Remote Sensing and the Private Sector:

Issues for Discussion

March 1984

NTIS order #PB84-180777
Recommended Citation:

Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: Issues for Discussion—A Technical Memorandum

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-ISC-20,

March 1984).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601019

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Preface

In March 1983, the administration proposed to transfer the meteorological and land

remote-sensing (Landsat) satellite systems to private ownership. This proposal has raised a variety

of issues, including concern over the small size of the market for remote-sensing data, the public

good aspects of remote sensing, and use of the data to further foreign policy objectives.

In November 1983, Congress resolved one of the issues by deciding that the meteorological

remote-sensing systems should not be privately owned; the Government will continue to operate

them in the public interest. However, the Landsat system is still under active consideration by

the Congress for transfer to private ownership, and Congress is now considering legislation designed to make such a transfer as smooth as possible.

U.S. systems have demonstrated to a variety of users, in the United States and abroad,

that land remote sensing from space can be a powerful tool for mapping, assessing, and managing land resources. It may eventually be possible to establish a self-sustaining business selling

data from a privately owned and operated land remote-sensing system to Government, private,

and foreign customers. However, as the debate over whether and how to transfer the Landsat

system has shown, the process of transferring Government-developed technological systems to

the private sector is difficult and involves a wide variety of agencies and institutions, each with

a different view of the appropriate means of transfer.

This technical memorandum, which was requested by the House Science and Technology

Committee and the House Government Operations Committee, is designed to help Congress

determine the appropriate requirements and conditions for private sector ownership of the U.S.

land remote-sensing system. It also provides information and analysis that will be useful for

Congress as it considers transfer legislation. This technical memorandum constitutes a portion

of a major assessment of international cooperation and competition in civilian space activities

that was requested by the House Science and Technology Committee and the Joint Economic

Committee.

In undertaking this study, OTA sought the contributions of several Government agencies

and a wide spectrum of knowledgeable and interested individuals. More than 50 persons contributed to this technical memorandum, either to provide data or to review early drafts. OTA

gratefully acknowledges their help. We are particularly grateful to our workshop participants.

Finally, OTA appreciates the assistance it received from the Congressional Research Service,

the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency, and especially from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director
Advisory Panel on International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities

Paul Doty, Chair-man

Center for Science and International Affairs

Harvard University

Benjamin Bova

Author

Robert Evans

Vice President

IBM Corp.

Robert Frosch

Vice President

General Motors Research Laboratories

Eilene Galloway

Honorary Director

International Institute of Space Law of the

International Astronautical Federation

Ivan Getting

Consultant

Mireille Gerard

Administrator, Corporate & Public Programs

American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics

Benjamin Huberman

Vice President

Consultants International Group, Inc.

Walter McDougall

Assoc. Professor of History

University of California, Berkeley

John Mayo

Vice President

Bell Laboratories

John L. McLucas

Executive Vice President and Chief Strategic

Officer

Communications Satellite Corporation

Martin Menter

Attorney-at-La w

Arthur Morrissey

Director, Future Systems

Martin Marietta Aerospace

Fred Raynes

Vice President

Grumman International Inc.

Gary Saxonhouse

Professor of Economics

CitiCorp Industrial Credit, Inc.

Leonard Sussman

Executive Director

Freedom House

John Townsend

President

Fairchild Space and Electronics Co.

Laurel Wilkening

Vice Provost

University of Arizona

Elizabeth Young

President

Public Service Satellite Consortium

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

memorandum for which OTA assumes full responsibility.

iv
OTA Remote Sensing and the Private Sector Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter Sharfman, International Security and Commerce Program Manager

Ray A. Williamson, Project Director

Gordon Law, Principal Investigator

Douglas Adkins Richard Dalbello Thomas H. Karas

Contractors

Edward Downing Roger Hoffer

Roland Inlow Earl Merritt

Resources Development Associates Edward Risley

Donald Wiesnet William Wigton

Administrative Staff

Jannie Coles Dorothy Richroath Jackie Robinson

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

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

Joe Henson Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning
Remote Sensing and the Private sector Workshop, July 26, 1983

Kenneth Craib

Resource Development Associates

Russell C. Drew

Science and Technology Consultant

Robert A. Frosch

General Motors Research Laboratories

Roger Hofer

Purdue University

Marvin R. Helter

ERIM

Benjamin Huberman

Consultants International Group, Inc.

Terry Lehman

ARCO Oil & Gas Co.

Arthur Morrissey

Martin Marietta Aerospace

Charles Paul (observer)

U.S. Agency for International Development

Bruce Rado

ERDAS Inc.

Jerome Simonoff

CitiCorp Industrial Credit, Inc.

Harry Stewart

Strategic Geoscience Applications

SUN, E&T.

Dennis Zimmerman

Congressional Research Service

Earl S. Merritt

Earth Satellite Corp.

Executive Branch Meeting on Remote Sensing, August 18, 1983

William M. Feldman Irwin Pikus

U.S. Agency for International Development National Science Foundation

Raymond G. Kammer, Jr. Victor H. Reis

Chairman, Source Evaluation Board Office of Science and Technology Policy

U.S. Department of Commerce

John H. McElroy

National Earth Satellite Service

Lisle Rose

U.S. Department of State

John Townsend

Kenneth Pederson Fairchild Space & Electronics Co.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The following individuals contributed to this study in a variety of ways. OTA is grateful for the

assistance they gave:

Marion Baumgartren

Paul Bock

Radford Byerly

Alden Calvocoresses

George Chadwick

Philip P. Chandler, 111

Jerald Cook

Leonard David

Lewis Dellwig

Fred Doyle

Ronald Eastman

Martin Faga

F. Scott Finer

Donna Fossum

Robert Haight

Fred Henderson, 111

Charles Hoyt

David Johnson

Raymond Kammer

Richard Kleckner

Victor Klemas

Joseph Lintz

John Logsdon

Donald Lowe

William Lowell

Ronald Lyon

Charles Matthews

Victor Meyers

Roland Mower

Robert Palmer

Charles Paul

Kenneth Pederson

Warren Philipson

Robert Ragan

Marvin Robinson

Dan Semick

David Simonent

Philip Slater

Alexander Taylor

John Claude Thomas

Roy Welch

Matthew Willard

David Williamson

Charles Witten

Curtis Woodcock

Joseph Ulliman

OTA appreciates the help and advice of these workshop participants. OTA assumes full responsibility for its

report, which does not necessarily represent the views of individual members of these workshops.

vi
Contents

Chapter Page

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

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

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

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

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

6. National

Appendix

A. Remote

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

Page

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

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

c. Survey of University Programs in Remote Sensing Funded Under

Grants From the NASA University-Space Application Program . . . . . . 121

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

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

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

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

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

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

vii
Chapter 1

Executive Summary
Page

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

International Relations and Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

International Relations and Foreign Policy Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Data Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....’,... .“.. 7

Value-Added Services.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

U.S. Technological Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Cooperation With Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

International Legal Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Future International Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Landsat Foreign Ground Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Domestic Public Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State and Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Continuing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Maintenance of Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

University Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .....m . . . . . . . . 11

Civilian Federal Government Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Government Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Alternative Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2

National Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

DOD Oversight of Technical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Preemption by the Military in Time of Emergency.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Foreign Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 1

Executive Summary

A process is now under way that is intended

to lead to the early transfer from the Federal

Government to the private sector of the Land

Remote Sensing Satellite (Landsat) system for

remote sensing from space, This technical memorandum was prepared at the request of the House

Committee on Science and Technology and the

House Committee on Government Operations,

which are overseeing this process. The House

Committee on Science and Technology is also

simultaneously preparing implementing legislation.

This process inevitably raises the separable

issues of whether to carry out the transfer at all,

or how to carry it out if the Government does

go ahead. This memorandum only indirectly addresses the question of whether the transfer is in

the net public interest by focusing on one aspect

of such a transfer: it discusses the various public

benefits provided by the Government’s civilian

meteorological and land remote-sensing systems

and analyzes the effects that transfer of these

systems to the private sector might have on the

provision of these public benefits.

Principal reasons for transferring remote-sensing services to private hands are that the private

sector excels both at innovation and at developing markets. In an earlier study, OTA found a

potential exists for greatly expanding the market

for land remote-sensing services, and that other

nations intend to compete for the market. *

Another reason for transferring these services

to the private sector is the hope of reducing Federal expenditures. This technical memorandum

bears directly on the question. Most of the public

benefits which the United States now derives from

remote sensing could be provided just as well by

the private sector—for a price. However, OTA

has found that a private owner/operator who was

obliged by contract to provide all of these public

benefits would probably require a large Federal

1Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, 11. C.: U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-177, June

1982), pp. 53-67.

subsidy. Until the market expands substantially,

and more efficient spacecraft are developed and

deployed, it could cost the Federal Government

as much to subsidize a private owner as to continue operating the system itself.

The public benefits of land remote sensing could

justify any of the following policy options:

●

•

●

●

●

continued Government ownership and direction of the system, whether or not actual operation was contracted out; or

maintenance of Government ownership for

a limited period, in order to effect a phased

transfer to the private sector, as the market

grows large enough to support commercial

ownership; or

mixed, public-private ownership of the

system; or

quick transfer to a private owner/operator,

but with a series of conditions and requirements designed to assure the public benefits;

and

a substantial subsidy to a private owner, in

order to maintain the public benefits and

maintain continuity of operation and data.

An understanding of the nature of the benefits is

critical to an informed choice of policies. However, this memorandum does not take the next

step of comparing the value of the public benefits

to alternative uses of the public resources required, nor does it address directly the relative

merits of public and private ownership.

Since this memorandum was requested, Congress passed appropriations bill H.R. 3222, a provision of which prohibits the sale or transfer of

the meteorological satellite (metsat) systems to the

private sector. On November 28, 1983, President

Reagan signed this bill into law (Public Law

98-166). Because the issues raised by the administration’s proposal may be important in considering the disposition of other Government-developed technologies, OTA has retained discussion

of metsats in this technical memorandum.

The metsat and Landsat systems not only serve

different, if related, functions and constituencies,

3
4

but also differ sharply in their developmental

history and current status. The metsat systems are

fully operational and run by the Government as

part of its responsibility to provide weather services. Provision of these services has a long

domestic and international history and a set of

usages and established procedures. The Landsat

system, by contrast, has until recently been entirely a research and development (R&D) effort,

although in many respects it has been used as if

it were operational. Landsat data are also fundamentally different in format, repeatability, and

continuity from other remotely sensed images,

such as aircraft photography, and therefore have

not had an easy market niche. The Landsat program as a whole is clearly ready to shift from the

earlier emphasis on R&D toward provision of routine services. Moderate-resolution land remotesensing technology* is ready for full operational

● That is, the multispectral scanner or equivalent systems, whose

spatial resolution is about 80 meters.

BACKGROUND

The potential value of viewing Earth’s atmosphere, land, and oceans from space for civilian purposes was recognized early in this Nation’s

development of space technology. The United

States launched its first civilian remote-sensing

satellite (a polar-orbiting weather satellite called

TIROS) in 1960. TIROS provided the first civilian

images from space.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently operates two

civilian meteorological satellite systems. One is

a polar-orbiting system that consists of two satellites (NOAA-N series) orbiting the Earth once

every 102 minutes; the other consists of two geosynchronous satellites (GOES) that view the Western Hemisphere continuously and transmit images

to Earth every 30 minutes. Both systems carry a

variety of relatively low-resolution sensors (1,000

meters (m) or more at the surface of the Earth),

which operate at several wavelengths to provide

weather imagery and related data.

In 1972, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) launched the first of a

status. The question Congress now faces is

whether the United States should treat land

remote sensing as a fully appropriate Government

operational activity (as it has with metsat), or

transfer it to private hands under a variety of conditions, or drop it completely.

