REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE - Princeton University

Chapter 7

REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......253The Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...253Remote Sensing Pol icy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254Applications of Remotely Sensed Data .. .,.257

Meteorological Remote Sensing Systems .. ...258U.S. Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258Possible Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258Foreign Systems. ., , . . . . . . . . . . . .........260International Cooperation in Meteorological

Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . .............264Data Products and Service . ..............266Market for Metsat Equipment and Services. .270Meteorological Satell i te Issues . ...........273

Land Remote Sensing Systems. . ............278The U.S. Landsat System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278Sys tem Deve lopmen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280Foreign Landsat Receiving Stations . .......280Data Products and Uses . . . . . . . ..........285Policy History of Land Remote Sensing. ....286International Relevance of Landsat . .......291E q u i p m e n t M a r k e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2Issues ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ........293

ocean Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302U.S. Oceanographic Systems . ............303Foreign Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...305Major Ocean Parameters of lnterest for

Scientific and Applied Uses. . . . . . . . . . . ..307Applications of Ocean Remote Sensing. ....310Issues in Ocean Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . 312

Remote Sensing Policy . . . . ................314Meteorological Remote Sensing Policy .. ...315Land Remote Sensing Policy . ............319Options for Continued Financial Support .,.319Additional Policy Options. , . . . . . . . . ......321Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322Ocean Remote Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Appendix 7A.–Satellite Remote Sensing inDeve lop ing Coun t r i es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325The Experience of Developing Countries . 325Institutional Factors Influencing the Use of

Satellite Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328Political Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Appendix 7B.–U.S. Environmental Satellites,1960-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

List of TablesTab/e No. Page

7-l, Countries With APT/HRPT ReceptionCapabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

7-2. Domestic Users of MeteorologicalSatellite Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

7-3. Derived Meteorological SatelliteProducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

7-4. National Weather Service Hurricane,International Aviation, and MarineForecast Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

7-5. Costs for Some Landsat Data Products. . 282

7-6.

7-7.7-8.

7-9.

7-1o.7-11,7-12.

7-13,

7-14,7-15,

7-16.

7-17.

7-18.

7A-1.

Major Imaging Sensors UnderDevelopment by NASA , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282Foreign Landsat Ground Stations . . . . . . 284Categories of Foreign and DomesticUsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285Domestic Distribution of LandsatProducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data .297Agribusiness Industry Structure Analysis 300Geophysical OceanographicMeasurement Design Capabilitiesfor Seasat-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302Measurement Needs for OceanographicSatellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305N-ROSS Sensor Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . 306Oceanographic Data TacticalOperations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4..... 307Ice Parameters of lmportance inDifferent Operations and ResearchAreas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309Possible Oceanographic SatelliteApplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311Impacts of Observed Parameters onCommercial Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311Agency for International DevelopmentRemote Sensing Grants and Projects,1971-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

7-2.

7-3.

7-4.

7-5.7-6.7-7.7-8,

7-9.7-1o.7-11.7-12,

7-13.

7-14.7-15.7-16.

7-17,

7-18.7-19,7-20.

image of Earth, Received Aug. 8, 1980,by GOES Satellite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255image of Northeast United States Takenin February 1979 by the NOAA-N SeriesPolar-Orbiting Satellite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256Image of New York City and EnvironsTaken by the Thematic Mapper . . . . . . . 257Advanced TIROS-N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262GOES Satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263GOES Geographic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . 264Path of Geosynchronous Satellite inInclined Orbit.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265Operational Earth Observation Satellites 268One-and Two-Polar Soundings . . . . . . . 276Landsat-5 Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279Cutaway View of the MultispectralScanning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280Landsat Bands and Electrc)magneticSpectrum Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281Thematic Mapper Sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . 281Distribution by Foreign Ground Stations 283Customer Profile of Landsat Digital andImagery Products, Fiscal Year 1984 . . . . 287Sale of Landsat Imagery Framesand Digital Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296The Seasat-A Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite . . 306Radar lmage of Kuskokwim Bay inAlaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

List of FiguresFigure No. Page

7-1. Polar-Orbiting and GeostationarySatellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Chapter 7

REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

INTRODUCTION

The value of viewing Earth from space to pro-vide crucial resource and environmental infor-mation on the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses was recognized early in this Nation’s de-velopment of space technology. It was an obviousextension of remote sensing by aircraft and bal-loons, technologies that were already well-estab-Iished.1 Two years after the National Aeronauticsand Space Act was signed, the United States re-ceived its first images from space taken by thepolar-orbiting 2 weather satellite called the Televi-sion and infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS).

This chapter describes the principal remotesensing systems that have been developed by theUnited States and other countries and those thatare now under development. It draws heavily ona technical memorandum published in 1984 inconnection with this assessments The chapter ex-plores the primary issues connected with the gen-eration, distribution, and application of remotelysensed data, and assesses various policy optionsfor Congress to consider as it debates the needfor remote-sensing technology for the atmos-phere, land, and oceans.

1 I n general terms, remote sensing is the art of obtaining informa-tion about objects, areas or phenomena through analyzing datagathered by devices placed at a distance from the subjects of study.Remote sensing may refer to sensing over short distances, as in med-ical or laboratory research applications using lasers, or over longdistances as in environmental monitoring from satellite platformsusing advanced electro-optical instruments. Once the initial dataare sensed, they must be analyzed and interpreted either visuallyor through sophisticated computer analysis.

21 n a polar orbit the satellite is inclined nearly 90 degrees to theEquator. As the satellite orbits, the Earth turns beneath, making pos-sible direct overhead observations of the entire Earth over a givenperiod. The geostationary satellites, by contrast, provide continu-ous viewing but are limited to providing perpendicular viewing atonly one longitude at the equator. All other points on Earth aresensed at some angle. They therefore “see” the polar regions ata highly oblique angle. The orbital elements of the meteorologicalTIROS satellit~ are so chosen to allow them to pass over everyportion of Earth’s surface twice every 24 hours, once passing fromnorth to south, and once passing from south to north.

‘Remote Sensing and the Private Sector.. Issues for Discussion(Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,OTA-TM-ISC-20, March 1984).

The Systems

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA)4 operates two civilian sys-tems (fig. 7-1 ) for making global meteorologicalobservations: a geostationary system (Geosta-tionary Orbiting Environmental Satellite–GOES)using two satellites that continuously monitorweather systems within their field of view (fig. 7-2);5 and a polar-orbiting meteoro log ica l sys tem(Advanced Television and Infrared ObservationSatellite–TIROS) that observes meteorologicalphenomena in more detail over the entire globefrom two satellites (fig. 7-3).

NOAA also operates the polar-orbiting U.S.Landsat system, which was developed by theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), to provide valuable data of high spatialand spectral resolution (fig. 7-4) of Earth’s landresources. Data from the system support a vari-ety of applications, including assessing and man-aging renewable and nonrenewable resources,mapping, and land-use planning. The Landsat sys-tem was transferred to NOAA in 1983 and is nowmanaged as an operational system. The Depart-ment of Commerce is currently attempting totransfer the Landsat system to private ownership.

Ocean remote sensing systems are the least de-veloped of remote sensing efforts. Although theresults from such experimental ocean satellitesas Seasat, Nimbus, and the Geodynamic Experi-

4The development of the weather satellite began in the DOD,but was transferred to NASA in 1959. In 1961 the Weather Bureauwas placed in charge of providing an operational weather satellitesystem. Operational satellite services were moved to the Environ-mental Science Services Administration in 1965 and finally to NOAAin 1970. They now reside in the National Environmental SatelliteData and Information Service (N ESDIS), which is part of NOAA.

son juIy 30, 1 g84, GOES-5 failed in orbit. This left the UnitedStates with only a single geostationary satellite (the western satel-lite, GOES-6) to provide data during the critical severe storm seasonsof the summer and early fall. To make up (in part) for the !OSS ofinformation that losing the eastern satellite entailed, NOAA movedGOES-6 to a central location. This meant reduced weather servicefor Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific Trust Territories. GOES-7, thereplacement for the failed GOES-5, will not be available for launchuntil late in 1985 or early 1986.

253

✒✕✔ ● International Cooperation and Competition in Civil ian Space Activit ies

Figure 7-1 .—Polar-Orbiting and Geostationary Satellites

Polar orbiting satellites

N

Gilmore Creek,Alaska

530 mi

earth rotation

Orbit path E

&

per orbit

sOrbit plane

rotates eastward1“ per day

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

WallopsIsland,

Virginia

Geostationary satellites

mental Ocean Satellite have created interest indeveloping remote sensing systems that will pro-vide resource information from the oceans, nocivilian operational U.S. system is planned.G

Remote sensing from space at present consti-tutes a small part of a larger array of mappingservices provided by terrestrial and airborne de-vices. 7 The data acquired from space are nowroutinely integrated with other remotely senseddata (aircraft and balloons) and terrestrial, air, andwater measurements, thus enhancing the value,and expanding the application of both data sets.As discussed in detail below, other countries ei-ther operate, or have under development, vari-ous remote sensing systems; a few complementU.S. efforts, others will compete with U.S.systems.

Subsatellite

s

6The u .S. Navy is planning a system called Navy Remote OceanSensing System (N-ROSS) which may be launched in 1988 or 1989.Most data from this system will be available to civilian users throughNOAA (see section on Ocean Remote Sensing).

Zln fisca[ year 1984, sales of Lan4sat data made up 34 percentof the total sales of remotely sensed data from the EROS Data Centerin Sioux Falls, SD. Private services also sense and sell aircraft data.

Remote Sensing Policy

Although the United States has led the worldin the development and operation of civilian re-mote sensing systems, this year it will face com-petition from France for the sale of land remotesensing data products. There is little commercialmarket for data sales from meteorological sys-tems, but opportunities do exist for broad multi-national cooperation in providing meteorologicaldata from space. The United States is exploringthe prospect of joining with other Free Worldspace-capable nations in building a cooperativepolar-orbiting global meteorological satellite sys-tem. Such a venture could strongly enhance thelevel of service delivered by such systems.

In 1983, the Administration accelerated a proc-ess begun in the late 1970s intended to lead tothe transfer of the Landsat system from the Fed-eral Government to the private sector. The prin-cipal motivation for transferring the system to pri-vate hands is that the private sector excels bothat innovation and at developing markets forgoods and services. The 98th Congress passed the

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space c 255

Figure 7-2.—image of Earth, Received Aug. 8, 1980, by GOES Satellite

Two hurricanes are clearly visible: Allen in the Gulf of Mexico and Isis just west of Mexico.


Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space ● 257

Figure 7-4.—image of New York City and EnvironsTaken by the Thematic Mapper (30-meter resolution)

The George Washington and Verrazano bridges are clearlyvisible.

Landsat Commercialization Act of 1984 (PublicLaw 98-365) that provides for a phased transferof the Landsat system (see later section, PolicyHistory of Land Remote Sensing) and authorizesa subsidy to fund part of the capital costs of build-ing and launching a commercial system. As theDepartment of Commerce implements the pro-visions of Public Law 98-365, Congress is over-seeing the transfer process. The question Con-gress now faces is whether additional legislationor other measures will be necessary to aid thecommercialization process.

Transfer to the private sector raises severalquestions: 1) whether this course of action willenhance or impede U.S. competitiveness withother nations in this field, 2) whether private firmswill eventually develop a self-sustaining businessof providing land remote sensing from satellites,3) how the Government might enhance that proc-ess, and 4) what transfer model best serves theneeds of the United States? If the current trans-fer process fails to establish a viable commercialoperation, Congress will be faced with decidingwhat to do about it.

A significant international effort has begun inremote sensing of the oceans. Both research andoperational satellites are planned by the UnitedStates and other nations, making possible jointresearch and data distribution efforts. The UnitedStates is exploring ways in which to coordinateinternational efforts in ocean remote sensing.

Applications of Remotely Sensed Data

Data from satellite systems have been used fora variety of applications beyond the specificscientific objectives that guided their develop-ment. Specifications for meteorological satellitesand sensors initially were set to address currentand future needs of the National Weather Serv-ice for weather forecasting and warning. How-ever, as the technology has evolved, the UnitedStates has used these systems to enhance its re-lations with other countries by integrating instru-ments provided by other nations into U.S. space-craft, and by freely sharing data with membernations of the World Meteorological Organiza-tion (WMO), a specialized agency of the UnitedNations formed to coordinate weather serviceson a global basis. Though the Landsat system hasa shorter history, the United States has also usedit as an ambassador for U.S. space technologyby selling data on a public, nondiscriminatorybasis, and through arrangements for direct trans-mission of Landsat data (on a fee basis) to foreign-owned and foreign-operated ground stations.

Satellite remote sensing systems are also impor-tant to national security. Though the United Stateshas consistently maintained separate civilian andmilitary systems, the programs have been mutu-ally supportive. In defense and civilian meteor-ological programs, mutual backup in case of sys-tem failures and free data exchange exemplify thissupport.

Government and civilian market potential varyconsiderably for the different remote sensing sys-tems. Although the metsats have a long historyof operation, these systems are just beginning todevelop a commercial value-added data indus-try. The Federal Government is by far the largestuser of meteorological data.g U.S. State and local

B“Transfer of the CIVII Operational tarth Observation Satellites

to the Private Sector, ” U.S. Department of Commerce, February1983. p. B-24,

. .. . . .

258 International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

governments, foreign governments, universities,and commercial firms also use these data. Thoughnew applications for meteorological data are be-ing found for assessing crop conditions, scanningthe ocean, and for mapping water resources, theirpotential for expanded use is limited by the needfor more complete computer models and by theavailability of confirmatory data from higherresolution ocean and land satellite systems.

The market for data from the Landsat system,which have always been sold to users, has re-mained undeveloped. The Government purchasesnearly 50 percent of the Landsat data, but thecommercial market for these data remains diffuse,unaggregated, and small.9

9For example, total shipped sales (not counting special charges)for fiscal year 1984 amounted to only $3,812,128, 45 percent ofwhich was purchased by Government agencies. Although the cur-

Although the potential for applying ocean re-mote sensing data to problems faced by oceanusers is high, only short-term scientific satellitemissions have been flown. Much more experi-mentation with actual data from operational sat-ellite systems will be needed to assess the poten-tial commercial market for data and data products.

rent market has historically been small (see table 7- I 4 and fig. 7-16 for the total Landsat data sales since 1972), these data have neverbeen marketed commercially. Several analysts have predicted thatgiven proper commercial marketing and a favorable Governmentalattitude, the future market could be large. Their analysis is in partthe basis for believing that land remote sensing could be effectivelycommercialized. See G. William Spann, statement before the SenateSubcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, S. Hrg. 98-747,Mar. 22, 1984.

METEOROLOGICAL REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS

U.S. Systems10

NOAA manages two civilian environmental sat-ellite (metsat) systems (see pp. 259, 260, and 261).The TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting satellites (fig.7-5) provide systematic high resolution globalweather observations, both day and night, tomeet both U.S. and international data require-ments for a global, immediate, and long-rangeweather forecasting system. The GOES series ofgeostationary satellites (fig. 7-6) provides contin-uous viewing of weather systems at visible andinfrared wavelengths between 70°N latitude and70°S latitude (fig. 7-7), and complements the datareceived by the TIROS-N series. The GOES sat-ellites provide the weather images seen on televi-sion and in the newspapers. Both systems havethe ability to collect and transmit data from Earth-based platforms. Both systems are necessary forproviding adequate information about weatherconditions directly related to U.S. needs.

IOSee NOAA Sate//ite Programs Briefing, U.S. Department of Com-merce, August 1983.

Possible Future Directions

Continued R&D on new sensors will enhancethe abilities of U.S. satellites to gather useful envi-ronmental data. Because much meteorologicalsensor technology is common to all national sys-tems, new developments are applicable to bothforeign and U.S. systems. Experience with micro-wave sounders’ 11 on Nimbus satellites, as well ason the NOAA-N series, indicates that a newsounder capable of infrared sensing has prom-ise for better soundings in cloudy areas, and bet-ter information on atmospheric water vapor andprecipitation rates. The proposed 15-channeimicrowave instrument would give better verticalresolution, particularly in the stratosphere, andwould be supplemented with additional channelsfor sounding water vapor. The United Kingdom,which now provides the microwave instrumenton the TIROS-N spacecraft, has expressed inter-est in providing an advanced sounder with theseimproved characteristics.

11A device for measuring atmospheric parameters at different

altitudes.

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing from Space 259

The Polar Orbiting Meteorligical Systems

The Advanced TIROS-N series first become operational with the launch of NOAA-8 in March 1983+*The spacecraft is a three-axis stabilized, box-like structure that carries four primary instrument systems

*NOAA-8 faikd im JMly 1$S4 and w repkmd in Recetnber 1984 by hKlAA4& NOAA-8 is nww in partiat operatkx’i a~in.

i . . .

260 ● International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

A second area for development involves in-creased use of the Visible Atmospheric Sounder(VAS) on geostationary satellites. Tests with theexperimental system aboard the GOES satellitessuggests the possibility of generating an index forsevere weather.

An advanced Ocean Color Imager (OCI), simi-lar to the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) in-strument flown on the NASA satellite, Nimbus-7, if placed on the polar-orbiters, would providemultispectral scanning of the ocean in the visi-ble, and near-infrared spectral regions, for detec-tion of such ocean phenomena as pigmentationchlorophyll content, and turbidity.

instruments on the TIROS-N satellites collectglobal data on the radiation processes of theEarth’s surface and atmosphere for the EarthRadiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). 12 The ex-

1 ZThe ERBE experiment Will consist of measurements Of the tOtal

radiation received by Earth and radiation reemitted by Earth. Meas-

urements are being made by a dedicated satellite, the Earth Radia-

tion Budget Satellite (ERBS) which was launched Oct. 5, 1984, and

by an Instrument on the NOAA-N series of satellites.

change system involved in the absorption and re-radiation of solar influx by Earth’s surface is a ma-jor component of weather analysis. A SolarBackscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer (SBUR) willprovide global sensings of the vertical distribu-tion of ozone to assist determination of the ef-fect of human activities on this essential protec-tive shield and to further understanding of therelationship of ozone to weather changes,

Internationally, the principal technologicalthrust is toward devising more sensitive and stablesensors for polar-orbiting spacecraft, increasingthe operational use of the microwave spectrumfor atmospheric temperature and humidity meas-urements, and increasing the use of the Data Col-lection System for the international hydrologicalcommunity.

Foreign Systems

Other nations maintain operational satellite sys-tems for both national purposes and as part of

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space 261

Ground-Based Sensor Data

Remote sensors achieve greater value forweather analysis when combined with data fromground-based measurements. Ground-basedsensors can provide data not now obtainable bya satellite-borne sensor, such as surface windand pressure, rainfall amount, river levels, seasalinity, or subsurface oceanic temperatures. Be-cause the ARGOS system can locate these sur-face platforms containing ground-based sensors,it is also possible to determine ocean currentsand atmospheric winds. Ground-based observa-tions also provide “ground truth” data valuablein verifying and correlating large-scale weatherpatterns predicted through analysis of satelliteobservations.

For their data to be useful for weather monitor-ing, moving platforms, such as ships or aircraft,must be capable of reporting their own positionwhen reporting to geostationary satellites. Fixedplatforms can be of three types: 1) self-timed,which report under control of an internal clockon a frequency and time assigned by an opera-tor; 2) interrogated, in which a receiver replacesthe clock to allow the satellite ground station tosignal for a report on a flexible time schedule;and 3) alert, in which a special repmting fre-quency is allocated for a signal from the platformthat some particular phenomenon has exceededa preestablished threshold. The number of plat-forms that can be incorporated into the data col-lection service (DCS) is limited by the time re-quired to interrogate, receive, and relay signals.Still, DCS capabilities have greatly expanded theavailability of observations by obtaining datafrom remote areas not accessible to satellite sen-sors or ground telecommunication systems.

the international environmental data gatheringcommunity:

● European Space Agency (ESA)—Meteosat-2. The geostationary satellite, located at 0°longitude, provides raw imagery of Europeanweather conditions to Europe as well as re-laying processed imagery from U.S. geosta-tionary weather satellites. It carries a visibleand infrared scanning radiometer, a DataCollection System, and a weather facsimile

●

●

●

●

service (WE FAX). An improved Meteosat isplanned for launch in 1985.India—1nsat-1. This geostationary satelliteprovides both telecommunications and lim-ited meteorological data. Visible and infraredimages are available every 30 minutes fromInsat 1‘s Very High Resolution Radiometer(VHRR). The spacecraft also has a data col-lection system. The satellite 1B, which re-placed lnsat-lA, was launched successfullyby space shuttle Mission 8 in August 1983.The complete operational system will con-sist of two spacecraft, one at 74‘E longitudeand a second at 94°E longitude.Japan–Geostationary Meteorological Sat-ellite, GMS-3 (Himawari or Sunflower 3).This was launched by Japan on a JapaneseNll launcher in August 1984, and is the thirdin a series of geostationary meteorologicalsatellites. Located at 140”E longitude, the sat-ellite carries a visible and infrared radiome-ter, a space environment monitor, DCS, andWE FAX. The Japanese geostationary satelliteis a crucial element in forecasting and warn-ing of typhoon development and subsequentflooding.Peoples Republic of China. The Chinese areworking on a polar-orbiting and a geostation-ary meteorological satellite; their launchdates are uncertain.The U.S.S.R. polar-orbiting meteorologicalprogram consists of two or three METEOR-2 series spacecraft that fly a near-polar orbitat a 900 km height with an orbital inclina-tion of 810. The METEOR-2 carries fivesensors: a scanning telephotometer that ac-quires imagery at visible wavelengths witha 2.0 km resolution; television-type scannerat the same wavelengths but with 1.0 km res-olution; an infrared scanning radiometer; an8-channel infrared scanning radiometer thatsenses the vertical temperature distributionin the atmosphere; and a radiometer thatmonitors high energy radiation influx fromspace.

Data available from these instruments pro-vide analysis of the global distribution ofclouds and snow and ice cover, global radi-ation temperature of the surface, cloud-top

———. . - . . . . . -- - - — - - - -- - - .


SBA13)

ERBE / E

[SCANNER) /SOA

Figure 7-5.—Advanced

/AVHRR

I SBUV

ERBE(NON. SCANNER)

RI

SOURCE. Nat[onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm!nistratlon.

MISSION: Collect global data on cloud cover, surface conditions such as Ice and snow.surface and afmosphenc temperatures. and atmospheric humldtty, mea-sure solar particle flux, collect and relay informatlon from hxad and mowngdata platforms, prowde continuous data broadcasts

ORBIT: 833- and 870-km ctrcular, 9889$ mclrratlon, 14-14 revsday

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS:. Advanced very High Resolutlon Radiometer (AVHRW2)

1 l-km resolution. ,2600-km swath width

Channels Wavelengths (Km) primary Ueea1 0 5 8 - 0 6 8 Daytime cloud, surface mapping2 0725-1 10 Surface water delineahon. Ice and snow

melt3 3 5 5 - 3 9 3 Sea surface temperature nighttlme cloud

mappmg4 1030-1130 Sea surface temperature, day and nighl

cloud mappmg5 1150-1250 Sea surface temperature. day and night

cloud mappmg

● TIROS Operational Vertlcal Sounder (TOVS):A 3-sensor atmospheric sounding system

(1) High Resolution Infrared Radiatlon Sounder (HlRS/2) 17 4-km resolution

Chennels Waelengths (Pm) Primary Uses1-5 1495-1397 Temperature profiles, clouds6-7 1364-1335 Carbon dloxlde & water vapor bands8 11 11 Surface temperature, clouds9 971 Total 03 concentration10-12 8 1 6 - 6 7 2 Humldlty profiles, detection of thin cirrus

clouds13-17 4 5 7 - 4 2 4 Temperature profiles18-20 4 0 0 . 0 6 9 Clouds surface temperatures under partly

cloudy skies

TIROS.N

SOLAR

VRA

(4)

(2) Stretospharic Sounding Unit (SSU): 147 3-km resolution

Channals Wavelengths (vm) Prtmary Uses1-3 15 Temperature profiles

(3) Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU): 105-km resolution

Channela Frequencies Primary Uses1 5031 GHz2 5373 GHz Temperature soundings through clouds3 5496 (+iz4 5795 CiHz

. Space Environment Monitor (SEM): Measures solar particle flux at space-craft

( 1 ) Total Energy Detector (TED): Solar particle mtensty from 03- to 20-keV

(2) Madlum Energy Proton and EIWron Detector (MEPED): Protons,electrons and Ions m 30- to 60-keV range

. ARGOS Data Collection System (DCS) (French): CollectIon and relay of datafrom fixed or movmg automatic sensor platforms, determmes Iocatlon of movmgplatforms

DIRECT BROADCAST: Contmuousdata broadcasts avadable to any recewmg stationwthm range

● Automatic Picture Transmlaaion (APT): Vwble and Infrared Imagery at 4-kmresolution VHF broadcasts at 13750 or 13762 MHz Basic ground equipmentcosts about $25.000 (U S ) m 1981

0 tllgh Resolution Picture Transmission (HRPT): V!s!ble and Infrared data at1 -km resolution S-band broadcasts at 16980 and 17070 MHz Basicground equlpmer)t costs about $250000 (U S ) In 1981

0 Direct Sounder Broedca.t (DSB): TOVS data Iransmftted for use In quanti-tative programs Broadcast at 13677 or 13777 MHz (Beacon Frequency)and In the HRPT data stream Conventional ground recelwng station re-quired but specialized data processng IS necessary IO produce environ-mental In formation


Figure 7-6.—GOES Satellite

I

Section

/ 7 / I I

) /w@ / Magnetometer

X.raysensor

Hepad +

Radialthrusters

\

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstration

MISSION: Repetttwe observations of the earth dsk and overlaying atmosphere (n theheld of wew measurements of solar x-rays and the proximate spaceenwronment, collection and relay of data from platforms at or near theearths surface, broadcast of data and environmental informallon

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

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS:

. Visible and fnfrared Spin Scan Radiometer (VfSSR) Atmospheric Sounder(vAS): The VAS IS a wslble and Infrared radiometer capable of provldln9 bothmultl-spectral Imagmg and dwell sounding data It possesses eight vmble andSIX infrared detectors Posmonmg a tdfer wheel allows selections from among 12spectral bands w!th centra~ wavelengths between 39 and 15 Wm VAS scanswest to east In coryunctlon wl!h spacecraft rotation at 100 rpm a stepping mirrorprowdes pole to pole scanning Resolutions are 1-km In the wslble and 7- or14-km m the infrared depending upon the selectlon of IR detectors V!slbleImagmg data are prowded routinely every 30 mmutes by each spacecraft duringdayllght and mfrarad (7-km) Imagmg data on the same Schedule. are providedday and rvght

. Space Environment Monitor (SEM): Composed of 4 subsystems

( 1 i X-Ray Sensor Prowdes data on solar x-ray actw(ty m two wavelengthbands O 5-3 OA and 1-8A

Protons -08 to 500 fvfeV, 7 log rangesAiphas -32 to 400 MeV, 6 log rangesElectrons <2 MeV. 1 range

(3) High Energy Proton and Alpha Detector (HEPAD) Protons m the 379-keVrange, alpha particles m the 850-keV range

(4) Magnetometer Momlors magnitude and dlrectlon of ambient magneticfield, parailei field ( - 1200Y} and transverse field (n 4 selectable ranges( : 5oy, : 1007, - 200Y, or z 400-Y)

. Data Colitilon System (DCS): Reiays UHF mterrogahons to and data fromsensor platforms reporting enwronmenlai data

DIRECT BROADCAST: Broadcasts available to any ground station wtthm range

0 WEFAX: Retransmlsson of processed data at 16910 MHz Along with me-teorological charts, GOES Imagery at 8-km resolution and NOAA Imagery al 8-to 12-km resolution are transmitted A dally operational message IS transmltfedthat prowdes schedules and contents A basic ground capablhty costs about$tLOOO (U S ) n 1981

, Stretched Sensor Data: A retransmsslon at a reduced rate, of the data burstthat occurs during the 20’ angular sweep of VAS detectors across the earthThe Iransmisslon IS on S-band at 16871 MHz A basic ground station thatincludes a hmded product capablhty costs about $150 OM (U S ) m 1981

(2) Energy Particle Sensor Determmes mtensfy of charged particle flux mthe tollowmg ranges

.-— - .- - - — — . . . .


