and Operation of Private Remote Sensing Systems License requests by US firms to operate private remote sensing space systems will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (the Act). There is a presumption that remote sensing space systems whose performance capabilities and imagery quality characteristics are available or are planned for availability in the world marketplace (e.g., SPOT, Land- sat, etc.) will be favorably considered, and that the following conditions will apply to any US entity that receives an operating license under the Act. 1. The licensee will be required to maintain a record of all satellite tasking for the previous year and to allow the USC access to this record. 2. The licensee will not change the operational characteristics of the satellite system from the application as submitted without formal notification and approval of the Department of Commerce, which would coordinate with other interested agencies. 3. The license being granted does not relieve the licensee of the obligation to obtain export license(s) pursuant to applicable statutes. 4. The license is valid only for a finite period, and is neither transferable nor subject to foreign ownership, above a specified threshold, without the explicit permission of the Secretary of Com- merce. 5. All encryption devices must be approved by the US Government for the purpose of denying unau- thorized access to others during periods when national security, international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised as provided for in the Act. 6. A licensee must use a data downlink format that allows the US Government access and use of the data during periods when national security, international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised as provided for in the Act.

152 I Appendix F Clinton Administration Policy on Remote Sensing Licensing and Exports 1153

7. During periods when national security or international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised, as defined by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, respectively, the Secretary of Commerce may, after consultation with the appropriate agency (ies), require the licensee to limit data collection and/or distribution by the system to the extent necessitated by the given situation. Decisions to impose such limits only will be made by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, as appropriate. Disagree- ments between Cabinet Secretaries may be appealed to the President. The Secretaries of State, Defense and Commerce shall develop their own internal mechanisms to enable them to carry out their statutory responsibilities. 8. Pursuant to the Act, the US Government requires US companies that have been issued operating licenses under the Act to notify the US Government of its intent to enter into significant or substantial agreements with new foreign customers. Interested agencies shall be given advance notice of such agreements to allow them the opportunity to review the proposed agreement in light of the national security, international obligations and foreign policy concerns of the US Gover- nment. The definition of a significant or substantial agreement, as well as the time frames and other details of this process, will be defined in later Commerce regulations in consultation with appropriate agencies.

I U.S. Policy on the Transfer of Advanced Remote Sensing Capabilities

Advanced Remote Sensing System Exports The United States will consider requests to export advanced remote sensing systems whose performance capabilities and imagery quality characteristics are available or are planned for availability in the world marketplace on a case-by-case basis. The details of these potential sales should take into account the following:

■ the proposed foreign recipient’s willingness and ability to accept commitments to the US Gover- nment concerning sharing, protection, and denial of products and data; and

■ constraints on resolution, geographic coverage. timeliness, spectral coverage, data processing and exploitation techniques. tasking capabilities, and ground architectures. Approval of requests for exports of systems would also require certain diplomatic steps be taken, such as informing other close friends in the region of the request, and the conditions we would likely attach to any sale; and informing the recipient of our decision and the conditions we would require as part of the sale. Any system made available to a foreign government or other foreign entity may be subject to a formal government-to-government agreement.

Transfer of Sensitive Technology The United States will consider applications to export remote sensing space capabilities on a restricted basis. Sensitive technology in this situation consists of items of technology on the US Munitions List necessary to develop or to support advanced remote sensing space capabilities and which are uniquely available in the United States. Such sensitivc technology shall be made available to foreign entities only on the basis of a government-to-government agreement. This agreement may be in the form of end-use and retransfer assurances which can be tailored to ensure the protection of US technology. 154 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

I Government-to-Government Intelligence and Defense Partnerships Proposals for intelligence or defense partnerships with foreign countries regarding remote sensing that would raise questions about US Government competition with the private sector or would change the US Government use of funds generated pursuant to a US-foreign government partnership arrangement shall be submitted for interagency review.