This technical memorandum outlines the tangible and intangible public benefits that flow from

operational remote sensing managed in the public

interest. It provides a basis for deciding which requirements and conditions a private offeror could

be asked to meet if the Government proceeds with

transfer of the land remote-sensing system. Further, this memorandum provides a summary of

what public social, economic, and political losses

could accrue if the Government decided to drop

civilian land remote sensing altogether, and leave

the field to the French, Japanese, Soviets, and

others.

series of civilian land remote-sensing satellites

(Landsat). Among other experimental devices, the

first three satellites carried a sensor called the

multispectral scanner (MSS), having a terrestrial

spatial resolution of 80 m and operating in four

spectral bands. Landsat 4, launched in 1982, carries the MSS, as well as a new sensor called the

thematic mapper (TM), which has a terrestrial

resolution of 30 m and operates in seven spectral

bands. * Transmissions from Landsat are received

globally by 3 U.S. and 10 foreign-owned ground

stations. Landsat 4 is currently failing and could

stop working at any moment. Landsat D‘, which

is the backup satellite for Landsat 4, is scheduled

for launch in March 1984, Under current administration policy, this will be the last Governmentowned land remote-sensing satellite unless new

ones are ordered. NOAA now operates the Landsat system.

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

‘Except for the 10.40 to 12.5 micron band which has a spatial

resolution of 120 m.
5

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

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

(GOES series), artist’s conception

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

NOAA-N series polar-orbiting environmental satellite, artist’s conception
6

phere, the land, or the oceans, sensors on board

each satellite can also collect useful data on other

components of the Earth. For example, agricultural managers use images from the meteorological satellites to estimate crop production, coastalzone managers use Landsat data to study water

pollution and pollution sources, and exploratory

geologists use Seasat data to locate promising

areas for exploration on land.

The Department of Defense (DOD) operates its

own polar-orbiting meteorological satellite system. To a certain extent, DOD coordinates its

meteorological operations with those of the civilian system. It makes use of data from the Landsat system, in addition to operating a system of

surveillance satellites to serve national security

needs.

Other countries are developing their own

meteorological, land, and ocean remote-sensing

systems. The European Space Agency (ESA), India, Japan, and the Soviet Union all currently

operate meteorological satellite systems. The

Soviet Union operates a land remote-sensing system; ESA and several other countries plan to

launch land or ocean remote-sensing satellite systems by the end of the decade. Some of these systems will generate data directly competitive with

data from the Landsat or related U.S. systems.

By virtue of significantly higher resolution and

a planned rapid delivery system, some will exceed

Landsat’s capacity to return useful data to users

of remote-sensing data.

NASA’s and NOM’s efforts with remote-sensing systems have demonstrated to domestic and

foreign users, both inside and outside Government, that data from these systems can be highly

effective in meeting their weather and resource information needs. In light of the potential commercial economic value that Earth resources remotesensing data could have, the Carter administration, through Presidential Directive PD/54,

directed that “Commerce will budget . . . to seek

ways to enhance private sector opportunities” in

land remote sensing. Although this directive left

open the timetable and the means of a possible

transfer of the Landsat system to the private sector, at the same time it committed the U.S. Government to provide a continuous flow of data

from a land remote-sensing system through the

1980’s. The Reagan administration decided early

in its tenure to hasten the process of transfer; it

further widened the scope of this policy by proposing that both the meteorological and land

remote-sensing satellite systems be transferred to

private ownership as soon as possible,

The Commerce Department set up a Source

Evaluation Board (SEB) to draft the Request for

Proposal (RFP) for transfer of the systems to the

private sector. The RFP is intended to specify the

Government’s qualitative requirements for data

for a period of time after transfer takes place, and

to lay out the operational constraints that would

be placed on the private offeror. The SEB issued

a draft proposal for public comment on October

24, 1983. Prior to that time, it had solicited and

received a number of comments from other Government agencies and from Congress. Commerce

issued a revised RFP in January 1984 for industry’s

response. In keeping with the legislative prohibition on sale of the metsat systems, it no longer

contains provisions for their transfer.

The RFP is long, technically thorough, and contains input from a wide variety of interested parties. In some respects, it is a very unusual RFP.

For one thing, it leaves several important areas

of Federal policy to be defined by the private sector. Further, in the absence of clear policy direction from either Congress or the administration,

the private offeror runs an awkward and expensive risk of offering to invest and become involved

in ways that could later be changed by policymaking legislation.

Congress held several hearings on the subject

in 1983. The House and Senate are now considering legislation designed to encourage transfer of

the Landsat system to private ownership reinforcing and specifically preventing similar transfer of

metsats. Some members of both Houses favor transfer of the Landsat system; others feel it should remain a Government-owned and operated system.
7

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Transfer of either system to the private sector

would certainly affect our relationships with other

nations. International issues related to transfer are

among the most important and difficult to resolve

satisfactorily. Consequently, the transfer proposal

cannot possibly be approached as merely a domestic decision. Realistic planning for the disposition of the remote-sensing systems must address

global concerns in the following areas:

International Relations and

Foreign Policy Aims

Landsat and metsat data have served as useful

and constructive instruments of U.S. foreign relations. These data have aided other countries to

prepare in advance for severe weather conditions,

and to map, manage, and exploit their own resources; they have also served to raise the general level of awareness about growing environmental problems throughout the world. The data from

both systems, and the equipment with which to

process them, have provided the United States

with access to, and influence in, many other

countries.

Although the private sector is technically capable (given adequate financial incentives) of providing the data promptly to meet the requirements

of the Federal Government and other potential

customers, commercial objectives may conflict

with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Constraints

on a private firm that are sufficient to protect U.S.

foreign policy objectives could well make such an

enterprise unprofitable or require a large and continuing Government subsidy to make the enterprise viable.

Data Sales

The United States has followed the policy, consistent with the practice of other countries, of providing meteorological data freely and without

charge. After exploring the feasibility of charging for meteorological data, which raised ire and

concern in other countries (especially those that

participate in the data gathering), the administration decided to continue the earlier policy. If the

metsats were to be transferred to the private sector, the Government would presumably purchase

the data from the operating firm and then distribute them free of charge to other countries. Since

the United States receives free of cost more vital

meteorological data from other countries than it

gives away, and since providing global weather

data is a public good, maintenance of this data

policy would continue to benefit the United States.

Landsat data have always been sold to non-U.S,

Government users, and they have been made

available to all purchasers on a nondiscriminatory basis. Indeed, the data policy of the Landsat program can be considered to be a cornerstone

of the U.S. “open skies” policy and of the use of

space for peaceful purposes. By following this

policy, the United States has been able effectively to blunt criticism of other activities, such as

the operation of classified surveillance satellites.

It has also been able to demonstrate to the entire

world its adherence to the principle of the free

flow of information. It is a powerful message to

send to all governments, especially those opposed

to the open interchange of ideas and information,

that LandSat data are available even to our political and economic adversaries at the same price

and under the same terms as to our friends.

Yet, if the transfer to the private sector were

made, potential owners would exert strong pressure to be allowed to set their own data sales

policies in order to maximize profitability. Such

a posture would frustrate the very policy the

United States has fought so hard and so long to

maintain in the United Nations and in its foreign

relations. In view of the continued importance of

the “open skies” principle to the United States,

altering the principle of nondiscriminatory sale

of land remote-sensing data would be harmful to

many U.S. foreign policy interests, not just those

involving outer space. Whether or not the Government decides to continue the nondiscriminatory policy, any charter for a private firm should

be unambiguous with respect to the data distribution policies the firm could pursue.
8

Value-added Services

To date, most of the revenue from the use of

remote-sensing data has been earned by those corporations that process, analyze, add other information, and/or interpret the data for themselves

or for others (the so-called value-added industry).

The value-added companies constitute a small,

but growing, specialized industry. Most bidders

for a remote-sensing system would want to participate in the value-added business, The primary

economic value of the data from the meteorological satellites is in warning of impending severe or

unusual weather. Since receiving terminals are

relatively inexpensive, most countries and many

organizations can afford to own and operate

them. For meteorological data, allowing a data

supplier to sell value-added services as well as data

appears to raise no special concerns in developing countries as long as the raw data remain freely

available to everyone with the capacity to receive

them.

High-resolution land remote-sensing data and

the ability to analyze them are potentially powerful tools for resource development. Many developing countries have expressed the fear that if the

company owning the data collection and distribution system were also allowed to offer value-

-added services, it might take special advantage

of having control over the acquisition and distribution process to make its own value-added services more timely or more complete than the services of its competitors. Under such conditions, the

company, and its most favored customers, could

obtain economic leverage over countries that

lacked the facilities and personnel capable of interpreting the data. Therefore, from the standpoint of maintaining good relations with developing countries, it may be appropriate for the United

States to restrict the private data distributor from

entering into the value-added business, or to regulate it closely to prevent such a company from

exerting unfair economic leverage over others. As

competition from foreign or even other domestic

systems grew, it should be possible to relax such

restrictions. Alternatively, the Government could

require data analyses to be sold openly as well.

U.S. Technological Leadership

The existence of metsat ground stations, owned

and operated by over 125 countries, and the much

more expensive Landsat ground stations in 10

countries, constitute an eloquent statement of U.S.

leadership in successfully applying high technology for the benefit of all mankind. The United

States has also participated with both industrialized and developing countries in pursuing applied

research in the uses of the data. It is critical to

the continuing R&D of remote-sensing technology

and the growth of the data market for the United

States to maintain its cooperative basic and applied research programs with other countries, both

to advance U.S. research objectives and to retain

U.S. leadership in the technology of outer space.

Cooperation With Developing Countries

Through its international cooperative projects

with developing countries, the United States has

advanced the state of the art in remote sensing,

and provided access to information and processes

that those countries would not have been able to

afford to develop unilaterally. This cooperative

approach has materially helped such countries to

cope with the enormous human and physical

problems of resource management, especially in

isolated, rural areas.

In an era of rising costs and decreasing budgets,

it may be increasingly difficult for the Agency for

International Development (AID) and other U.S.

organizations to provide data and other research

support in remote sensing, yet U.S. Government

agency technical programs are largely responsible for the development of the international community of users of metsat and Landsat data, and

the concomitant market for Landsat data products. If the transfer to the private sector is made,

it will therefore be important to assure that appropriate Government funding is continued for

these projects, and that access to data will also

continue. It will also be important to involve

private value-added companies in these projects.
9

International Legal Issues

The United States helped to formulate and is

now party to four major international treaties and

agreements that may affect the operations of privately owned Earth remote-sensing systems. Of

greatest importance to potential private owners

of remote-sensing satellite systems is the 1967

Outer Space Treaty, article VI of which requires

“continuing supervision by the appropriate State

party to the Treaty. ” At the least, this provision

suggests some form of licensing and Governmentimposed regulations for private space system

operators.

In regulating a private land remote-sensing

system, the Department of State, Department of

Commerce, or other concerned Federal agencies

have the opportunity to develop imaginative strategies and institutions for working with the private

sector in this technology. The form of these strategies and institutions is particularly important

because land remote-sensing data, by the nature

of their information content, raise the sensitivities

of other countries. The Department of State’s

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), which would likely be charged with regulatory responsibility over

international questions, would have to strengthen

its technical expertise in space and its commitment

to using space technology as part of the foreign

policy of the United States. Such regulations could

bring U.S. foreign policy objectives into direct

conflict with the profit motives of private enterprise.

Some countries maintain that they should have

priority access to data derived from the sensing

of their territory; others have argued that their

consent should be obtained before these data are

transferred to third parties. The United States

maintains that a policy of free collection and dissemination of primary data is both supported

legally and encouraged by the 1967 Outer Space

Treaty and article 19 of the U.N. Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

Our historical policies of nondiscriminatory

data sales and the free flow of information have

served us well in deflecting attempts to restrict the

right to sense other countries or to make those

data available to third parties. Should transfer to

private ownership result in discriminatory access

to data—and a reduction in technical assistance

and concessionary sales policies aimed at making these data less accessible to less developed

countries—the U.S. position about “open skies”

would have to be modified, with attendant losses

to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Future International Coordination

The United States currently participates in the

deliberations of several international groups that

set or coordinate standards for remote-sensing systems. If transfer of the Landsat system takes place,

the Government should spell out clearly how private firms would interact with the Department of

State and other U.S. agencies having cognizance

over these matters.