Figure 7-7.—GOES Geographic Coverage

One satellite Two satellites

— —— —---+:+. . - . . .

+—— !1 ’ + >1 I m

++-:” Y i ./’ ”+--+”

--+;/-+++-- -’q’’ t-j


heights; and vertical distribution of temper- International Cooperation inature. Only the United States and the Soviet Meteorological Satellite SystemsUnion operate polar-orbiting meteorologicalspacecraft.

The Soviet Union plans to launch a Geo-stationary Operational Meteorological Sat-ellite (GOMS) this year, which will carry vis-ible and infrared sensors. It will be stationedat 70°E longitude and will have a scanningradiometer operating at visible and infraredwavelengths, DCS, and WEFAX. Soviet de-signers are investigating the feasibility ofoperating a geosynchronous satellite inclinedby 65° to the Equator.13 The ground trackof such a satellite would describe a figure-eight pattern (fig. 7-8) and have the dual ad-vantage of spending some time over the So-viet Union, the northern reaches of whichare inaccessible to a satellite positioned overthe Equator, and also over the Indian Oceanwhere observations critical to certain Sovietmilitary operations would be possible.

I jNicholas L. Johnson, “The Soviet Year in Space: 1983,” Tele-dyne Brown Engineering, 1984, p. 24.

The United States has encouraged direct recep-tion of data (at no cost) from its civilian meteor-ological satellites on an international basis forover 20 years. There are about 1,000 direct read-out stations in over 125 countries (table 7-1). Inaddition, NOAA sells metsat data products world-wide. Foreign sales of U.S. meteorological value--added data products were about 13 percent ofproduct sales (provided at cost of reproduction)in fiscal year 1984.14

The United States cooperates with other na-tions through the World Meteorological Organi-zation (WMO), a specialized agency of theUnited Nations whose purpose is to coordinate,standardize, and improve meteorological servicesthroughout the world (see box, p. 268).

The United States has also reached bilateral andmultilateral agreements in the form of Memoran-da of Understanding with foreign governments

1 qFigure provided by National Environmental Satellite, Data, andInformation Service of NOAA.

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space ● 2 6 5

Figure 7-8. —Path of Geosynchronous Satellite in Inclined Orbit

83, / I

60

45

o

- 1 5

- 3 0

- 4 5

-60 -

- 7 5 “I- - I I \ I 1

- 5 30 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

NOTE: A geosynchronous satelllte In an orbit lncllned 65° to the Equator would trace out a dally figure eight pattern like the one Illustrated above

A geosynchronous satellite in an orbit inclined 65° to the Equator would trace out a daily figure-eight pat-tern like the one illustrated above.SOURCE: N Johnson, “The Soviet Year in Space, 1983,” Teledyne Brown Engineering, January 1984, p. 24.

concerning use of the U.S. Data CommunicationsSystem. In order to be included in the system,foreign projects must be of interest to a U.S. Gov-ernment agency and must meet certain techni-cal criteria for system use. In some cases, dataincluded in this system may be treated confiden-tially by the United States. However, all data inthe system are available to NOAA.

As mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom hasprovided the Stratospheric Sounding Unit for theU.S. TIROS-N polar orbiter. The French provideand operate the ARGOS data collection systemfor the NOAA polar orbiter. These arrangementsmake the polar-orbiting satellites much more ca-pable than they would be otherwise.

Finally, under an agreement among the UnitedStates, Canada, France, and the Soviet Union, thepolar orbiting satellites are being used for search

and rescue of downed aircraft in remote areas(COSPAS/SARSAT–see app. A).

Data Products and Service

This section summarizes the data products andservices derived from meteorological satellite datathat are routinely available through NOAA. Allof these data products are available to usersaround the world either for free (through radio,TV, or telephone) or for purchase on a nondis-criminatory, cost-reimbursable basis from NOAA.Table 7-2 lists the categories of U.S. domesticusers of such data. The categories of internationalusers are similar.

Weather

Table 7-3 summarizes the major weather-re-lated products provided by NOAA. In addition,

—-. . -— — - - . . .


Photo credit: European Space Agency

Visible wavelength image of weather patterns on Earth, as taken by Meteosat, the European geostationary meteorologicalsatellite. Meteosat was developed and built by the European Space Agency.


Table 7-1. Countries With APT/HRPT Reception Capabilities

Countries with APT facillties:AfghanistanAlgeriaAngola (status unknown)Antarctica (USN res.)ArgentinaAustraliaAustriaAzoresBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelgiumBermudaBoliviaBrazilBulgariaBurmaCambodia (status unknown)CameroonCanadaCanary IslandsChileColombiaCosta RicaCuracaoCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaGambiaGerman Democratic RepublicGermany, Federal Republic ofGhanaGreeceGreenlandGuadaloupeGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIsraelItaly

Ivory CoastJapanJordanKenyaKorea (South)KuwaitMadagascarMalaysiaMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew GuineaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanPapua New GuineaParaguayPeople’s Republic of ChinaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth YemenSpainSri LankaSudanSurinamSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTahitiTaiwanTanzaniaThailandTrinidad and TobagoTunisia

TurkeyUnion of Soviet Socialist RepublicsUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUpper VoltaUruguayVenezuelaViet-Nam, Republic of (status unknown)YugoslaviaZaireZambiaZimbabwe

Countries with HRPT facilities:BangladeshBelgiumBrazilCanadaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkFranceGermany, Federal Republic ofGreenlandIndiaIndonesiaIranItalyJapanKorea (South)MalaysiaMongoliaNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPeople’s Republic of ChinaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSwedenSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandTunisiaUnion of Soviet Socialist RepublicsUnited KingdomUnited StatesYemen (South)

SOURCE” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

— -. — . . .- . -. —

268 . International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities


the

satellite, make up the heart of the World Weather WkK1. Metsat data received in theUnited States support the National Weather Service, the of Defense, and international avia-tion. Most of the data on the Global Telecommunication & System come from countries other than theUnited States.**

, . .

In collaboration with the International Council of ~ie<ptl~~ LJaiO~$, the WMC) established the GlobalAtmospheric Research Program (GARP) to develop for large-scale atmospheric datagathering. The principal experiment of this kind was the F@tKb4RP Global Experiment (FGGE), heldin the late 1970s, which prompted extensive nat[onal and [@emotional planning for development ofmeteorological systems. The WMO was assisted in this coa&?atlve effort by an informal forum of rep-resentatives of governments and organizations praposit&aU%mch geostationary meteorological satel-lites, the Coordination of Geostationary Meteoro!ogicai (CGMS), This group was effective incoordinating technical characteristics and operational pr@@qres ofsystems as well as assuring similar-ity of data transmissions and platform data collection proc~+wes. The activities of these organizationsled to support of the FGGE in 1978 and to the current glt@a’1 meteorological system.

.,

**’’Satellite Systems in Support of WMO Programrnes and Joint Programmed Wkh Other International (3qi@zations,” prepared by the WMOfor Unispace-82, Geneva, January 1982, pp. 20-21.

National Weather Service (NWS) (table 7-4) Table 7-3.—Derived Meteorologicalcombines satellite data with other weather data Satellite Productsa

to develop weather forecasts designed to be use-ful to a variety of commercial interests, including

● Soundings —Temperature profiles from the surfacethrough the stratosphere

av ia tors , fa rmers , f i shermen, f ru i t g rowers , and Sea Surface Temperature—Global and regional seasurface temperature and water mass analyses

Table 7.2.—Domestic Users of Meteorological● Ice—Ice analyses of the polar regions and Great Lakes

Satellite Data● Vegetation index — Measure of how “green” a target

area appears.● Rainfa’11“ Estimates

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

NOAA—National Weather Service Centers and Forecast

Offices—National Ocean Service—Office of ResearchDepartment of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management and Reclamation—Water Resources DivisionDepartment of Agriculture—Soil Conservation Service—Forestry Service—Foreign Agriculture ServiceNASADepartment of DefenseAgency for International DevelopmentDepartment of TransportationNational Science Foundation, National Academy ofScienceNews mediaCommercial users—Offshore drilling operations—Ship routing—Agricultural producers—Commercial and general aviation—Vessels at sea—Fishing industryUniversitiesPrivate individuals

Hurricane Classification● Cloud Motion Winds. Satellite Interpretation Messages● Tropical Storm BulIetins Cloud Top Height DataaThese products are available in a variety of forms e g , charts, broadcast mes-

sages, and imagery


Table 7-4.—National Weather Service Hurricane,International Aviation, and Marine Forecast Programs

● Hurricane forecasts and warnings. International aviation weather services

—Area forecasts—Inflight advisories (hazardous weather)—Computer flight planning forecasts

● High seas weather services—Weather, waves, currents, and sea ice forecasts—Navigation and operations support—Forecasts and warnings for U.S. coastal and offshore

waters—Tsunami warnings and advisories

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

- .— — —— - — . —. -- .- -- - -— --


commercial shippers. The broadest category ofweather data users are the millions of ordinarycitizens who tune in to or read the daily forecastfor guidance in preparing for work and recrea-tion. NOAA and NWS also provide special warn-ing of hurricane, tornado, and other severeweather conditions.

Land and Ocean

Meteorological remote sensing is not limitedsolely to weather applications, as the sensors canalso measure important land and ocean phenom-ena throughout the world. Using data derivedfrom channels 1 and 2 of the polar-orbiters’AVHRR to sense visible and near-infrared radia-tions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as wellas the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Or-ganization and private value-added corporations,are able to monitor and analyze global crop con-ditions (see later section on market for land re-mote sensing data). Identification of urban “heatislands” sensed by the High-Resolution InfraredSounder assists planners in monitoring metropoli-tan industrial and population growth. NOAA pro-vides analyses of meteorological satellite obser-vations of snow and ice as both hydrological andoceanographic products.

Hydrological products using the AVHRR andGOES-VISSR instruments include the followingat 1 km resolution: snow coverage observationsof selected river basins; regional snow coverageanalysis for selected regions of the world; and anorthern hemisphere snow and ice chart. Theseproducts are valuable for assessing water runoffpotential.

Products for oceanographic use include icecharts produced from AVHRR readings for thepolar regions and a combination of AVHRR andgeostationary VISSR imagery for the Great Lakesregion, both to accuracies of 5 km. These anal-yses are particularly useful in forecasting the limitsof the shipping season in particular regions andcommercial ship routing, as well as for U.S. Navyand U.S. Coast Guard missions.

Global sea surface temperature (SST) observa-tions are received daily from AVHRR infrared dataand the High-Resolution Infrared RadiationSounder (H IRS-2) data aboard the polar orbiters.

Accuracies of 1.5o C are achieved over 70 per-cent of the oceans. Regional SST charts, distrib-uted through NOAA Satellite Field Service Sta-tions in Miami, Washington, DC, San Francisco,and Anchorage, are particularly useful to com-mercial fishermen for locating certain species offish. Ocean current analyses include thermal frontanalysis of the waters off the west coast of theUnited States, which also benefits fishermen byidentifying nutrient-rich ocean upwellings attrac-tive to fish. Observations in the infrared usingAVHRR can give an accuracy of 5 km for lo-cating frontal zones. Ocean current navigationis assisted by analyses of polar-orbiter AVHRRinfrared and GOES-VISSR imagery of the Gulfstream and “loop currents” in the Gulf of Mex-ico. The thermal boundaries of these currents andtheir eddies can be determined with an accuracyof 5 km, which allows fuel savings and reduceshazards for fishing and shipping interests. All ofthese data products are available for purchase ona nondiscriminatory cost-reimbursable basis fromNOAA to users around the world.

Market for Metsat Equipmentand Services

The market for civilian metsat equipment andservices can be divided into three categories: thespace component, ground station equipment,and various services related to reception and datadistribution.

Satellite Manufacturers

The primary U.S. manufacturers are HughesAircraft Corp., which has built the U.S. (GOES)and most of the Japanese (GMS) geostationary sat-ellites,15 and RCA Astro-Electronics, which hasbuilt the NOAA-N series of polar orbiters.lb TheGeneral Electric Corp. built the Nimbus series ofresearch satellites for NASA.

The GOES satellites (4-6) cost approximately$15 million apiece and are designed to last about5 years.17 Replacement satellites (GOES-G and

ISThe GMS.2 and GMS-3 satellites were built by Hughes and Nip-pon Electric Corp.

1 GRCA also bu i Ids the DMSP satellites for DOD.1 zHowever, GOES-5 lasted only 3 years. GOES4 failed even

sooner.


Sixday normalized vegetative index composite made with data from

w

Photo credit; ~arfonal Oceanic and Atmosjmerlc Adrmnisfration

instruments aboard the NOAA-N series polar orbiter.

. . . .


GOES-H), built by Hughes, are expected to costabout $50 million and will be designed for a simi-lar lifetime. Future satellites in the series, whichwill be much more capable, will likely cost about$100 million apiece. Two GOES satellites are nec-essary for complete coverage of the United States.The NOAA-N polar orbiters (H, 1, J) cost approx-imately $45 million but future models will costabout $100 million. Each polar orbiter is designedto last 3 years and two are normally orbiting atany one time.

The European (Meteosat) geostationary satel-lites, which constitute the satellite portion ofEumetsat, were built by a consortium headed bythe French firm Aerospatiale.18 Two Meteosat sat-ellites have been launched since 1977. AlthoughEurope has no polar-orbiting system, the UnitedKingdom and France contribute sensors to theU.S. polar orbiters.

Satellites

For several reasons, the overall market formeteorological satellites or for individual sensorsis likely to remain small and competition highlylimited. First, because the complete internationalgeostationary system gives rather good coverageof the world as it is, no sales to countries that donot presently own a system are likely. * Second,because satellites are owned by national govern-ments, countries will tend to purchase satellitesfrom their own vendors.

● The United States. GOES G and H are plannedfor delivery in late 1985 and mid-l986 respec-tively. The GOES-Next series of advanced geo-stationary satellites (five are planned) will beneeded in 1989 and beyond, but have not yetbeen ordered. NOAA-G is planned for launchin 1985. The Advanced NOAA series of polar-orbiting satellites are also planned but have notyet been ordered.

18The other ~ember~ of the ~on~ortium ~~~ Matra (France), IGG

(United Kingdom), Marconi Space and Defense Systems (UnitedKingdom), Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm (Federal Republic of Ger-many), ANT (Federal Republic of Germany), ETCA (Belgium), andSelenia (Italy).

*lf China proceeds with its present plans to launch a geostationaryand a polar-orbiting satellite, it will likely provide its own satellitesas part of its effort to develop a capacity in space technology.

●

●

●

Japan. It plans to launch three additional GMSsatellites before the end of the century. 19 Asnoted, it purchased major portions of its pre-vious geostationary satellites from Hughes Air-craft Corp. In the future it may attempt to buildits own, or consider purchasing its next satel-lite from Europe.20

Europe. The third Meteosat satellite is sched-uled for launch in an Ariane 4 test flight in July1986. Three more satellites and parts for build-ing a backup satellite are now on order, andare scheduled for launch in August/September1987, August 1988, and 1990. The market forMeteosat satellites, which are comparable tothe GOES series, is essentially closed to U.S.suppliers.

International systems. The Europeans and theJapanese may contribute to an internationalpolar-orbiting system, in which case, individ-ual countries will contribute instruments orother subsystems to the system (see sectionbelow on issues).

Ground Stations

The primary characteristic of the metsat groundequipment market is its relatively small size. Year-ly international sales are extremely difficult toquantify, but representatives of several U.S. firmsinterviewed by OTA agreed that total yearly salesamount to less than $20 million, more than halffrom U.S. firms. Total worldwide investment inmetsat ground receiving stations now equals atleast $200 million.

Ground stations consist of the relatively inex-pensive APT station (approximately $40,000 to$55,000), the more expensive HRPT station (ap-proximately $0.5 million to $1 million) and anyauxiliary data processing equipment. U.S. ground

1 gACCOrdirlg m current Space Council and NASDA plans, Japanwill launch GMS-4 in fiscal year 1989, GMS-5 in fiscal year 1994,and GMS-6 in fiscal year 1999. However, production of none ofthese has been funded. See “Earth Sensors Further Japan’s Efforts, ”Aviation Week and Space Technology, june 25, 1984, pp. 151-57.

ZOLast year, European corporations offered to build a replacementsatellite for the japanese patterned after their own meteosat series.The price for the satellite, not including possible modifications tosuit it for operation over japan, is about $30 million. The offer in-cluded an additional $30 million to $32 million to launch it on anAriane launcher. See “Europe Offers Weather Satellite to japan,”Aviation Week and Space Technology, july 2, 1984, pp. 21-22.

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space . 273

equipment manufacturers also supply receiversfor a variety of applications, including civilian andmilitary communications, military meteorologicalapplications, intelligence, and command andcontrol; supplying metsat stations and associateddata processing equipment is a small part of theirtotal business.

Foreign suppliers of ground station equipmentinclude MacDonald Dettwiler Association, Inc.,of Canada, SEP of France, MBB of West Germany,and NEC of Japan. They compete directly withU.S. firms abroad. U.S. firms compete well in theinternational market because of superior technol-ogy. In the past they have been supported in sell-ing to the developing countries by the involve-ment of NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (AID) in extending theuse of metsat technology.

There is little market in the United States foradditional ground receivers because of easy ac-cess to processed data from the National WeatherService, Except for replacement items, most fu-ture market expansion will be in the developingworld. However, developing countries alreadyown a large number of installations and theirfuture purchasing power is highly dependent onforeign aid programs, especially for the more ex-pensive H RPTs. Technology transfer restrictionsare not a problem, even for the high resolutionequipment, because these receivers are not ca-pable of conversion for use with military systems.

The foreign commercial market is dominatedby foreign suppliers. Many of the purchases byThird World countries are sponsored by WMOthrough the World Weather Watch. In these in-stances, supplier selection is based on the usualpurchase considerations, including lowest cost,best technology, and local and international pol-itics. Where foreign aid is used, supplier selec-tion will be heavily influenced by the donor coun-try. The donor’s influence can be felt eitherinformally, through recommendations, or moreformally, through specifications set to favor thedonor country’s technology. Selling to some for-eign governments can be difficult because theyoften do not release enough information to allowa U.S. company to bid responsibly. Sometimesit is possible to obtain information through other

U.s(part

firms that are successful bidders on anotherof the project (e.g., the satellite builder).

Meteorological Satellite Issues

What Role Might the Private SectorPlay in Enhancing the Utility of U.S.Meteorological Satellite Systems?

Suggestions a few years ago that the U.S. me-teorological satellites might be transferred to pri-vate ownership raised a number of concernsabout the domestic and international effects ofsuch a policy. In March 1983, the Reagan Admin-istration announced that it would seek to trans-fer both the meteorological and land remote sens-ing satellite systems to the private sector. Thisproposal was the result of an offer from COMSATCorp. to purchase the Landsat system from theGovernment if the meteorological system wasalso included .21 Although most aspects of thisissue have been resolved in favor of continuedGovernment operation of the metsat systems, therelated principle of encouraging private sector in-volvement in space makes continued discussionof the issue appropriate. The following key con-cerns relate directly to the transfer proposal:

● Data distribution policy. In order to preparefor the eventuality that metsat data wouldbe sold through a private corporation, theAdministration began to explore the feasibil-ity of charging for metsat data. Tentative andunofficial suggestions by U.S. officials in thespring and summer of 1983 that the UnitedStates might begin to charge other nationsfor these data were met with warnings fromthose countries22 that the United States wastampering with well-established, long-termpractices and that other countries might re-ciprocate in kind. These nations felt that sucha change of policy would introduce an un-

ZISee statement of Joseph V. Charyk, of COMSAT before the Sub-committee on Space Science and Applications of the House Com-mittee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee onScience Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation July 23, 1985. COMSAT arguedthat if both systems were operated by a single entity, certain econ-omies inherent in system operation, and sales of metsat data, wouldallow it to build the market for Landsat data while charging roughlywhat the Government was charging for Landsat data.

22’’ Satellite Storm Ahead, ” Nature, vol. 304, p, 202, 1983.


●

●

●

necessary and potentially destructive com-petitive element into a smooth functioningcooperative arrangement. Because the UnitedStates receives more data through member-ship in WMO than it supplies to the rest ofthe world, charging for metsat data wouldalso result in a net cost to the United States.In part because of the outcry from U.S. usersof foreign data (especially the Departmentof Defense (DOD)) as well as from Con-gress, 23 the Administration drew back andsubsequently reaffirmed earlier commit-ments to supply meteorological data freelyand free of charge to users throughout theworld (except for certain special productsthat are priced at cost).Contributions to and from the global sys-tem. As noted earlier, the United States hasbeen a member and strong supporter of theWorld Meteorological Organization since itwas founded in 1947. Transfer of metsats toprivate ownership would have complicatedU.S. arrangements with WMO and, in theabsence of a formal organization such asINTELSAT or INMARSAT for managing a glo-bal meteorological satellite system, a U.S.private firm might have found it extremelydifficult to work with the meteorologicalagencies from other governments.Reduction of service. In testimony beforethe Senate Subcommittee on Science, Tech-nology, and Space in August 1983, repre-sentatives from several industries that de-pend heavily on weather data, includingagriculture, aviation, forestry, and marine in-dustries, expressed their reservations aboutthe proposed transfer. They felt that the qual-ity and quantity of service would suffer. Simi-lar concerns were expressed to members ofthe House Subcommittee on Natural Re-sources, Agriculture Research, and Envi-ronment.System hardware. Although the specifica-tions of the meteorological satellite systemsare set by NOAA in response to Governmentand private sector needs, private firms havea major role in designing and building the

ZJfjOth HOUSE Concurrent Resolut ion 168 , Sept . 19 , 1983, and

Senate Concurrent Resolution 67, Sept. 19, 1983; 98th Cong., 1st

sess., expressed Congress’ opposition to sale of metsat data.

●

systems’ components. In the future, NOAAmight be encouraged to make space availa-ble on its satellites (on a fee basis) for instru-ments that serve particular needs of the pri-vate sector and that would be provided byprivate firms for profit-making data services.In addition to serving domestic needs, suchinstruments would also be of interest to for-eign customers.Development of market for metsat dataproducts. In addition to their use in dailyweather forecasts from the National WeatherService, data from meteorological satellitessupport a small, but growing industry de-voted to converting data supplied by NOAAto information for a wide variety of publicand private interests. These specialized val-ue-added firms provide services as varied aspredicting severe impending weather for thebenefit of specialized groups, or predictingthe best ocean routes for international ship-ping. Value-added firms have learned howto process metsat data conjointly with landremote sensing data to predict crop yields,both domestically and abroad.24 Such infor-mation products are expected to be used bythe value-added industry to expand the mar-ket for data sales from land remote sensingsatellites. As the value of these services formetsat data becomes more widely known,this industry is likely to grow.

As a result of these and other considerations,Congress amended appropriations bill H.R. 3222,to prohibit the sale or transfer of the meteoro-logical satellite systems to the private sector. OnNovember 28, 1983, President Reagan signed thisbill into law (Public Law 98-1 66), thereby reaffirm-ing that the U.S. meteorological satellite systemswould remain in the public sector.25

In order to provide appropriate service to datausers, NOAA funds limited internal and univer-sity research to find new ways to utilize metsat

IAsee, for example, t?prnotp Sensing and the Private Sector, op.

cit., app. D. The results of much of this work were reported at aNOAA-sponored conference, “NOAA’s Environmental SatellitesCome of Age,” Mar. 26-28, 1984, Washington, DC.

251n addition, the Land5at commercialization Act of 1984 ( p u b -

lic Law 98-365) contains a provision that specifically prohibits sale

of the meteorological systems. These actions reflect the strength

of congressional opposition to the sale of any part of the meteoro-

logical satellite system.


data.26 In addition, NOAA provides some special-ized value-added services and products (e.g., fruitfrost warnings or ocean surface temperaturescharts) that might in time be provided profitablyby private firms, using the initial satellite weatherdata as the input. As users gain more experiencewith using metsat data and linking them to otherinformation sources, it will be important for theGovernment to avoid competing with the privatesector in providing value-added data products,and to find ways to motivate the private sectorto provide such services.

What Level of Service From the Polar-Orbiting Satellites Is Appropriate?

In its effort to reduce the costs of operating themeteorological satellites, the Administration hasattempted to move to what is essentially a singlepolar-orbiting system, thereby saving some of thecost of the second satellite, and a percentage ofthe operating costs of the entire system. Elimi-nating one of the polar orbiters would reduce thecoverage of the system from once every 6 hoursto once every 12 hours for a particular spot onthe Earth. For most of the continental UnitedStates, a reduction in service would not cause aserious decline in the ability to predict futuresevere weather. In those areas, conventional datacollection systems and the geostationary satellitesprovide sufficient information. For the Pacificcoast, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Pacific Trust Ter-ritories, the 6-hour repeat coverage that two po-lar-orbiting metsats supply is extremely importantfor timely warning of rapidly changing weatherconditions (fig. 7-1 O). None of these areas has ac-cess to surface data for the predominately west-to-east weather patterns.27

As one observer noted,28 having a second sat-ellite for backup is also important. Experience

ZeN@M spends about $1.25 million, primarily internally, to de-velop new products that will use both Landsat and metsat data foragricultural and other renewable resource applications. In addi-tion, it funds R&D (approximately $1 million) at about 6 universi-ties to find new applications for metsat data in a variety of disciplinesincluding severe storms, climate studies, a n d mesoscalemeteorology.

zzBecause the primary weather flow i n the northern hemisphereis from west to east, information gathered to the west of a geographicarea is especially important for weather predictions.