SOURCE: White House Press Office, March 10, 1994. Abbreviation s G

AATSR Advanced Along-Track Scanning ASTER Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Emission and Reflection ACR Active Cavity Radiometer Radiometer ACRIM Active Cavity Radiometer ATLAS Atmospheric Laboratory for Irradiance Monitor Applications and Science ADEOS Advanced Earth Observing Satellite ATN Advanced TIROS-N AES Atmospheric Environment Service ATMOS Atmospheric Trace Molecules AID Agency for International Observed by Spectroscopy Development AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder Radiometer ALEXIS Array of Low Energy X-Ray AVIRIS Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging Imaging Sensors Spectrometer ALT Altimeter AVNIR Advanced Visible and Near-Infrared AMS American Meteorological Society Radiometer AMSR Advanced Microwave Scanning CCD Charged Coupled Device Radiometer CCDS Centers for Commercial AMSU Advanced Microwave Sounding Development of Space Unit CCRS Canada Centre for Remote Sensing AMTS Advanced Moisture and CEES Committee on Earth and Temperature Sounder Environmental Science APT Automatic Picture Transmission CENR Committee on Environment and ARA Atmospheric Radiation Analysis Natural Resource Research ARGOS Argos Data Collection and Position CEOS Committee on Earth Observations Location System Satellites ARM Atmospheric Radiation Monitor CERES Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy ARPA Advanced Research Projects System Agency CES Committee on Earth Studies ASAR Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar CFC Chlorofluorocarbon ASCAT Advanced Scatterometer CGC Committee on Global Change ASF Alaska SAR Facility I 155 156 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

CGMS Coordination of Geostationary EOSAT Earth Observation Satellite Meteorological Satellites company CIESIN Consortium for International Earth EOS-CHEM EOS Chemistry Mission Science Information Network EOSDIS EOS Data and Information System CLAES Cryogenic Limb Array Etalon EOSP Earth Observing Scanning Spectrometer Polarimeter CNES Centre National d’Études Spatiales EOS-PM EOS Afternoon Crossing CNRS Centre National de la Recherche (Descending) Mission Scientifique EPA Environmental Protection Agency COSPAR Congress for Space Research ERBE Earth Radiation Budget Experiment CPP Cloud Photopolarimeter ERBS Earth Radiation Budget Satellite CSA Canadian Space Agency EROS Earth Resources Observation CZCS Coastal Zone Color Scanner System DAAC Distributed Active Archive Center ERS European Remote-Sensing Satellite DARA Deutsche Agentur fur ERTS-1 Earth Resources Technology Raumfahrt-Angelegenheiten Satellite- 1 DB Direct Broadcast ESA European Space Agency DCS Data Collection System ESDIS Earth Science Data and Information DDL Direct Downlink System DMA Defense Mapping Agency ESOC European Space Operations Center DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite ESRIN European Scientific Research Program Institute DOC Department of Commerce ETS-VI Engineering Test Satellite-VI DOD Department of Defense Eumestat European Organisation for the DOE Department of Energy Exploitation of Meteorological DOI Department of the Interior Satellites DORIS Doppler Orbitography and FAA Federal Aviation Administration Radiopositioning Integrated by FAO Food and Agriculture Organization Satellite FCCSET Federal Coordinating Council for DOS Department of State Science, Engineering, and DPT Direct Playback Transmission Technology DRSS Data Relay Satellite System FEMA Federal Emergency Management EC European Community Agency EDC EROS Data Center FEWS Famine Early Warning System EDOS EOS Data and Operations System FOV Field-of-View EDRTS Experimental Data Relay and FST Field Support Terminal Tracking Satellite FY Feng Yun ELGA Emergency Locust Grasshopper GCDIS Global Change Data and Assistance Information System ENSO El Niño/Southern Oscillation GCOS Global Climate Observing System EOC EOS Operations Center GDP gross domestic product EO-IC-WG Earth Observation International GDPS Global Data-Processing System Coordination Working Group Geosat Navy Geodetic Satellite EOS Earth Observing System GEWEX Global Energy and Water Cycle EOS-AERO EOSAerosal Mission Experiment EOS-ALT EOS Altimetry Mission GFO Geosat Follow-On EOS-AM EOS Morning Crossing (Ascending) GGI GPS Geoscience Instrument Mission GIS geographic information system(s) Appendix G Abbreviations 1157