Landsat Foreign Ground Stations

If the transfer takes place, the Memoranda of

Understanding between NOAA and the foreign

ground stations would become null and void. Yet

the foreign ground stations provide data of significant importance to the U.S. Government. In order

for the private firm to supply the required data

to the Government, in the absence of a system

like the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,

it may be essential for the firm to be able to enter

into agreements with the foreign governments

who own the receiving stations. Some countries

may be unwilling to do so without major concessions regarding data distribution policy on the

part of the private owner. In other words, foreign owners may insist on placing restrictions on

sales of data to their adversaries.

25-357 0 - 84 - 2 : QI, 3
10

DOMESTIC PUBLIC GOODS

U.S. remote-sensing programs have contributed

significantly to the domestic public welfare. The

daily contributions of the meteorological satellites

are visibly reflected in the daily media forecasts.

Landsat’s contribution is less often publicized, but

the data it provides make possible new cost-effective ways to assess, manage, and exploit Earth’s

resources and environment. Landsat data are used

for agriculture (to indicate crop stress and to forecast crop yield), forestry (to reveal the state and

extent of forest resources and determine appropriate replanting strategies), resource exploration

(nonrenewable resources), environmental monitoring and coastal zone management, cartography, and resource management.

State and Local Government

A fully integrated communications network for

receiving and disseminating satellite meteorological data already exists in the U.S. National

Weather Service, which adds these data to terrestrial observations and distributes them to the

States and local communities in the form of longand short-range weather forecasts. States and

local news media use these data to warn citizens

of impending weather conditions, including severe

weather.

Several States have also begun to integrate

Landsat data into their long-term planning, and

to add them to computerized information retrieval

systems. However, the high cost of large computers and software and the expense of training

and maintaining personnel, combined with uncertainties about Federal policy, are inhibiting the

States from relying more heavily on Landsat data.

Further, some States that now use Landsat data

to support their planning efforts are worried that

transfer of the system to private hands would

cause sharp rises in the prices of data over a short

time. In order to cut costs, many States share

Landsat data purchased from the Government

with other States, particularly in border areas

where Landsat scenes cover land in two or more

States. * States express concern that private

owners would copyright the data in order to inhibit copying and trading them, which would also

raise the costs of using Landsat data.

Continuing Research

Important for satellite remote sensing is research

on how to apply the data to environmental and

resource problems as well as on improving sensors and related hardware. Although meteorological satellites have been operational for years, experimenters continue to discover ways to use their

low-resolution data to solve some resource problems. For example, these data now serve as important adjuncts to the use of Landsat data for

agricultural predictions. It will be important to

continue university, private sector, and Government research on applying meteorological data

to resource problems. In addition, there is a need

for continuing improvements to the meteorological sensors. The present research program within

NOAA is inadequate.

Although the system to produce data from the

MSS sensor aboard Landsat 4 is appropriately

termed “operational,” many of the techniques to

use the data effectively are by no means well

understood. Thematic mapper (TM) data will require considerable experimentation in order to

learn how to make the best possible use of them.

The universities could play a strong role in such

research. Without a continuing source of data and

continued experimentation in the public and private sectors with applying both MSS and TM

data, the market for data and data products will

not develop and potential benefits will remain

unexploited by the United States.

NASA plans to fly a variety of advanced experimental remote sensors on the space shuttle.

However, there is also a great need to develop

● Sharing data by copying data tapes or photographic products

is now a common practice in Federal agencies, private industry, and

the universities, as well as in State and local government.
11

long-life operational sensors and associated processing hardware that can be used for commercial

purposes. Smooth incorporation of new hardware

into operational systems generally mandates evolutionary, not revolutionary, changes in design

and system capacity.

Maintenance of Archives

Data gathered from meteorological satellite

observations contribute to our knowledge of longterm weather patterns. In particular, the National

Climate Program within NOAA assembles these

data and combines them with other satellite and

terrestrial data to produce world climate models.

In order to continue the research on weather and

climate, it will be important to continue to archive

meteorological satellite data and to maintain continuity of the data format,

The EROS Data Center (EDC) currently maintains an archive containing most of the data it

receives. However, most foreign data are not included in the archive, nor is it possible to purchase most foreign data directly from EDC. Customers must generally purchase their images of

foreign land areas from the appropriate foreign

ground stations. The expense of maintaining a

complete archive of all the data ever received from

the Landsat system is too great. However, it

should be possible to construct a complete set of

cloud-free images of MSS data for the entire

world. To date, because of lack of funds, this has

not been done, although NOAA and NASA recognize the value of such an archive, especially for

mapping, land-use planning, and for mineral exploration. The Government would have to decide

whether the limited archive maintained at EDC

would be transferred to the private sector and,

if so, under what conditions. If the archive is

transferred, safeguards to protect it from later

deterioration or destruction should be instituted

so that all interested parties will continue to have

access to these data without copyright restrictions.

University Programs

In addition to their role of developing and instructing in the use of new technologies, universities and other not-for-profit organizations have

carried out research in using Landsat data for

themselves, State and local governments, private

industry, and the Federal Government. At present they face two major concerns: 1) the steeply

rising prices of Landsat data and the concomitant

decrease of Federal research support have caused

some universities to reduce severely their research

and teaching programs; and 2) the universities express worries that both the operational and research aspects of the U.S. Landsat program lack

direction. From the point of view of university

researchers and teachers, these uncertainties make

the prospects for the future grim, presaging further reductions in their teaching and research programs related to land remote sensing. Yet these

institutions play a major role in technology

transfer, both in the United States and abroad.

CIVILIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS

Data from the meteorological satellites have

been used directly by the various Federal mission

agencies either as they are transmitted to Earth,

or after being processed and integrated with other

weather data by the National Weather Service.

If the process of transfer of the metsats to private

ownership had continued, the Government would

have offered to control, and pay for, the provision of required domestic and international meteorological data. It would have left to the private

sector the design and operation of future satellites,

sensors, and related equipment to ensure that the

Government’s needs for data were met.

For several years, data products derived from

the Landsat MSS sensor have been applied by the

mission agencies to specific resource management

and evaluation tasks. In most cases, these data

products have become the standard for the

remote-sensing users, both within and without the

Government. Although TM data will continue to

be used for research purposes, because of the difficulties and expense of processing the enormous

volume of data represented in a TM scene, they

will see relatively limited use. MSS-type data will

continue to be of general interest to large parts

of the user community for some time to come.
12

In part this interest exists because the user community is accustomed to using the data, but for

many users, the data’s four-band multispectral

characteristics and synoptic view are often of

greater importance than their. spatial resolution,

Although it will be important to continue to study

the applicability of advanced data such as TM,

which incorporates seven spectral bands, for Federal mission agencies, data equivalent to MSS in

format, spectral and spatial characteristics will

satisfy most civilian Federal needs for the rest of

the 1980’s.

Even if the private sector assumes responsibility y

for providing remote-sensing data for the U.S.

Government, it will be necessary for the Government to maintain oversight authority over such

corporations to assure that they continue to provide Federal data needs. It seems appropriate to

designate a single lead agency to supervise and

regulate all U.S. civilian remote-sensing activities.

However, to protect both Government and private interests, it will be necessary that the agency act in such a way as not to stifle realistic opportunities for a private owner to exercise initiative and flexibility in providing data responsive

to a worldwide market, including the private U.S.

market.

Government Data Requirements

If transfer of the Landsat system to private

ownership were made soon, (i. e., while Landsat

5 is still functional’), it would be appropriate for

the new owner to maintain data products and

service equivalent to, or better than, the Government now provides using the MSS sensor.

However, one of the reasons for transferring the

system to private hands would be to achieve bet-

‘Landsat 5 will be called Landsat D ‘ until it is launched and operating in March 1984. Its nominal lifetime in orbit is 3 years for the

spacecraft, 3 years for the MSS, and 1 year for the TM.

ter data products, delivery, and services than now

exist. Thus, as the privately owned system

evolved, the Government would be likely to demand improved service and products.

As U.S. private satellites begin to incorporate

improved sensors capable of higher resolution and

pointing, as the French SPOT satellite has been

designed to do, it will be tempting for the Government as well as other customers to ask the corporation to respond to special data needs, in addition to supplying routine data. However, such

special tasking can only be accomplished at an

extra cost, because it takes the satellite away from

routine tasks. Because this differential pricing (for

differing levels of service) also has the potential

for being discriminatory, it should receive careful

consideration and rules for handling it should be

developed.

NATIONAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

Alternative Systems

The Landsat system provides a unique capacity. No other technique in the world provides the

ability to obtain reasonably detailed data (i. e.,

each minimum unit of Landsat MSS data represents 1.1 acres on the ground), over the entire

Earth, and at a repetitive frequency that allows

most temporal changes to be monitored effectively. However, in order to derive the maximum user

benefits of this technology, it will be necessary

to find ways to reduce sharply the system costs

while improving delivery, System studies by

several private companies have shown it may be

possible to achieve cost reductions of up to 50 percent for an operational system. If the Government

decides to maintain its own civilian land remotesensing system, it will be essential to find additional ways to reduce system costs. Because R&D

is so expensive, major cost cutting for operational

services implies that substantial R&D can no

longer be done while providing a high level of

routine services.

The ability of the United States to collect extra- ation of classified meteorological and reconnaisterritorial information of military and intelligence sance satellite systems by DOD. Satellite provalue was suddenly and dramatically improved grams provide, among other things, essential data

in the early 1960’s with the development and oper- about areas of the world where other types of U.S.
13

access is restricted. So long as both the civilian

unclassified programs and the military classified

programs are under the direct control of the Federal Government, the activities of both can be

coordinated and controlled in the national interest. However, placing remote-sensing programs

in the private sector may make it very difficult

to continue appropriate coordination between systems and control over data delivery.

It is little appreciated that the intelligence and

defense communities, taken together, currently

are the largest users of Landsat data within the

Federal Government. If there were no appropriate

civilian Government system or sufficient safeguards on a privately owned system, these communities might find it necessary to build and operate their own system, thereby diminishing any expected budget savings.

DOD Oversight of

Technical Specifications

NASA, in collaboration with other Federal

agencies, academic institutions, and industry, has

carried out a substantial program of experimentation and demonstration of sensors and dataprocessing techniques for land remote sensing.

NASA has pursued its research in cooperation

with DOD as provided for in the 1958 National

Aeronautics and Space (NAS) Act. Until recently, the ground resolution of the civilian systems

has not been sufficient to detect objects of significant military interest. However, the development

of advanced high spectral and spatial resolution

civilian sensors in the United States and abroad,

and the prospect of private sector entry into the

realm of land remote sensing, necessitate a reFOREIGN COMPETITION

It is clear that other countries, building on the

experience gained from U.S. applications technology as well as on their own capabilities, see the

development of meteorological, land, or ocean remote-sensing satellites as an integral component

of their entry into space. In addition to constructing systems competitive with the U.S. Landsat

system, they are also moving to develop systems

examination of U.S. and other national policies

regarding technology development and technology transfer. Areas that should be examined carefully include the limits that should be placed on

the ground resolution of space-borne sensors, their

spectral characteristics, and on sophisticated dataprocessing techniques. However, in the face of the

development of advanced foreign systems, it will

be difficult for DOD to exert much control over

advances in U.S. civilian hardware and processing techniques without making it impossible for

the United States or its firms to compete in the

world market.

Preemption by the Military

in Time of Emergency

The increased spectral and spatial resolution of

TM or other 1and remote-sensing systems make

the data they provide of increasing interest to

DOD and the intelligence community. These data

could serve as a supplement to other data collection means at any time. It will be essential to spell

out clearly the particular requirements of DOD

and the intelligence community for hardening of

the system’s electronics, and the system specifications, as well as the conditions under which the

private system could be preempted. Meeting these

special requirements will add cost. If the private

owner were to be required to meet them without

specific compensation, data prices would be extremely high for all users, which would inhibit

the development of a commercial market for data.