28 Richard j, Re~, statement before the Subcommittee on Science,

Technology and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation, August 1983.

with failures aboard Landsat 4 and metsats hasdemonstrated that even relatively simple satel-lite subsystems may fail in the harsh conditionsimposed by launch or the environment of outerspace. If only one polar orbiter were in service,and it failed, there wouId be no service for a pe-riod from the civilian satellite.29 When NOAA’sGOES-West failed in November 1982, well beforeit was scheduled to be replaced, NOAA wasunable to replace it until June 1983. Only oneGOES satellite is now in operation, the GOES-East satellite having failed in July 1984; its replace-ment cannot be launched before late 1985 orearly 1986.

Operating only one polar orbiter would alsoreduce the data available to the military. Thoughit has its own system of meteorological satellites,the military makes extensive use of the NOAAsystem, both to provide data at different timesof the day, and to act as an emergency backupto the military system. In the past, the militaryhas had to depend from time to time on the ci-vilian systems for critical weather information.

Although dropping one of the polar-orbitingsatellites would not change the form of our co-operation with other nations, such a course ofaction would significantly reduce the amount andquality of data the United States can supply toother nations for predicting weather conditions.other nations that depend on these data andhave purchased receiving stations have expresseddismay that the United States might operate onlya single polar orbiter. Furthermore, the UnitedStates would not save much money because thecost of operating two polar satellites is very littlemore than the cost of operating one. NOAA esti-mates it would save between 10 and 20 percentof its yearly satellite operational costs by drop-ping one. In round numbers, each copy of thenext series of NOAA polar-orbiting satellites,which are designed to last 5 years, is expectedto cost about $100 million. so

ZgPreSumably, some data could be provided by the DOD DMSp

Satellites until a new civilian satellite was launched. However, the

data from the two systems are not quite compatible. The qualityof results from NOAA’s forecasting models are reduced accordingly.Information from the GOES satellites cannot replace informationfrom the polar orbiting satellites (see boxes A and B).

JOThe precise unit cost will depend on the total number of satel-lites purchased at one time, the delivery schedule, and their capa-bility. If service is reduced to one satellite, each one will cost morethan if two satellites were orbiting at all times.

- . . . — -— - — . . . .


Figure 7-10.—One. and Two-Polar Soundings

Two-Polar Soundings Map for O Hour Greenwich Mean Time

One-Polar Soundings Map for O Hour Greenwich Mean Time

The charts show satellite observational coverage for a 6-hour period centered at the synoptic obsewation time of O hour Greenwichmean time.



Reducing to one polar orbiter would also havehad the effect of reducing our commitment to co-operation with Canada, France, and the SovietUnion in the COSPAS/SARSAT Search and Res-cue Program (see app. A). The SARSAT receivers,built by France, are carried on the polar orbiters.The optimum system calls for a total of four in-struments, one on each of two Soviet polar-or-biting metsats and one on each of two U.S. polarorbiters. Until recently this important interna-tional cooperative program was in jeopardy. InOctober 1984, after considerable debate over theimplications of the decision, the United Statessigned an agreement with the three other primaryparticipants to enter into operational phase of theproject, which would extend through 1990.3

1 TheAdministration was at first reluctant to sign theagreement because it means maintaining a twopolar-orbiter system, or building another satel-lite to carry the emergency beacon. However,the system seems to have proved its worth, hav-ing contributed to saving nearly 400 lives sinceit began experimental operation in September1982. Hence the Administration yielded to con-gressional and other pressure to maintain theprogram. Although the decision improves thechances for maintaining a two polar-orbiter sys-tem, it still does not mean its automatic continua-tion, because it would be possible (for a cost) tobuild and operate a dedicated satellite for the sec-ond beacon. This issue will require continual at-tention by Congress.

What Level of Cooperation WithOther Nations Is Desirable?

In part because of the decrease in the qualityof weather monitoring that would result from areduction from two to one polar orbiters, and inpart to share the costs of maintaining satelliteweather service, the Administration is exploringthe feasibility of establishing a formal coopera-tive arrangement with other nations. It has for-mally raised the question at two meetings of theEconomic Summit of Industrialized Nations32 and

J! See 1‘OMB jeopardizes U.S.-Soviet Satellite Accord, science,Vol. 25, pp. 999-1000, 1984; “Sarsat/Cospas to Operate Through1990,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Nov. 12, 1984, p. 25.

32 For a discussion of various cooperative mechanisms, see ‘ ‘1 n-

ternational Meteorological Satellite System: Issues and Options, ”National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nov. 18, 1983.

has received favorable responses (see policy dis-cussion below). In addition to meeting dailyneeds for meteorological data and for sharing theoperating costs of the system among its majorusers, a formal arrangement that would guaran-tee an internationally based two polar-orbiter sys-tem would increase each country’s long-termability to gather operational satellite data. It couldalso go far toward assuring continuity in spatialand temporal coverage and stimulating techno-logical growth in member countries. 33

In short,the benefits of establishing a more formal coop-erative arrangement seem to be high. Such co-operation could be a major step in improving thequantity and quality of weather-related informa-tion throughout the world. In addition, as the ap-pendix on remote sensing in developing countriessuggests, the greater use a country makes ofmeteorological satellite data, the more likely itis to develop uses for land remote sensing dataas well.

Several drawbacks to a formal cooperative sys-tem

●

●

●

exist:

The United States would lose its unilateralcontrol (through NOAA) over the manage-ment of the system. Thus, the U.S. militarywould lose its unilateral power to preemptcivilian satellite operations in time of nationalemergency. Further, NOAA would also losethe power it now has to alter routine opera-tions to follow particularly severe or danger-ous weather developments in the UnitedStates. On the other hand, if the alternativeis a single polar orbiter, U.S. access to crucialmeteorological data (particularly for the mil-itary) would be lessened anyway.Some technology might be transferred fromthe United States to industrialized countrieswhich could then use it in economic com-petition with the United States.An international organization might inadver-tently become somewhat more cumbersomeand require more personnel to operate thesystem than the current arrangement throughWMO now requires.

33 Department of Commerce news release, NIC 84-1 Z Dec. 1211984.

- — — — — — — . . . . ———. —


The existence of INTELSAT and INMARSAT,both truly international organizations (see chs.3 and 6), and the existence of Eumetsat, the Euro-pean regional organization, suggest that the or-ganizational problems can be solved within rea-sonable cost goals. Technology transfer also neednot necessarily be a major threat. Most of the nec-essary technology is well understood and alreadywell within the capacity of the industrialized

countries. As these countries extend their capa-bilities, any technological gap is likely to shrinkover time, making the problem moot. Neverthe-less, all of these concerns would have to beweighed in deciding whether formal cooperationis of overall benefit to the United States and, ifso, which form of cooperation would be mostappropriate (see policy section).

LAND REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS

Land remote sensing in the form of aerial pho-tography is nearly as old as the photographiccamera. Cameras have been flown on both bal-loons and aircraft. During World War II, aerialphotography developed into a powerful and vitalaid to tactical warfare. Well before the war, pho-tographs taken from the special vantage point af-forded by aircraft and balloons found use amongsuch customers as agricultural and land-use plan-ners, archaeologists, foresters, geologists, andgeographers. By the early 1960s the interpreta-tion of aerial photography had developed intoa small, but highly useful, discipline. With the de-velopment of special-purpose photographicemulsions (e.g., infrared), advanced lenses, shut-ters, and other sensing devices (e.g., sidelookingradar) remote sensing analysts now provide awider range of products for these customers.

Sensing from aircraft has limitations of cover-age, high cost per unit area, as well as the diffi-culty of controlling lighting conditions. It is notsuitable for developing a global data base. In con-trast, remote sensing from space possesses sev-eral properties that permit the development ofa unique global data base for resource inventoryand monitoring over time:

●

●

●

●

perspective over a range of selected spatialscales;selected combinations of spectral bands forcategorizing and identifying surface features;repetitive coverage over comparable view-ing conditions;direct measurement based on one set of so-lar illumination conditions for a wide surface

area, data standardized from area to areaand from day to day;

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

● accessibility over remote and difficult terrainand across political divisions.

Although all of these characteristics contributeto the potential utility of remote sensing fromspace, the fact that data about Earth’s surface ar-rive i n digital form suitable for routine computermanipulation is perhaps of greatest importance.Data from space can be routinely combined withother data to generate information products ofgreat utility,

The U.S. Landsat System

Land remote sensing from space for civilianuses had its origins in a NASA program, begunin 1964.34 After considerable theoretical study,and research and testing of multispectral scan-ners and other instruments in aircraft, NASAlaunched the first of five Landsat satellites in1972.35 These satellites follow a polar orbit thattakes them over the same spot on Earth at thesame time of day every 16 days. The latest in theseries is Landsat 5, which was successfullylaunched on March 1, 1984, after Landsat 4 be-gan to fail (fig. 7-11). In addition to other experi-

jqFOr an early policy and institutional history of the Landsat sYs-

tem, see Pamela E. Mack, “Space Science for Applications: the His-tory of Landsat, “ in Space Science Comes of Age (Washington, DC.:Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981).

jSLandsat I was originally named Earth Resources TechnologySatellite (ERTS-1).


Figure 7-11 .—Landsat.5 Spacecraft


MfSSION: Collect remotely sensed muitlspectral land data broadcast data for recemt.

at ground stations operalmg under formal agreements

ORBIT: 705-km sun synchronous 16 day repeal cycle

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS:

o Multi-spectral Scanner (MSS): The MSS IS the Speclfted operational sensorSwath width IS 185-km resolution IS 80-m

s e n s o r

Wavelengths(Km)

0 5 - 0 6

0 6 - 0 70 7 - 0 80 8 - 1 1

Primary UsesMovement 01 sedlmenl laden water ctelmeauon of shallowwater areasCultural featuresVeaetatlon boundary between land and water. Iandforms

Thematic Mapper (TM): The TM IS a NASA experimental sensor It WIII comeon-hne operationally after It has been proven by NASA and an appropriateground system has been constructed It IS desgnad to prowde 30-m resoluhonexcept for 120-m resolution m the thermal infrared band

sensorWvehtgths

(~m) Primary Uses045 - 052 Coastal water mappmg. soIl vegetaoon dlfferentlatlon

deciduous coniferous differentiation052 - 060 Green reflectance by healthy vegetauon063 - 069 Chlorophyll absorptmn for plant species dlfferentlatlon076 - 090 Biomass surveys, water body dehneahon1 55 - 1 75 Vegetation moisture measurement

1040 -1250 Plant heal stress management, other thermal mappmg208 - 235 Hydrothermal mappmg

Pe~etratlon of atmospheric haze vegetation boundarybetween land and water Iandforms

DIRECT BROADCAST: Broadcasts are prowded for ground stations which haveentered Into formal agreements covering the recelpl and dlsfnbutlon of these data

38-797 0 - 85 - 10 : QIL 3

— — — — .— - - - -- -- - - -


mental instruments, each Landsat spacecraft hascarried a multispectral scanner (MSS), which hasa spatial resolution of 80 meters and senses infour spectral bands (figs. 7-12 and 7-1 3). TheLandsat 5 spacecraft carries an MSS and a the-matic mapper (TM) sensor (fig. 7-13, which hasa spatial resolution of 30 meters3b and seven spec-tral bands (fig. 7-14).

The Landsat system is composed of the space-craft and associated command and control telem-etry, ground receiving stations, and processing,copying, storage, and distribution facilities. Land-sat data are transmitted from the spacecraft indigital form to ground stations, collected on tape,corrected to remove radiometric and geometricdistortions, and sold through the EROS Data Cen-ter (Department of the Interior) at Sioux Falls, SD.Data products are available in either image (pho-tographic) form or on computer compatible tapes(CCTS) suitable for additional processing by largecomputers. Table 7-5 lists current and projectedprices for Landsat data products.

In addition to providing data from the Landsatsystem to users around the world, NASA insti-

36Except for the 10.4 to 12.5 micron wavelength band which hasa spatial resolution of 120 meters.

Figure 7-12.–Cutaway View of the MultispectralScanning System

PtWTOMULTIPLIER PMOTOWOOE DETECTOR/PREAMPTUBES (1S) \ /

SUN

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

tuted a program in the mid-1970s to encouragewider experimentation with the data, and issuedgrants to a variety of State and local governments,to universities and private nonprofit institutions.As well as providing data free or at extremely lowcost to these users and to other Federal agencies,the NASA program also developed computer soft-ware for processing the data.

System Development

NASA has a small continuing program of sensordevelopment for both optical and microwave (ra-dar) sensors. Developmental models for thesesensors are to be flown on the Shuttle. There areno plans for the Government to develop free-fly-ing orbital systems in the near term. Both NASAand NOAA are exploring the possibility of a polar-orbiting platform as part of the U.S. effort in de-veloping a permanently manned space station.Such a platform is a good candidate for interna-tional development. 37

Table 7-6 lists the major sensors now under de-velopment by NASA. Until August 1984, NASAhad a program to develop a multispectral lineararray (MLA), similar to, but more capable than,the French SPOT sensor. However, under pres-sure from the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) to reduce overall spending, NASA decidedto cut this program, on grounds that it was leadingto an operational sensor rather than a researchtool. Although NASA is attempting to reinstatepart of this research, the United States now hasonly a small near-term remote sensor develop-ment program (see issues discussion below).NOAA has no program to develop sensors forland remote sensing, though it has a small effortin studying applications of metsat and Landsatdata.

Foreign Landsat Receiving Stations

As NASA developed the Landsat system, it en-couraged other countries to use the system. Tencountries now own operational receiving stations(fig. 7-1 5). In return for a fee, these foreign sta-

JTjohn H. McElroy and Stanley R. Schneider, “Utilization of the

Polar Platform of NASA’s Space Station Program for OperationalEarth Observations,” NOAA Technical Report, NESDIS 12, Sep-tember 1984.


Figure 7-13.—Landsat Bands and Electromagnetic Spectrum Comparison. + , . . , ., -

~hematic mapper.

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey

Figure 7-14.—Thematic Mapper SensorS C A N M I R R O R S E C O N D A R Y M I R R O R

SECONDARY

A S S E M B L Y A S S E M B L Y

S C A N M I R R O R

\ D

A R R A Y

OOLER

MIRROR L

‘ \

P R I M A R Y YM I R R O R

ELECTRONICS BOARDS

A L I G N M E N T A N D w

FOCUS ASSEMBLY

. —. . . . . . . . — -


Table 7.5.—Costs for Some Landsat Data Products

costUntil October 1981– October 1983– February 1985–

Product October 1981 October 1983 February 1985 ?7?

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

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

MSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50 $ 175 $ 175 $ 195TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $ 235 $ 275 $ 290


Table 7-6.–Major Imaging Sensors Under Development by NASA

Sensor Sensor type Status NotesLarge Format Camera 30.5 cm focal length Flown on Shuttle flight 41-G, Used for high-reolution mapping

October 1984Shuttle Imaging Radar(SIR)

camera; stereo capabilitySynthetic Aperture RadarSIR-A

SIR-B

SIR-C

Pointing six-band focalplane sensorHigh spectral and spatialresolution spectrometer

Flown on Shuttle, November1981Flown on Shuttle flight 41-G,October 1984Under development

Under development

Under development forShuttle flight in 1989/90

L-Band microwave

L-Band microwave

L-Band and C-Band microwave;NASA is negotiating withGermany to provide X-Bandcapability in a cooperativeventureProgram terminated in August1984; portions now reinstatedPlanned eventually forincorporation into space station

Multispectral LinearArray ExperimentShuttle ImagingSpectrometer

polar~orbiting platform

tions receive Landsat data sensed over their re-gion and sell or distribute them to local and for-eign customers. Until fiscal year 1983, the yearlyground-station fee to NOAA was $200,000, butbeginning on October 1, 1982, NOAA began toassess a $600,000 fee. In addition to the fee, eachstation pays a small distribution fee to NOAA forthe data it sells or otherwise distributes. By sign-ing the Memorandum of Understanding withNOAA, each station owner agrees to abide bythe same nondiscriminatory data policy thatNASA and NOAA have always followed and thatis now mandated by the Landsat Commercializa-tion Act of 1984.

All Landsat receiving stations are capable of re-ceiving MSS data. Some are also able to receivethe more sophisticated TM data as well (table 7-7). Until the complete Tracking Data and Relay

Satellite System (TDRSS) is in place and working,JBforeign ground stations will be the predominantsource of Landsat data for regions beyond theU.S. receivers.

Foreign Systems

As noted earlier, except for limited distributionof remotely sensed land data by the Soviet Union,the United States has been the sole supplier tothe rest of the world. Other countries are nowdeveloping land remote sensing systems. These

JBIJnlike Lancjsats 2 and 3, Landsats 4 and 5 carry no taperecorders. They therefore depend on transmissions to ground sta-tions as the satellites pass over, or to transmissions through theTDRSS satellites. Only one TDRSS satellite is currently in place andthe demands on its time for other uses are great. The second TDRSSsatellite is scheduled for launch on the Shuttle in late 1985 or early1986 and will increase the capability of the Landsat 5 satellite todeliver TM data to users.

Ch. 7—Remote Sensing From Space “ 283

Figure 7-15.—Distribution by Foreign Ground Stations (as of Jan. 1, 1985)


foreign systems rely directly on experience andtechnology their designers have gained from U.S.R&D efforts as well as on indigenous capabilities.They are designed primarily to be operational,rather than R&D, systems. Some will be techni-cally directly competitive with, but different from,the current Landsat system; some will exceedLandsat’s capacity to return useful data.39 The fol-lowing summarizes briefly the characteristics ofthe foreign systems. In order of planned deploy-ment, they are:

● West Germany—Modular OptoekctronicMultispectral Scanner (MOMS) —1984/85).

jgFor example, the French SPOT system will have higher re501u -tion than is possible from the current Landsat system. It will alsohave the capacity to return quasi-stereo data to the user. It will,however, have fewer spectral bands, an important consideration ●

in comparing the competitive capabilities of different systems.

This instrument was flown on the Shuttle PalletSatellite (SPAS) developed by Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB) aboard Shuttleflight 7. MBB and the Stenbeck ReassuranceCo., Inc., together with the U.S. corporation,SPARX, wanted to market selected 20-meterresolution 2-color land remote sensing datacollected on Shuttle flights beginning in 1985.However, they dropped such plans after NASAinformed them that, according to public Law98-365, the data must be sold on a nondiscrim-inatory basis. NASA and MBB are holding con-tinuing discussions over a separate venture thatwould use the MOMS. The West Germans aredeveloping a stereoscopic sensor and have al-ready tested a limited synthetic aperture radaron Shuttle flight 9.France—Systeme Probatoire d’Obsixvationde La Terre (SPOT) -1985. Since 1978,

— — . . . .


Table 7-7.—Foreign Landsat Ground Stations

MSS data TM dataGround station reception and reception and

Country location Operating agency Status of MOU processing processing

Argentina . . . . . . Mar Chiquita

Australia . . . . . . . Alice Springs

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . Cuiaba

Canada . . . . . . . . Prince Albert

European SpaceAgency . . . . . . Fucino, Italy

Kiruna, SwedenIndia. . . . . . . . . . . H yderabad

Indonesiaa. . . . . . Jakarta

Japan . . . . . . . . . . Tokyo

Pakistan . . . . . . . [under development]Peoples Republic

of Chinab. . . . . BeijingSaudia Arabia, . . [under development]South Africa . . . . Johannesburg

Thailand . . . . . . . Bangkok

Comision Nacional de signed yesInvestigaciones Espaciales (CNIE)Division of National Mapping, signed yesDepartment of Resources andEnergy (DRE)Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais signed yes(INPE)Canada Centre for Remote signed yesSensing (CCRS)

European Space Agency (ESA) signed yes

National Remote Sensing Agency signed yes(NRSA)Indonesian National Institute of under negotiationAeronautics and Space (LAPAN) (expe~~ed in

1985)National Space Development signed yesAgency (NASDA)

signed yes

Chinese Academy of Science signed yessigned yes

National Institute for signed yesTelecommunications, Council forScientific and Industrial Research(CSIR)National Research Council of under negotiation yes

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yesyesno

noThailand (NRCT)

aNOt currently operational.bEXpeCted to starl operations, fatl 1985.

France (through the French space agencyCNES) has been planning the world’s firstcommercial remote-sensing satellite service.It expects to fly a series of four satellites. Al-though the first satellite will not be launcheduntil late 1985, it is currently preparing thesales market through a French company (gov-ernment-owned in part), SPOT IMAGE, S.A.A Washington-based American subsidiarycalled SPOT Image Corp. is now developingthe U.S. market for SPOT data. The U.S. cor-poration has flown a successful series of testsfrom high-altitude aircraft over the UnitedStates using sensors designed to simulate thedata that will eventually flow from the SPOTsystem. Customers from U. S., private firms,State governments, and the Federal Govern-ment have purchased data sets from theseflights. SPOT Image Corp. has an agreement ●

with the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing

to receive SPOT data from North Americaat two stations (Prince Albert and Ottawa).

The SPOT satellite will carry pointable mul-tispectral linear-array sensors capable of re-solving images at least as small as 20 metersin three wavelength bands. In addition, thesatellite will be capable of 10-meter resolu-tion operating in a panchromatic mode.These are higher resolutions than are possi-ble on Landsat 5. Because the sensors arepointable, they are capable of producingquasi-stereo images. Although the system isa commercial effort, the French Governmentis spending a minimum of $400 million to$500 million to develop the system. CNESwill pay for and build the second satellite inthe series; SPOT Image will reimburse CNESfrom sales of SPOT data.lndia-lRS-1985. This low-resolution “semi-operational” land remote sensing satellite


●

●

Photo credit: @19S3 SPOT Image Corp.

Panchromatic simulated SPOT image of Washington, DC (10 meters resolution), taken July 7, 1983, from an airplane.The SP~T satellite i: expected to be launched in “late 1985. -

will be built in India but launched by a So-viet launcher. It will carry solid-state sensors.Japan Earth Resources Satellite (ERS-1)–1991. Its primary mission will be to collectinformation on renewable and nonrenew-able natural resources, including minerals,forests, and crops. ERS-1 will carry a synthe-tic aperature radar and an optical (visible andinfrared) radiometer. It will be launched byan H-1 vehicle. Japan is also building a ma-rine observation satellite (MOS-1 ) to belaunched in 1986 by an N-11 vehicle.Brazil. Working on a moderate-resolutionland-sensing salellite to be launched in thelate 1980s.

Data Products and Uses

Land remote sensing data are put to a varietyof uses for resource mapping, assessment, andmanagement. 40 Table 7-8 lists the major catego-ries of data users, table 7-9 lists the major cus-tomers for data. Figure 7-16 illustrates the broadcategories of major users and their relative shareof the data market. The EROS Data Center sellsdata either in digital format (computer compati-ble tapes, or CCTS) or photographic imagery in

~For an emended discussion of potential customers and their data

needs see Remote Sensing and the Private Sector, chs. 4, 5, 6.

Table 7-8.—Categories of Foreign andDomestic Users

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

Agriculture (Federal, State, and private): specificsampling areas chosen according to the crop; time-dependent data related to crop calenders and theweather patternsForestry (Federal, State, and private): specificsampling areas; twice per year at preselected datesGeology and nonrenewable resources (Federal, State,and private): wide variety of areas; seasonal data inaddition to one-time samplingCivil engineering and /and use (State and private):populated areas; repeat data required over scale ofmonths or years to determine trends of land useCartography (Federal, State, and private): all areas,repeat data as needed to update mapsCoastal zone management (Federal and State):monitoring of all coastlands at selected datesdepending on local seasonsPo//ution monitoring (Federal and State): broad,selected areas; highly time-dependent needs both forroutine monitoring and in response to emergencies

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

several sizes. For a special additional fee, custom-ers may specify cloud-free scenes or other specialattributes. As the section on issues points out, thelargest potential market for land remote sensingdata products is for information products gener-ated by processing and adding information to thesatellite data from other sources (so-called value--added products).

.. . .


Table 7-9.—Domestic Distribution ofLandsat Products

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Department of AgricultureDepartment of DefenseDepartment of the InteriorNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationIntelligence communityCoast GuardState planning and resource management agenciesRegional planning agenciesAcademic communityCommercial users (e.g., foresters, mineral explorat-ion geologists, engineering and consultingcompanies)Private individuals

SOURCE: Off Ice of lechnol~y Assessment.. — .

Policy History of Land RemoteSensing

Although the potential utility of images gath-ered by satellite of atmospheric conditions andof the surface of the land and ocean were rec-ognized by those conceiving the systems, untilrecently few considered operating the systems ascommercial entities. However, as Federal, State,and local governments, universities, and indus-trial firms began to work with the data from theLandsat system, they realized that, at the pricescharged, 41 these data Were often a cost-effectivesubstitute for older (aircraft) methods of gather-ing Earth resources data. The digital format, widespatial coverage, and repeatability of the datamade possible new applications that could even-tually increase the value of the information thesedata provide. By the late 1970s, some observerspostulated that the data might eventually havesufficient commercial value to attract private in-vestment in a remote sensing system. However,it was also clear that the known barriers of highsystem cost, and technological and economicrisk, would have to be drastically reduced if pri-vate investors were to be interested in providinga system comparable to Landsat, especially be-cause the initial market for the data was thoughtto be quite small (see section on issues).

The history of the Landsat system illustrates thedifficulties that may attend bringing a Govern-ment-developed applications system to opera-———-—

Q! LancjSat data prices have never reflected the cost of operatingthe system, much less the costs of developing the sensors in thefirst place.

tional status, let alone to commercial status. Thecurrent policy debate over land remote sensinghad its genesis in an interagency controversy overwho should develop and operate the Govern-ment system and what sensors it should contain.In 1966, while NASA and other agencies wereexperimenting with data derived from a varietyof sensors carried in aircraft, the Department ofInterior announced a program to fly its own oper-ational satellite. NASA was convinced that con-siderable flight experimentation was needed withsensors that would be carried on Apollo and Sky-lab missions. The Interior Department, however,wanted to proceed more directly to operationaluse of data from a satellite and to shorten thelengthy process of research and development thatNASA was contemplating. Yet its specificationsfor the appropriate sensor differed from those ofthe Department of Agriculture, which wantedgreater spectral discrimination in order to detectcrop stress and other agricultural characteristics.Both departments recognized the need to haveNASA design and build the satellite, but as theywould eventually derive the greatest use from thedata generated by the Landsat system, theywanted control over the design of the system be-cause they were aware that “the experimentalprogram would inevitably shape any operationalprogram.”42

The Bureau of the Budget (BoB) was not con-vinced of the utility of the Landsat system com-pared to other data sources, and specified thatNASA do only research and development. It alsoopposed purchase of equipment that would leadto operational use of the system. As the systemwas flight tested, NASA encouraged Federal,State, and local agencies and private groups toapply the data to their needs, in part to demon-strate to BoB that the data were beneficial. In spiteof continued opposition from BoB and its suc-cessor, the Office of Management and Budget(OMB), NASA continued to involve data users,both domestic and foreign, in planning for follow-on satellites and sensors and to encourage thewidespread use of the data. The result was a qua-si-operational43 system, which only partially met. — — —

42Parne[a E. MaCk, “Space Science for Applications . . . ,“ oP. cit.QjCivi/ian Space policy and Applications, OTA, p. 13. Article I

also states: “The exploration and use of outer space . . . shall becarried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. ”


Figure 7-16.—Customer

3,042 items

19%

Individuals

Profile of Landsat Digital and Imagery Products (shipped sales), Fiscal Year 1984

1

\

State and LocalGovernment 2°/0

34,964 frames

Individuals 5 %

State and LocalGovernment 3%

60/0

Individuals 1%

\

$2,221,253

Individuals 3 %

Government 3%

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

— — . .