GLAS Geoscience Laser Altimeter System ILAS Improved Limb Atmospheric GLI Global Imager Spectrometer GLRS Geoscience Laser Ranging System INSAT Indian Satellite GMS Geostationary Meteorological IMG Interferometric Monitor for Satellite Greenhouse Gases GOES Geostationary Operational IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Environmental Satellite Commission GOMI Global Ozone Monitoring IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Instrument Change GOMOS Global Ozone Monitoring by IPO Integrated Program Office Occultation of Stars IPOMS International Polar Operational GOMR Global Ozone Monitoring Meteorological Satellite Radiometer organization GOMS Geostationary Operational IRS Indian Remote Sensing Satellite Meteorological Satellite IRTS Infrared Temperature Sounder GOOS Global Ocean Observing System ISAMS Improved Stratospheric and GOS Global Observing System Mesospheric Sounder GPS Global Positioning System ISY International Space Year GTS Global Telecommunications System ITS Interferometric Temperature HIRDLS High-Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder Sounder JOES Japanese Earth Observing System HIRIS High-Resolution Imaging JERS Japan’s Earth Resources Satellite Spectrometer JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory HIRS High-Resolution Infrared Sounder JPOP Japanese Polar Orbiting Platform HIS High-Resolution Interferometer LAGEOS Laser Geodynamics Satellite Sounder Landsat Land Remote-Sensing Satellite HRMSI High-Resolution Multispectral Lidar Light Detection and Ranging Stereo Imager LIMS Limb Infrared Monitor of the HRPT High-Resolution Picture Stratosphere Transmission LIS Lightning Imaging Sensor HSST House Committee on Science, LISS Linear Imaging Self-scanning Space, and Technology Sensors HRV High-Resolution Visible LITE Lidar In-Space Technology HYDICE Hyperspectral Digital Imagery Experiment Collection Experiment LR Laser Retroreflector IAF International Astronautical MELV medium-class expendable launch Federation vehicle IASI Interferometric Atmospheric MERIS Medium-Resolution Imaging Sounding Instrument Spectrometer IEOS International Earth Observing MESSR Multispectrum Electronic System Self-Scanning Radiometer IELV intermediate-class expendable METOP Meteorological Operational Satellite launch vehicle MHS Microwave Humidity Sounder ICSU International Council of Scientific MIMR Multifrequency Imaging Microwave Unions Radiometer IGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere Program 158 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

MI PAS Michelson Interferometer for POEM Polar-Orbit Earth Observation Passive Atmospheric Sounding Mission MISR Multi-Angle Imaging POES Polar-orbiting Operational SpectroRadiometer Environmental Satellite MITI Ministry of International Trade and POLDER Polarization and Directionality of Industry Earth’s Reflectance MLS Microwave Limb Sounder RA Radar Altimeter MODIS Moderate-Resolution Imaging Radarsat Radar Satellite Spectroradiometer RESTEC Remote Sensing Technology Center MOP Meteosat Operational Programme RF Radio Frequency MOPITT Measurements of Pollution in the RIS Retroreflector in Space Troposphere SAFIRE Spectroscopy of the Atmosphere MOS Marine Observation Satellite using Far Infrared Emission MSR Microwave Scanning Radiometer SAFISY Space Agency Forum on ISY MSS Multispectral Scanner SAGE Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas MSU Microwave Sounding Unit Experiment MTPE Mission to Planet Earth SAMS Stratospheric and Mesospheric MTS Microwave Temperature Sounder Sounder NASA National Aeronautics and Space SAR synthetic aperture radar Administration SARSAT NASDA National Space Development or S&R Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Agency (Japan) Tracking System NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, SBUV Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Data and Information Service Radiometer NEXRAD Next-Generation Weather Radar SCARAB Scanner for the Radiation Budget NIST National Institute for Standards and SCST Senate Committee on Commerce, Technology Science, and Transportation NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric SeaWiFS Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor Administration SEDAC Socio Economic Data Archive NOSS National Oceanic Satellite System Center NREN National Research and Education SEM Space Environment Monitor Network S-GCOS Space-based Global Change NROSS Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Observation System Satellite SIR Shuttle Imaging Radar NRSA National Remote Sensing Agency SLR Satellite Laser Ranging NSCAT NASA Scatterometer SMMR Scanning Multispectral Microwave NSPD National Space Policy Directive Radiometer NSTC National Science and Technology SMSIGOES GOES synchronous meteorological Council satellite OCTS Ocean Color and Temperature SNR signal-to-noise ratio Scanner SOLSTICE Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison OLS Operational Linescan System Experiment OMB Office of Management and Budget SPOT Système pour I ’Observation de la OPS Optical Sensors Terre OSB Ocean Studies Board SSM/I Special Sensor Microwave/Imager OSC Orbital Sciences Corporation SSTI Small Satellite Technology OSIP Operational Satellite Improvement Initiative Program SSU Stratospheric Sounding Unit Appendix G Abbreviations I 159