If the Government were to pay for these additional capabilities, such support would constitute an

additional subsidy of the system, beyond the basic

ones of no competition and fixed data purchases.

that will sense the physical parameters of the

oceans and the coastal waters. The United States,

though it has a program within NASA to develop

new sensors to fly intermittently on the shuttle,

has no plans to develop civilian operational systems for land or ocean remote sensing that would

provide continuous data over the long term with

repeat coverage.
14

In order to maintain U.S. leadership in applica- applications of the data such systems supply to

tions of space technology, it will be important for the solution of a wide range of terrestrial probthe United States to maintain continuity of data lems. If the United States wishes to maintain leaddelivery. This is likely to require Government sub- ership in this technology, it will be essential that

sidy. It will also be important for the Government the technology and the data it produces, whether

and the private sector to sustain a vigorous pro- publicly or privately owned, remain an integral

gram of research in both space systems and the component of U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
Chapter 2
Contents

Page

Development and Status of Remote Sensing From Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Foreign Remote-Sensing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Meteorological Satellite Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

This Technical Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Preparation of the Technical Memorandum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 2

Introduction

This technical memorandum explores the major policy-related issues raised by the proposed

private ownership of satellite-based civilian remote-sensing systems. It responds to requests from

the Committee on Science and Technology of the

U.S. House of Representatives to provide information that would help the committee fulfill its

oversight and legislative responsibilities. Specifically, the committee requested that OTA “address

the requirements or constraints relating to international and national security concerns. ”l

This memorandum is designed to aid Congress

in determining the appropriate requirements and

conditions for private sector ownership and/or

operation of the U.S. land remote-sensing systems. It also provides information and analysis

that will be useful for Congress as it develops and

considers legislation for transferring remotesensing satellite systems to the private sector. It

does not reach any explicit judgments about

whether a transfer of remote-sensing services and

data to private hands is either feasible or desirable,

Rather, OTA’s analysis discusses what a private

owner and/or operator might be required to do

in order to meet existing or projected U.S. obligations to the international community, to enhance

national security, and to preserve the public benefits of civilian remote sensing from space.

1 Letter from U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science

and Technology, July 20, 1983; see also letter from Government

operations Committee, September 1983.

Although the value of remote sensing must constitute part of the analysis of potential requirements, this memorandum neither analyzes the potential market for remote-sensing data, data products, and services, nor judges the benefits versus

the costs of maintaining these services in the

Federal Government as compared to transfer to

the private sector. However, it enumerates many

of the concerns that users of data from the system

have expressed about transfer to the private sector. It leaves it to Congress to judge the relative

importance of potential requirements that might

be imposed on the private sector,

Shortly before this technical memorandum was

completed, Congress voted to keep the meteorological satellite systems in the hands of the

Government and directed the administration to

cease preparation of a request for proposal to

transfer these systems to the private sector. z However, because the issues the proposed sale of the

meteorological satellites raises are typical of the

movement of technology from the Government

to private hands, and of the decisions that must

be made vis-à-vis public and private goods, OTA

has retained the analysis of meteorological satellite systems.

‘Appropriations bill HR. 3222, November 1983

DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

The scientific and user community recognized

early in the development of space technology the

potential value of sensing Earth’s atmosphere,

land masses, and oceans from space for civilian

purposes. The first civilian remote-sensing satellite

was a polar-orbiting weather satellite called

TIROS, launched by the United States in 1960.

TIROS provided the first civilian images from

space.

Subsequent improvements in the polar orbiters

by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which until recently has conducted much of the research and development

(R&D) on new sensors, and the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which

operates the meteorological satellite systems, have

led to a powerful system of two orbiters that circle Earth every 102 minutes and provide complete

17
18

Solar

panel

/ I Sun sensors

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

West at 135 W

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS:
19

Array Equipment High-energy

drive support

electronics

proton and

module alpha particle

Rocket system antenna

engine

assembly (4)

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS

13-17

18-20
coverage of Earth’s atmospheric parameters every

6 hours. These NOAA N-Series satellites also

carry the ARGOS Data Collection System provided by France, which collects and relays environmental and other data from ground-based

automatic sensor platforms. The polar-orbiting

meteorological satellite system is now augmented

by two geostationary satellites (GOES) that provide low-resolution visible and infrared coverage

of the western hemisphere every 30 minutes.

Both systems are integral parts of the U.S.

weather and climatological systems and constitute

a major source of timely weather data to the rest

of the world. They also comprise a major source

of data for studies of long-term weather trends

and climatological studies.3 By international

agreement, weather data, including those gathered

by satellite, are shared with the world community freely and at no cost. In return, the United

States receives satellite and other weather data at

no cost from other countries all over the world.

Aircraft-based experiments with multispectral

land remote-sensing systems started before the

Space Age, but were strengthened when NASA

launched the first land remote-sensing satellite,

Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS), in

1972. This satellite was later renamed Landsat 1

and was followed by Landsats 2 and 3 in 1975 and

1978, respectively. In addition to other research

devices, all three satellites carried a sensor called

the multispectral scanner (MSS), having a spatial

resolution at Earth’s surface of about 80 meters

and covering four spectral bands. The output of

this sensor, transmitted to Earth, then corrected

and stored, constitutes the primary archival

library of Landsat data, extending back to 1972.

3Ciuilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI-177, June

1982), app. E.

REMOTE-SENSING POLICY

Landsat 4, which was launched in 1982, carries

both an MSS sensor and an experimental thematic

mapper (TM) sensor, having a nominal spatial

resolution of 30 meters on Earth, and providing

seven spectral bands of data. *

Developed and procured by NASA, the Landsat system (Landsat 4) is now operated by NOAA.

At the present time, no data can be received

directly from the TM because of a failed X-band

transmitter aboard the satellite. Limited TM reception is possible through the Tracking Data and

Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) when the latter

is available for use. In addition, two of the four

solar panels that provide power to the spacecraft

have failed. Landsat 4 consequently has a highly

limited lifetime. NOAA plans to launch the backup satellite to Landsat 4, Landsat D‘, this month.

After launch it will then be named Landsat 5.

NASA’s and NOAA’s efforts with the Landsat

system have demonstrated to a small but dedicated group of customers, both within and without the Government, that satellite data can be

highly effective in meeting their resource information needs.4

In 1978, NASA launched the first dedicated

ocean observation satellite, Seasat-A. Designed

to last for at least 1 year, Seasat-A failed after only

3 months in orbit. During that period its active

and passive microwave sensors (including a synthetic aperture radar) returned important new

data on the characteristics of the oceans, sea ice,

and a variety of terrestrial features. Despite

Seasat’s high degree of technical success, no

follow-on civilian oceanographic satellite has been

authorized.

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

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

Although the potential utility of images gath- However, as Federal, State, and local governered by satellite of atmospheric conditions and of ments and universities and industrial firms began

the surface of the land and ocean were recognized to work with the data from the Landsat system,

by those conceiving the systems, few considered they realized that these data were often a costoperating the systems as commercial entities. effective substitute for older (aircraft) methods of
21

High gain antenna

Global positioning

system antenna

SENSORS AND FUNCTIONS.
22

gathering Earth resources data. The digital format, wide spatial coverage, and repeatability of

the data make possible new applications that

could eventually increase the value of the information these data provide. By the late 1970’s,

some observers postulated that the data might

eventually have sufficient commercial value to

attract private investment in a remote-sensing system. However, it was also clear that barriers of

high cost, and technological and economic risk

would have to be drastically reduced to interest

private investors in providing a system comparable to the Landsat system.

Transfer of space-based land remote sensing to

private hands was first considered seriously in the

drafting of President Carter’s 1979 policy statement on space, PD/NSC-54, which amplified the

earlier policy statements, PD/NSC-37 and PD/

NSC-42. According to the President’s Policy Directive, “Our goal is the eventual operation by

the private sector of our civil land remote-sensing

activities. Commerce will budget for further work

in FY 1981 to seek ways to enhance private sector opportunities. ”5 This statement left open the

speed and the means of the transfer but, because

it also committed the United States to provide

continuity of the data flow from the Landsat system through the 1980’s, most observers assumed

that transfer to the private sector would take place

about 1990. The first stage of that process was

to transfer responsibility for operational management of the Landsat program to NOAA. Transfer

of the meteorological satellite systems to private

ownership was not envisioned by PD-54.

The Reagan administration decided early in its

tenure to hasten the process of transfer, and announced “the intent of transferring the responsibility [of Landsat] to the private sector as soon

as possible. ”6 That statement, too, made no mention of the meteorological systems. Later, in

March 1983, the administration proposed to transfer both the Landsat and the metsat systems to

“’Presidential Directive NSC-54, ” Nov. 16, 1979.

%tatement of Joseph Wright, Deputy Secretary, Department of

Commerce, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications

of the House Committee on Science and Technology, and the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, July 22 and 23,

1981.

private hands.7 The Department of Commerce

commissioned three studies to explore and examine the issues raised by transfer of remote sensing from space to the private sector.8 Significantly,

none of these reports concluded that rapid transfer

was in the best interests of the United States.

In November 1983, Congress passed appropriations bill H.R. 3222, which contained a provision

preventing sale of the Nation’s meteorological satellite systems to private hands. President Reagan

subsequently signed that bill into law (Public Law

98-166). The meteorological satellites will continue

to be operated as a public service, On January

3, 1984, the Department of Commerce released

a request for proposal (RFP) designed to solicit

offers from private industry to own and operate

the Landsat and any follow-on system. Proposals

are due on March 19, 1984.

The eventual goal of the transfer of the results

of Government R&D to the private sector is to

create ultimately a self-sustaining business from

all or part of the technology so transferred, with

the private firm in full control (except for appropriate regulation) of further development and

shaping of the system and products. Realization

of such a goal would constitute full commercialization of the Government-developed technology.

Intermediate steps along the way to this end could

result in: 1) shared control of the technology;

and/or 2) joint continued development of the

technology and its products, through either subsidies, shared investment, or guaranteed Government purchase. The process of transferring to such

an intermediate step, in which the system would

receive significant Government subsidy, has often

been called “privatization.”

7Statement of Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, to the

Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and Environment of the House Committee on Science and Technology,

Apr. 14, 1983.

“’Space Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: An Essay, ” National Academy of Public Administration, March 1983, Department

of Commerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-066; “Commercialization

of the Land Remote Sensing System: An Examination of Mechanisms

and Issues, ” ECON, Inc., April 1983, Department of Commerce contract No. NA-83-SACJ3M58; “A Study to Examine the Mechanisms

to Carry Out the Transfer of Civil Land Remote Sensing Systems

to the Private Sector, ” Earth Satellite Corp. and Abt Associates,

Inc., Department of Commerce contract No. NA-83-SAC-O0679.
23

Depending on the terms and conditions agreed

on, transfer of the Landsat system to the private

sector could result in any one of several outcomes.

As OTA recently testified:

Three principal alternatives seem plausible:

. Government contract with one or more

firms, either to provide a direct subsidy or

to purchase data at an agreed-upon high

price;

● a laissez-faire approach with competitive

bidding to supply data for Government

needs; and

● a mixed, phased strategy that would allow

private vendors to build a market over time

while retaining partial Government ownership. “9

Whether such transfer would produce a commercially workable self-supporting system would

depend on the interest of the private sector and

the development of the market for data and data

products (i.e., information) that is needed to sustain it. It would also depend on a national and

international legal/political /security environment

that permits the enterprise to seek success. Most

of the debate over transfer centers on ideological,

rather than practical, issues. Ultimately only the

direct experience of the private sector can answer

whether a self-supporting business will be the

result, or whether such a goal is, at least for the

time being, not feasible.

“’Landsat and Land Remote-Sensing Policy, ” statement of Dr. John

H, Gibbons, Director, Office of Technology Assessment, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and Environment

of the House Committee on Science and Technology, June 21, 1983,

FOREIGN REMOTE= SENSING SYSTEMS

As the debate over the fate of the Landsat system continues, it is well to remember that as the

United States deliberates, other countries are planning and building their own systems between now

and 1990. These systems, particularly for land and

ocean, present competitive challenges as well as

opportunities for creative cooperative agreements.

Meteorological Satellite Systems

European Space Agency (ESA)—Meteosat-2

(1981). This geostationary satellite provides raw

imagery of European weather conditions to

Europe as well as relaying processed imagery from

U.S. geostationary weather satellites. An improved Meteosat is planned for launch in 1985.

India—Insat-l (1982). This geostationary

satellite provides both communications and limited meteorological data. Insat-lB, which replaced

Insat-1, was launched successfully by space shuttle

Mission 8 in August 1983.