288 “ International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

the needs of users. Even though the system hasnow been transferred to NOAA, and is fully oper-ational, it does not generate sufficient revenuefrom customers (i.e., a market) to enable theLandsat system to be transferred to the privatesector or be commercialized without sizablesubsidy.

Transfer of the Government’s civilian land re-mote sensing system to private hands was firstconsidered seriously by policy makers in the draft-ing of President Carter’s 1979 policy statementon space, PD/NSC-54, which amplified the earlierpolicy directives, PD/NSC-37 and PD/NSC-42. Itstated:

Our goal is the eventual operation by the pri-vate sector of our civil land remote-sensing activ-ities. Commerce will budget for further work infiscal year 1981 to seek ways to enhance privatesector opportunities.44

This statement left open the speed and the meansof the transfer but, because it also committed theUnited States to provide continuity of the dataflow from the Landsat system through the 1980s,most observers assumed that transfer to the pri-vate sector would take place about 1990. The firststage of that process was to transfer responsibilityfor operational management of the Landsat pro-gram to NOAA. Transfer of the meteorologicalsatellite systems to private ownership was not en-visioned by PDNSC-S4.

The Reagan Administration decided early in itstenure to hasten the process of transfer, and an-nounced “the intent of transferring the respon-sibility [for Landsat] to the private sector as soonas possible. ”45 That statement, too, made nomention of the meteorological systems. Later, inMarch 1983, the Administration proposed totransfer both the Landsat and the metsat systemsto private hands.4G Public Law 97-324 mandated

“’’Presidential Directive NSC-54,” Nov. 16, 1979.‘sStatement of joseph Wright, Deputy Secretary, Department of

Commerce, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applica-tions of the House Committee on Science and Technology, andthe Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Sen-ate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, July22 and 23, 1981.

~Statement of Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, to theSubcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, andEnvironment of the House Committee on Science and Technol-ogy, Apr. 14, 1983. As discussed earlier, in November 1983, Con-

(in Title 11) the Department of Commerce to com-mission studies and internal analyses to exploreand examine the issues raised by transfer of re-mote sensing from space to the private sector.47

None of these reports concluded that rapid trans-fer was in the best interest of the United States .48

In late 1983, however, the Administration be-gan to draft a request for proposals designed tosolicit proposals from private industry to own andoperate the current Landsat system and any fol-low-on. Concurrently, the House Committee onScience and Technology drafted a bill authoriz-ing a phased transfer of the system to the privatesector, with the aim of eventually establishing aprofit-making satellite land remote sensing indus-try. On January 3, 1984, the Department of Com-merce released its request for proposal (RFP). Sev-en proposals were received on March 19, 1984.49It is significant that several of the proposers werepartnerships or consortia. Few single firms havethe breadth of experience and personnel to de-sign, build, and operate a system as complex asthe Landsat system. After evaluating all the pro-posals in an initial round, in June the Departmentof Commerce Source Evaluation Board (SEB)found three proposers, EOSAT, Kodak/Fairchild,and Space America, to be within the competi-tive range required by the RFP. After a secondround of evaluation, the Secretary of Commerceselected Eastman Kodak and EOSAT for negotia-tions with the Department.

gress passed, and the President signed, appropriations bill H.R. 3222(Public Law 98-166), which contained a provision preventing saleof the Nation’s meteorological satellite systems to private hands.The meteorological satellites will continue to be operated as a publicservice.

47’’ Space Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: An Essay,” Na-tional Academy of Public Administration, March 1983, Departmentof Commerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-066; “Commercializationof the Land Remote Sensing System: An Examination of Mecha-nisms and Issues, ” ECON, Inc., April 1983, Department ofCommerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-O0658; “A Study to Examinethe Mechanisms to Carry Out the Transfer of Civil Land RemoteSensing Systems to the Private Sector, ” Earth Satellite Corp. andAbt Associates, Inc., Department of Commerce contract No.NA-83-SAC-O0679.

qBThe assumptions upon which these analyses were based in-cluded: 1 ) maintenance of data continuity, 2) maintenance of U.S.leadership, 3) Landsat-type technology, and 4) maintenance of in-ternational obligations.

‘gThese were: Earth observing Satellite Co. (EOSAT—a new com-

pany to be formed by RCA and Hughes Aircraft); Eastman Kodak;

Gee-Spectra Corp.; Miltope Corp. of Melville, NY.; Milton A. Schultz

of Williston, ND; Space Access Corp. of Marina Del Rey; Space

America Inc. See Space Business News, Mar. 26, 1984, p. 1.

— . . —— . .

290 International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

The initial proposals from EOSAT and Kodak/Fairchild included estimates of nearly $1 billionin Government subsidies over a 10-year periodin order to take over marketing data from the cur-rent Landsat system and to build an advancednew satellite system. EOSAT was prepared to flya refurbished Thematic Mapper on Landsat 6 and7 and to develop and launch a more advancedmultispectral linear array (MLA) sensor on Land-sat 8 and 9. Kodak’s proposal called for an en-tirely new design as a follow-on to Landsat 5 thatwould move directly to MLA technology. The De-partment of Commerce found both proposals ac-ceptable technically, but unacceptable from a fi-nancial point of view. It invited drastically revisedfinancial plans. Among other matters, the amountof financial risk the two companies were willingto accept was unacceptable.

During this process, H.R. 5155 was reportedout of the House Committee on Science andTechnology on April 3, 1984, and passed by theentire House April 10.50 A similar bill (S. 51 55)was under consideration by the Senate Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transportationand passed the Senate May 8, 1984. After a con-ference and subsequent passage by both Houses,the Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Actof 1984 was signed into law (Public Law 98-365)by President Reagan on July 17, 1984.

In addition to authorizing the commercializa-tion of the U.S. land remote sensing program, andproviding for continuation of certain Government

Socommittee f@pOti 98-647 on the Land Remote-Sensing Com-mercialization Act of 1984, House Committee on Science and Tech-nology.


functions, the Act is noteworthy for being the firstpiece of major legislation that attempts to set outthe legal and regulatory framework for commer-cial space activity as required by the 1967 OuterSpace Treaty (Articles VI and IX). The box summa-rizes the major provisions of Public Law 98-365.The complete Act is reproduced in appendix C.

The ultimate goal of the transfer of the resultsof Government R&D to the private sector is tocreate a self-sustaining business from all or partof the technology so transferred, with the privatesector in full control (except for appropriate reg-ulation) of further development and shaping ofthe system and products. Realization of this goalwould constitute full commercialization of theGovernment-developed technology. intermedi-ate steps along the way to this end could resultin: 1 ) shared control of the technology by Gov-ernment and the private sector; and/or 2) jointcontinued development of the technology andits products, through either subsidies, shared in-vestment, or guaranteed Government purchase.Such intermediate steps, in which the systemwould receive significant Government subsidy,have often been referred to as “privatization. ”

In passing Public Law 98-365, Congress de-cided to privatize the Landsat system by first au-thorizing the Secretary of Commerce to contractwith a private firm to market Landsat data as theGovernment continues to operate the current sys-tem (Title I l). The Government will also providea subsidy to enable a private operator to builda system that would provide data continuity fora total of 6 years after the demise of Landsat 5.Such legislation implicitly expects sufficient mar-ket for data to develop within 8 to 10 years toenable a private operation to be self-sufficient.

Among other provisions, Public Law 98-365 au-thorized up to $75 million for fiscal year 1985 asthe first installment of a subsidy to aid the even-tual commercialization of land remote sensing.The law does not specify the total amount of sub-sidy necessary, as this was left to the Departmentof Commerce to work out with a potential con-tractor. As these corporations were preparing torevise their proposals to respond to the SEB’S con-cerns, OMB informed the Department of Com-merce a subsidy was inappropriate. After consid-

erable debate within the Administration, the twoagencies agreed on:

1 ) The run-out of Government cost for oper-ating Landsats 4 and 5; plus 2) a maximum of$250 mill ion of new budget authority for the

commercial follow-on system .51

In August 1984, EOSAT submitted a revisedproposal that included only two satellites, bothusing a Landsat-type sensor (TM), and which,among other things, assumed that the Govern-ment would continue its research program in ad-vanced sensors, to support the transition to amore advanced system in the 199os. I n addition,EOSAT included an escape clause that allowedit to withdraw from the contract if sufficient mar-ket for data had not developed to support a com-mercial enterprise. Kodak Corp. declined to sub-mit a revised proposal.

In mid-May 1985, the Department of Com-merce announced that it had reached agreementwith EOSAT to provide $250 million plus Iaunchcosts (a total subsidy of about $290 million).EOSAT agreed to build and launch two satelliteswhether or not the market has developed to sup-port a profit-making business. An Administrationrequest for $125 million ($75 million for fiscal year1985 and $50 million for fiscal year 1986) to allowEOSAT to begin the process of building Landsat6 has recently been sent to Congress for action .52

International Relevance of Landsat

Because the Landsat satellite travels in a polarorbit, which enables it to sense the entire surfaceof Earth, data from the system necessarily haveinternational implications. Data from both theLandsat and metsat systems have served as con-structive instruments of U.S. foreign relations, Forexample, these data have aided other countriesto map, manage, and exploit their own resources;they have also raised the general level of aware-ness about growing environmental problemsthroughout the world.

51’’ Report to the Congress (Public Law-98-365 ),” Department ofCommerce, September 1984.

5ZEOSAT proposed an escape clause in the contract to al IOW forthe possibility that, even with a vigorous marketing effort on its part,insufficient demand for data would develop.

. . - — . - -- - — - -- -- - — — —


Aircraft or balloons are clearly limited in over-flight by national restrictions on sovereign air-space, but spacecraft have no overflight restric-tions. According to international treaty, “Outerspace . . . shall be free for exploration and useby all states.”53 This principle is understood bythe United States and most other nations to meanthat nations are free to place in orbit any satel-lite that does not violate other provisions of the1967 Outer Space Treaty or other principles ofinternational law. This understanding has beencalled the “open skies” principle; it is a funda-mental principle of the U.S. space program. TheUnited States supports this principle54 in part bymaking civilian remote sensing data available ona nondiscriminatory basis to anyone who wishesto receive them. Through AID, NASA, and NOAA,the United States has been the principal force insetting up foreign regional and national centerscapable of processing and interpreting Landsatdata. By integrating these data with meteorolog-ical and/or ground data of all kinds, these centersaid developing countries coping with the enor-mous problems of environmental protection andresource management.

Although the private sector is technically ca-pable (given adequate financial incentives) ofproviding the data promptly to meet the require-ments of the Federal Government and other po-tential customers, commercial objectives mayconflict with certain U.S. foreign policy objec-tives. Constraints on a private firm that are suf-ficient to protect U.S. foreign policy objectivescould well make such an enterprise unprofitableor require a large and continuing Governmentsubsidy to make the enterprise viable.

Equipment Market

In a manner similar to that for meteorologicalsatellites, the market for land remote sensingequipment and services can be divided into threecategories: the space component, ground station

5JI gfji’ Outer Space Treaty. 8ecause of the U.S. example, the non-discriminatory data distribution policy is now of impxtance to othercountries as well.

Sqjohn H. Gibbons, “International Implications of Transferringthe Landsat System to the Private Sector, ” hearing before the Sub-committee on Legislation and National Security of the Committeeon Government Operations, Sept. 28, 1983.

equipment, and services related to reception anddata preprocessing (excluding the value-addedindustry discussed above).

Satellite Manufacturers

General Electric Corp. was the prime contrac-tor for the Landsat 4 and 5 satellites, with Fair-child and Hughes Aircraft supplying significantcomponents. If the transfer of the Landsat systemto EOSAT is completed by appropriating the nec-essary subsidy, RCA and Hughes Aircraft Corp.(the two participants in EOSAT) will likely buildmost of the hardware (two satellites and associ-ated system hardware), with other firms provid-ing portions of it under contract.

The French firm Matra is the prime contractorfor the SPOT satellite. Major subsystems and soft-ware are provided by Aerospatiale and SEP. Thetape recorders are built by the U.S. corporation,Odetics, Inc.

Ground Stations and Receivers

Many of the same firms that manufacture com-ponents of ground stations and receivers formeteorological data reception also sell similarequipment for land remote sensing. The majordifferences are in the frequencies used for trans-mission and in the scale of investment for landremote sensing stations. There are now 12 oper-ational Landsat receiving stations and 2 underconstruction. In addition, there are several SPOTreceiving stations under construction. In the next3 to 4 years, because of the advent of the SPOTsystem and the European ERS system (see sec-tion on ocean remote sensing) there could be asmany as eight new receiving stations begunaround the world. Several African countries, Iraq,Pakistan, and Saudia Arabia have expressed in-terest in building receiving stations. Each newstation will cost between $10 million and $15 mil-lion. The balance of the market for ground sta-tions, receivers, tape recorders, and the like willbe in replacements and in upgrading some sta-tions to receive X-Band transmissions from TMand from SPOT. For example, the Canadian Land-sat receiving station in Prince Albert is beingequipped to receive SPOT data. The Canadianfirm MacDonald Dettwiler Association, inc. isproviding the equipment for this station and the

—

SPOT receiving station in Ottawa. MBB of Ger-many and NEC of Japan also supply ground sta-tion equipment. Yearly international sales inground receiving equipment may be as high as$30 million.

Issues

What International Issues Are Raised byTransfer to the Private Sector?

Congress and the Administration, in passingand signing into law Public Law 98-365, haveagreed on the broad terms of transfer of the U.S.land remote sensing system to the private sec-tor. Although the current attempts to effect sucha transfer arose both from concern for reducingthe Federal budget deficit and from the philo-sophical conviction that the private sector couldprovide those services more efficiently, the leg-islation also took into account the broader agen-da of U.S. international relations. In general, thesuccessful transfer of Government-developedtechnology to the private sector is a process thatmust take place over time, and with strong sup-port from the potential foreign and domestic cus-tomers as well as from the policy makers.

As the process of transferring the Landsat sys-tem proceeds, it will be important to monitor thereactions of other countries to it, and to continueto approach each of the following issues with im-agination and a sensitivity to the real or perceivedconcerns of other nations. Not only are the po-litical sensitivities of other countries important tothe United States, foreign customers are neces-sary to the financial viability of a private Landsatsystem. 55 In addition, the French SPOT systemwiII soon offer customers an alternative choiceof data sources.

The following discussion of international issuesis summarized from the OTA Technical Memo-randum, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector:Issues for Discussion :56

SsWhen projected foreign ground station feesare included in theestimates of future income from a land remote sensing system, for-eign sales could constitute as much as 39 percent of the revenuefrom a U.S. system. See “Commercialization of the Land RemoteSensing System: An Examination of Mechanisms and Issues, ” ECON,Inc., Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, contract No.NA-83-SAC-O0658.

ShRemote sen5ing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion,op. cit., ch. 3.


●

●

Data sales policies. Landsat data have alwaysbeen sold to all purchasers on a nondiscrim-inatory basis. In large part this policy wasoriginally chosen to support the U.S. “openskies” policy and the use of space for peace-ful purposes. In practice, selling data on anondiscriminatory basis has helped to bluntcriticism of other activities, such as the oper-ation of classified surveillance satellites. It hasalso demonstrated U.S. adherence to theprinciple of the free flow of information. Al-though some private sector analysts* haveargued that owners of remote sensing sys-tems should be allowed to set their own datapolicies, Public Law 98-365 mandates thepolicy of nondiscriminatory sales, on thebasis that the open skies policy continuesto be of importance to the United States.Value-added services. Most of the revenueearned from space remote sensing will beearned by the companies that add value tothe data by processing, analyzing, addingother information, and interpreting the pri-mary data from space. The value-addedcompanies constitute a small, but growing,specialized industry. The strength of com-mercial space remote sensing will dependon a strong value-added industry. 57 Most re-mote sensing system operators would wantto participate in the value-added business.

The availability of high resolution land re-mote sensing data and the ability to analyzethem are potentially powerful tools forresource development. Many developingcountries have expressed the concern thatallowing the system operator to offer value--added services might give the seller toomuch power over the acquisition and dis-tribution process. They are concerned thatthe company or favored customers could,by processing and interpreting these databefore delivering them to others, obtain eco-nomic leverage over countries that lack their

*Cf. Klaus Heiss, statement at hearing before the Subcommitteeon Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation, Mar. 22, 1984, pp. 83-88.

S7Fred rick B. Henderson, I I 1, “The Significance of a StrOng Value-

-added Industry to the Successful Commercialization of Landsat, ”presented at the 21st Goddard Memorial Symposium, Mar. 24-25, 1983.

-— . - —- - --- . . —


●

●

own facilities and personnel to interpret thedata. Therefore, in order to maintain goodrelations with developing countries, it maybe appropriate for the United States to re-strict the private data distributor from en-tering into the value-added business, or toregulate it closely to prevent such a com-pany from exerting unfair economic lever-age over others. Here, foreign perception ofeconomic harm may be as important as ac-tual harm. As competition from foreign orother domestic systems grows, it would bepossible to relax such restrictions.

Public Law 98-365 deals with this issue byrequiring the firm to “notify the Secretary ofany ‘value-added’ activities (as defined bythe Secretary by regulation) that will be con-ducted by the licensee or by a subsidiary oraffiliate” (Sec. 402(b)(6)). The terms of theAct assume that antitrust legislation is suffi-cient in most cases to deter the corporationfrom engaging in practices that would eitherinhibit competition from other U.S. firms orharm U.S. relationships with other nations.If additional legislation is required, as moreexperience is gained with private operationof land remote sensing, Congress could takeremedial action.U.S. cooperation with other countries. TheLandsat ground stations in 10 foreign coun-tries constitute an eloquent statement of U.S.leadership in successfully applying high tech-nology for the benefit of all mankind. TheUnited States has also participated with in-dustrialized and developing countries in re-search on applying Landsat data to criticalresource and environmental needs. It isessential for the continuing research anddevelopment of remote sensing technology,and the growth of the data market, for theUnited States to maintain its cooperativebasic and applied research programs withother countries. [f the transfer is made, itwill be particularly important to assure thatappropriate Government funding is contin-ued for imperative projects with develop-ing countries.International legal issues. Private ownershipof the land remote sensing system could leadto suspicions that such data would be used

to enable interests outside a sensed coun-try to gain a competitive advantage in knowl-edge of minerals or other nonrenewableresources, or that information on crop con-ditions or military activities of states mightbe sold preferentially to political adversaries.Developing countries are particularly con-cerned about this possibility, because mostlack the indigenous ability to analyze thedata (see app. 7A). Some countries havemaintained that they should have priority ac-cess to data derived from sensing their ter-ritory, while others have argued that theirconsent should be obtained before thesedata are transferred to third parties.

The United States has consistently opposedefforts to limit the distribution of Landsatdata, arguing that remote sensing is a peace-ful and beneficial use of space in which therestraints of national sovereignty have no val-id application. Further, it has held that thefree collection and dissemination of primarydata and analyzed information is supportedlegally and encouraged by the 1967 OuterSpace Treaty and article 19 of the U.N. Dec-laration of Human Rights. The U.S. policiesof nondiscriminatory data sales and free flowof information have so far successfully de-flected attempts to restrict the right to senseother countries and sell those data to thirdparties. Although attempts to restrict the flowof remotely sensed data and information arelikely to continue in the U.N. and other in-ternational fora, the proliferation of civilianremote sensing systems will make it moredifficult for such restrictions to gain as-cendancy.

What Factors Are Most Important toMarket Growth of Land RemoteSensing Data Products?

During its development, land remote sensingwas treated as a technology that eventually“would create billions of dollars annually in ben-efits” to the public.58 Actually, benefits of thismagnitude have yet to materialize. To many, thisdeparture from stated expectations suggests that

58’’Commercialization of the Land Remote Sensing System: AnExamination of Mechanics and Issues, ” op. cit., p. 80,


the potential direct economic benefits of theLandsat program were oversold by some in itsearly days. I n part, large public economic bene-fits have not followed from Landsat developmentbecause agencies have been slow to incorpor-ate these data into their routine operations. sg

Government agencies have bought even less datain recent years than they did at first.

Clearly, although overall data sales have beenlow, the Landsat system still generates both publicand private goods.60 Data from the Landsat sys-tem have demonstrated to many domestic andforeign users, both inside and outside Govern-ment, that these data can be highly effective inmeeting large-scale resource information needs.

As the policy section notes, transferring theLandsat system to the private sector may enhancethis Nation’s competitiveness in land remote sens-ing by employing industry’s skills in marketingand innovation to increase the overall market fordata and services. However, without substan-tial Government subsidy for a land remote sens-ing enterprise, transfer in itself is not likely toresult in a viable commercial business.61

If the initial phase of the transfer process inwhich a private operator markets the data fromLandsat 5 proves successful, it will still be neces-sary to evaluate progress toward a self-sustainingbusiness. If Congress were to decide that suffi-cient progress had not been made, but the pub-lic good aspects were still high, it could still de-cide to operate a civilian system within theGovernment. The most important single factorthat will determine the viability of a commer-cial remote sensing enterprise is market growth.

The development of the market for remotesensing data and services will depend on four ma-jor factors: the price, availability, utility of thedata, and the ability of the information industryto develop cost-effective ways of processing andapplying such data to the needs of users.

Sgsee for example, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector, Ch. 5.60Remote sensing and the Private Sector, Ch. 4.61Although OTA has not done a detailed analysis of costs associ-

ated with developing a land remote sensing system, it appears thata subsidy (including launch costs) between $35o million and $500million (depending on the financial risk the private firm is willingto assume) might be needed to reduce the risk of commercial fail-ure to an acceptable level. See also Remote Sensing and the Pri-vate Sector, op. cit., ch. 1.

●

●

Data prices. Even if it is possible to reducedramatically the cost of the system’s spacesegment, the costs of handling and correct-ing the raw data are likely to remain high inthe near term because, with current dataprocessing technology, labor costs are a sig-nificant proportion of the overall expense ofproducing corrected Landsat data. Techno-logical advances in large-scale data process-ing, storage, and retrieval could reduce suchcosts. Customers for primary data complainthat dramatic increases in data prices wouldreduce their ability to purchase data in thequantities that would be most effective.62 Fig-ures on data purchases from the EROS DataCenter bear out their concerns. In October1982, the beginning of fiscal year 1983,NOAA increased the price of data dramati-cally (table 7-5). For example, the price foran MSS computer compatible tape (CCT) in-creased 325 percent, from $200 to $650.Knowing the price increase was coming, cus-tomers purchased more data in the last halfof 1982 than they would have otherwise (fig.7-1 7). Although income from data sales in-creased in fiscal year 1983, the number ofMSS scenes purchased fell to 33 percent offiscal year 1982 sales (table 7-10). Salesfigures for fiscal year 1984 confirm the overalldownturn in data sales. Overall income fromsales has increased dramatically, however,because OMB has required each agency toaccount for its data receipts,b3 and becauseNOAA has instituted special acquisitioncharges for cloud-free images or other non-standard requests. In fiscal year 1983, specialacquisition charges amounted to about $4million, or 58 percent of the total incomefrom data sales. In fiscal year 1984, specialacquisition charges were $6,130,275 or 62percent of total Landsat data income.Availability of data. Customers cite two con-cerns over-the availability of data: 1 ) data are

‘zSee testimony in “Civil Land Remote Sensing Systems, ” JointHearings before the House Subcommittee on Space Science andApplications of the Committee on Science and Technology, andthe Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space Com-mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, July 22, 23,1981.

bJThe Fc3reign Agriculture] Service, for example, Was receivingdata directly from NASA through a receiver in Houston.