STIKSCT Stick Scatterometer USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture SWIR Short Wave Infrared USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research TDRSS Tracing and Data Relay Satellite Program System USGS U.S. Geological Survey TUSK Tethered Upper Stage Knob VAS VISSR Atmospheric Sounder TIROS Television Infrared Observing VHRR Very High Resolution Radiometer Satellites VISSR Visible and Infrared Spin Scan TM Thematic Mapper Radiometer TOGA Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere VTIR Visible and Thermal infrared TOMS Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer Radiometer TOPEX Ocean Topography Experiment WCRP World Climate Research Program TOVS TIROS Operational Vertical WDC World Data Center Sounder WEU Western European Union TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring WMO The U.N. World Meteorological Mission Organization UARS Upper Atmosphere Research WOCE World Ocean Circulation Satellite Experiment UAVS Unpiloted aerospace vehicles WWW World Weather Watch UNEP United Nations Environment X-SAR X-band synthetic aperture radar Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization I ndex

A D ADEOS. See Advanced Earth Observing Satellite Data exchange Advanced Earth Observing Satellite, 122 control of data, 1 I 3-114 The Advanced Research Projects Agency, 51 existing agreements, 104 Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer, 26, importance of, 106-107 37-38,48,61,62,70 options, 18, 35 AVHRR. See Advanced Very High Resolution Radi- policy issues, 102 ometer reliance on foreign sources, 113-114 Data purchase - B by federal agencies, 56 Baker, D. James, 95 international consortium, 126 Bromley, D. Allan, 40 options, 17, 34 Bureau of Land Management, 42 Data sales by federal agencies, 56 Data users c major elements, 15 CENR, See Committee on the Environment and requirements process, 15-16 Natural Resources Data uses by federal agencies, 41-43 CEOS. See Committee on Earth Observations Satel- Defense Laboratories capabilities, 51 lites Defense Mapping Agency, 41 Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing Systems, 6 Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Climate monitoring. See also Weather forecasting agency responsibilities, 39 agency responsibilities, 39-40 convergence proposal, 13, 21-26, 57-58, 65, Clinton Administration 74-86, 122, 142-144 convergence proposal, 22-26, 57-58, 65, 74-86, description, 66-68 122, 142-144 launch vehicle, 65 policy on remote sensing licensing and exports, objectives and status, 6, 23, 34 114, 115, 152-154 ocean data, 42 Commercial remote sensing. See Private sector requirements issues, 52, 83 Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences satellites, 44, 49 program. See U.S. Global Change Research Pro- summary, 49, 50 gram Department of Agriculture Committee on Earth Observations Satellites, 19, data uses, 41-42 119, 138, 140 Foreign Agriculture Service, 41 Committee on the Environment and Natural Re- National Agricultural Statistics Service, 41 sources, 40, 54, 55 Department of Commerce, 12 Crop monitoring, 41 Department of Defense CTA, Inc., 16-17 convergence proposal, 13, 21-26, 57-58, 65, 74-86, 122, 142-144