Japan–Geostationary Meteorological Satellite,

GMS-2. This was launched by Japan on a Japanese NII launcher in 1981 and is the second in a

series of geostationary meteorological satellites.

It has now failed and GMS-1 will be used until

a third satellite, GMS-3, can replace it in August

1984.

Peoples Republic of China—The Chinese are

working on a Sun-synchronous meteorological

satellite whose launch date is presently uncertain.

U.S.S.R.—Meteor (4 satellites; a cluster of

Meteor 2-7, 2-8, and 2-10, and a single newer version, 2-9). Meteor is a polar-orbiting satellite with

sensors capable of determining global ice and

snow cover in addition to sensing cloud cover.

The Soviet Union currently plans to launch one

geostationary meteorological satellite (1984), with

visible and infrared sensors.

Land and Ocean Satellite Systems

Brazil-The Brazilians plan to launch a moderate-resolution land-sensing satellite in the late

1980’s. Few details are available about this proposed satellite.
24

Canada–Radarsat (1990). This satellite will

provide C-band Radar images of Earth to monitor

the polar sea ice; other sensors are in the planning stages.

European Space Agency—Remote Sensing Satellite (ERS-1)—(1987/88). It is planned primarily for passive sensing of the coastal oceans and

weather over the oceans. It will also carry a synthetic aperture radar for active sensing of land

through cloud cover.

France—SPOT (1985). A land remote-sensing

satellite capable of high-resolution, multispectral

(3 band) stereo images. It will be the world’s first

commercial* remote-sensing satellite system.

West Germany—Modular Optoelectronic Multispectral Scanner (MOMS)—(1984/85). This instrument was flown on the Shuttle Pallet Satellite

(SPAS) developed by Messerschmitt-BoelkowBlohm GmbH (MBB) aboard shuttle flight 7. MBB

has entered into an agreement with COMSAT,

and with the Stenbeck Reassurance Co., Inc., to

market land remote-sensing data collected on

shuttle flights beginning in 1984 if agreement with

NASA can be reached. The West Germans also

tested a limited synthetic aperture radar aboard

Spacelab on shuttle flight 9.

● Although the SPOT system is organized as a commercial system,

it is, for the time being, heavily subsidized by the French Government.

THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

The goal of the analysis of each of the following chapters is to present Congress with potential requirements the Government might wish to

impose on private industry in supplying meteorological and land remote-sensing data. The third

chapter, International Relations and Foreign

Policy, describes the current international policy

and practice of the United States in remote sensing from space and explores its international obligations as defined by treaties and agreements.

It also examines the utility of remote-sensing data

derived from space as an element of U.S. foreign

India—IRS-lA (1986). A low-resolution

“semi-operational” land remote-sensing satellite

to be built in India and launched by a Soviet

launcher. A follow-on, IRS-lB, will be launched

by an Indian-built launcher.

Japan–Marine Observation Satellite-1 (MOS1)—(1986) and Japan Earth Resources Satellite-1

(JERS-1)–(1990). MOS-1 is being developed primarily for sensing various parameters of the

ocean. It will also be useful for land remote sensing. JERS-1 is primarily a land remote-sensing satellite carrying a synthetic aperture radar that will

also have some limited marine uses.

U.S.S.R.—Meteor Priroda (1980); Kosmos

1484 (1983). Both are experimental land remotesensing satellites with low (170 m ), moderate

(80 m), and high (30 m) resolution electronic and

mechanical scan sensors that operate in a variety

of wavelengths. The Soviets consider the later satellite superior to Landsat 4, and have offered data

from them to the Eastern bloc as well as the developing countries.

policy, social and diplomatic outreach. The chapter explains requirements now demanded by law,

and discusses other possible conditions that might

be imposed for the specific benefit of the United

States. Finally, the third chapter discusses the worries other countries have expressed about private

ownership of U.S. remote-sensing systems.

Chapter 4, Public Interest in Remote Sensing,

includes a short discussion of the civilian public

good aspects of remote sensing as well as tables

of uses of remote-sensing data by domestic and
25

——--— —

foreign non-Federal users. Short case studies show

how State and local governments, private industry, and research and educational institutions integrate remote-sensing data into other information

needs.

Chapter 5, U.S. Government Needs for Remote-Serzsing Data, summarizes projected future

Federal needs for remote-sensing data, and shows

where land remote-sensing data have been used

to satisfy the requirements of congressionally

mandated studies. A section of this chapter analyzes the sales of Landsat data.

Chapter 6, National Security Needs and issues

analyzes the national security aspects of civilian

remote sensing and discusses the feasibility of having private industry supply the data needs of the

military and intelligence communities.

Preparation of the

Technical Memorandum

In preparing this technical memorandum, OTA

relied on personal interviews, contract studies

from several individuals, and the results of two

OTA workshops. In the first workshop, held July

26, 1983, participants drawn primarily from the

private sector discussed those broad issues implicit

in the transfer of remote-sensing systems related

to international trade, foreign policy use of

remote-sensing data, public-good aspects of land

and meteorological remote sensing, and finally,

national security issues. The second workshop,

composed solely of participants from the executive

agencies, discussed most of the same issues from

the standpoint of Government policy and plans.

Throughout our discussions it was extremely

difficult to separate the question of whether this

country will continue to operate a land remotesensing system from the question of what conditions and requirements a private firm should meet.

Customers of the data fear that the entire ability

to gather and distribute useful land remote-sensing

data might well be lost in the debate over transfer.

They argue that uncertainties over the fate of land

remote sensing have impeded the growth of a market for data and, consequently, the development

of a strong value-added industry.

OTA is grateful to the workshop participants

and to the many others who provided information or reviewed portions of the draft of this technical memorandum. Their helpful and timely

comments and suggestions made it possible to

complete this report expeditiously.
Chapter 3

International Relations

and Foreign Policy
Contents

Page

The International Character of Remote Sensing From Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

International Relations and Foreign Policy Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Meteorological Remote Sensing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Land Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

International Obligations: Treaties and Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

The Role of the Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Developing Countries.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

International Legal Aspects of Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

International Trade.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table

Table No. Page

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

Figure

Figure No. Page

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

Chapter 3

International Relations and Foreign Policy

Among the most important and difficult issues

to resolve in transferring civilian remote-sensing

systems to the private sector are those related to

international relations, international trade, and

foreign policy. Data products from both the civilian meteorological and land remote-sensing systems have been and remain important instruments

of U.S. foreign policy. These data and the technologies from which they spring remind other

countries of U.S. leadership in space technology

and U.S. dedication to using space for “the benefit

of all mankind. ”1 Their use in numerous developing countries has allowed the United States to

share its technological expertise and create good

will for U.S. interests without transferring critical

aspects of U.S. technology, In addition, data from

these satellites have raised the level of awareness

of major environmental problems throughout the

world. By providing a means for self-directed

resources management, remote-sensing systems

help to create self-sufficient allies rather than

technological dependents.

Although many countries accept the use of U.S.

remote-sensing systems, some have also questioned the right of the United States to sense their

countries or to sell sensed data to third parties,

and have argued that limits should be placed on

the sensors’ ground resolution. In addition, some

countries that have accepted a U.S. Governmentowned system have articulated deep concerns

about the potential for abuse of data generated

and marketed by privately operated systems.

Transfer of the metsat or Landsat systems to

the private sector would likely affect U.S. relationships with the world community. Examination

of the Landsat system’s importance to international relationships, including trade, reveals that

transfer of the active system would strongly affect

foreign as well as domestic users of the data.

This chapter identifies and discusses the major

international issues connected with remote sensing as they relate to the transfer of the U.S. civilian

systems to the private sector. It also suggests requirements that might be imposed on a private

corporation seeking to own and operate remote1National Aeronautics and Space Act (NAS ) of 1958, sec. 102 (a). sensing systems.

THE INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER OF

REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

Aircraft or balloons are clearly limited in

overflight by national legal restrictions on sovereign airspace, but spacecraft have no overflight

restrictions. According to international treaty,

“Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject

to appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by

means of use or occupation, or by any other

means.”2 This principle is understood by the

United States and most other nations to mean that

nations are free to place in orbit any satellite that

does not violate other provisions of the 1967

Outer Space Treaty.

——

“’Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the

Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other

Celestial Bodies, ” Oct. 10, 1967: art. II.

This understanding has been called the “open

skies” principle; it is a fundamental principle of

the U.S. space program. The United States supports it in part by insisting on making civilian

remote-sensing data available on a nondiscriminatory basis to anyone who wishes to receive

them. Meteorological data are available free of

charge to any country or organization capable of

receiving the signals; land remote-sensing data are

sold at uniform prices on an equal, nondiscriminatory basis.

The United States, through the U.S. Agency for

International Development (AID), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), and the international World Meteoro2 9
30

logical Organization (WMO), has been successful (see table 1). For some of the poorest countries,

in helping some 125 countries and organizations such stations are their only means of gathering

purchase appropriate receiving terminals to synoptic weather data to warn of potentially dereceive meteorological data from U.S. satellites structive storms or dramatic climatic changes. In

Table 1 .—Countries With APT/HRPT Reception Capabilities

Countries with APT facilities:

Afghanistan

Algeria

Angola (status unknown)

Antarctica (USN res.)

Argentina

Australia

Austria

Azores

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belgium

Bermuda

Bolivia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Burma

Cambodia (status

Cameroon

Canada

Canary Islands

China (Mainland)

China (Taiwan)

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Curacao

Czechoslovakia

Denmark

unknown)

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Ethiopia

Fiji

Finland

France

French Guiana

Gambia

German Democratic Republic

Germany, Federal Republic of

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Guadaloupe

Guyana

Honduras

Hong Kong

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Italy

Israel

Ivory Coast

Japan

Jordan

Kenya

Korea

Kuwait

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mali

Malta

Martinique

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mexico

Mongolia

Morocco

Mozambique

Nepal

Netherlands

Netherlands Antilles

New Guinea

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Nigeria

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

South Africa

South Yemen

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Surinam

Sweden

Switzerland

Syria

Tahiti

Tanzania

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

United States

Upper Volta

Uruguay

Venezuela

Viet-Nam, Republic of (status unknown)

Yugoslavia

Zaire

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Countries with HRPT facilities:

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

China (Mainland)

Czechoslovakia

Federal Republic of Germany

France

Greenland (Denmark)

India

Indonesia

Iran

New Zealand

Norway

Saudi Arabia

Sweden

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

United Kingdom

United States

Yemen (South)

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
31

return, these countries provide the United States

with their local weather data which are crucial

to both U.S. civilian and military users.

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) developed the Landsat system,

it encouraged use of the system by other countries. Ten countries now own Landsat receiving

stations. In return for a fee, these foreign stations

receive Landsat data sensed over their region and

sell or distribute data to domestic and foreign cusWMO is a specialized agency of the United

Nations (U.N.), the purpose of which is to

coordinate, standardize, and improve meteorological services throughout the world. It

consists of more than 150 member countries

and territories, each of which maintains its

own meteorological service. Established

under a 1947 convention, WMO has fostered

international cooperation in meteorology

through such programs as the World Weather

Watch, a system for comprehensive global

weather observation, and through the Global

Telecommunications System for global exchange of meteorological data (fig. 1). The

WMO convention itself imposes no obligation for data exchange, but the free interchange of meteorological data from terrestomers. Further, through AID and NASA, the

United States has been a principal force in setting

up foreign regional and national centers capable

of processing and interpreting Landsat data. By

integrating these data with meteorological, aircraft, and ground data of all kinds, these centers

help developing countries to cope with the enormous problems of environmental protection and

resource management, particularly in isolated,

rural areas.

trial stations and satellites has become an

established custom of great utility to the participating countries.

Satellites from several countries provide

data for this exchange. The Geostationary

Meteorological Satellite (GMS-Japan), Meteosat (operated by EUMETSAT and the European Space Agency), and most recently the

INSAT (India) geostationary satellites provide visible and infrared imagery, data communications systems and weather facsimile

(WEFAX) charts.* These satellites, plus the

U.S. satellites and the planned Soviet geostationary satellite, make up the heart of the

World Weather Watch of the WMO.