— ———. . -. . -

296. International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Figure 7-17.—Sale of Landsat Imagery Frames and Digital

Imagery frames

I

al(n

1972 ’73 ’74 ’75 ’76 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85

Calendar year quarters

Digital products

70 ‘ A \

60

50 ‘ bA

40

30A

20 ‘

10

1972 ’73 ’74 ’75 ’76 ’77 ’78 ’79 ’80 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85

Calendar year quarters


Table 7=10.—Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data

FY 1973a FY 1974a FY 1975

Customer category Items I tem (o/o) Dollars Dollar (o /o ) I tems I tem (o /o) Dollars Dollar (o /o ) Items Item (o/o) Dollars Dollar (o /o )

Federal Government(less N.1.’s) . . . . . . . 21,780 27°~ 62,756 270/o 28,493 180/0 87,156 160/0 34,346 17”!0 169,283 19 ”/0

NASA investigators . . — — — — — — — — 5,456 3% 15,992 2%State/local

government . . . . . . 2,995 4% 10,639 5% 2,534 2% 10,920 2% 1,969 1% 16,988 2%Academic . . . . . . . . . . 13,071 160/0 28,679 13 ”/0 18,611 12 ”/0 63,964 12 ”/0 27,727 14 ”/0 142,054 160/0Industrial . . . . . . . . . . 24,430 30%0 67,360 30 ”/0 35,890 230/o 114,140 22%0 45,671 230/o 219,704 240/oIndividuals . . . . . . . . . 5,109 60/0 17,143 7% 17,266 11 ”/0 67,127 13 ”/0 18,643 9% 100,953 11 ”/0Non-U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . 8,497 11% 28,154 12 ”/0 37,038 230/o 120,499 230/o 47,174 240/o 174,659 19 ”/0Non-identified . . . . . . 5,189 6% 13,311 6% 17,346 11 ”/0 64,708 12% 17,397 9% 69,376 7%

Total data. . . . . . . . 81.071 100 ”/0 228,042 100 ”/0 157,178 lOO% 528,514 100 ”/0 198.383 lOO% 909,009 100 ”/0

FY 1976 TQ 1976 FY 1977

Customer category Items Item (o/o) Dollars Dollar (o/o) Items Item (o/o) Dollars Dollar (o/o) Items Item (o/o) Dollars Dollar (o/o)

Federal Government(less N.1.’s) . . . . . . . 31,645 13% 253,166 15 ”/0 7,771 15% 73,436 16% 21,074 16% 269,825 19%

NASA investigators . . 63,329 250/o 341,056 21 “/0 5,730 11 ”/0 48,111 11 ”/0 9,827 7% 96,032 7%State/local

government . . . . . . 1,214 10% 8,191 00/0 149 0% 1,168 0% 1,360 1% 20,168 1 5Academic . . . . . . . . . . 26,077 11 ”/0 178,160 11 ”/0 8,489 160/0 40,129 9% 14,063 11 ”/0 141,077 10 ”/0Industrial . . . . . . . . . . 42,833 17 ”/0 322,699 20 ”/0 12,122 240/o 121,025 270/o 36,979 280/o 412,183 280/oIndividuals . . . . . . . . . 18,052 7% 141,556 9% 3,755 7% 28,683 60/0 8,003 60/0 72,129 5%Non-U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . 65,100 26% 391,673 240/o 13,702 27% 138,632 31 “/0 40,632 31“!0 442,079 30%Non-identified . . . . . . 488 0% 4,892 0% 96 0% 1,087 0% 49 0% 344 0%

Total data. . . . . . . . 248,738 1000/o 1,641,393 100 ”/0 51,814 1000/o 452,271 100 ”/0 131,271 100 ”/0 1,453,837 100 ”/0

— ——————. . . . ——. -


f-

Eal

1 -

$00

L

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .+ : : : :

u.. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .


not delivered promptly, (the shortest periodbetween acquisition and delivery from theEROS Data Center is about 2 weeks); and 2)the likelihood of a gap in delivery of data be-tween the demise of Landsat 5 and the de-ployment of a follow-on satellite.b4 In partbecause the Landsat system was treated asan R&D system and declared operationalonly in 1983, insufficient funding and plan-ning effort was devoted to assuring that cus-tomers received data in a timely, continu-ous manner. This has inhibited fulldevelopment of those segments of the mar-ket (primarily agriculture and other nonre-newable resource management areas) thatrely on rapid receipt of the data. Potentialusers have also been discouraged by the pos-sibility that data from Landsat or a similarU.S. system may not be available in thefuture.

Until recently, the cost of manipulatingdata and adding value to them has been highbecause they have required large, expensivecomputers and peripheral equipment. Po-tential customers from all segments of theuser community are reluctant to invest in thenecessary sophisticated hardware and soft-ware as long as the data supply is uncertain.

● Utility of data. The value-added industryconsists of a diverse set of service companiesor departments of larger (discipline-oriented)industries (e. g., petroleum, mineral, or for-estry firms) that take the corrected spacecraftdata, manipulate them, and integrate themwith other data to create useful sets of in-formation, in the form of maps, tables, orgraphs. They are properly considered partof the overall information industry. 65

Infor-mation derived from this process may, forexample, indicate to the exploration geolo-gist where ground tests for particular formsof minerals should be made, or to the agri-cultural planner what the extent of weather-related stress to a particular crop is likely tobe. In addition to the profit-making enter-prises that process land remote sensing data,

64 Remo[e Sensing and the Private Sector, ch. 4.65Donn C. Walklet, “Remote Sensing Commercialization: Views

of the Investment Community, ” ERIM Conference, May 9-13, 1983.

a variety of nonprofit data users also proc-ess data for information content. These in-clude universities, State and local govern-ments, and several Federal agencies.

In order for the market for data to increaseto the point that it will sustain a self-sup-porting business, potential customers willhave to become convinced of the utility(based on price, availability, and conven-ience) of data for their needs. Although usersin many different fields have experimented(with NASA’s help) with the data and writ-ten much about their utility, the message hasnot yet reached the sort of customers neededto sustain a self-supporting business. Unlikemost current users, who are conversant withmanipulating data on mainframe computersand who have experimented with satellitedata, potential customers are more inter-ested in information and “services which di-rectly address their information needs. 66

They are not customers for Landsat data perse, but for the information derived from link-ing Landsat data with other resource data.As such they are not unlike the majority ofcustomers for personal computers—individ-uals who are uninterested in writing theirown programs and will only purchase a com-puter if they can also purchase simple, “user--friendly” software that will meet their needswithout modification and with little addition-al instruction.

For example, as one study has noted, theneed to manage and exploit the world’s re-newable resources more effectively will re-quire “more complete and timely informa-tion about soil conditions, crop acreage andyields, water availability, meteorology, andother factors that could benefit or deter re-source production . . . the farmer, and thegovernment official, and everyone in be-tween is a potential customer for resourceinformation. ’67 At present, the primary cus-tomer for Landsat data related to agricultureis the Federal Government, which has astake in U.S. agricultural productivity. How-

bc’’Markets for Remote Sensing Data 1980-2000,” Terra-Mar,Study for TRW Defense and Space Systems Group, contract No.M624770C2M, November 1982.

b7’’Markets for Remote Sensing Data 1980-2000,” op. cit.

..— ——. -—.


ever, the agricultural industry also includesproducers, processors, and merchandisers,banks, and brokers; only a few of these com-panies are now customers of land remotesensing data (table 7-11). As one report ob-served, the agricultural industry is highlycompetitive. Inexpensive and timely infor-mation about the status of crops would bewell received68 by all elements of that com-munity. Unprocessed data will find little useby these potential customers.

Processing improvements. Inexpensive dataprocessing is only one component in the listof factors that affect market growth, yet itcould be more important than the price ofdata. The cost of adding value to a CCT* cantoday far exceed the price of a CCT. Typi-cally, value-added services applied to a sin-gle CCT may range from 100 to 300 percentof the price of unprocessed data dependingon the complexity of the service desired. Ifit is eventually possible to purchase particularportions of a CCT, rather than an entirescene,69 the need for large computers to

——681bld.

69&ny data users find that they need only Part of a given Scene.As the data become more widely used by customers interested pri-marily in small geographical areas, the demand for smaller partsof a scene will likely increase. It is now possible to purchase quarter-scenes of TM data from EDC.

*Computer-compatible tape.

process these data will decrease. Already, itis possible to purchase a minicomputer sys-tem for processing Landsat data for about$50,000. In the near future, it will be possi-ble for data users to make more effective useof microcomputers and thereby to decreasethe cost of an in-house value-added systemto the order of $20,000 to $25,000.70 Al-though not as efficient as the mainframecomputers, such systems put the price ofusing Landsat data for specific applicationswithin the range of relatively small com-panies.

One of the reasons the market for Land-sat data has not developed more quickly isthat potential customers need primary datawith a wide variety of different basic char-acteristics (spatial and spectral resolution,number of spectral bands, coverage area) de-livered over widely different timeframes. Un-til the thematic mapper (TM) was developed,the data’s spatial resolution and number ofspectral bands were limited to the capabil-

— .— . --—msuch a system would include at Ieast a microcomputer with

hard disk storage of 10 megabytes ($5,000 or less), an image proc-essor and associated computer software ($1 5,000). Additional items,such as the software to work with a geographic information sys-tem, could raise the total to $25,0(X).

Table 7-il.—Agribusiness Industry Structure Analysis

Producers:Individual farmersFarm cooperatives: International Agribusiness Banks?

Farmland Industries, Inc. Bank of Americab

CitibankProcessors:Combined Function Companies: Agribusiness Brokers?

Pillsbury Merrill LynchQuaker Conticommodity Servicesc

Ralston-PurinaMerchandisers:International Grain Companies:d

CargillBungeDreyfusContinental Grain

aaarrks gnd brokers Interact with all three industry 9erJmentS.bBank of America consistently maintains the largest share of agribusiness lending in the world.cconticommtiity h a subsidiary o f COntlnental Grain.d~nternational grain tr~ing iS dominated by these four companies with Carfdill rePresentinsJ by far the 9reatest influence wi-

thin the industry,

SOURCE: Terra-Mar.

This table illustrates the variety of possible consumers of information from a single busi-ness area. Similar tables could be drawn for other business that depend on information aboutnatural resources, whether renewable or nonrenewable.


ity of the MSS sensor. The speed of correct-ing and delivering the data has also been lim-ited, If the market for primary data is to growsubstantially, the system’s owner will haveto deliver data useful for a broad range ofapplications, and the value-added industrywill have to develop a wide variety of inex-pensive data products. At present, althoughsome users can utilize the higher capabilitiesof the TM data, most cannot. 71 In otherwords, as argued above, the data will haveto interest a broader category of users thanthey now do.

Issues for the Future

It is evident from the earlier summary of for-eign systems that other countries, building on theexperience gained from U.S. applications tech-nology as well as on their own capabilities, seethe development of the full range of remote-sens-ing satellites as an integral part of their entry intospace. In addition to constructing systems thatwill be competitive with the U.S. Landsat system,they are also engaged in extensive research onhow to apply the data.

● Private sector efforts. The success of the pri-vate sector in developing a competitive re-mote sensing system may well depend onthe strength and longevity of Governmentsupport. Such support could consist of oneor more of the following: a direct subsidy,such as has been authorized in Public Law98-365, support in the form of a guaranteedannual Government purchase of data (spe-cifically prohibited in Public Law 98-365), taxbenefits, and/or in continued Governmentresearch. Although NASA has a program todevelop a variety of advanced sensors thatwould be tested on the relatively short Shut-tle missions, the Government has announcedno plans to develop civilian operational sys-tems that would provide data over the long

71 For a ciiscussion of using TM data effectively, see l?erTIOte %Mingand the Private Sector, op. cit., pp. 62-65.

●

term with repeat coverage. It will rely pri-marily on the private sector to develop andmaintain a land remote sensing system. Thus,to obtain certain important civilian data, theGovernment may have to rely on foreign sys-tems. In the absence of strong Governmentsupport for a private system, the private sec-tor would be left to compete directly withforeign government-funded enterprises tosell data.Remote sensing research. An importantaspect of maintaining leadership in land re-mote sensing is the continuation of researchon applying remotely sensed data to resourcediscovery, analysis, and management. Uni-versity land remote sensing research is at alow ebb in this country,72 in large part be-cause Federal research funds have dried upprematurely. If the market for land remotesensing data were strong, research fundingfor applications would likely be forthcom-ing from the private sector in support of itsneeds. However, the lack of high demandfor data, caused in part by the uncertaintyover whether land remote sensing activitieswill continue, has led to reduced privatefunding for applications research. NeitherNASA nor NOAA now have strong land re-mote sensing research programs, althoughthe Land Remote Sensing CommercializationAct of 1984 authorizes both agencies to con-tinue such research. It is clear, however, thatsuccessful commercialization will depend ondeveloping a large variety of methods to turnremotely sensed data, especially the high-resolution TM data, into useful information.The decline in U.S. research has taken placeat the same time that other nations are de-veloping new remote sensing systems andincreasing their research funding on remote-sensing applications. These nations are build-ing on the substantial investment that theUnited States has already made in remotesensing applications.

lzsee, for example, ~e~~~e Sensing and the Private Sector, O P.

cit., pp. 60-61, app. C.

.— —— ——— - — -


OCEAN REMOTE SENSING

Observations from space devoted specificallyto understanding ocean phenomena were firstmade visually and photographically by the Mer-cury program astronauts in the 1960s. Later, infra-red radiometers incorporated on the meteorolog-ical satellites provided considerable ocean datathat were later supplemented by data from amicrowave instrument aboard Skylab in 1973. In1978, NASA launched Seasat, the first dedicatedocean remote sensing satellite, which demon-strated the feasibility of using microwave sensorsaboard a spacecraft. Although it failed premature-ly, the experimental Seasat returned massiveamounts of highly useful data to scientists (table7-1 2) and demonstrated that a dedicated ocean-ographic satellite would serve the needs of com-mercial and scientific interests and Governmentagencies.

Because the ocean environment is constantlychanging and potentially dangerous, its behavioris of considerable importance to all countries that

border on the oceans, and especially to those thatmaintain large commercial or military fleets.Whether they are primarily concerned about ac-tivities within the 200-mile economic zones orhave a wider interest in the oceans, all of thesecountries would benefit from data derived fromspace-based ocean observations delivered prompt-ly and continuously.

A few countries, notably Canada, Japan, andthe European nations (under the auspices of theEuropean Space Agency) are now planning civil-ian satellite systems specifically dedicated toocean observations. The Soviet Union has flownseveral dedicated civilian-military oceanographicsatellites. In the United States a joint civilian-military National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS)was proposed for launch in 198673 but was can-celed when projected program costs rose to more

73 Technology and oceanography, U.S. Congress, Office of Tech-nology Assessment (Washington, DC: OTA-O-1 41, June 1981).

Table 7=12.—Geophysical Oceanographic Measurement Design Capabilities for Seasat-A

PrecisionMeasurement Sensor Range /accuracy Resolution, km

Geoid 5cm-200m

Topography Currents, surges, etc. Altimeter IOcm-10m * 20cm 1.6-12

Surface winds Amplitude Microwave radiometer 7-50mls ~ 2m/s OR A 10°/0 50

Scatterometer3-257’———m s * 2m/s OH 1070

Direction 0-360° * 2(30 50

Height Altimeter 0.5-25m & 0.5 TO 1.Om 1.6-12OR& lo~o

Gravity waves Length Imaging 50-100m * 100/0

Direct Ion radar 0-360° * 15% 50m

Relative V & IR -2-35° C 1 .5°Surface Absolute radiometer Clear weather 2° - 5

temperature Relative Microwave -2-35° C 1°Absolute radiometer All weather 1.5° 100

V & IR radiometer - 5km - 5Extent Microwave radiometer 10-1 5km 10-15

Sea ice .— * 25m 25mLeads Imaging radar 50m * 25m 25m

Icebergs 25m * 25m 25m

Shores, clouds V & IR radiometerOcean islands 7 !jkm - 5features Shoals, currents Imaging radar * 25m 25m

Atmospheric Water vapor Microwave ~ 25m 50corrections & liquid radiometer

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Ch. 7–Remote Sensing From Space ● 303

than three-quarters of a billion dollars. No civil-ian operational ocean satellite is now planned,but the U.S. Navy is developing the Navy RemoteOcean Sensing Satellite (N-ROSS) for Jaunch in1989. NASA is planning a research satellite (TOPEX/POSEIDON), with French participation, to meas-ure ocean topography.

This section briefly summarizes the status ofocean observations from space and explores theinternational issues related to ocean remotesensing.

U.S. Oceanographic Systems

The technologies necessary for the comple-ment of instruments required for an operationalocean remote sensing system are available andhave been tested on a variety of U.S. satellites.

● Seasat—1978. Built by NASA to explore theutility of a satellite devoted to measuringocean dynamics and topography, Seasat (fig.7-1 8) lasted only 3 months. However, it re-turned data of considerable scientific andoperational use.

● Nimbus—1%4-85. The Nimbus series of re-search satellites were designed by NASA totest new sensors for generating ocean andmeteorological data and to collect data ofscientific interest. Nimbus-7, the latest in theseries, which was launched in 1978, is stilloperating. It carries a Scanning Multichan-nel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) that pro-vides measurements of sea surface temper-atures, and a Coastal Zone Color Scanner(CZCS) that provides a measure of biologi-cal productivity of the ocean.

● TOPEX/POSEI DON —1990. NASA has pro-posed to operate, in a joint U.S./French proj-ect, a research satellite devoted primarily tohighly accurate measurements (to an accu-racy of about 2.0 centimeters) of the heightof the oceans. The satellite would also carrya microwave radiometer in order to correctfor the effects of water vapor in the atmos-phere, France would supply a solid-state al-timeter and a radiometric tracking system.The altitude of the ocean is crucial to under-standing patterns of ocean circulation. Thesatellite’s orbit would allow determination

Figure 7-18.—The Seasat-A Spacecraft

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

of ocean topography from latitudes 630north to 630 south. Accurate altitude meas-urements could lead to better understand-ing of ocean topography and dynamics,tides, sea ice position, climate and seafloortopography, among other ocean-relatedqualities. 74 TOPEX is planned as a new startfor fiscal year 1987 and would be in orbitfrom 1990 to 1993 or later. This schedulewould allow altitude data to be gathered atthe same time N-ROSS (U.S. Navy) and ERS-1 (ESA), which would fly similar orbits, wouldbe sensing data on other ocean parameters.ERS-1 would generate topography data oflower accuracy but it would reach higherlatitudes than TOPEX. Together, data fromthe two satellites would provide considerablymore information on ocean topography thaneither satellite could alone.

74’’ Satellite Altimetric Measurements of the Ocean,” Report ofthe TOPEX Science Working Group, NASA, JPL 1981; RichardFifield, “The Shape of Earth from Space, ” New Scjentjst, Nov. 15,1984, pp. 46-50.

[page omitted]This page was originally printed on a dark gray background.

The scanned version of the page was almost entirely black and not usable.


●

●

●

Metsats. The operational meteorological sat-ellites, including the DOD DMSP satellites,have carried instruments that measure oceanparameters of interest to those who study,use, explore, and exploit the oceans’ re-sources. Table 7-13 lists the measurementsfrom satellites that are of particular utility tooceanic concerns.Navy Remote Ocean Sensing System (N-ROSS). N-ROSS is under development by theNavy; as currently configured, the systemwould employ one satellite (fig. 7-19) de-ployed in polar orbit, having a design life of3 to 4 years. Although it is designed to senseparameters of direct interest to the operation-al needs of the Navy (tables 7-14 and 7-1 5),the data it returns will also benefit civilianusers of the ocean. NOAA plans to collectand distribute these data (except for certainclassified information) to the civilian com-mu nity.

Foreign Systems

Japan Marine Observation Satellite-1 (MOS-

visible and one infrared (IR) wavelengthbands. It will also carry a microwave scan-ning radiometer and a variable-resolutionradiometer (900 to 2,700 meters) with onevisible and three thermal IR bands. Althoughthis satellite is being developed primarily forocean sensing of wave heights, ocean color,and temperature, these data will also be use-ful for land remote sensing. Japan is alsoplanning a land remote-sensing satellite (ERS-1), which it expects to launch by 1990. It willcarry a synthetic aperture radar. It has notyet announced plans for distributing or sell-ing data from MOS-1 or ERS-1.

● European Space Agency (ESA) Remote Sens-ing Satellite (E RS-l)—1987/88.75 This satel-lite is planned primarily for passive microwavesensing of the coastal oceans and weather overthe oceans. In addition, it will carry a syn-thetic aperture radar for active microwavesensing of ice topography or land massesthrough any cloud cover. However, becauseof inherent limits of available power aboardthe spacecraft, its use over the Arctic regions

1)-1986. MOS-1 will carry sensors capableof resolving objects 50 meters across in three

75A. Haskell, “The ER!j-1 Programme of the European SpaceAgency,” ESA Journa/, vol. 7, 1983, pp. 1-14.

Table 7-13.—Measurement Needs for Oceanographic Satellites

PrecisionMeasurement Range accuracy Resolution Spacial grid Temporal grid

Geoid 5cm-200m * 10 cm IOkm — Weekly to monthlyTopography Currents, IOcm-10m Y 1 Ocm 10-1 OOOm IOkm Twice a day to

surges, etc. 5-500cm/s a 5cm/sOpen ocean

weekly10-50km 50-100km

Surface winds Amplitude Closed sea 3-50mLs & 1 TO 2m/s 5-25km 25km 2-81d

Coastal OR A 10% l-5km 5km Hourly

Direction 0-360° ~ 1 ().200 — — —

Height 0.5-20m & 0.5m 20km 2-81dOR ~ 10.25y0

Gravity waves Length 6-1 ,000m ~ 10.250/o 3-50m 50km 2-4/d

Direction 0-360° * 10-300Open sea 25-100km IOOkm Daily to weekly

Surface Closed sea –2-35°C 0.1-2 ‘relative 5-25km 25km with spectrum of

temperature Coastal 3.5-2° absolute 0.1-5km 5km times of day and

times of year

Extent and age 6 me.— yrs. l-5km l-5km l-5km weekly

Sea ice Leads 50cm 25m 25m 25m 2-4/d

Icebergs IOcm l-50m l-50m 25m —

SOURCE National Ocean(c and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon

— — ——


Figure 7-19.—Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite (N-Ross)

SOURCE: U.S. Navy.

Table 7-14 N-ROSS Sensor Capabilities

Sensor Parameter measured Capability Heritage

Scatterometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wind speedWind direction

Altimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AltitudeSignificant waveheight (H 1/3)

Wind speedMicrowave Imager (SSM/l)b . . . . . . . . Surface wind speed

Ice edge

Precipitation

Low Frequency MicrowaveRadiometer (LFMR)C d . . . . . . . . . . . Sea surface

temperature

1.3 M/S (range 4-26 MIS)16°8 cm (when H 1/3 s5M)0.5 m2 MIS*2 MIS (25 km resolution)

t 12.5 km (25 kmresolution)*5 mmlhr (25 kmresolution)

1.0”2.5 km resolution

Modified from Seasat;improved wind directionSame as GEOSATaltimeter

DMSP instrument; highfrequency for iceEdge better than Seasat

SMMR

New device with higherresolution than SMMR

aSeasat type sensor.bAFlpJavy DMSP sensor.cNew sensor.dDuaj Frequency Sensor (!j and 10 GHz) to be flown as a companion sensor to the SSMII.

SOURCE: RCA Astro-Electronics.

may be limited. It is the first of a planned se-ries of three satellites to be launched by ESA.It is not yet clear how data from this satel-lite are to be distributed to other countries(see issues section below).

Canada Radarsat—1990. Under develop-ment by Canada for routine observations ofpolar sea ice, as well as assessments of Can-

ada’s natural resources, the satellite will pro-vide C-band radar images of Earth’s surface.Its primary sensor will be capable of beingpointed and will have a spatial resolution ofabout 30 meters. Because it will operate atmicrowave frequencies, it will be able togather information on the surface of Earththrough cloud cover. Data from this satel-


Table 7-15.—Oceanographic Data Tactical Operations

Data/lnstrument Oceanographic Product Fleet Tactical Applications

Sea Surface Winds/(Scatterometer,Altimeter, Microwave lmager) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea Surface Wind Field

Analysis

Sea Surface Temp.l(Low frequencymicrowave radiometer). ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ocean Thermal

Structure AnalysisMap of Fronts and Eddies

Ice/( Microwave Imager) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polar Ice Field Analysis

Flight ForecastingShip RoutingWave and Surf Forecasting:

● Amphibious Operations● Swimmer OPS● Underway Replenishment

Cruise Missile SupportSurface Ambient Noise (ASW)Radar and ECM Range Predictions

Location of Potential Hiding PlacesFor Submarines (Friendly and Unfriendly)ASW SUPPO~:

c Sonar Range Predictions● Weapons SettingsQ Sonobuoy Spacing● Sonar Tow Depths

Acoustic Routing of Surface Shipsand Submarine

Submarine Surfacing informationNavigation Information

SOURCE’ RCA Astro-Electronics.

Iite will be available for direct sale or by ar-rangement through offset programs. In or-der to reduce its costs, Canada is seekingpartners in this venture. The spacecraft willalso carry a NASA scatterometer and an op-tical sensor built either in the United Statesor Europe.

● U.S.S.R. Oceanographic Satellites Kosmos1500 (1983) and Kosmos 1602 (1984).76 Inaddition to a low-resolution scanner and amicrowave radiometer, Kosmos 1500 carrieda side-looking radar that was used to assistSoviet merchant ships trapped in the ice inthe Chukchi and East Siberian Seas.77 Kos-mos 1602 presumably carries a similar com-plement of instruments. Analysis of data re-ceived from these satellites indicates qualitycomparable to that of the U.S. Seasat.

7’Nicholas L. Johnson, “The Soviet Year in Space: 1984, ” Tele-dyne Brown Engineering, 1985, p. 28.

77v. sh rnyganovisk iy, “A Space Pilot for the Nuclear-Powered

Icebreakers, ” Izvestiya, Moscow, Nov. 6, 1983, p. 6; TASS, Moscow,23 Jan. 1984; “Soviet Cosmos Spacecraft Providing Lane, Sea im-agery,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Nov. 12, 1984, pp.

212 -213 .

Major Ocean Parameters of Interestfor Scientific and Applied Uses

A satellite specifically designed for ocean ap-plications should produce timely, synoptic dataof extreme usefulness to researchers, to privateenterprise, and to governments.

The following selection of major ocean attri-butes indicates some parameters that satellitescould measure successfully.

Sea Surface Temperature

Data on sea surface temperatures, gathered bythe infrared radiometers aboard the meteoro-logical spacecraft, have been available for twodecades. The maps of sea surface temperaturesproduced from these data demonstrate complexsurface temperature patterns that have led to con-siderable speculation about the physical proc-esses that might cause such patterns. Becausethey reflect only surface effects (1 millimeter orless) these data alone are of limited use in un-derstanding the physical processes of the deeperlayers of the ocean. Yet, higher resolution meas-

. —— ——— — -


Photo credit: U.S.S.R. Hydromet Office

Images of hurricane Diane off the coast of NorthCarolina received from the Soviet Cosmos-1500satellite (Sept. 11, 1984). The lefthand image is froma multichannel scanner. The righthand one is from aside-looking radar operating at 3 cm wavelength. They

were given to NESDIS by engineers at Hydometin Moscow.

urements of water temperatures at the surface,coupled with observations of surface winds andestimates of evaporation and rainfall, would pro-vide better information on heat transport of theoceans. ’B In addition to their scientific interest forclimatological studies, many of these physicalprocesses are of interest to the users of the ocean.

Ocean Color

The polar-orbiting satellite Nimbus-7, launchedin 1978, carries a Coastal Zone Color Scanner(CZCS), which measures spectral radiance fromocean waters in thermal, near-infrared, and fourvisible wavelength bands. Among other consid-erations, the optical bands were selected accord-ing to the optical properties of chlorophyll. Theinfrared bands provide data on coastal and oceancurrent temperature. Although no operationalsensor is now funded, experiments with the CZCSaboard Nimbus-7 have demonstrated79 that thedata from such a sensor are potentially of con-siderable utility in locating areas of fish abun-dance, A recent report80 urged the developmentof an Ocean Color Imager to start in fiscal year1987. Such a satellite would yield important sci-entific information on understanding biologicalproductivity in the oceans.