1161 162 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

data requirements, 5,28,29 Eumetsat. See European Organisation for the Ex- experimental work in the 1960s and 1970s, 10 ploitation of Meteorological Satellites global change data, 11 European Organisation for the Exploitation of Mete- interagency collaboration, 14, 16 orological Satellites, 12, 17, 20, 26, 27, 65, 123, laboratories, 51 124 operational meteorological program, 66-68 European Remote-Sensing Satellite- 1 satellites, 44-45, 49 data experience, 35 satellites in storage, 25 image of Bay of Naples, 34 Shared Processing Network, 44 European Space Agency, 17,27,33-35,65, 123 Department of Energy Eyeglass International, Inc., 52,95 funding for U.S. Global Change Research Pro- gram, 39 F Department of the Environment option, 29 Famine Early Warning System, 43 Department of the Interior. See also Forest Service; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 43 National Park Service; U.S. Geological Survey Federal Geographic Data Committee, 41 data uses, 42 Federal lands management Department of Transportation, 41 agency responsibilities, 42 Design characteristics of remote sensing satellite FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management systems, 37, 38 Agency DMA. See Defense Mapping Agency FEWS. See Famine Early Warning System DMSP. See Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro- Foreign programs. See International programs; gram Internationalization of remote sensing programs DOD. See Department of Defense Forest Service, 42 DOI. See Department of the Interior

E G Earth Observation International Coordination Work- Geodetic Satellite, 44,60 ing Group, 121 Geographic information systems, 15,40-41, 110 Earth Observing System Geological observations data and information system, 46 agency responsibilities, 42 instruments and measurements, 72 Geosat. See Geodetic Satellite international component, 12, 121 Geosat Follow-On satellite, 45 launch schedule, 6,45, 133 Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite program design, 11,60,73,78-79 System, 11,44,45,46 restructuring of program, 21, 28 GFO. See Geosat Follow-On satellite Earth’s systems, 97-98 GM. See Geographic information systems Education uses for remote sensing data, 43 CTlobal change research. See also Environmental Environmental satellite systems changes monitoring; U.S. Global Change Re- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- search Program tion, 5, 6 data, 11,60 Environmental changes monitoring, 11, 28. See also funding, 28 Global change research international interest, 27 Environmental Protection Agency, 42 Global Positioning System, 42 Env ironrnental regulation GOES. See Geostationary Operational Environmen- agency responsibilities, 42 tal Satellite System EO-ICWG. See Earth Observation International GPS. See Global Positioning System Coordination Working Group Ground systems for meteorological data, 44 EOS. See Earth Observing System EOSAT, 6, 12,20,28,31 H EPA, See Environmental Protection Agency HELIOS-1 surveillance satellite, 20 ERS- 1. See European Remote-Sensing Satellite-1 House Committee on Science, Space, and ESA. See European Space Agency Technology, 8 Index I 163

I sensor technologies. See Landsat system; Syn- ICSU. See International Council of Scientific thetic aperture radar Unions terrestrial monitoring, 41 Integrated Program Office Land surface monitoring. See Land remote sensing con~’ergence proposal and, 14, 22-25, 27 Landsat system coordination responsibilities, 55 agency responsibilities, 51 long-term options, 28,34 data uses, 41,56 Intel sat. See International Telecommunications Sat- future, 30-31,89-93 ell ite Corporation history, 6, 16,28,30,86-89 International competition image of Miami, 30 issues, 17, 20-21 Landsat 6,89 risks, 110-111 Landsat 7,90 Intemtitional cooperation options for reducing costs, 31-32 benefits, IO4-109 policy, 145-147 international issues, 17-20, 27, 32, 112-116 receiving stations, 87 national security issues, 112-116 remote sensing strategy, 148-151 options. 116-128 sensors, 88 risks, 109-1 I O technologies, 60 International coordinating organizations vulnerabilities, 30 options, 104-105, 125-127 Laser Geodynamics Satellite, 42 International Council of Scientific Unions, 119 Licensing issues, 114-115 International development assistance, 43 International Oceanography Commission, 118 M International programs Mapping budget for 1993, 108 agency responsibilities, 40-41 summary, 5, 12, 101-105, 131-141 Center for Mapping, 51 International Telecommunications Satellite Corpora- systems, 27, 31, 46 tion, 122-123 Marine Observation Satellite-2, 32,35 Internationalization of remote sensing programs, Meteor series satellites, 27 12-14, 17-19 METOP platform, 12,26,27,65,76-77, 122, 135 IOC. See International Oceanography Commission Microwave sensor applications, 67 IPO. See Integrated Program Office Mining agency responsibilities, 42 J Mission to Planet Earth description, 45-46, 129-130 Japan Earth Resources Satellite-1, 32,35 funding issues, 11-12, 17, 19 Japanese Advanced Earth Observing Satellite, 122 objective and status, 6 JERS. See Japan Earth Resources Satellite-1 requirements issues, 52 Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, L 26 LAGEOS. See Laser Geodynamics Satellite MODIS. See Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectro- Land remote sensing. See also Landsat system radiometer crop monitoring, 41 MOS-2. See Marine Observation Satellite-2 data needs, 10,28 MPTE. See Mission to Planet Earth environmental regulation, 42 Multispectral systems, 20,31-32 federal lands management, 42 NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Admin- ~eo]og)” and mining, 42 istration histcmy, 86-89 international agency option, 126 N Landsat future and, 89-93 National Aeronautics and Space Administration mapping and planning, 40-41 budgetary considerations, 11 natur[il resource management, 41 collaboration, 10, 14, 19, 29, 34 pri~[ite sector role, 93-95 data purchase agreement, 17 private sector services, 42 development as an independent agency, 13 164 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach

