Alternative Futures: United States Commercial Satellite Imagery in 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 415 Washington, DC 20004 202-280-2045 phone www.innovative -analytics.com ___________________________________________________________________ Alternative Futures: United States Commercial Satellite Imagery in 2020 Robert A. Weber and Kevin M. O’Connell November 2011 Contact Information: Kevin O’Connell President and CEO Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC 1455 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 415 Washington, DC 2004 www.innovative-analytics.com Phone 202-280-2045 x1 Prepared for: Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC. Proprietary 2012. Page 1 Foreword This independent study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce in late 2010, posits three alternative futures for U.S. commercial satellite imagery in 2020. It begins with a detailed history of the U.S. policy and regulatory environment for remote sensing commercialization, including many of the assumptions made about U.S. government and commercial interests, international competition, security issues that relate to the proliferation of remote sensing data and technology, and others. In many ways, it reflects a brilliant American vision that has sometimes stumbled in implementation. Following a discussion about remote sensing technologies, and how they are changing, the report goes on to describe three alternative futures for U.S. commercial satellite imagery in 2020, with a special emphasis on the U.S. high-resolution electro-optical firms. The reader should note that, by definition, none of these futures is “correct” nor reflects a prediction or a preference in any way. Alternative futures methodologies are designed to identify plausible futures, and their underlying factors and drivers, in such a way as to allow stakeholders to understand important directions for a given issue, including important signposts to monitor as reflective of movement toward those (or perhaps other) futures. Alternative futures also allow decision-makers to adapt strategy in the face of these changes, including mitigation or elimination of futures with negative outcomes or consequences. For this study, the near-term timeframe of 2020 was chosen to reflect the truly dynamic changes in global thinking and global markets about this topic. The report concludes with our independent observations and options about the future role of the U.S. Department of Commerce and NOAA in the governance of space-based remote sensing. For both U.S. and international remote sensing countries, space policy and regulation is becoming less relevant (but not irrelevant) to the governance of remote sensing as the sensed data is being fused with other data sets (e.g., navigational data) and incorporated into powerful public and commercial applications. Three appendices are included at the back of this report. The first highlights key areas of remote sensing policy and regulation and how they might be re-considered for the 2020 timeframe. The final two appendices map European and Japanese approaches to remote sensing over the past few decades. Here, the reader might take note of two different aspects of those comparative approaches: first, the simple differences in the national approaches, and second, the extent to which U.S. assumptions about foreign behavior were correct, incorrect, or stimulated unintended consequences. In looking to the future, foreign remote sensing programs will reflect complex calculations about cooperation and competition that will have to be assessed critically and objectively. Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC. Proprietary 2012. Page 2 The research in this report was concluded in April of 2011. While there have continued to be many dynamic developments in global remote sensing (such as Surrey’s sale of three 1-meter satellites to China; the success of ORS-1 and NRO launches; shifts in development and launch schedules for Pleiades and ASNARO; and the emergence of new U.S. licensees like Skybox and others), we believe that the approach taken within this report will help U.S. government and commercial decision-makers think creatively about the future. Indeed, creative thinking is needed in these challenging times. We need to change a 50-year mindset about how and why we use space for vital civil and national security missions, as well as the ways that we do it. It would be unfortunate for the national debate about the future of remote sensing to devolve into a feckless “commercial versus NTM” debate during a time of fiscal constraint and extraordinary innovation in technical and commercial applications. We will need to draw upon the comparative advantages of each sector in order to maintain and advance the exquisite contributions that remote sensing and satellite imagery bring to our science, safety, and security, every single day. Finally, on a personal note, space-based remote sensing is “at the leading edge of global transparency” as I wrote about it (in Commercial Observation Satellites: At the Leading Edge of Global Transparency with John Baker and Ray Williamson) over a decade ago. The key difference is that it is only one dimension of a whirlwind of data and technology, and of new information applications and innovation. Our more transparent world creates challenges and opportunities for almost every dimension of governance, security, and commerce, in ways that require substantial re-thinking. We hope that this report is informative and helpful. Kevin M. O’Connell President and CEO Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC Washington, D.C. 20004 Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC. Proprietary 2012. Page 3 Contents Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………….……...... 4 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Purpose and Scope…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 National Legal, Policy, and Regulatory Environment……………………………………………………….. 8 Space Commercialization in the 1970s……………………………………………………………………………. 10 Early 1980s Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Framework……………………………………………………. 10 1986 – 1990 Policy Framework………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 1991 – 1994 Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Framework…………………………………………………... 16 1993 – 1995 Policy Push….……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 1990 – 2000 Commercial Satellite Imagery Projections…………………………………………………. 18 1996 – 2000 Buildup to Commercial Imagery Satellite Operations………………………………… 20 2000 – 2010 Commercial Satellite Imagery Projections…………………………………………………. 24 2001 – 2009 Policy, Regulatory, and Fiscal Framework…………………………………………………. 27 2010: More White House Policy and Commercial Imagery Developments…………………... 34 Remote Sensing Technology Developments………………………………………………………………….. 37 2020 Future One: U.S. Commercial Satellite Imagery is a Thriving Business…………………. 44 2020 Future Two: A Slow Growth Business, Still a U.S. Government Appendage…………. 48 2020 Future Three: Failure as U.S. Government Funds Erode and Competition Grows… 53 Role of the Department of Commerce……………………………….……………………………………….... 60 Appendix A: Key Points in Remote Sensing Law and Regulation…………………………………….. 67 Appendix B: Europe’s Evolving Approach……………………...……………………………………………….. 73 Appendix C: Japan’s Evolving Approach……………………….…..……………………………………………. 99 Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC. Proprietary 2012. Page 4 Reference Points 1980 Reference Point: U.S. Concerns in Retrospect about Japan and France…………………. 11 1990 Reference Point: U.S. Government Policy………………………………………………………………. 15 2000 Reference Point: Commercial Satellites Operational; Regulatory Debate Continues.. 23 2010 Reference Point: Another Space Policy………………………………………………………………….. 36 2020 Reference Point: The Purpose of Commercial Satellite Imagery……………………………. 59 Innovative Analytics and Training, LLC. Proprietary 2012. Page 5 Summary Commercial satellites capable of collecting one meter or better resolution imagery have been in space since 1999. Two companies operating these satellites, GeoEye, Inc. and DigitalGlobe, Inc., are largely dependent on U.S. Government funding, such as the 10-year, $7.3 billion two- contract award announced on 6 August 2010 by the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA). Averaged over ten years from 2010 – 2020, this amounts to $730 million per year, or 100 times more than NGA (then NIMA) paid for commercial imagery in Fiscal Year 1999. For over 30 years, the U.S. Government in policy, law, and regulation has been an advocate for commercial satellite imagery, noting repeatedly that Government funding should not be the basis for long-term success of the industry. Reality is the opposite. Changes in funding, or a major contribution by disruptive technologies such as small satellites, would have much more impact than changes in U.S. Government policy, law and regulation because thus far the Government itself is the business case for this commercial activity. This alternative futures paper includes decade-spaced reference points since 1980, and projections by experts in the field that point to possible 2020 outcomes for U.S. commercial imagery suppliers. Annexes are included on developments in Europe and Japan to track their progress since a 1980 view by U.S. intelligence that French and Japanese programs would become serious competitors. Aside from Federal funding, which may contract due to concerns about the national debt, the 2020 outlook for U.S. commercial imagery companies depends largely on the scope of foreign competition