Sea Ice

Whether from concern for locating and track-ing icebergs as they cross shipping lanes, or fromdesire to understand the direction of ice type, ex-tent, and drift in polar regions, interest in the dis-tribution and condition of sea ice has increasedin recent years (table 7-16).81 Visual observationsof sea ice are now collected by the Multispec-tral Scanner (MSS) and Thematic Mapper (TM)sensors aboard Landsat 5 and by the Very High

76 Brethaton Francis P., “Climate, the Oceans and Remote Sens-ing,” Oceans 24, No. 3, pp. 48-55, 1981.

79’’The Marine Resources Experiment Program, (MAREX),” Re-port of the Ocean Color Science Working Group, NASA-GoddardSpace Flight Center, December 1982.

b“’’oceanography From Space: A Research Strategy for the Dec-ade 1985-1 995, ” Report of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions,Washington, DC. 1984.

61W. F. Weeks, “Sea Ice: The Potential of Remote Sensing,”Oceanus 24, No. 3, pp. 39J17, 1981.


Table 7-16.—lce Parameters of Importance in Different Operations and Research Areas

Area of interest Pertinent ice parameters’

Offshore operations. . . . Extent, type, thickness, drift velocity, internal stress, properties(air temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind velocity, currentvelocity)

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extent, thicknessAlbedo ... , . . . . . . . . . Extent, type, snow coverInsulation . . . . . . . . . . Type, thickness, snow cover (air temperature, wind veloclty)Latent heat export . . . Thickness, drift velocitySurface stress . . . . . . Drift velocity, top and bottom ice roughness (wind velocity,

current velocity)Ocean mixed layer. ... , Ice growth and ablatlon rates, drift velocity (current veloclty,

water-column stablllty)‘The parameters In parentheses are alao Impottant, although they arc not directly related to Ice.

SOURCE: W. F. Weeks, “Sea Ice: The Potential of Remote Sensing,” oceanus 24, No. 3, 19S1, p. 41.

Resolution Radiometer (VHRR) on the NOAA-Nseries satellites. Although highly useful for deter-mining the extent of ice cover and ice flow, thesedata are limited by cloud cover and by darkness(at those times of year when the Sun is not visi-ble at high latitudes). Further, the Landsat dataare limited by lack of daily coverage, and theNOAA-N data are limited in spatial resolution.

Thermal infrared measurements made by theVHRR infrared sensor on the NOAA-N satelliteshave some usefulness for determining sea-icethickness. Although the instrument is limited bycloud cover, it is not limited by lack of sunlight;it is highly useful for low resolution, large-scalemeasurements of ice movement and extent.

Microwave systems have the advantage that thefrequencies at which they operate are limited byneither clouds nor darkness. Both passive and ac-tive (radar) systems can be used for mapping andmonitoring sea ice, but the passive system suf-fers from the highly limited resolution availablefrom the relatively small antennas that can be car-ried aboard a satellite. Nimbus-5 and Nimbus-7carried passive microwave radiometers. Nomicrowave measurements of sea ice are now be-ing taken by the United States.

An active system based on the synthetic aper-ture radar principle could overcome the prob-lem of low resolution at the price of having tohandle high volumes of data. A Synthetic Aper-ture Radar (SAR) would achieve relatively highresolution along the line of sight at an angle tothe nadir by using the satellite motion coupledwith digital signal processing techniques to create

a synthetic image of Earth’s surface. Such systemsare an outgrowth of aircraft side-looking apertureradar systems; an L-band SAR was demonstratedon Seasat (fig. 7-20). However, before such aninstrument could become operational, methods

Figure 7“20.—Radar Image of Kuskokwim Bayin Alaska

o 20 km “Y ILLUMINATIONI I --DIRECTION

As the Kuskokwim River flows into the Bering Sea, it formslarge sediment deposits in Kuskokwim Bay, which are visi-ble as small dark areas separated by channels (bright areas).

SOURCE: Lee-Lueng Fu and Benjamin HoIt, “Seaaat Viewe Oceans and Sea IceWith Synthetic-Aperature Radar,” NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory PubIicatlon 81-120, Feb. 15, 1982, p. 98.

310 ● International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian space Activities

would have to be developed to process the datarapidly and turn them into useful products. Asnoted, Canada and ESA will include an SAR in-strument on their satellites, Radarsat, and ERS-1.

A satellite altimeter and a scatterometer are twoother examples of active radar systems that couldbe used to measure ice parameters. An altimeter(e.g., that planned for TOPEX/POSEIDON) couldmeasure the height of the ice with a precision ofa few centimeters. Data from a scatterometerwould be used to determine ice roughness andthe position of sea-ice boundaries.

Wave Heights

Knowledge of wave height and general waveconditions at a variety of ocean locations is crucialfor the safety of ships at sea, and for ocean plat-forms. Data on waves are also important forunderstanding and modeling ocean dynamics.Because winds create waves, measurements ofwind speed and direction over wide areas canlead to estimates of wave height and condition.

Applications of Ocean RemoteSensing

Data from satellite remote sensing of the oceanshave the potential for providing information forseveral important applications (table 7-17; table7-18). The following examples illustrate the po-tential importance of these data.

Weather and Climate

The world’s climate system is dominated by thebehavior of the oceans. Understanding and pre-dicting climate depends directly on understand-ing ocean temperatures, currents, wave heights,sea level, and sea surface winds, as well as othercharacteristics. Obtaining comprehensive, peri-odic, synoptic measurements requires a space-borne system. Although daily measurements fromships crossing the oceans or from ocean buoysare available to climatologists, such measure-ments are primarily limited to the major shippingroutes or to the coastal areas. The climate-relatedparameters of vast areas of the ocean remain un-observed except on a sporadic basis.

Marine Transportation

In ship routing, the most critical parameter tomeasure is sea state (wave heights). However,winds, currents, fog, rain, etc., are also impor-tant. One report suggested that reliable data andanalysis of sea state “can reduce ship transit timeand therefore save a significant amount of fuel.”82

The experimental Seasat was used by a U.S.ship routing company in studies that indicated:

. . . that the use of satellite-derived wind obser-vations can be useful in more accurately locat-ing low-pressure storm centers. This knowledgecould reduce vessel transit distances and times.83

Offshore Mining: Oil and GasExploration and Extraction

Offshore mining firms could make considerableuse of ocean satellites because many of the areaswith the richest resource potential are not locatedin the major shipping lanes and thus are the mostpoorly observed by conventional means. Thedeep-ocean-mining industry now is using windand wave measurements from ship reports in de-signing equipment and formulating operatingplans and schedules.84 Various experimentershave suggested that a better climatological infor-mation base, which could be provided by satel-lite, would be put to good use in planning for andoperating deep ocean mining projects.

Oil and gas exploration and extraction com-panies could also use an improved ocean clima-tological data base for selecting equipment, suchas drilling rigs and supply vessels, and in plan-ning offshore operations. * Perhaps the most im-portant use of the satellite data is for improvedweather warnings and status of ice information. as

82Donald Montgomery, “Commercial Applications of SatelliteOceanography,” Oceanus 24, No. 3, p. 58, 1981.

631 bid., p. s9.841 bid., p. s9.“Oil and Gas Technologies for the Arctic and Deepwater (Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-

0 - 2 7 0 , M a y 1 9 8 5 ) .

Bslbid., p. 60.


Table 7-17.—Possible Oceanographic Satellite Applications

Activity Application

Offshore oil and gas:

Environmental forecasting:

Marine transportation:

Deep-ocean mining:

Marine fisheries:

Increased ocean forecast accuracyExploration operations

Seismic surveysDrill shipsTowout operations

Production operationsCrew schedulingPlatform and crew safety

Ice observationsIce dynamics for platform design criteriaIce movement for platform and crew safetyEnvironmental dataReplace platform instrumentationSubsurface and seabed dynamicsGas pipeline and applicationsIncreased observations (particularly in Southern Hemisphere)Consistent observationsWave-height measurementsWind averagesIncreased ocean forecast accuracyOptimum routingPort schedulingIce observationsArctic resupplyVessel/personal safetyIncreased ocean forecast accuracyMining operationsImproved tropical storm, storm-track predictionMining operations and safetyHistorical data baseUnbiased climatology

Mining equipment designOperational criteria

Increased ocean forecast accuracyEfficient search effortsEfficient gear operationsReduced gear lossesCrew and vessel safetyIce observations/forecastsGear lossesCrew and vessel safety

SOURCE D R Montgomery, “Commercial Applications of Satellite Oceanography,” Ocearrus 24, 1981, pp. 57-65.

Table 7-18.—lmpacts of Observed Parameters on Commercial Benefits

Measurement Parameter

Sea SurfaceApplication Wind Waves Temperature Ice

Ocean Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High High LowMarine Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High Lowa LowbOil and Gas Exploration

and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High Low High c

Arctic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High Low High

%tIgh in regions where sharp temperature gredlents indicate currents.b~Wnden~y Iow for pre~nt tr~e routes; will Increase with the movements of arctic resources using Ice bre*ers.Cktigh only In ice prevalent regions.

SOURCE RCA Astro-Electronics

38-797 0 - 85 - 11 : QL 3

312 ● international Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

Surveillance and Enforcement

With the recent extension of coastal economiczones to 200 miles, all coastal countries, andespecially developing ones, would benefit frombetter surveillance and enforcement programs.Surveillance of cooperative targets–the monitor-ing of boats legally within a country’s 200-mileeconomic zone–could be done using the ARGOSsystem on TIROS-N, This system could monitorcooperative vessels (i. e., those with an appropri-ate transmitter aboard) and enable a host gov-ernment to supervise their fishing activities. Anuncooperative or illegal foreign fishing vessel,however, must still be apprehended by aircraftor ocean patrol.8b

Fisheries

Indirect measurements of environmental fac-tors which affect the distribution and abundanceof the resource, both temporally and spatially,can be used to indicate areas of high yield. How-ever, using satellite data for commercial fisheriesrequires that two links be made: 1 ) fish availabil-ity must first be correlated with environmentaland/or ocean attributes, then, 2) environmentaland/or attributes detected from the satellite mustlead to information about the potential availablefood Supply.

The following environmental parameters relateto the distribution and abundance of ocean fish:

Sea surface temperature. Sea surface tem-perature may be directly related to the dis-tribution and abundance of marine orga-nisms. For instance, studies of Pacific tunahave demonstrated strong correlations be-tween tuna catch and water temperature.Also, strong temperature gradients may in-dicate the edges of warm and cold water sys-tems. These edges or boundaries usuallydefine currents and mark areas of increasedpelagic fish productivity.Sea surface salinity. Although sea surfacesalinity cannot be measured by satellite,measurements of salinity help indicate the

B6ResOurces Development Associates, Feasibility OfsUrVei/kInCe

and Monitoring of Fishing Vessels in Papua New Guinea (Los Altos,CA: RDA, January 1980).

●

●

●

●

●

distribution and abundance of certain kindsof marine organisms, especially those thatspend some portion of their life cycle in theestuarine areas.Sea state (wave heights). Sea state becomesan important indicator for current systemswhen temperature, salinity, and other prop-erty gradients are negligible. Because currentsystems delineate areas of more or less fishproductivity and may also possess differentsea states, the measurement of sea state maycorrelate with fish catch.Water color and chlorophyll concentrations.Water color variations indicate the bound-aries of major current systems. More impor-tant, water color has long been used in-directly as an indicator of biologicalproductivity. Detection of water color is pri-marily used to detect shifts of marine orga-nisms, especially those that spend some por-tion of their life cycle in the estuarine areas.Pollution. Pollution may be considered asan indicator of areas in which fish are notpresent. it may also indicate where fish andtheir environment might be endangered.Slicks, foam, and debris lines may also in-dicate current convergence zones, whichmay be areas of high productivity.Surface objects. Surface objects of interestthat may be detected include vessels, buoys,offshore oil platforms, weed-debris lines,marine mammals (whales, porpoises), bio-luminescence, and fish schools on or nearthe surface.Other factors. Other environmental data areimportant, including water clarity and cur-rent patterns, but these are usually inferredfrom the parameters listed above.

Issues in Ocean Remote Sensing

What Are the Research Needs forOcean Remote Sensing?

There is a strong continuing need for researchinto ocean phenomena, both to support oceanusers (e.g., the maritime industries), and to in-crease our basic understanding of fundamentalocean processes. Although humans have traveledand studied the oceans since before recorded his-


tory, our ability to predict future ocean behavioris severely limited by lack of knowledge of howthe ocean works and how to model its behavior.Understanding the oceans more thoroughly willalso require the collection and processing of vastamounts of data, both from surface observationsand from satellites.

The problems of understanding the dynamicsof the ocean are similar to those of understand-ing the dynamics of the atmosphere. The oceansand the atmosphere are both fluids that areheated and cooled by complicated processes andstrongly affected by thermal flows from the landmasses. Major changes may occur over scales ofhours, days, weeks, or even years. The ability topredict future behavior of the oceans requiresknowledge of the ocean as it is at any given mo-ment, and how it changes over time. predictionsalso require the abiIity to model ocean behaviorin large computers and compare those resultswith observations. Satellites are particularly usefulfor gathering much of the necessary data becausethey provide a synoptic view of the oceans at pre-dictable repeat intervals. Observations from ships,although extremely important in verifying satel-lite records, are scattered both in time and space,and provide poor data sets for modeling oceanbehavior. Ocean buoys, though useful for col-lecting important data, are necessarily few innumber and widely scattered throughout theoceans.

How Can We Make the Best Use of theSpace Assets of the United States andof Other Countries to Increase OurKnowledge of the Oceans?

As noted earlier in this section, Canada, Japan,and the European Space Agency are designingor building ocean-related satellite systems that areexpected to be operational within the next syears. The Navy N-ROSS system, the data fromwhich will be distributed to the civilian commu-nity through NOAA, is likely to be operationalin the same time period. This is one area in whichthe increased ability of other countries to com-pete with the United States technologically bybuilding space systems can lead to closer coop-eration. Close cooperation and coordinationamong countries could provide timely and con-

tinuous access to the data from these systems.Most important, substantial cooperation could as-sure that the data the systems provide are usefulto the worldwide community of users. The resultof cooperation and coordination could be a sys-tem that is of far greater utility than any one na-tion could provide on its own. NOAA is expend-ing considerable energy to increase cooperation,not least because cooperation may enable theUnited States to spend lesson its own data col-lection systems.

Opportunities for cooperation occur in the fol-lowing areas:

●

●

Coordination of Equator crossing times andrepeat cycles. N-ROSS is designed to havea 2-day repeat cycle for measurements. ERS-1 will also pass over the same locations every2 days. If the orbital parameters of both sat-ellites could be properly coordinated, be-cause the sensor complement of the satel-lites overlaps to a considerable extent, itwould be possible to achieve daily globalocean coverage. Such coordination wouldaffect neither the cost nor the national ob-jectives of either satellite system, but couldnearly double their value to the participants,if all the data are shared freely .87

As future systems are designed, coordina-tion of the Equator crossing times for satel-lites could also lead to similar benefits. Forexample, measurements of ocean color, so-lar radiation, and ozone content require highSun angles, and are therefore best taken nearnoon.Cooperation on future satellite missions. Asexperience is gained with the planned oper-ational and research satellites, potential co-operative missions will begin to suggestthemselves. It appears to be in the best in-terest of the United States to continue a va-riety of cooperative programs in order to: 1 )save money on building research and appli-cations systems, and 2) increase the availablescientific and operational knowledge baseabout ocean processes.

87’’ Utilization of the Polar Platform of NASA’s Space Station Pro-gram for operational Earth Observations, ” op. cit. (fn 37).

—


● Building an international polar-orbitingplatform. The Europeans have shown con-siderable interest in providing instruments orfunding for an international system of mete-orological satellites (see metsat issues above).They and the Japanese have also indicatedinterest in supplying some part of a space sta-tion. Polar-orbiting platforms that could pro-vide a variety of atmospheric, land, andocean measurements would seem to providefertile ground for future international coop-eration in remote sensing.88

What Needs Are There for Collecting,Processing, and Distributing thePrimary Data From Satellites?

The ground receiving station, and the dataordering, processing, and distribution facilities areas important to the user of satellite data as arethe satellites that gather the data. Therefore, whenthe funding for ocean remote sensing systems isconsidered, it is extremely important to includesufficient funds for these ground-based functions,because NOAA must be capable of supplyingunenhanced data reliably and efficiently to theuser. Some data, such as the position and strengthof a large ocean storm, are highly time-dependentand are of no use to the operational user unlesssupplied immediately after being gathered.

Sslbid

Others, relating for example to sea ice position,may change more slowly and allow a time lagof several hours or even days for distribution.

The need for timely delivery of data is as impor-tant for research scientists as it is for commercialor Government applications. Sensor character-istics change with time and require recalibrationif the data collected are to be of use to the re-searcher. Data stored for long periods before theirintended use may well be unusable because theuser was unaware soon enough of small changesin sensor characteristics.

Large-scale experimental programs such as theWorld Climate Research Program, componentsof which include the Tropical Ocean Global At-mosphere Program and the World Ocean-Circu-lation Experiment,89 or the International Geo-sphere-Biosphere Program (lGBP),90 will generatelarge amounts of data from space that must besifted, analyzed, and integrated with related datagathered at the surface, before being used in ex-perimental models of the oceans and the atmos-phere. This process will require sufficient archiv-ing of corrected historical data, and the abilityto access them efficiently.

Bg’’Oceanography From Space: A Research Strategy for the Dec-ade 1984-1 995, ” op. cit.

90’’ Toward an International Geosphere-Biosphere Program: AStudy of Global Change,” Report of a National Research CouncilWorkshop, Woods Hole (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, July 25-29, 1983).

REMOTE SENSING POLICY

The treatment of current U.S. systems for re-mote sensing from space presents a particularchallenge to policy makers. Although land, ocean,and meteorological remote sensing use relatedtechnologies to produce data, for the most partthey still serve different constituencies. Conse-quently each requires a different policy treatment.Further, the three systems have different econom-ic, political, and social characteristics, As the datafrom these systems find greater use, and their ap-plications increasingly overlap it may be possi-ble to integrate the systems, perhaps on an astro-naut-tended polar-orbiting platform.91 However,

analysis of such an integrated approach is beyondthe scope of this report.

Policy options for guiding the direction of U.S.meteorological satellite systems exist primarily inthe context of cooperative ventures in space, be-cause these spacecraft sense large-scale condi-tions that generally transcend political bound-aries. Small-scale surface features and most signsof human activity do not appear in images pro-duced by metsat sensors. Economic value lies pri-marily in the data’s use in predicting severeweather and climate trends.92 Earth resources re-

glsee, for example, the discussion in “Utilization of the Polar Plat-form of NASA’s Space Station Program for Operational Earth Obser-vations, ” op. cit. (fn 37),

glsee, for example, the discussion of “El Nino in the Southern

Hemisphere and Its Effects on the Northern Hemisphere, ” RemoteSensing and the Private Sector, op. cit, App. 1.


mote sensing systems, whether for land, coastalregions, or the oceans, are specifically designedto be used for assessing, managing, and exploitingrenewable and nonrenewable resources. Thedata collected therefore have direct economicconsequences for the sensed country. Conse-quently, the following policy treatment discusseseach system independently.

Meteorological Remote SensingPolicy

Because weather data collected in one regionof the globe are of interest to other regions, thenations of the world, even in time of war, haveat least since 1853 treated the gathering and dis-tribution of weather data as a cooperative ven-ture. The primary means of cooperation amongnations with respect to meteorological satellitesystems has been the sharing of data.

Cooperation

Four primary policy options are possible: 1)maintain the status quo in polar-orbiting systemsand continue to cooperate in providing data tothe global meteorological data exchange; 2)maintain the form of our cooperation, but reducethe quantity and quality of data supplied to othercountries by operating only one polar orbiter;93

3) increase our cooperation with other countriesby engaging in additional cooperative projects;and 4) increase the sharing of data from the geo-stationary satellites with our Western Hemispherepartners.

Maintain Status Quo

The United States normally operates two civil-ian polar orbiters and two geostationary satel-Iites. 94 It could continue to operate both systemsand cooperate as in the past by supplying data

93A fifth potential option of reducing our cooperative effofls in

meteorology by reducing our participation in the WMO is infeasi-ble because the United States would therefore likely lose accessto some data it now receives from foreign surface stations.

94Note that only one geostationary Satellite is now operating.

NOAA plans to launch a replacement for the failed GOES-5 in late1985 or early 1986. See W. Mitchell Waldrop, “A Silver Lining forthe Weather Satellites?” Science, vol. 226, pp. 1289-1291, for asummary of the state of technological and political affairs of theU.S. meteorological satellite systems.

to U.S. citizens and other nations at no cost (orat cost of reproduction), while continuing to flysensors of other countries. The two systems costabout $7.4 million in fiscal year 1984 to operate.Each new polar-orbiting satellite will cost about$100 million to build and $30 million to $50 mil-l ion to Iaunch. 9 5

As argued in the next option, this course of ac-tion would have the advantage that it wouldmaintain the same data flow that the UnitedStates and other countries have experienced inthe past, with the consequent benefits that flowfrom access to such data. It would have the dis-advantage of not contributing to a reduction ofthe budget deficit.

Operate Only One Polar Orbiter

In its effort to reduce the Government’s budgetdeficit, the Administration has repeatedly triedto reduce the number of polar orbiters from twoto one. Eliminating one of the polar orbiterswould reduce the coverage of the system fromonce every 6 hours to once every 12 hours fora particular spot on the Earth. For most of theUnited States, a reduction in service would notcause a serious decline in the ability to predictsevere weather. Conventional data collection sys-tems and the geostationary satellites provide suf-ficient information. For Hawaii, Alaska, Ameri-can Samoa, Guam, and the Pacific Trust Territo-ries, however, the 6-hour repeat coverage thattwo polar-orbiting metsats supply is extremely im-portant for timely warning of rapidly changingweather conditions. None of these areas has ac-cess to surface data for the predominantly west-to-east weather patterns.96

Operating only one civilian polar orbiter wouldreduce the data available to DOD. Though it hasits own system of meteorological satellites (De-fense Meteorological Satellite Program or DMSP),DOD makes extensive use of the civilian system,both to provide data at different times of the day,

gsThese figures are approximate and depend highly on the num-ber of satellites contracted for in a single purchase agreement, thenumber and type of new sensors that are flown, inflation, and futurelaunch prices.

gbBecause the prirnay weather flow in the Northern Hemisphereis from west to east, information gathered to the west of a geographicarea is especially important for weather predictions.


and to act as an emergency backup to the mili-tary system. The DMSP can provide a backup ofsorts for the civilian satellite. However, becausethe characteristics of the data from the DMSP aresomewhat different from those supplied from thecivilian system, its data cannot be used directlyin forecasting models.

Nations that depend on metsat data and havepurchased receiving stations have expressed theirdismay that the United States might operate onlya single polar orbiter. Such a course of actionwould save less money than it might appear be-cause the cost of purchasing and operating twopolar satellites is much less than twice the costof operating one. NOAA estimates it would saveless than $25 million yearly.

The U.S. polar orbiters carry the emergencybeacons used in the COSPAS/SARSAT coopera-tive program with Canada, France, and theU.S.S.R. Until October 1984, the system hadbeen operated as a demonstration program.However, in October 1984, the Administrationsigned an agreement with the participating coun-tries to continue the program on an operationalbasis, therefore committing the United States forthe immediate future to maintain two polar-or-biting metsats for the COSPAS/SARSAT program.The SARSAT receiver could be flown on a sepa-rate small satellite (at an unknown cost), so thisagreement does not guarantee continuation oftwo polar-orbiting metsats.

Joint International Systemfor Polar Orbiters

The only other nation to operate a polar-orbit-ing meteorological satellite is the Soviet Union.The two U.S. polar-orbiting satellites provide to-tal global coverage and are the principal sourceof meteorological data from 80 percent of theglobe. They also provide coverage for the highlatitude regions, which are not covered by thegeostationary satellites,97 and for which conven-tional measurements are particularly sparse. Thetwo-orbiter system benefits all the countries of

gTAlthOUgh the geostationa~ satellites can image the full disk ofthe Earth, their ability to make quantitative measurements of ex-treme north and south latitudes is limited by the oblique angle atwhich they sense Earth’s surface at these latitudes.

the world because of its frequent coverage. A sin-gle polar orbiter would result in markedly re-duced weather coverage (fig. 7-10).

The United States has suggested to the otherOECD nations that:

unlike the situation that existed when theUnited States initiated the meteorological satel-lite system, it is now possible for subsystems, sys-tems, and entire satellites to be built, launched,and operated by numerous organizations inmany countries. The satellites and instrumentsare well understood. The data standards that arenecessary for worldwide distribution and use ofsatellite data are in place and thoroughly devel-oped. Interoperability of space systems or sub-systems can be readily achieved through proce-dures that many countries have applied.98

NOAA representatives have briefed represent-atives of other nations about U.S. views on thedesirability of jointly providing the second polarorbiter. A joint program would reduce U.S. oper-ating costs and increase U.S. cooperation withother countries.

At the June 1984 Versailles Economic Summit,delegates agreed to discuss cooperating in satel-lite remote sensing and established the interna-tional polar-Orbiting Meteorological Satellitegroup (lPOMS), the members of which unani-mously agreed on the need for two polar orbit-ers.99 Foreign participants were willing to acceptmore of the financial burden of an advancedpolar-orbiting system and to fund new instru-ments for it.

An agreement to cooperate in building andmaintaining a multinational polar-orbiting systemwould constitute a marked change in the formof international cooperation in meteorologicalsystems. Heretofore, with the exception of twoforeign sensors flown on U.S. polar orbiters, data,not sensors, have been shared.

~“lnternational COOWratiOn in Polar-Orbiting Meteorological sat-ellites,” NOAA, Apr. 19, 1983.

99’’Dual Polar Satellites Draw International Support,” Aviation

Week and Space Technology, Dec. 10, 1984, p. 27. Members ofthis group include representatives from Australia, Canada, France,Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Commis-sion of the European Communities, the European Space Agency,the United Kingdom, as well as the United States (NASA, NOAA,and the Depanment of State).


U.S. spacecraft manufacturing firms might losesome business as a result of such cooperation.On the other hand, if the choice were betweeninternational cooperation on a two polar-orbitingsystem and a domestic system of only one polar-orbiting satellite, they could well do more busi-ness with an international system.

Although the nations that might participate areable to contribute to this effort, the United Statescould face a question of undesirable technologytransfer. For certain advanced new sensors anddata processing technology, it would be impor-tant to structure the agreement so that no tech-nology vital to national security interests be trans-ferred to other countries. Part of this concerncould be met by structuring the system in sucha way that each country provided its own inde-pendently developed sensors in accordance withmutually agreed-upon specifications.

Sharing the Data FromGeostationary Satellites

The U.S. geostationary satellites are in a differ-ent category from the polar orbiters because theyremain stationary over regions centered on theEquator. The data from these satellites, like those

Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Image of Hurricane Allen centered over the Gulf ofMexico received from the GOES satellite stationed

at 75° W longitude, Aug. 8, 1980.

from the polar orbiters, are already shared withthe countries of the world. However, unlike thedata from the polar orbiters, their data benefit pri-marily the countries of the Western Hemisphere.Thus, in order to provide development assistanceto many of these countries, and further WesternHemisphere relations, it may be in the long-terminterest of the United States to support bilateralor multilateral programs to make better use of thedata from these satellites. Such programs couldtake the form of joint research projects to inves-tigate the effects of El Nino and other large-scaleweather patterns that affect the Western Hemi-sphere.