● INSAT does not furnish WEFAX transmissions.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY AIMS

A recent administration report acknowledges

that if the United States transfers its Landsat system to the private sector, it must consider the effect this step will have on a wide range of U.S.

interests:

In remote sensing the readily available products

of United States meteorological and land satellites

are used routinely by the world community. The

result has been a large measure of good will and

support of our positions in the U.N. and other

international fora.3

3

The President’s Report to Congress on Science, Technology, and

American Diplomacy for Fiscal Year 1982.

As this passage indicates, in serving the international community, data products from the U.S.

remote-sensing systems have been important instruments of U.S. foreign policy. Not only have

these data aided other countries in predicting

harmful weather patterns and in managing and

exploiting their own resources, they have served

to raise the general level of awareness of growing

environmental problems throughout the world,

The data from the metsat and Landsat systems

have also provided the United States influence in

some countries that strongly disagree with us on

certain international political issues. In such

developing countries as Thailand, Bangladesh and
32

Figure1 .—Diagram of the Global Telecommunications System

II

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kenya, the desire to use remote-sensing data from

U.S. satellites has even effected changes in political

and institutional structures (see section on “Developing Countries” in this chapter and app. A). The

metsat and Landsat systems also remind other

countries of U.S. leadership in space technology.

Primarily through the Landsat system, the

United States has been able to overcome potential foreign opposition to satellite remote sensing

for national security as well as civilian uses, and

to offset repeated attempts by the Soviet bloc to

impose regimes whose intent is to restrict the free

flow of information. Indeed, the Landsat program

can be considered to be a cornerstone of the U.S.

“open skies” policy and of its policy on the use

of space for “peaceful purposes for the benefit of

all mankind. ”4 By making data from the Landsat

system available to all potential purchasers on a

nondiscriminatory basis, the United States has

been able effectively to blunt criticism that might

otherwise have resulted from its extensive use of

military reconnaissance and other satellites. Moreover, the open availability of Landsat data to

anyone regardless of nationality or political persuasion is a powerful message to governments op4NAS Act of 1958, op. cit.
.———

33

Operational Earth Observation Satellites

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

posed to the open interchange of ideas and

information.

The following discusses several areas critical to

foreign policy and international relations that any

planning for the future treatment of land and

meteorological remote-sensing satellite systems

must address.

Meteorological Remote Sensing

Data Distribution Policy

As noted in the previous section, the U.S. policy

on meteorological data conforms to the global

practice of distributing such data freely and at no

cost to the other countries of the world. Tentative

suggestions by U.S. officials that the United States

might begin to charge other nations for these data

were met with warnings that the United States was

tampering with well-established, long-term data

practices and that other countries might reciprocate.

In addition, two of the instruments carried on

U.S. metsats are provided by other countries. The

United Kingdom, through the British Meteorological Office, has provided the Stratospheric

Sounding Unit for the U.S. TIROS-N polar orbiter. In a tripartite agreement among NOAA,

NASA, and the French Centre National D’Etude

Spatiales (CNES), the French provide and operate

the ARGOS data collection system for the NOAA

polar orbiter. These arrangements help reduce

NOAA’s costs and make the polar-orbiting satellites much more capable than they would be

otherwise.

Because the United States receives more data

through WMO than it supplies to the rest of the

world, charging for metsat data would result in

a net cost to the United States. In part because

of the negative response from other countries and

in part because of the outcry from U.S. users of

foreign data as well as Congress,5 the administra5House Concurrent Resolution 168, Sept. 19, 1983; Senate Concurrent Resolution 67, Sept. 19, 1983: 98th Cong., 1st sess.
3 4

—

tion subsequently reaffirmed its commitment to

supplying meteorological data freely and free of

charge.

Value-Added Services

Value is added to meteorological data when

they are used by specialized firms to predict severe

impending weather for the benefit of specialized

groups, such as regional farmers or the international shipping industry. Value-added firms and

Government organizations are also learning how

to process meteorological data conjointly with

land remote-sensing data to predict crop yields,

both domestically and abroad (see ch. 4).

A private operator would likely be interested

in entering the value-added business, since outside the Government, there would be only a modest market for unprocessed data. Unlike the case

of land remote sensing (discussed below), where

the primary economic value of the data can only

be realized after sophisticated and expensive data

processing, the primary economic value of the

data from the meteorological satellites is in their

ability to warn of impending severe or unusual

weather. Receiving terminals and the necessary

data-processing equipment for obtaining basic

meteorological data are relatively inexpensive;

most countries and many smaller economic entities can afford to purchase and operate them.

Thus, for meteorological data, no apparent conflict would exist in allowing the data supplier to

sell value-added services, as long as the raw data

remain freely available to everyone with the

capacity to receive them.

Continued Applied Research

Although the meteorological satellites have

been in operational use for nearly two decades,

there is a continuing need to refine the observations they make, and to learn to integrate these

observations with other land, ocean, and atmospheric data in order to make them more generally useful.

When the National Weather Service first assumed responsibility for operating the meteorological satellites, NASA was charged with continuing the research and development for new

meteorological sensors and satellites. This work

resulted in substantial improvements in the polarorbiting satellites, and in the development of the

geostationary meteorological satellites (GOES).

However, in recent years the NASA R&D program for new satellites and sensors (the Nimbus

series of experimental meteorological satellites)

has diminished nearly to zero, and for budgetary

reasons, NOAA has not been able to take up

where NASA left off. Consequently, little hardware research is now being carried out in the

civilian programs. In addition, military research

on sensors has slowed considerably for lack of

suitable civilian satellites to attach them to. Prior

to the demise of the Nimbus program, NASA,

NOAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD)

used these satellites to test new sensors and techniques.

U.S. meteorological satellites have demonstrated U.S. leadership in this technology. If the

United States is to continue to lead, it will be important to continue research in sensors, satellites,

and other hardware development.

The Government has continuing research programs to utilize meteorological data to best advantage, both for short- and intermediate-term

weather forecasting and for climate research.

Much of this research is conducted in collaboration with industrialized and developing countries.

Since receiving and processing meteorological

data from satellites provide an excellent way to

learn about and use space technology, it would

be in the long-term best interests of the United

States to continue applications research projects

with both industrialized and developing countries.

It will be especially useful to find new ways to

integrate these data with ocean and land satellite

data. Such work would most usefully be carried

out in conjunction with private industry.

Land Remote Sensing

Data Sales and Foreign Policy

Because the U.S. space program and U.S. foreign policy have benefited from the policy of nondiscriminatory sale of Landsat data, this policy

assumes importance in foreign relations. If the

proposed transfer is made, the private firm will

want to set its own data policies. In general, com-
35 —

mercial interests want private ownership of data

and the ability to copyright them so data can be

sold profitably. Thus, a commercial venture is

likely to require proprietary rights in distributing

data in order to gain or maintain economic advantage over possible competitors. However, this

is contrary to notions of open access to information for the public good. Indeed, the Department

of Commerce’s Source Evaluation Board has

recognized the interests of the private sector and

the difficulties of the embryonic market for data

in its Request for Proposals (RFP), in which it

states simply:

(1) Conform his [the owner’s] Earth remotesensing programs as closely as is commercially

possible to traditional U.S. Government practices

of providing civil land remote sensing satellite

data to all users on an open, equal, nondiscriminatory basis; (2) Consult with and obtain the approval of the U.S. Government before instituting

major changes in international data distribution

practices, to ensure that such changes are in conformity with the international obligations and

foreign policy objectives of the U. S.’

The question is whether it is in fact “commercially possible” to maintain the policy the United

States has fought so hard to maintain in the United

Nations and other international bodies. The formulation of the RFP would leave the matter largely up to private interests to decide. In view of the

continued importance of the “open skies” principle to the U.S. use of space, it will be important

for Congress to consider carefully the implications

of this potentially radical change of policy.

Value-Added Services

Most of the profit from the use of land remotesensing data will be gained by those corporations

that enhance Landsat data to improve their usefulness (the so-called value-added industry). These

companies integrate Landsat data with other information to make powerful analytical and predictive commercial products. They constitute a

small, but growing, industry.

“’Request for Proposals for Transfer of the United States Land

Remote Sensing Program to the Private Sector, ” U.S. Department

of Commerce, Jan. 3, 1984, VII. 6-3.

There can be little doubt that a private owner

of the Landsat system would want to enter into

the value-added business. The Source Evaluation

Board’s RFP proposes to allow the system’s owner

to process the primary data and to package those

data in whatever ways it sees fit, including offering a variety of value-added products, as long as

Federal data needs are met.7

However, many developing countries have expressed the fear that if the company owning the

collection and distribution system were also allowed to offer value-added services, it might take

special advantage of having control over the distribution process (i.e., a monopoly position) to

gain economic leverage over countries that do not

have the facilities or personnel to process and interpret the data themselves. For example, a company might delay distribution of data to a sensed

country until after the company had a chance to

exploit the data itself for resource information.

From the standpoint of international relations, it

may be appropriate for the United States to restrict the private owner from entering into the

value-added business. At the least, the private

owner would have to be closely regulated to see

that unfair economic leverage was not applied

over other countries or over other value-added

corporations.

If the market for land remote-sensing services

grows to the point that competitive, timely, data

services are available, thereby limiting the power

of one company to exert such unfair leverage, any

restrictions could be relaxed because competition

would make value-added services more readily

available. A possible alternative strategy, but one

that would be unlikely to gain the support of

private companies, would be to require data

analysis to be sold openly as well.

U.S. Technological Leadership

in Cooperative Projects

During the decade that the Landsat system has

existed, the United States has encouraged both industrialized and developing countries to participate in generating applications for Landsat data

(i.e., applied research). That this approach has

been successful is demonstrated by the fact that

‘Ibid., p. ii.
36

10 countries now own Landsat receiving stations

and pay a yearly fee of $600,000 to the U.S. Government to receive data. Although the stations are

owned and operated by the host country and

some of the equipment is manufactured outside

the United States, the receiving stations clearly

demonstrate U.S. leadership in developing and

transferring high technology.

The United States has also benefited directly

from helping to establish these receiving stations,

for they have provided critical foreign multispectral scanner (MSS) data for U.S. Government

projects, both domestic and bilateral. Without

these foreign resources, worth millions of dollars,

the success of the Landsat program would have

been severely limited. Some companies have

found data from foreign ground stations to be

crucial in their business. Thus, they benefit from

existing bilateral agreements with foreign ground

stations and from the exposure of a wide variety

of potential data users to Landsat data products.

It is critical for the United States to maintain

its cooperative basic and applied research programs in remote-sensing technology with other

countries, both to advance U.S. research objectives and to retain U.S. leadership in the technology of outer space. Without help from the

Government, a private owner is unlikely to have

the resources or the inclination to pursue research

with other countries. Still, private industry has

a significant role to play in applications

demonstrations.

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS: TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

The United States is a party to four major international agreements formulated by the U.N.

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

(COPUOS) that may affect the operations of private Earth resources remote-sensing systems:

●

●

●

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities

of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967). Among other things, the

treaty defines the principles for the exploration and use of outer space and holds States

responsible for the space activities of their

citizens.

Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the

Return of Astronauts, and the Return of Objects Launched Into Outer Space (1968). This

agreement provides for the rescue and return

of downed or stranded astronauts as well as

the return of a space object and “its component parts.” It specifies that “the State responsible for launching” shall pay the expenses

for recovering and returning the space object or its parts.

Convention on International Liability for

Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972).

This convention is an extension of articles VI

and VII of the 1967 treaty. It defines “damage” as loss of life, personal injury, impair-

●

ment of health, loss or damage to property

or persons or property of international organizations. “Launching” is held to include

attempted launching and a “launching State”

is one that either launches or procures the

launch of a space object. It is also one “from

whose territory or facility a space object is

launched.”

Convention on Registration of Objects

Launched Into Outer Space (1974). The information registered includes the name of the

launching State or States, an appropriate designator or a registration number, the date and

territory of the launching, the initial basic orbital parameters including the nodal period,

inclination, apogee, perigee, and the general

function of the space object.