EOS program, 6, 11-12,21,25,28,57 licensing commercial data sales, 114 experimental work in the 1960s and 1970s, 10 licensing satellite sales, 115 Mission to Planet Earth program, 5,6, 11-12, 17, reexamination, 13, 20, 26 45-46,52, 129-130 role of partners, 76-77 OSIP program, 25 National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 41 research and development mission, 45-46 National uses of remote sensing Smallsat Program, 16-17 current national and international programs, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and In- 131-141 formation Service geology and mining, 41-42 responsibilities, 44 global change research, 39 systems. See Geostationary Operational Environ- summary, 38 mental Satellite System; Polar-orbiting Opera- terrestrial monitoring, 41-42 tional Environmental Satellite System weather and climate, 39-40 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 12 National Weather Service, 6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natural resource management convergence proposal for POES, 57-58, 65, agency responsibilities, 41-42 74-86, 122, 142-144 international needs, 103-104 environment satellite systems, 5,6 NESDIS. See National Environmental Satellite, experimental work in the 1960s and 1970s, 10 Data, and Information Service funding for satellite programs, 12 NEXRAD, 12 funding issues, 61,81-83 NIMBUS system, 45,74 global change data, 11 NIST. See National Institute of Standards and GOES-1 image of Earth, 11 Technology ground systems, 44 NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- Integrated Program Office, 22,29 ministration interagency collaboration, 14 international programs, 12 0 National Climatic Data Center, 44 Ocean remote sensing National Geophysical Data Center, 44 cost considerations, 35 National Oceanographic Data Center, 44 international agency issues, 126 NESDIS, 44 Japanese interest, 19,27 operational programs, 25, 85 long-term needs, 10,35,59-60 partnership with NASA, 10 national data needs, 32, 42 remote sensing responsibilities, 42, 44 ocean and ice data, 33 requirements issues, 52, 83 operational monitoring, 33-35, 42, 95-100 satellites. See Polar-orbiting Operational Envi- summary, 32 ronmental Satellite System office of Management and Budget, 24,52,58,61 satellites in storage, 25 office of Science and Technology Shared Processing Network, 44 program. See U.S. Global Change Research Pro- systems. See Advanced Very High Resolution gram Radiometer office of Technology Assessment, 58 National Park Service OMB. See Office of Management and Budget data uses, 42 operational Satellite Improvement Program, 25 National Performance Review operational satellite systems, 25-26,84,85 recommendations, 22 optical imagers, 25-27 National Science and Technology Council, 40 orbital Sciences Corporation, 17,34-35,51,56,95 National Science Foundation, 39 OSC. See Orbital Sciences Corporation National security issues in international cooperation OSIP. See Operational Satellite Improvement Pro- convergence, 112-113 gram data control, 113-114 OTA publications on satellite remote sensing, 9 diffusion of technological capabilities, 114-115 Ozone monitoring systems. See Total Ozone Map- export controls, 115-116 ping Spectrometers Index I 165