Competition

There is no market for sales of primary metsatdata because, except for reproduction changes,they are shared freely among nations.100 Whatcompetition exists for meteorological satellitetechnology is for ground equipment, but thatmarket is extremely small and is likely to remainso in the future.

Competition for value-added services also ex-ists, but here again the total market is now ex-tremely small. The United States leads in proc-essing metsat data. The value-added market willremain relatively small in the near future, but islikely to continue to develop as techniques forusing land and meteorological data for agricul-tural and hydrological purposes improve.101 intime, meteorological sensors will provide morewavelength bands, and have higher resolution;the value-added companies will become moresophisticated in their applications of the data. Asa result, processed meteorological data may be-gin to compete with the use of certain land andocean remote sensing data both in the UnitedStates and abroad.102 This could bean importantstep toward an integrated U.S. remote sensing

looCountry satellite services organizations generally charge (at cost)for data that requires special processing, or for derived products.

101 see, for enmple, discussion at the NOAA-sponsored confer-ence, NOAA’s Environmental Satellites Come of Age, Mar. 26-28,1!%4. Participants there shared techniques used to utilize environ-mental satellite data for a variety of tasks once reserved for highresolution data. See also “Metsats Seen Competing with Landsats, ”Space Business News, May 21, 1984, p. 3.

1°Z’’Metsats Seen Competing With Landsats, ” Space BusinessNews, May 21, 1984, p. 3.

—


Photo credits: Nat\onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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


system that would enhance the U.S. competitiveposition in remote sensing.

Land Remote Sensing Policy

The feature that most distinguishes Earth re-sources remote sensing from meteorological re-mote sensing is its potential for immediate usein assessing, managing, and exploiting Earth’s re-sources. The potential economic value of the datathese systems supply has recently made them aprimary subject of competition between nations.Cooperative efforts, though potentially serving animportant role, have lessened in importance withthe development of competitive foreign systems.

Competition

The previous analysis in this chapter has shownthat the greatest current demand (in volume) forland remote sensing data is for low-cost moder-ate-resolution (80-meter) MSS data deliveredpromptly and continuously. The current demandfor expensive data is smaller.103 Most customerstoday have neither the experience with high reso-lution (30-meter) thematic mapper (TM) data northe processing equipment. In addition, it is notclear that TM data or their equivalent will be costeffective for many tasks. Except for the mineralexploration companies, which can make cost-effective use now of the more expensive TM data,relatively few users are willing or able to pur-chase them. This situation is likely to continueuntil: 1 ) customers gain confidence that TM orcomparable data would be cost effective; and 2)they also gain confidence that the data will beavailable on a continuous, long-term basis.

Land remote sensing policy is at an importantcrossroad. As discussed earlier, by creating Pub-lic Law 98-365, the Administration and Congresscommitted the United States to transferring thistechnology to the private sector. Proponents oftransfer hope that the private sector will even-tually develop the technology into a self-support-ing, commercial operation. However, it is unclear:1 ) how much subsidy might eventually be needed,2) how future research and development needs

IOJln the first half of fiscal year 1985, Thematic Mapper data gen-erated about 49 percent of the total income of Landsat data salesfrom the EROS Data Center.

will be met, and 3) whether sufficient demandfor data will develop to build a viable market.

Opponents of transfer generally believe the sys-tem should continue to be operated in the pub-lic interest. They argue that the costs of continu-ing to provide data are relatively small comparedto the cost of putting the system in place. A fewobservers believe that it is possible to operate acomplete land remote sensing system withoutGovernment subsidy.104 However, they also pointout that this could not be done in competitionwith a Government-subsidized operation.

The following discussion views each policy op-tion from the point of view of how it would servethe overall public interest. The disposition of theLandsat system is likely to affect overall U.S. com-petitiveness in space, international relations, andthe development of the international market forland remote sensing data.

Options for ContinuedFinancial Support

The Administration and Congress have decidedthat the public interest will be served by a phasedtransfer of the Landsat system to private owner-ship. Although the Department of Commerce haschosen the EOSAT Corp. to operate the currentLandsat system and to build two follow-on satel-

IOqVIoq nOtabJe among these is Space America, Inc., which wasone of the bidders to take over operation of the Landsat program.Space America’s approach to land remote sensing is radically dif-ferent from either EOSAT or Kodak. It has proposed building a sys-tem that would be less technically sophisticated than the currentLandsat 5, but would be considerably cheaper and directly respon-sive to customers’ data needs. Operating at 40 meters resolutionin 4 wavelength bands and providing stereoscopic data, its pro-posed MLA-based satellite would be comparatively light and re-quire little advanced technology development. It would also re-quire relatively little or no Government subsidy. Space Americais also developing a data processing system that would integratesatellite aircraft and ground-based data to produce new informa-tion products. In proposing such a satellite system, Space Americais relying on the premise that the largest market for data will befor inexpensive, moderate resolution data targeted to customers’needs and combined with ground-based data. Its proposed systemhas been criticized on the grounds that it does not maintain theU.S. technological leadership in remote sensing. However, SpaceAmerica is convinced that the greatest immediate need is to builda market for the data before moving to more advanced sensors thatwill generate expensive data. See Diane Josephson, statement athearing before the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, ofthe Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,Mar. 22, 1984, S. Hrg. 98-747, pp. 78-82.


Iites, and has reached agreement on the contractterms (including amount of subsidy), it will stillbe necessary for Congress to monitor the proc-ess of transfer over the long term.

If EOSAT is able to operate the current systemfor a period long enough to inspire customer con-fidence, to provide data promptly at reasonablecosts, and to establish a strong market for data,then the transfer has a reasonable chance of suc-ceeding.105 However, the subsidy cap of $250million plus launch costs OMB has imposed maylimit the ability of EOSAT to establish a self-sus-taining corporation within the 10 years of thecentract.

This attempt to commercialize land remotesensing is an experiment that has no exact prece-dent. It may be necessary or desirable to insti-tute additional legislative measures, or to appro-priate additional funds for the transfer in lateryears (beyond that committed in the current con-tract). Therefore, Congress may wish to pursueone of the following options:

Maintain a High Level of Direct Supportfor Commercial Land Remote Sensing

Although the Administration has set a cap onthe total subsidy to be paid, Congress might laterdecide to appropriate an additional subsidy (per-haps $100 million to $150 million), on the basisthat a $250 million subsidy allows little marginfor maintaining U.S. technological and market-ing leadership. The contract with EOSAT has sev-eral vulnerabilities that could adversely affect thecompany’s ability to compete effectively. EOSATwill attempt to use high-capacity tape recorderson Landsat 6 and 7 to gather and store data fromareas that are not covered by ground receivingstations. However, tape recorders have provenparticularly vulnerable to malfunctions in the past(e.g., on Landsats 2 and 3). In addition, MSS-typedata will be generated by summing appropriateelements of the TM instrument on board thespacecraft. Not only is this an untried technique,but because there will be no separate MSS instru-ment, there will be no backup should the TM it-

10SAS noted in the cjiscussion of issues, a strong market for datawould imply sufficient revenues to build follow-on satellites beyondLandsat 6 and 7.

self fail. (On Landsat 4, when the antenna for theTM failed, it was still possible to receive MSS datathrough an entirely separate system.) Finally, therate of data processing planned for the facility atGoddard Space Flight Center has never beenreached for the extended periods of time neces-sary for developing a high-volume market.

Additional funding could allow redundant sys-tems to be built that would reduce the amountof risk posed by these system vulnerabilities. Pro-ponents of additional subsidy argue that the ben-efits derived from land remote sensing are suchthat the system should be maintained even ifthere is a relatively low demand for data. Theyfurther offer that Government needs for data touse in monitoring the Nation’s renewable andnonrenewable resources and the environment,in the public interest, are great and that more timeand funds are needed to learn how to integratethese data into existing programs.106

Moderate Additional Subsidy

The difference between this and the previousoption is the level of extra support that is deemednecessary to assure near-term privatization andeventual commercialization of land remote sens-ing. proponents of this alternative policy wouldargue that some additional subsidy is appropri-ate to provide an additional margin of safety forthe transfer, but that it should not exceed, say,$50 million over the life of the current contractbetween the private firm and the Government.They further support the need for the private cor-poration to assume a higher level of financial riskthan might be implied in the first option.

No Extra Subsidy

Such a policy would follow from OMB’S con-viction that $250 million (plus launch costs) isabout the right amount to extend to a private cor-poration for the first steps of the commercializa-tion process and that holding out the possibilityof any greater future subsidy would underminethe creative energies of a corporation that wasrisking its own capital to build sufficient marketfor remotely sensed data. Further, it could be

l~For a detailed discussion of Government requirements, see Re-mote Sensing and the Private Sector, op. cit., ch. 5, app. G, H, 1.


argued that if sufficient demand for remote sens-ing products fails to develop, the field should beleft to other nations and the United States shoulddevote its energies to maintaining leadership inother technologies.

Additional Policy Options

Several other options for promoting U.S. com-petition in satellite land remote sensing are pos-sible. They are primarily designed to promote thedevelopment of a market for the data. As the ear-lier analysis has shown, the most important fac-tors contributing to the development of demandfor remotely sensed data are: 1) continuity andtimeliness of data delivery; 2) a strong value--added industry; and 3) continued research anddevelopment, both on sensors and other systemelements, and on effective application of the data.The last factor is also the major element in con-tributing to U.S. technological leadership.

Reinstate a Strong Remote SensingResearch Program

The Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of1984 calls for both NASA and NOAA to continueresearch in advanced sensors and in the use ofremotely sensed data.107 Until about 1982, pri-marily within NASA, the United States maintaineda strong remote sensing research program bothfor applications of the data, and in sensor devel-opment. As the Landsat system began the transi-tion to operational status, NASA began to cutback on its research effort in the expectation thatNOAA would be the lead agency in operationalland remote sensing. However, NOAA has onlya small research program. NASA continued towork on a multispectral linear array to be testedon a future satellite. As discussed earlier (seeissues section), NASA terminated fiscal year 1985research in order to concentrate on developinga much more advanced sensor system. SomeMembers of Congress and representatives of theindustry are concerned that NASA’s decision,which was driven by the desire to cut some pro-grams in order to reduce its operating budget,left NASA providing very little research effort forsupporting the U.S. competitive stance in land

IOTsee Publlc LaW g.sfjs, Title V—Research and Development.

remote sensing. NASA officials argue that NASA’srole is to continue research on advanced sensors,not to develop sensors that would be used forcommercial operations. NASA is now attempt-ing to reinstate part of this research. However,the question of what level of effort is appropri-ate remains.

In spite of the mandate of Public Law 98-365for continuing research in land remote sensing,the fiscal year 1985 NOAA budget contains nosupport for research on operational sensors oron utilization of the data. if the United States isto support the development of a market for thedata, maintain its technological lead in civilianapplications of remote sensing technology, andpromote national prestige in the face of competi-tion from France and other countries, continuedresearch on advanced civilian sensors will be nec-essary. Some technology developed for recon-naissance satellites might eventually be trans-ferred to civilian use, but as discussed in aprevious OTA report,108 the steps from militaryor intelligence use of part or all of a space sys-tem to civilian use are long and difficult.

Encourage the Growth of theValue-Added Business

There is no straightforward process for trans-ferring complex new technologies from Govern-ment laboratories to private industry. Indeed, theexperience with Landsat has demonstrated thatit can be highly complex and difficult. The big-gest impediment to private ownership of landremote sensing is the small market for data fromthe system.

Gathering land data from space is a major in-novation in the remote sensing business; it willtake yet more time, money, and considerable at-tention to building sufficient demand for data tosupport a self-sufficient private sector operation.

One key to developing a sufficient market isthe small value-added industry.109 One reason itremains small is that the Government, in certain

4IOaCjvj/jan Swce pojjcy ad Applications, OP. cit., Ch. 6.loglt is difficult t. estimate how much income the value-added

industry generates because many larger firms, such as the oil andgas firms, maintain their own computer processing facilities for con-verting the data to useful information.


areas, in effect competes with it by maintainingits own data processing and value-added capac-ity. This may be appropriate in the research anddevelopment phase, but inappropriate when thesystem is to be transferred to private hands andoperated as a profitmaking entity. If a strong landremote sensing industry is desired, it will beessential for the Government to reduce its in-volvement in value-added services and contractfor those services that can be supplied by privatecompanies.

Repair Landsat 4

The virtual certainty of a gap in data deliverybetween the demise of Landsat 5 and the launchof a private follow-on satellite deeply concernsdata users. Some have suggested that it might bepossible to eliminate or shorten such a data gapby repairing Landsat 4, which is still operating,though at sharply reduced capacity. NASA hasinvestigated the feasibility of repairing the Land-sat 4 satellite in orbit, as was done with the SolarMaximum Mission repair in April 1984,110 orbringing it back to Earth, as was done with twocommunications satellites. However, unlike theSolar Maximum Mission, which operates at alti-tudes that are accessible to the Shuttle, Landsat4 would require special efforts to retrieve it andbring it back for repair.111 In addition, it does notseem cost effective to repair the satellite.112

Because the Landsat satellites follow a near-po-lar orbit, a Landsat repair mission would have towait until the Western Test Range at VandenbergAir Force Base in California is able to accommo-date the Shuttle (i.e., in 1986). NASA has no suchplans.

Cooperation

Although competition plays a major role in landremote sensing policy, there is ample opportunity

I] O’’Orbiter Crew Restores Solar Max,” Aviation Week and SpaceTechnology, Apr. 16, 1984, pp. 18-20. See “Astronauts Deploy,Retrieve Satellite, ” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Nov.26, 1984, pp. 20-22.

11 IThe Satellite is designed to operate at an orbit of 380 nauticalmiles. The shuttle can only reach to about 285 nautical miles aboveEarth.

1 lzAccording to NASA, estimates for the cost of retrieva I and re-pair, range up to $250 million, depending on how extensive refur-bishment of Landsat 4 might be.

for cooperative efforts as well. These range fromcoordination of individual country efforts to thepossibility of establishing a multilateral consor-tium to build and operate a system from whichremotely sensed data are sold.

Future International Coordination

The United States participates (through NOAA)in the deliberations of the Landsat Ground Sta-tion Operators Working Group and the Commit-tee on Earth Observation Satellites,113 organiza-tions that coordinate standards for land remotesensing systems and serve as fora for exchang-ing technical and other remote sensing informa-tion. Such coordination will still be importantafter the Landsat system is transferred to the pri-vate sector. If the transfer process continues asplanned, it will be important to spell out how pri-vate firms would have to interact with the agen-cies that represent the United States in these orga-nizations. At present, NOAA’s plan is to continueto take the lead, with major input from the cor-poration, and from representatives of the value--added industry.

Multilateral Consortium

Although the idea has received relatively littleattention since it was recommended in a 1977National Academy of Sciences study,114 one fea-sible option is to establish a land (and ocean) sat-ellite remote sensing system owned and operatedby a multinational consortium. One possible formof this option is discussed in detail in an earlierOTA report.115 Under such an arrangement, a sin-gle management authority with multinational par-

11 IThiS group met for the first time in September 1984. It wasformed from the Coordination on Land Observing Satellites andthe Coordination on Ocean Remote Sensing Satellites, as a resultof a recommendation from the Economic Summit panel of expertson remote sensing. It includes entities from the free world that haveland or ocean remote sensing systems or plans for building them.

I ~dReSourceS Sensing From Space: Prospects fOr kW?lOpiIlg cOlJf’r-tries (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences 1977); seealso Ray A. Williamson, “Comment~ on Land, Sea, and Air: GlobalImplications of the View from Space,” G/oba/ /mp/ications of SpaceActivities, AlAAAerospace Assessment Series, vol. 9, 1982; and JohnL. McLucas, “Whither Landsat,” Aerospace America, January 1985,p. 6.

11 SCjvi/jan SPce Po/jcy and Applications, pp. 298-300; A similaroption has also been discussed at recent meetings of the U.N. Com-mittee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, though the UnitedStates took little part in these deliberations.


ticipation would assume responsibility for globaloperation of the system, including establishingtechnical specifications, procuring and operatingsatellites, and receiving and preprocessing satel-lite data. This approach would spread the invest-ment risk, as well as encourage other nations tobe more aggressive in developing their own in-ternal markets for satellite data. It would also aidthe developing countries in establishing their ownability to use remotely sensed data for resourcedevelopment and help allay their fears of domina-tion of this technology by industrialized countries.A multinational remote sensing corporation couldalso guarantee that data would continue to beaccessible to all countries on a nondiscriminatorybasis.

Given the current climate in the U.N. towardremote sensing, and the more important fact thatthe U.N. is not organized for operational func-tions, a U.N. consortium seems inappropriate.It would in principle be more feasible to estab-lish a limited consortium among those nationswith substantial expertise in remote sensing, simi-lar in form, perhaps, to the INMARSAT structure.Overtures for other countries to cooperate inremote sensing have been made in the past.Now, because France, Japan, and Canada arewell along in their planning process for either landor ocean remote sensing satellite systems, theircommitment to national systems might make itdifficult to interest them in such a multinationalsystem, particularly if it were dominated by theUnited States. Nevertheless, a multinational sys-tem might eventually emerge from the currentcooperative arrangements for coordinating andsetting system standards.

One major disadvantage of a multinational sys-tem is that the United States would no longer bein complete control of its own civilian system.In addition, U.S. suppliers of space system equip-ment would face certain competition from indus-tries in other countries. Yet, U.S. industry cur-rently possesses a competitive advantage in theseareas, which transfer of the Landsat system to theprivate sector will support. In addition, becausethe value-added component of the remote sens-ing industry is projected to be the major reve-nue source, and the United States is in a relative-ly strong competitive position in that market too,a cooperative satellite system in which costs were

shared could be of overall benefit to the UnitedStates.

Development Assistance

The United States could continue to providetechnical assistance to developing countries inthe applications of remotely sensed data, evenafter the Landsat system has been transferred toprivate hands.

As explained in appendix 7A of this chapter,developing countries face two major barriers toexpanding their applications of remotely senseddata: lack of supportive institutions, and lack oftraining. The United States has attempted to re-duce some of these barriers by offering develop-ing countries substantial assistance in applyingremotely sensed data to their resource problems.It has set up training programs, regional centers,and has assisted in purchasing data processingequipment.

The U.S. technical assistance programs arelargely responsible for the emergence of the in-ternational user community. To the extent thatan international market exists for satellite remotesensing data, it developed as a result of U.S. aid.Discontinuing such aid would slow the growthof an international market for the data and im-pede the spread of land remote sensing tech-nology.

Ocean Remote Sensing Policy

International interest in ocean remote sensingfrom space in this decade is high and reflects asense that such systems can serve as useful re-search tools and provide important operationaldata for ocean users. Ocean remote sensing, be-cause it is about to pass from research to opera-tional status, presents a substantial opportunityfor all nations to gain from cooperative arrange-ments. The following presents possible policy op-tions for Congress to consider vis-a-vis ocean re-mote sensing.

Take the lead in organizing and coordinatingan international program for collecting and dis-tributing ocean data from space.

International prospects for ocean remote sens-ing from space present the United States with anexcellent opportunity to lead the coordination of


global efforts. Although the U.S. system is a Navyone (N-ROSS), under arrangements now planned,NOAA will distribute most of the data to the civil-ian community in the United States and abroad.

NOAA has embarked on an effort to coordi-nate not only the distribution of data gatheredfrom N-ROSS and other ocean satellites, but alsothe orbital parameters of the satellites. For exam-ple, coordination of the satellite crossing timesof N-ROSS with ESA’S ERS-1, if successful, couldresult in a data set much more useful to theUnited States and other nations than either ESAor NOAA could accomplish alone.116 This ap-pears to be a least-cost approach to obtainingdata important to research scientists and to oceanindustries. Congress may wish to encourage thiseffort by specifically directing NOAA to take thelead in organizing and coordinating an interna-tional program for collecting and distributingocean data from space. If it decides to do so, Con-gress must also authorize and appropriate ade-quate funds to support acquisition, processing,archiving, and distribution of the data from thevarious sytems.

Support continued research for advancedocean sensors and applications.

In the next decade, NASA plans several majorocean sensing experiments and contemplatesmany more. 117 These will contribute vital infor-mation to our general knowledge of the oceans.As these experiments proceed, it will be impor-tant to examine them for opportunities to developoperational sensors that would serve users ofocean data. Such sensors could be flown on avariety of platforms. For example, it may beappropriate for the Government to fund part orall of the ocean sensors that would be flown ona private land remote sensing satellite. Alter-natively, the private sector may wish to build sen-

1‘b’’Utilization of the Polar Plaform of NASA’s Space Platform Pro-gram for Operational Earth Observation,” op. cit.

117“Oceanography From Space: A Research Strategy for the Dec-ade 1985-1 995, ” Report of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions,1984.

sors for obtaining certain specialized ocean datathat would be flown on a Government satellite.Finally, as the planning for the space station pro-ceeds, it will be especially important for NASAand NOAA to consider operational sensors ap-propriate for a polar-orbiting platform, one of theplanned elements of the international space sta-tion program.

As work on the sensors proceeds, it is just asimportant to continue research on how to applythe data from research and operational sensorsfor ocean-related problems. World maritime in-dustries generate billions of dollars of revenueeach year. Information about ocean parameterscan increase industry productivity and reduce thedanger to Iives at sea.l118 One component of thisresearch should be the development of tech-niques to utilize meteorological data more effec-tively in understanding and predicting oceandynamics. Developing U.S. capability to useocean data from satellites effectively would helpmaintain U.S. technological leadership and con-tribute to the efforts of U.S. value-added firms togenerate useful information products for the in-ternational maritime market.

Develop a dedicated civilian ocean satellite.

Through its flights of Seasat in 1978 and theNimbus series of satellites the United States hasdemonstrated the utility of ocean remote sens-ing. In the future it may be appropriate for theUnited States to operate a dedicated civilianocean remote sensing satellite. If current attemptsto coordinate ocean remote sensing with othernations prove successful, it may be possible todevelop an international polar-orbiting platformcarrying some sensors dedicated to ocean sens-ing, or to build a U.S. platform that contains aset of instruments complementary to those of aplatform built by other nations. In the latter case,it would be essential to select the orbital param-eters of each to allow the satellite to sense Earthat complementary times as well.

‘‘s’’Oceanography From Space: A Research Strategy for the Dec-ade 1985-1 995, ” op. cit.


APPENDIX 7A.–SATELLITE REMOTE SENSINGIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Developing countries have made limited use of re-mote sensing from aircraft for mapmaking or for re-source development and management since the 1930sand 194os. When meteorological data from satellitesbecame available in the mid-1960s, developing coun-tries began to take advantage of the opportunity thesesystems afforded to gather information on current andimpending weather conditions.

By contrast, satellite remote sensing for the purposesof resource development, on land or in the ocean, hasseen relatively little application in developing coun-tries, primarily because the level of technical sophis-tication needed to process the data is very high andthe hardware and special training costly.

This section decribes the current use of remote sens-ing data in selected developing countries and investi-gates the potential these data provide for locating andmanaging renewable and nonrenewable resources. Itidentifies the factors that might contribute to thegrowth of a market for remotely sensed data and dataproducts and suggests ways in which U.S. policiescould be improved to the mutual benefit of both thedeveloping countries and the United States.1

The Experience of Developing Countries

As the UNISPACE ’82 report notes, “The synoptic viewand the possibility of frequent repetitive coverage oflarge and even inaccessible areas make, for the firsttime, regional and global monitoring of renewable nat-ural resources and changing environmental phenom-ena technically feasible and economically attractive. ”2

This statement is as true for the developing countriesas it is for those industrialized countries that alreadypossess a well-developed industrial and informationinfrastructure. The problems lie in the ability of de-veloping countries to take advantage of remotelysensed data from space,

Weather and Climate

Developing countries have made significant use ofthe availability of weather data supplied by satellite.Synoptic, timely, weather data are of general use toall countries, and are particularly useful in develop-ment projects. Beyond their use in warning of particu-

— — —I For a related discussion of the potential effects of transfer of the Landsat

system to prwate hands, see Remote Sens/ng and the f%vate sector, op. cit.,app. A.

“’Report of the Second United NatIons Conference on the Exploration andPeaceful Uses of Outer Space, A/CON F,l Ol/10, 1982, para. 168

lady stressful conditions, such as severe storms or rad-ical short-term climatic changes, they can also beemployed predictively in crop yield models to signalpotential crop failure.3 Most satellite weather data arereadily and routinely available via direct readout toany government agency, nongovernment agency, in-stitution, or individual anywhere in the world withinrange of the satellites. One need only acquire theproper ground receiving equipment. Neither permis-sion, consent, nor payment is required. Becauseground receiving equipment is relatively inexpensive,the meteorological system is highly accessible to mostcountries of the world. Nearly 100 developing ornewly industrialized countries now own APT receiv-ing stations. A few own High Resolution Picture Trans-mission Stations (H RPT). Many of these countries ac-quired the stations through the voluntary assistanceprogram initiated by the WMO as part of its traditionaleffort to aid developing countries in learning to gatherand analyze weather data.

Earth Resources

Few developing countries have made much use ofEarth resources data from satellites, in spite of the factthat these data could directly serve their development.Thetion

1.2.3.

4.

objectives of collecting Earth resources informa-are to:4

locate resources;aid in evacuating resource investment;provide information to be used for improving cur-rent management of natural resources; andaid in the performance of certain government/

activities (particularly administerig land taxes,etc.).

Although the resource information needs of devel-oping countries are similar to those of the in-dustrialized countries, their experience in attemptingto develop an adequate information base is different.Whereas in most industrialized countries detailedmaps of all kinds (e.g., political, geologic, hydrologic,agricultural) already exist to provide baseline data fora resource survey, s many developing countries havenot even been mapped on the coarsest scale for any

%e dlsscussion in section on meteorological remote sensing also, RemoteSensing and the Pr/vate Sector, op. cit., app. D.

Klris Herflrrdel, Natural Resource Information for Economic Development.Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore,MD, 1969, pp. 20-21.

‘1 n the U nlted States, for example, even the average citizen may purchasetopographic maps from the U.S Geological Survey at scales as detailed as1 S0,000. In addition, State, county, and local maps are readily available,as well as direct aerial survey photographs,

—.


reason. Because they lack useful maps, many devel-oping countries can often use the coarse-scale map-ping available from Landsat MSS imagery effectivelyfor initial survey of a resource problem. Map scalesof 1 :200,000 are possible with the 80-meter resolu-tion of the MSS sensors aboard Landsat. Applicationof this minimal record could help define the bound-aries of particular resource problems, and identify spe-cific needs for more detailed information. At thatstage, aerial photography and ground survey becomeimportant.