Of particular importance to potential private

operators of remote-sensing satellite systems or

any other space system, is the 1967 Outer Space

Treaty. Article VI of this treaty states: “The activities of non-governmental entities in space

. . . shall require authorization and continuing

supervision by the appropriate State party to the

treaty.” Although the terms “authorization” and

“continuing supervision” have been interpreted

differently, article VI clearly requires some form
3 7

of licensing and adherence to Governmentimposed regulations.

Similarly, article II of the 1972 Liability Convention makes the launching State responsible for

personal and property damage caused by any satellites or launchers even if they are no longer

under the operation or direct control of the Government. At a minimum, the Government would

require assurance that the owner of the satellite

system had purchased adequate insurance to cover

possible damages.

The U.S. Government has not yet decided on

the precise mechanisms of ensuring that private

corporations comply with international treaty

obligations. Given the importance of this technology to U.S. foreign affairs, it is clear that the

Department of State must play a major role.

The Role of the Department of State

In general, private operation of the U.S.

remote-sensing systems may lessen the potential

for using them as a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

Transfer to the private sector could also diminish

the accountability of remote-sensing operations

to international law and public opinion by removing them from direct public control. The Department of State therefore should have two primary

concerns: 1) to ensure that a private owner meets

all the international obligations of the United

States; and 2) to see that its activities support, or

at the least do not interfere with, other U.S.

diplomatic interests.

The Department of State would have to assure

a private operator’s adherence to the provisions

of the various U.N. treaties on space discussed

above. The specific regulatory mechanisms it

would use and the penalties to be imposed for

noncompliance are presently undefined. The Department’s function in assuring that the activities

of a private corporation support U.S. diplomatic

interests is important, but difficult to execute

because the Department would have to work directly and continuously with the private sector.

Such a role would require the Department to

assess the past benefits of Government remotesensing activities and determine which of these

should be retained in the future. The private company, on its own, cannot be expected to understand and comply with U.S. foreign policy

objectives.

In this process, it would be important to distinguish between those benefits which do not

outweigh the advantages of private sector operation and those which are essential to U.S. interests. The essential benefits must somehow be

preserved by the transfer agreement. The State

Department should examine closely the degree to

which past remote-sensing projects have aided

U.S. efforts at the U.N. and other international

forums dealing with all issues related to outer

space, then establish the means to continue to use

this technology in the service of U.S. foreign

policy and international relations.

In regulating a private land remote-sensing system the Department of State and other Federal

agencies (e. g., the Department of Commerce),

would be breaking new ground. They therefore

have an opportunity to develop imaginative strategies for dealing with the private sector. These

strategies are particularly important because they

would deal with a technology which, because of

its economic implications (i e., the data can be

used to help in exploring for the resources of countries), raises the political sensitivities of other

countries. Some countries worry they will lose

control over resources under their sovereign

control.

One possible mechanism would be to establish

a permanent private sector advisory group to

work with the Department of State to advise on

ground roles for international operation of the system. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

(OES) of the Department of State, which would

likely be charged with this responsibility, would

have to strengthen its expertise in space technology and its commitment to using space technology as part of the outreach of the United States.

In the past, NASA has taken the lead in establishing cooperative ventures with other countries;

it will continue to do so for most space projects.

One reason NASA has been so successful is that

it is well based in the technology and has carefully

chosen projects that directly served the best inter-
38

ests of NASA. * The Department of State has never

had a strong interest in cooperative programs in

space technology,9 in part because space technology constitutes only a very small part of its total

mission. Yet, as private sector involvement in

space grows, the Department will be in the difficult position of mediating between U.S. private

companies, which would want as few restrictions

as possible, and foreign countries which might

8UNISPACE ’82: A Context for International Cooperation and

Competition-A Technical Memorandum (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TM-ISC-26,

March 1983), app. B.

‘T. K. Glennan, “Technology and Foreign Affairs, A Report to

Deputy Secretary of State Charles W. Robinson, ” December 1976,

p. 33; Norman A. Graham, Richard L. Kauffman, and Michael C.

Oppenheimer, “A Handbook for U.S. Participants in Multilateral

Diplomacy: The U.S. and U.N. Global Conferences, ” report prepared for the Department of State by the Futures Group, September 1981, p. 15.

want strong restrictions. The Department might

have to choose between making friends and influencing nations abroad and rallying domestic

support.

Relationship of Private Sector

to Foreign Ground Stations

The foreign ground stations are all government-owned and government-operated and receive data from the Landsat satellite by agreement

with the U.S. Government. Each station is now

required to pay $600,000 per year for the right

to receive and distribute or sell MSS data from

the satellite. Before fiscal year 1983, the charge

was $200,000. According to the terms of the Memoranda of Understanding between NOAA and

these governments, the stations may receive and

preprocess these data and sell them to their

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

F

Goldstone

California

Cuiaba

Brazil

Mar Chiquita

Argentina

Johannesburg

South Africa

Bangkok ●

Thailand

Djakarta

Indonesia

Landsat coverage

(5° antenna elevation criterion)

Receiving station location

Reception

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminlstration
3 9

— —

customers. In return, they agree to abide by the

same nondiscriminatory sales policy practiced by

the United States. If the private owners of the

remote-sensing systems are permitted to pursue

discriminatory data policies, the United States will

lose its leverage over operations and data product

distribution policy of the foreign ground stations.

Future International Coordination

The United States currently participates in the

deliberations of the Landsat Ground Station OperDEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Landsat and metsat technology, and U.S. programs through AID, NASA, and NOAA to transfer data-processing technology to developing

countries, have affected the institutional structure

of developing countries, and the manner in which

the countries treat environmental problems. These

programs have also affected their relations with

the United States. *

In the developing world, AID and NASA have

been the principal agents in setting up regional

and national centers capable of collecting, processing, and interpreting Landsat data and combining them with other data. The resulting information has helped developing countries to cope

with the enormous human and physical problems

of resource management, particularly in isolated

areas. The United States has shown the rest of the

world how to use Landsat data as a powerful tool

for attacking such serious global environmental

problems as deforestation and desertification,

problems that respect no political boundaries.

In short, in helping to solve these pressing problems, satellite remote sensing has made a distinctive contribution to the international image of the

United States as a leader in the effort to assess and

protect global resources.

For the past 25 years the United States has

stated in international gatherings that its exploration and research in space would be used for the

benefit of all mankind. For the past 15 years, de-

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

ators Working Group and the Coordination on

Land Observing Satellites, organizations which

coordinate standards for land remote-sensing systems. With transfer of the land remote-sensing

satellite system to private ownership, it would be

important to spell out how private firms would

have to interact with the agencies that represent

the United States in these organizations, *

*It is not clear that the Government would still have a role to

play in the Landsat Ground Stat Ion Operators Working Group upon

transfer of the system to private hands

veloping countries have been told that the current satellite remote-sensing system (Landsat) was

experimental and that eventually an operational

system would exist in the spirit of international

cooperation that has been a hallmark of the U.S.

civilian space program. In addition, in the face

of strong international opposition, the United

States has stood by its policy of open dissemination of data gathered by satellite. Now, as the

administration moves toward transfer of the

Landsat system to private hands, many observers

question the effect the transfer proposal would

have on the broader agenda of U.S. relations with

the developing world and on past U.S. commitments.

Transfer of the Landsat system to the private

sector would have some positive effects on the use

of satellite data in developing countries (e. g.,

private firms should be able to offer more timely

data and provide a greater variety of services than

does the U.S. Government). Nonetheless, some of

these countries see the transfer as another signal

that the United States is reversing its longstanding

policy for outer space and becoming less cooperative in space activities with developing countries.

Transfer of the Landsat system could well contribute to already deteriorating relations between

the United States and developing countries in international forums and negotiations. U.S. policymakers should decide whether the goal of immediate private sector ownership and operation of

remote-sensing systems is more important for po-
40

litical/economic principle and domestic budgetary

reasons than long-term political relations between

the United States and the developing world. A

phased transfer or limited transfer could ease the

political problems the United States might face.

One reason AID and NASA have been able to

promote the use of Landsat data in other countries is that the data have been readily available

at very low prices (the greatest costs have been

borne by NASA through its funding of the Landsat program). Such a policy is appropriate during research and development, when it is important to encourage many potential users to experiment with the data. However, now that the system has been declared operational and may be

transferred to private ownership, the price for

data must approach the costs of building and

maintaining a system. There are other price and

cost issues that must be resolved; for instance, will

the United States continue to provide data for

projects that draw “good will and support?” It will

be increasingly difficult for AID and other agencies to provide data and other support for remotesensing projects in an era of increasing costs and

decreasing budgets. Yet U.S. mission agency technical programs have been largely responsible for

the development and maintenance of the international community of users of data from Landsat.

The small market for remote-sensing data that exists abroad today exists because of previous U.S.

financial and technical assistance. Further, if such

assistance were to stop after the technology was

transferred to private ownership, it might re-ignite

the international debate over ownership and dissemination of the data from remote-sensing satellite systems (see discussion in the following

section),

We must also consider the costs to the United

States of not continuing this aid to other countries. From the standpoint of developing markets

for U.S. products, it is clearly in the best interests

of the United States to continue to encourage

other countries to become familiar with land

remote-sensing data and their uses. If the transfer

to the private sector is made, it will therefore be

important for Congress to assure that appropriate

funding is continued for these worthy projects.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF REMOTE SENSING

Countries are well aware that the possession of

satellite remotely sensed data and the ability to

analyze them gives others power to affect their

resource development. Data from the meteorological satellites are generally not in question

because they are low resolution and are widely

perceived by other countries to be of little use in

exploiting a country’s resources. Private ownership of the land remote-sensing system may

heighten suspicions that such data would be used

to enable interests outside the sensed country to

gain a competitive advantage, or that information on crop conditions or military activities of

States might be sold preferentially to political

adversaries. The developing countries are particularly concerned about this issue, since many

lack the indigenous ability to analyze the data. *

-— —

‘Their concerns over remote-sensing data are directly linked to

similar concerns over access to information of all kinds as well as

their ability to U Se it.

Some countries maintain that they should have

priority access to data derived from the sensing

of their territory, while others have argued that

their consent should be obtained before these data

are transferred to third parties. These states base

their claims on the political-legal concept of national sovereignty over resources.

The United States has consistently opposed efforts to limit the distribution of Landsat data,

arguing that remote sensing is a peaceful and

beneficial use of space in which the constraints

of national sovereignty have no valid application.

Further, it has held that the free collection and

dissemination of primary data and analyzed information is supported legally and encouraged by

the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and article 19 of the

U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

Some countries carried this debate into the

UNISPACE ’82 conference, held in Vienna,
Austria, in August 1982. Mexico, on behalf of the

Group of 77, submitted a position paper at the

conference which stated:

The Group of 77 believes that sensed states

should have timely and unhindered access on a

priority basis . . . to all data and information obtained over their territories. Dissemination of such

data and information derived from it to a third

party should not be done without the prior consent of the sensed country. 10

This wording was rejected for the final

UNISPACE ’82 report, but the United States can

expect similar attempts to restrict the sale of data

in the future.

In future meetings of the U.N. Committee on

the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the United

States will have to defend any new policies with

respect to private sector use of outer space.

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

L’c)rnpctitlon, Op Cit ,, d~p }i

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

As noted earlier, outside of limited distribution

of land remote-sensing data by the Soviet Union,

the United States has been the sole supplier of land

remote-sensing data to the world. Yet today,

while the United States deliberates over the appropriate disposition of the Landsat system, other

countries are developing their own land and ocean

remote-sensing systems. Canada, France, India,

Japan, and the European Space Agency all plan

to launch remote-sensing satellites by the end of

the decade. Indonesia and the Netherlands are

considering building a system appropriate for the

Tropics in the 1990’s. Two facts are highly significant to the U.S. debate: 1) in addition to the indigenous capabilities, these foreign systems rely directly on experience and technology their designers have gained from U.S. R&D efforts; and 2)

they are designed to be operational, rather than

R&D, systems. Some of these systems will be technically directly competitive with the current Landsat system; some will far exceed Landsat’s capacity

to return useful data to data users.