P SeaStar satellite, 17,34-35 POES. See Polar-orbiting Operational Environmen- Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor, 17,56 tal Satellite System SeaWiFS. See Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans System. See also Advanced Very High Resolu- Affairs, 8 tion Radiometer Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and agency responsibilities, 44 Transportation, 8 convergence proposal, 12, 14, 21, 23, 57-58,65, Sensor and spacecraft convergence, 25 74-86, 122, 142-144 Sensors description, 40,44,47,48,63-66 ocean and ice data, 33 image of Hurricane Hugo, 65 standardization issue, 25, 26, 27 launch schedule, 66 The Shuttle program, 11 program comparison, 68-71 SIR-C synthetic aperture radar, 35 requirements issues, 37-38, 83 Smallsat Program, 16-17 sensors, 79 Software suppliers, 15 technology improvements plan, 62 Space Imaging, Inc., 95 Polar-orbiting systems The Space Station, 11 cooperative agreements, 12, 26 Space systems international interest, 27 cost-effectiveness pressures, 11-12 Presidential Decision Directive NSTC-2, 110, SPOT land remote sensing program, 12,31,32,41, 142-144 96 Private sector Stennis Space Center, 46 capabilities, 41, 51-52 Strategic plan collaborative options, 31-32 contingency plan requirements, 27 competitiveness, 20-21 development of new technologies, 60-62 firms, 95 elements, 58-59 licensing commercial data sales, 114 funding issues, 61,81-83 licensing satellite sales, 115 goals, 7 potential of SAR data, 111 limitations, 21-22 role, 93-95 long-term operational data needs, 10 value-added industry, 15-16, 42 long-term options for a converged satellite sys- Public interest groups tem, 28, 29 data uses, 43 national data needs, 14, 59-60 Public safety, 43 need for, 10-13 purpose of report, 8 R standardization issue, 27 Radarsat, 19,32, 35 structural elements, 13-21 Requirements issues, 52-54,83 summary of elements, 8, 10 Research and education uses of remote sensing, 43 Sun-synchronous orbits, 64 Research systems Synchronizing programs, 25 transfer to operational systems, 25-26 Synthetic aperture radar, 13, 19,20,35 Resurs land remote sensing program, 31, 132 potential, 111 Russia uses, 39,96-100 CEOS member, 140 SystLme pour l’Observation de la Terre, 41 cooperation with, 13, 19-20, 127-128 programs, 17, 19-20,27,31,32, 132 T SPOT image of nuclear testing facility, 96 Thematic Mapper, 31 TIROS system, 45,63 s TM. See Thematic Mapper SAR. See Synthetic aperture radar TOMS. See Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometers Satellite remote sensing TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, 99 definition, 7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometers, 27,46 Scatterometers, 33,99 TRW, Inc. Seasat system, 45 Smallsat Program, 16 166 I Civilian Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach u w U.S. Agency for International Development, 43 Weather forecasting U.S. Air Force agency responsibilities, 39-40, 73-75 satellite systems, 44. See also Defense Meteoro- data needs, 10, 19 logical Satellite Program DMSP program, 66-69 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 41,42,43 international applications, 103 U.S. Geological Survey, 28,41 international cooperation on weather satellites, U.S. Global Change Research Program 27,28 coordination, 14, 21-22, 54, 55, 61 issues and options for convergence, 75-76, 77-86 establishment, 39 NASA program, 71-73 funding, 39 national security considerations, 76-77 history, 11 POES program, 63-66 mission, 39, 53 Weather monitoring systems. See Defense Meteoro- summary, 40 logical Satellite Program; Polar-orbiting Opera- US. Navy tional Environmental Satellite System remote sensing responsibilities, 42 WMO. See World Meteorological Organization satellite systems, 44. See also Geodetic Satellite; World Data Centres, 118-119 Geosat Follow-On satellite World Meteorological Organization, 19, 117 U.S. Weather Bureau, 63 World Weather Watch, 116-118, 127 USAID. See U.S. Agency for International Develop- WorldView Imaging Corporation, 16,95 ment WWW. See World Weather Watch USDA. See Department of Agriculture USGCRP. See U.S. Global Change Research Pro- x gram X-band data transmitters USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey Utility of satellite remote sensing, 9 v Value-added companies. See Private sector Value-added sector, 15 Vegetation monitoring, 41,43,62