Data needs are generally divided into two catego-ries

●

●

of renewable and nonrenewable resources:Renewable resources. Some 25 developing coun-tries have used Landsat data together with aerialphotographs to gather information on crop or for-est statistics.6 Because the agricultural productionand distribution system reacts slowly to emer-gency conditions, advance warning of drasticchanges in predicted crop production is neces-sary to prevent either famine or oversupply. Forthis purpose, the synoptic view of satellites isespecially advantageous. These same countrieshave also used Landsat imagery to monitor wateravailability and to create maps delineating theuses to which the land is now put, and to assessthe renewable natural resources that are avail-able. Most of them feel that as land use intensifies,they will need to put more effort into both short-and long-term planning based on satellite remotesensing.Nonrenewable resources. In sharp contrast to thecase for renewable resources, large national andmultinational firms have led the efforts to in-tegrate Landsat data with aircraft and ground datain the search for valuable minerals in the devel-oping countries.7 Efforts to date have resulted pri-marily in locating oil. Although these firms arewilling to search for minerals in various develop-ing countries, they are uninterested in sharing theuse of data processing technology because manyof their techniques are proprietary.

Most developing countries have received theirknowledge and training in the application of remotelysensed data through programs instituted by AID,NASA, and NOAA. Table 7A-1 lists the developingcountries that have received aid directly from theUnited States for satellite land remote sensing andmeteorological projects. Other industrialized countriesand several multilateral organizations have also beenactive in supplying similar aid.

bC. K. Paul, “Land Remote Sensing, ” Science, 1981.71 bid.

Table 7A.1.—Agency for International DevelopmentRemote Sensing Grants and Projects, 1971.85

BangladeshBoliviaCosta RicaCameroonCape VerdeChileEcuadorEgyptThe GambiaHaitiIndonesiaJamaica

KenyaLesothoMaliMoroccoNigerPakistanPeruPhilippinesSenegalSomaliaSri LankaSwitzerland

ThailandTunisiaUpper VoltaYemenZaire

Regiona/ Aid:AsiaEast AfricaWest AfricaSahel Regional Program

Gathering Information for Development

Although developing countries face the same gen-eral needs for resource information to aid their de-velopment process, the stated needs of individualcountries can vary widely. The following programs il-lustrate the variety of information needs that can bemet by using information derived from satellites. Theywere chosen to be illustrative and are not com-prehensive.

TANZANIA

Much of Tanzania’s economic development effortis directed toward agriculture and animal husbandry.Its strongest data requirements include:

●

●

●

current land use-and land suitability (distributionof vegetation and soil types);geologic and groundwater information to helplocate additional water sources, increase the effi-ciency of schemes for well-digging and water im-poundment, and to help in siting new villages;vegetative cover information for monitoring landand range stress (drought and overgrazing are pri-mary concerns).8

VENEZUELA

Venezuela plans to tap its natural hydroelectric po-tential in order to develop nonpetroleum energysources. The planning effort requires extensive surveysto locate potential dam sites. Data required include:

● reconnaissance level maps over an entire regionto delineate drainage, watersheds, soils, vegeta-tion and geologic structure;

detailed maps of target areas to determine appro-priate dam heights, flow rates, the commercialpotential of resources, and detrimental environ-mental effects.9

‘National Academy of Sciences, Remote Sensing From Space: Projects forDeveloping Countries, (Washington, DC: NAS, 1977), p. 29.

gRobert W. Campbell, Jule A. Caylor, and Matthew R. Willard, “Rio CauraResource Inventory” (Diamond Springs, CA:RDA, 1982).


COSTA RICA

Costa Rica’s growing industrial and economic baseplaces increasing pressures on agricultural and rangeland, and in turn, upon the nation’s forests. The re-sult is that prime agricultural areas are threatened byurban expansion at the same time that areas predom-inantly suited to forestry are being converted to mar-ginally productive range and agricultural uses. CostaRica has expressed a need to monitor and controlthese changes.10

SRI LANKA

In the mid-1970s Sri Lankan development plannersbegan a program to develop new agricultural land inorder to become self-sufficient in agricultural produc-tion. Program goals include:

● crop breeding;● multiple cropping;● soiI conservation;● improved management of agricultural lands.Sri Lanka began an agricultural base mapping pro-

gram to provide information on soils, present vegeta-tion, land use for siting new agricultural areas, andtopography for assisting irrigation planning and wa-tershed management. Although earlier maps existedthey had not been updated since the early 1960s andthey were incomplete. ”

PERU

In Peru, the Officina Nacional de Evaluation deRecoursos Naturales (ONERN) is to provide the Peru-vian Government with inventory and evaluation ofPeru’s natural resources as well as an assessment ofthe state of the environment and recommendationsfor its protection. ON ERN’S objectives require exten-sive resource information:

natural resources inventories oriented to Peru’sdevelopment and resource management needs;

● natural resources inventories for conservationpolicy planning;

● studies of the interactions of human and othernatural resources, with an emphasis on use andpreservation .12

1°T. K. Cannon, et al., “Application of Remote Sensing Techniques to For-est Vegetation Surveys in Tropical Areas and urban Fringe Land Use Prob-lems In Coasta Rica,” m Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposiumof Remote Sensing of Enwronment, (Ann Arbor, Ml: Environmental ResearchInstitute of Michigan, 1978), p. 2081.

I I Resources Development Associates, “Agricultural Resource Inventory andBase Mapping in Sri Lanka, A Program Evaluation and Assessment, ” Los Altos,CA NOV., 1976.

~luobert Campbell, et al., [and Use Inventory and Environmental plan-

ning Project: Peru (Los Altos, CA: RDA, April 1980).

BANGLADESH

Among other things, Bangladesh’s developmentgoals include disaster warning to prevent damage andloss of life from severe storms, as well as increasedagricultural production and monitoring of crop pro-duction. These two areas generate a need for the fol-lowing types of resource information:

cloud patterns and storm warning on a real-timebasis;data on rainfall, soil moisture, hours of sunshine,and crop stress, in order to monitor crop growthand crop conditions;data on land use and land use change to plan bet-ter agricultural development and irrigation;flood patterns and water levels to plan bettercropping patterns. 13

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Forests represent one of the Dominican Republic’sprimary natural resources. Before an aerial photo-graphic survey in 1965 and 1966, the Government ofthe Dominican Republic believed that 40 percent ofits total land area was forested, 750,000 hectares inhigh-quality pine. The survey showed that less than11.5 percent of the land was actually in forest, andonly 215,000 hectares in pine. This information pro-foundly affected its previous planning estimates.14

Continued observation using satellite data could helpthe country survey their forest resources on a regularbasis.

Potential Fishery Applications

To date, very little work has been done in develop-ing countries with respect to fisheries development.However, “new developments in marine-relatedremote sensing, such as synthetic aperture radar forwave studies, microwave radiometers for salinitymeasurements, and multispectral scanners forchlorophyll mapping”ls present new opportunities forthe use of satellites in fisheries development through-out the world.

Although U.S. research on using satellite remotesensing for fisheries is in its infant stages, it has notbegun in developing countries. Generally, Landsat’s

IJH~rveY Ne~On, et al., Early warning Crop yield Modelling in Bangladesh(Diamond Springs, CA: RDA, April 1982).

‘Organization of American States, “An Exploratory Survey of theDominican Republic, “ in Physical Resources Investigations for Economic De-velopment, A Casebook of OAS Field Experience in Latin America, GeneralSecretariat, Washington, DC, 1969, pp. 212-214.

15Vic Klemas, “Technology Transfer to Developing Countries: Future Useof Remote Sensing in Biological Marine Resource Development, ” Back-ground paper for Ocean Policy Committee, National Academy of SciencesWorkshop on Future of International Cooperation in Marine Technology,Science, and Fisheries, La Jolla, CA, Jan. 18-22, 1981.


sensors have very limited application to marinestudies; thermal infrared and microwave sensors haveshown good potential. While some developing coun-tries receive low-resolution thermal infrared imageryfrom the GOES satellites, they would not be able toreceive and analyze thermal infrared or microwavedata of high resolution from ocean satellites if theywere flying because they do not possess the high ca-pacity computers needed to process such data. How-ever, these kinds of data are necessary to pursue usefulanalyses of the coasts and oceans. In addition, as theprevious section on ocean remote sensing em-phasized, those applications require more researchand efforts to demonstrate whether they will work orbe cost effective.

The importance of accurate information about nat-ural resources is clear, particularly as developingcountries strive for self-sufficiency. Economic devel-opment requires discovering what resources are avail-able and then organizing the information so that in-formed decisions can be made about the developmentand exploitation of natural resources. The key is theinformation base. Most developing countries lack aconsistent, homogeneous, and complete data basefrom which to work. They also lack the means to ac-quire, sift, and analyze the new data they need. Thepreliminary surveys and maps they have made, largelywith the help of the United States and the Europeancountries, represent only the beginning of the long anddifficult process of information management.16

Institutional Factors Influencing theUse of Satellite Remote Sensing

A variety of nontechnical factors, including institu-tional and political ones, affect the use of satellites indeveloping countries.

Domestic Institutional Factors

It is in the routine use of data, not its initial collec-tion, that the operational use of remote sensing datameets its toughest test. ’ Therefore, in order to deter-mine what type of interpretation and analysis proce-dures will best serve a developing country’s needs,it is necessary to understand what internal institutionaland technological capabilities already exist in a givencountry,

As one report18 suggests, prior to the developmentof self-supporting satellite data users in developing

l%ee, for example, “Satellite Remote Sensing for Developing Countries,”Proceedings of an EARSel-ESA Symposium, Igls, Austria, Apr. 20-21, 1982

(WA- SP-1 75).ITNAS study, op. cit., P . 117.18Ha~ey Wallender, et al., Technology Transfer and Management in De-

ve/o@ng Countries (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1979), ch. 3.

countries, an institutional framework to support theuse of that data and a capacity for internal problemsolving are essential. In the absence of this homework,transferring or selling technology to end-users doeslittle to help them achieve any of their objectives withremote sensing data. Unfortunately, many internation-al technology transfer projects have overemphasizedthe immediate use of equipment and technologies andhave failed to aid in building an infrastructure or in-ternal organization to support continued use of thedata. The Wallender study19 concluded that efforts tobuild the technical capabilities associated with laterstages of development will fail unless the objectivesof earlier stages have been realized.

Because satellite data is likely to be used by manyinterested parties, including hydrologists, geologists,soils scientists, agricultural specialists, physical plan-ners, or geographers, economies of scale can berealized by promoting multiple uses of satellite data.In other words, “the more numerous and diversifiedthe users of remote sensing are, the more economi-cally feasible it is for a country to sustain a nationalanalysis capability.”20 In addition, given limited man-power and budgetary resources, a focused resourceand environmental information effort is also needed.Many ways of coordinating such activity are possible,depending on the country involved, its needs, re-sources, and political situation. The transfer agent,whether USAID or some private consulting firm, willnot succeed until the developing country has devel-oped an internal organization that can decide on itsown to use satellite products and satellite technology.Foreign aid spent on transferring technology (hard-ware) might be better spent in developing an institu-tional and organizational infrastructure conducive tousing remote sensing data.

The Training Constraint

Closely related to the development of an effectiveorganizational context is the need to familiarizethoroughly the users of the technology with the tech-nology itself and its value for helping them performtheir work. This primarily means training people andcoordinating manpower and equipment.

As a review of AID projects in the Sahel pointed out:[the] factors which impeded the maximum trans-

fer”of technical expertise to the counterparts and theapplication of results to development programs were:the scant availability of appropriately trained counter-part resource analysts; and the lack of an extendedperiod of practical training and technical assistance afterinventory completion, during which expatriate analysts

~91bid.20Remote Sensing From Space, op. cit., P. 125.


could gradually withdraw as the host country person-nel gained self-sufficiency in the implementation proc-ess. These are issues which can and should be ac-counted for in future resource inventories in Africa.They must be considered in the preliminary stages ofproject design by the funding agency and the host coun-try, so that adequate time and resources for them areallocated .21

In developing countries where trained personnel donot exist, training is critical, not only in resource sur-vey and map interpretation and mapmaking tech-niques, but also in equipment operation and upkeep.Where a country does not have the personnel or toolsto provide upkeep on electronic equipment, it quicklybecomes useless.

Training in both general topics and specific subjectsis needed. General training includes educating scien-tists and policy makers about the technology and itslimitations and advantages. Such exposure is essen-tial to starting a country on a road toward the adop-tion of the technology.

Specific training involves coupling the training ofspecialists in the fields to be explored (e.g., weather,climate, water resources, geology) with training in theinterpretation of remotely sensed data. This processmay be extensive and take several years. Such train-ing may well consist of courses in the United States,on-the-job training either in the United States or in thehost country, and day-to-day interactions between for-eign and host country participants.

Training programs of even the best quality may notbe successful, however, unless developing countriesare able to commit professional personnel on a long-term basis:

In most VVest African countries, the supply of edu-cated scientists and planners is extremely limited. Thefew specialists who do exist are often quickly cycledthrough government hierarchies and do not remain inpositions where their project experience can be tech-nically or managerially utilized. The shortage of scien-tists sometimes necessitates that government adminis-trators be given assignments that would be moreappropriately filled by people trained in the earthsciences. This was the case in the Volta Basin projectwhere three of the seven counterparts were govern-ment administrators or department heads who alreadyhad full-time administrative positions and correspond-ing responsibi lities.22

These administrators usually return to their oldduties and are unable to continue supporting the useof remote sensing:

program success also requires the full commitmentof scientifically trained counterparts for an extended

period immediately following the inventory, duringwhich resource development programs are initiated.The inclusion and funding of this extended implemen-tation period is a critical element of any natural resourceinventory. It is also one which has often been over-looked by sponsor agencies in project design. The re-sult is that priorities are shifted, counterparts resume,or are reassigned to other duties, and inventory prod-ucts are shelved. Development projects may then con-tinue on an ad hoc basis, without the benefit of themanagement resource.23

To develop self-supporting users who can generallysolve their own problems, it will be essential to con-struct long-term, intensive training programs. If train-ing is treated haphazardly, the potential for satelliteapplications in developing countries will be severelyhampered.

In sum, the development of satellite remote sens-ing users in developing countries will rely on effec-tive technology transfer that encourages these coun-tries permanently to adopt satellite technology. Suchtechnology transfer will be successful only if it assistsin the development of an effective organizational con-text. However, the adoption of satellite technology indeveloping countries also depends on political factors.

Political Constraints

During the last decade, the control of informationhas emerged as a critical component of the North-South debate over a New International Order. In par-ticular, information that is carried across nationalboundaries without the consent of all parties has beenseen by some countries as a threat to their nationalsovereignty and their “sovereign right” to control in-formation about themselves and their resources (in-cluding resources within a 200-mile Extended Eco-nomic Zone). Earth resource sensing satellites pose aunique problem because they collect informationabout one country and disseminate it to many othercountries .24

Sovereignty issues have been discussed and debatedthroughout the legal and political debate in the U. N.,focusing on the development of an internationalregime for Earth resource sensing satellites. The sov-ereignty debate has centered on the desire of somecountries to control the dissemination of data obtainedabout their country from space. This issue is the heartof the argument in the U.S. debate; a prohibitionagainst open dissemination without consent is con-tained in an early Argentine-Brazilian draft treaty, and

21 Lynda Hall, “Factors in the Effective Utilization of a Landsat Related in-ventory In West Africa” (Baltimore, MD: National Conference on Energy Re-source Management, 1982), p. 4.

Zzlbld , p. 5

2Jlbid., p. 6.Zdsee discussion on this and SI milar Issues in UNISPACE ‘82.. A Context

for International Cooperation and Competition, op. cit., pp. 24-28,


also in an early French-Russian set of draft principlesregarding control of remote sensing from space. zs

The issue stems from a basic disagreement over con-trol of information. Whereas the United States admitsto a nation’s sovereignty over its natural resources, itdoes not agree to a nation’s sovereignty over infor-mation about those resources, Developing countriesfear being exploited by other countries and especiallyby multinational corporations. The importance of in-formation is dramatically evident in the search for newforms of mutually agreeable relations–new con-tracts-between multinational corporations and devel-oping countries. Differential access to information andthe ability to apply it are crucial elements in bargain-ing power between multinational corporations and thedeveloping countries.

The United States questions developing countries’concerns over economic exploitation on threegrounds:

First, developing countries are entering into mature,mutually beneficial resource exploitation relationshipswith foreign interests, without forswearing their rightsto such ultimate sanctions as nationalization andlor ex-propriation. Second, the physical control of resourcesand of access to resource sites are the trump cards, notpossession of tentative and unverified data. Third, asdeveloping countries acquire their own remote sens-ing expertise, whether indigenous or procured fromoutside consultants, the margin of information dis-advantage can lose a good measure of its significance.26

The United States further suggests that imposi-tion of some form of restrictive data dissemina-tion regime would create two “classes” of coun-tries; those with data acquisition capabilities andthose without. It has argued that this would createmore inequality than a regime of open dissemi-nation.

Such a point of view suggests that developingcountries should emphasize efforts to develop ca-pabilities to use technology and data relevant totheir capacities while working to maintain equalaccess to worldwide data and information net-works. There is, however, a serious tradeoff in-volved here. If developing countries make:

. . . vigorous attempts to be integrated into the inter-national data market, many of them may face the pro-spects of increased dependence on imported technol-ogy and equipment; on the other hand, if they standaloof, they may have the problems associated with a

Zssee u .N. Document A/AC,1/1047 (Oct. 15, 1974), Article IX of Latin

America Draft Treaty. Although positions on this issue have shifted, it is stilla major point for debate.

2hRemote Sensing from Space, op. cit., pp. 147-148.

very limited access to the rapidly expanding pool ofmachine-readable data.27

The avoidance of this tradeoff will be extremely dif-ficult. It is important, though, that information asym-metries (either real or imagined) be dealt with, be-cause it is likely that an increase in the knowledge andcapabilities of developing countries would lead tosmoother international negotiations. At present, inter-national negotiations over access to data and infor-mation may be clouded with political rhetoric fromcountries that feel they are at an information disadvan-tage; perceiving asymmetries in access to information,they tend to block agreement.

Cruise O’Brien and Helleiner suggest that “the con-sequences of imperfect information are nowhere moredramatic than in the resource sector.”28 Private users,with greater information in early stages of resource ex-ploitation, usually strike what appears to be a goodbargain. As exploration proceeds and the host gov-ernment learns more, it may find that it gave away toomuch early on. This leads to what is known as the “obsolescing bargain.” When this occurs, host countriespush for renegotiation and, in fact, a great deal of re-negotiation has occurred in recent years. 29 As a re-sult, an impasse “has developed between host gov-ernments in developing countries and the resourcetransnationals (multinationals) which has produced amarked decline in resource exploration and develop-ment in the Third World in recent years which is inthe interests of neither. 30

The elimination of information asymmetries mightprovide a common knowledge base and commonground for negotiation. Increased knowledge in de-veloping countries would enable them to bargainmore effectively and efficiently.

The issue of dependence cannot be easily dismissed.Developing countries do not want, for political andpractical reasons, to become dependent on onesource of resource information vital to their nationalplanning–particularly a source over which they haveno control. As dependence increases, the demand fora voice in the planning of the system will grow.

It should be noted that U.S. policies to make dataand technology available have to a great extent miti-gated the most serious concerns of developed and de-

Z7’’Transnational Corporations and Transborder Data Flows: A TechnicalPaper,” U.N. Centre of Transnational Corporations, ST/CTC/23, New York,1982.

Z@Rita Cruise O’ Brien and Gerald Helleiner, “The Political Economy of in-formation in a Changing International Economic Order,” in /nternationa/Organization 34:4, Autumn 1980, p. 457.

Z9U. N. commission on TranSnation,31 Corporations, “Transnational Cor-

porations in World Development: A Re-Examination, ” U.N. Economic andSocial Council E/CIO/28, Mar. 20, 1978.

JOJ, Favre and H. La Lauch, “Natural Resources Forum, ” VO!. 5, No. 4 (Bos-

ton, MA: D. Ridel Pub. Co., October 1981), pp. 327-347.


veloping countries who, despite their U.N. posturing, generate expectations of data continuity. Developinghave taken to building satellite remote sensing pro- countries are now extremely worried about a cut-offgrams based on Landsat technology. One can see this in available data should the Landsat program be ter-not only in the French and Japanese remote sensing minated. 31

programs, which will fly Landsat compatible sensors,but also in the developing countries which focus theirspace activities around remote sensing. The effect of j! second u N lsp,4cE Conference, Dratl Report of the cOfJf6W’nCe,

the Landsat system and Landsat policy has been to A/CONF.101/3, Mar. 20, 1982., p. 77.


APPENDIX 7B.–U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES, 1960-85

Average (*) CeasedSatellite Purpose(l) Launch Altitude (km) Operation Remarks(3)

— — -TIROS I

TIROS 2TIROS 3TIROS 4TIROS 5TIROS 6TIROS 7TIROS 8Nimbus 1

TIROS 9

TIROS 10ESSA 1

ESSA 2

Nimbus 2ESSA 3

ATS 1

ESSA 4ATS 2ESSA 5ATS 3

ESSA 6

R

RRRRRRRR

R

o0

0

Ro

R

oRoR

o

04/01 /60

11 /23/6007/12/6102/08/6206/19/6209/ 18/6206/19/6312/21 /6308/28/64

01/22/65

07/01 /6502/03/66

02/28/66

05/15/6610/02/66

12/06/66

01 /26/6704/05/6704/20/6711 /05/67

11 /10/67

720

672760773694694645749

S/677

S11630

S1792S/765

S/1376

S/1 136S/1427

G135,765

s/1373—

S11379G135,815

SI1437

06/19/60

02/01 /6110/30/61“06/12/6210/1 1 /6310/ 11 /6302/03/6601 /22/6609/23/64

02/15/67

07/03/6605/08/67

10/16/70

01/18/6910/09/68

10/16/72(pictures)10/06/67

—

02/20/7010/30/75(pictures)11/04/69

First weather satellite providing cloudcover photography.

First APT satellite.Carried AVCS, APT,and HighResolution Infrared Radiometer for nightpictures.First TIROS satellite in Sun-synchronousorbit.

First satellite in the operational system;carried 2 wide-angle TV cameras.Carried APT cameras. APT carried onalleven-numbered ESSA satellites

Carried first AVCS cameras. ABCScarried on all odd-numbered ESSAsatellites.WEFAX discontinuedDecember 31, 1978.

Unstable attitude-data

WEFAX discontinuedDecember 31, 1978.

not useful.


Average [

2

) CeasedSatellite Purpose(l) Launch Altitude (km) Operation Remarks (3~

ESSA 7ESSSA 8ESSA 9

Nimbus 3

ITOS 1Nimbus 4NOAA 1

ITOS BLandsat 1NOAA 2

Nimbus 5ITOS E

NOAA 3

SMS 1

NOAA 4Landsat 2

SMS 2

Nimbus 6GOES 1

NOAA 5GOES 2

000R

R/ORo

0Ro

Ro0-—

RIO

0R

R/O

R0

00

08/16/6812/ 15/6802/26/6904/ 14/69

01 /23/7004/08/7012/1 1 /70

10/21 /7107/23/7210/15/72

12/12/7207/16/7311/06/73

05/17/74

11/15/7401/22/7502/06/75

06/12/7510/16/75

07/29/7606/16/77

s/1440S/1429S/1456S/l l00

S/1456S/1108S/1438

—S/918S/1460

S / l l l 0—

s/1510

G/35,788

S/1460S/918

G/35,800

s / l l l 0G/35,796

s/1511G/35,787

07/19/6903/12/7611/15/7301/22/72

06/17/7109/30/8008/19/71

—01/16/7801/30/75

03/29/83—

08/31/76

01/29/81

11/18/7803/31/8308/05/82

03/29/83—

07/16/79—

Provided first vertical temperature profiledata of the atmosphere on a globalbasis.Second generation prototype.

First NOAA funded second generationsatellite.Failed to orbit.

First operational satellite to carryallscanning radiometer.

Failed orbit.First operational satellite to permi(t directbroadcast of VTPR data.Deactivated. Boosted out ofgeosynchronous orbit,Deactivated.On Standby.Deactivated. Boosted out ofgeosynchronous orbit.

First NOAA operational geostationarysatellite; 130°W on standby.Deactivated.Second NOAA operational geostationarysatellite; 113°W supporting CentralWEFAX.


Average (2) CeasedSatellite Purpose[l) Launch Altitude (km) Operation Remarks (3)

Landsat 3

GOES 3Seasat 1TIROS-NNimbus 7NOAA 6

NOAA BGOES 4

GOES 5

NOAA 7

Landsat 4NOAA 8“GOES 6

NOAA 9

R

oR

RIORo

00

0

0

000

0

03/05/78 S/918

06/16/78 G/35,78406/26/78 85010/13/78 S/85010/24/78 S/95406/27/79 S/807

05/30/80 –

09/09/80 G/35,782

03/31 /83

—

10/10/7802/27/81

—

—

——

05/22/81 G/35,785 –

06/23/81 S/847 –

07/ 16/82 S/7oo –03/28/83 S/815 06/12/8404/28/83 G/35,791 –

12/12/84 S/815 –

First Landsat with infrared capability.Now on standby.On standby. Moving to 135°W.Electrical failure.Deactivated.Carrying Coastal Zone Color Scanner.First NOAA funded TIROS-N systemsatellite.Failed to achieve an operational orbit.First geostationary satellite to carry theVISSR Atmospheric Sounder (VAS)which has now failed. At 139°W.Provides west, WEFAX, and DCS.At 75°W; also carried VAS. Now failed.Provides east DCS, WEFAX, and relayof GOES 6 imagery.Second NOAA funded TIROS-N systemsatellite.Carries MSS and TM.Had search and rescue capability.Alternates between 98°W and 108°W.Only spacecraft with operating VAS.Has search and rescue capability andsensors for ozone and earth radiationbudget.

(l) R. Re~earch; O.operations; R/O-Operational protowpe.

~)s-sun-synchronous; G-Geosynchronous,

~) ApT-Automatic picture Transmission; AVCS-Advanced Vidicon Camera System; WEFAX-Weather Facsimile; VTPR-

Vertical Temperature Profie Radiometer; VISSR-Visible Infrared Spin-Scan Radiometer; VAS-VISSR Atmospheric

Sounder; MSS-Multi Spectral Scanner; TM-Thematic Mapper; DCS-Data Collection System

● NOAA 8 is once again in operation.

REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE - Princeton University

Documents

Transcript of REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE - Princeton University