The following summarizes briefly the characteristics of the foreign systems. In order of planned

deployment, they are:

Therefore, it will be extremely important that

these policies be thoughtfully formulated and

defensible in international forums. Our previous

strict policies of nondiscriminatory data sales and

the free flow of information have served us well

in deflecting many attempts to restrict the right

to sense other countries and sell those data to third

parties.

Should the Group of 77, or other concerned nations, obtain a consensus about the necessity of

prior consent for remote-sensing activities, such

a decision could negatively affect the private sector’s ability to market data internationally.

Although the decision would not bind the U.S.

private firm to follow certain procedures, its existence could cause countries to place sanctions

on U.S. remote-sensing products, or turn to other

suppliers of data. More important, a “prior consent” regime could affect Government data acquisition programs.

West Germany—Modular Optoelectronic

Multispectral Scanner (MOMS) –(1984/85).

This instrument was flown on the Shuttle

Pallet Satellite (SPAS) developed by Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB) aboard

shuttle flight 7. MBB, COMSAT, and the

Stenbeck Reassurance Co., Inc., wish to market selected 20-meter resolution multispectral

(2-color) land remote-sensing data collected

on shuttle flights beginning in 1984. NASA’s

agreement will be needed. The West Germans

are developing a stereoscopic sensor and have

already tested a limited synthetic aperture

radar aboard Spacelab on shuttle flight 9.

France—System Probatoire d’Observation

de la Terre (SPOT )—1985. Since 1978, the

French have been planning the world’s first

commercial remote-sensing satellite service.

They expect to fly a series of four satellites.

Although the first satellite will not be

launched until January 1985, they are currently preparing the sales market through a

French Government-owned company, SPOTImage. A Washington-based American subsidiary called SPOT-Image Corp. is now
42

●

●

●

developing the U.S. market for SPOT data.

The U.S. corporation has flown a successful

series of tests from high-altitude aircraft over

the United States using sensors designed to

simulate the data that will eventually flow

from the SPOT system. Customers from U.S.

private firms, State governments, and the

Federal Government have purchased data

sets from these flights.

The SPOT satellite will carry pointable

multispectral linear-array sensors capable of

resolving images at least as small as 20 meters

in three wavelength bands. In addition, the

satellite will be capable of lo-meter resolution operating in a panchromatic mode.

These are higher resolutions than are possible on Landsat 4 or D‘. Because the sensors

are pointable, they are capable of producing

quasi-stereo images. Although the system is

a commercial effort, the French Government

is spending a minimum of $400 million to develop the system and will subsidize its operation for a period.

India-IRS (1985). This low-resolution “semioperational” land remote-sensing satellite will

be built in India but launched by a Soviet

launcher. It will carry solid-state sensors.

Japan Marine Observation Satellite-1

(MOS-1)—1986. The MOS-1 will carry sensors capable of resolving objects 50 meters

across in three visible and one infrared (IR)

wavelength bands. It will also carry a microwave scanning radiometer and a variableresolution radiometer (900 to 2,700 meters)

with one visible and three thermal IR bands.

Although this satellite is being developed primarily for ocean sensing of wave heights,

ocean color, and temperature, these data will

also be useful for land remote sensing. The

Japanese are also planning a land remotesensing satellite (JERS-1), which is planned

for launch by 1990. It will carry a synthetic

aperture radar. They have not yet announced

plans for distributing or selling data from

MOS-1 or JERS-1.

European Space Agency (ESA) Remote Sensing Satellite, ERS-1—1987/ 88. This satellite

is planned primarily for passive sensing of

the coastal oceans and weather over the

oceans. In addition, it will carry a synthetic

●

●

It

aperture radar for active sensing of land

masses through any cloud cover. It is the first

of a planned series of three satellites to be

launched by ESA.

Canada Radarsat-1990. Under development

by Canada for routine observations of polar

sea ice, the satellite will provide C-band radar

images of Earth’s surface. It will have a steerable beam and a spatial resolution of about

30 meters and be able to gather information

on the surface of Earth through cloud cover.

Data from this satellite will be available for

direct sale or by arrangement though offset

programs. In order to reduce its costs, Canada is seeking partners in this venture, and

is discussing the possibility of working with

the United States.

Brazil—Brazil is working on a moderateresolution land-sensing satellite to be launched

in the late 1980’s.

is evident from this too brief summary that

other countries, building on the experience gained

from U.S. applications technology as well as on

their own capabilities, see the development of the

full range of remote-sensing satellites as an integral

part of their entry into space. Besides constructing systems competitive with the U.S. Landsat system, they are also developing systems that will

sense the physical parameters of the oceans and

the coastal waters. The United States, though it

has a program within NASA to develop new sensors to fly on the relatively short shuttle missions,

has announced no plans to develop civilian operational systems that would provide data over the

long term with repeat coverage. Thus, the United

States, to obtain certain important data, may have

to rely on foreign systems. In the absence of a

Government system, or strong Government support for a private system, the private sector would

be left to compete with foreign governmentfunded enterprises.

For research purposes, and for certain civilian

Government requirements, these data will suffice.

However, as is discussed in chapter 6, foreign suppliers will hardly be appropriate to supply U.S.

intelligence and defense data. In the event appropriate U.S. civilian data are unavailable, the

Department of Defense might seek to develop its

own system.
Chapter 4

Public Interest in Remote Sensing
Contents

Page

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

Users of Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Land Resource Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

The Value-Added Industry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Using Landsat Data for Forestry and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Remote Sensing for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Criteria of a Good Agricultural Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Implications of Improved Information for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Concerns of the Agricultural Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

State and Regional Use of Landsat Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Remote-Sensing Research Within the Universities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

University Concerns Over Land Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Issues Raised by Proposed Transfer to the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Using High-Resolution Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Thematic Mapper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

The French SPOT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Comparison of SPOT and TM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

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

Tables

Table No. Page

Z. Domestic Distribution of Polar Satellite Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

S. Domestic Distribution of Landsat Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4. information Needs of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5. Summary of Operational Landsat Applications in the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6. Costs for Some Landsat Data Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figures

Figure No, Page

2. Geostationary Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3. Polar-Orbiting Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4. Major Elements of the Landsat System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
—

Chapter 4

Public Interest in Remote Sensing

U.S. land and meteorological remote-sensing it is essential to be clear about their respective roles

systems have from the beginning been intended in serving the public interest. This chapter illusto serve the public interest, whether primarily for trates the use of both kinds of remotely sensed

research, as in the case of the Landsat system, or data in the public and private sectors, and sugfor operational weather forecasting and severe gests certain conditions and requirements that

weather warning, as in the case of the meteorolog- might be imposed on a private sector offeror for

ical satellite (metsat) systems. As the debate over the Landsat system.

the best treatment of these two systems continues,

PUBLIC-GOOD ASPECTS OF REMOTE SENSING FROM SPACE

As understood in economic theory, ’ a public

good is a good or service for which it is impossible or undesirable for reasons of efficiency to

charge customers a price or a user fee for services

rendered. Public goods are therefore frequently

provided by Government and paid for out of tax

or other general revenues. Examples of public

goods are streets and highways, national defense,

parks and recreational areas, police services,

general weather forecasts, and various informational services.

Although it is theoretically possible to charge

for some public services such as weather informaion (in this case, say, by using coded TV signals),

the cost of doing so, compared with the cost per

additional viewer (the marginal cost), would be

disproportionately large. * For this reason, among

others, weather forecasts are provided without

charge.

In addition, for weather broadcasts, it would

not be prudent to charge for the most valuable

aspect of the service—warnings of severe weather—since society as a whole benefits from wellinformed individual citizens. The objective of having as many members of the public “consume”

weather forecasts is furthered by having as low

‘For example, Richard A. and Peggy B. Musgrave, Public Finance

in Theory and Practice, 3d ed,, ch, 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill,

1980), )

*When the marginal cost—that is the cost of servicing an extra

customer—is zero and a person’s consumption of the service does

not reduce the benefit derived by others, we have the case of a “pure

public good, ” since there is no rational social reason to exclude anyone from consuming it, even if it were possible to do so.

a “price” as possible—nothing. This is a second

reason why weather data are provided without

charge.

For most public goods, reliance on the private

market to produce them would result in either no

production or production at an inadequate level

compared with what society as a whole might be

willing to pay through taxation. Unless they are

subsidized by the public, private producers are

not capable of providing public goods at socially

optimal levels, i.e., where price equals marginal

cost, because sales revenues at prices that would

assure these levels are inadequate to finance production.

For the producer, a financial problem in pricing goods at marginal cost arises whenever the

marginal cost is below average cost. It becomes

particularly severe when marginal cost approaches

zero. However, if prices are above marginal

costs—the resource cost of servicing the consumer—some potential consumers are then priced out

of the market. Production will then not reach socially optimal levels. This latter problem is also

most severe for the consumer when marginal costs

approach zero, if price is set equal to full (average)

system cost. The conflict between financial efficiency and social efficiency is inherent in the

nature of public goods.

In part because of these considerations, the metsat systems, both foreign and domestic, have

always been operated by the Government, and

weather data have been distributed gratis to the

public. Current policy dictates that general-pur45
4 6

pose weather data will continue to be distributed

free, even if they are eventually supplied by

private firms under contract to the Government.

The Government has clearly chosen social efficiency as the goal in the case of meteorological

satellites.

A few of the specialized services now provided

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on the other hand, might

be provided profitably at socially desirable levels

by profitmaking private firms, using the initial

satellite weather data as the input. Services such

as providing fruit frost warnings from the geostationary satellites or ocean surface temperature

charts could fall into this category if there were

sufficient interest in the private sector. A small

value-added industry already uses data provided

by the meteorological satellites to provide tailored

weather services for a variety of customers. Thus,

meteorological remote-sensing services, as presently provided, are a mixed public/private good.

It would be a mistake to conclude that just

because a good has the features of a public good

that it should necessarily be financed through the

public budget and distributed free. The decision

depends in part on whether or not Congress decides that it wants to bestow the benefit directly

on those who benefit and pay for it out of tax revenues. The simplest case is when the tax payers

benefit in proportion to the taxes they pay. Then

making the service in question available from public revenues is relatively straightforward.

The public is unwilling to finance some public

goods, however, because they are seen primarily

to benefit narrow interest groups. As a consequence, some public goods are produced by the

private market at nonoptimal levels. The public

interest was just not great enough to result in

public subsidy.

Services using data from the Landsat system

could also be considered a mixed public/private

good. For Landsat, however, the private-good

aspects are much stronger than they are for the

meteorological satellites because Landsat data

have potentially high economic value. The cost

of producing extra images is extremely small once

the system is in place, making it undesirable from

the point of view of social efficiency to recover

the cost of the system by charging a price equal

to the average system cost, since marginal users

of images would then be charged much more than

the marginal costs of servicing them. This is the

public-good part of the Landsat services. As in

the case of weather data, the value-added industry

is a normal profitmaking industry (once it has its

digital input) and thus produces private goods.

The big difference between the weather and

land remote-sensing systems is that land remotesensing customers such as oil companies, mining

companies, and even municipalities in some other

State are not the entities that the public prefers

to subsidize. Nevertheless, the Federal Government itself is the largest user of the Landsat system—for land management, agriculture, forestry,

mapping, and for foreign intelligence (ch. 5).2

Therefore, there are significant public purposes

that would in any case result in budgetary expenditures. When such a situation exists—i .e., an industry with the characteristics of a public good

that also has the Government as a principal customer—Government production is a natural

outcome.

At present, Landsat is also available as a partially subsidized Government-produced service to

a variety of domestic and foreign users. Under this

arrangement, which arose initially because of the

research and development (R&D) nature of the

system, Landsat has been used by State and local

governments for rangeland, forest and water-resources management, by resource companies as

an aid in resource definition, and by a variety of

other private, profitmaking and nonprofit organizations. Some analysts predict that the market for

data and for data products from space will one

day expand and grow into a major industry.3

The issue before Congress is whether to consider land remote sensing primarily a public good

or a private good. If Congress considers it primarily a private good, direct commercialization makes

sense. The remote-sensing industry would join the

thousands of other unsubsidized American industries producing private goods.

2

See also Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington,

D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-STI177, June 1982), apps. B and C.

3Donn C. Walklet, “Remote Sensing Commercialization: Views

of the Investment Community, ”ERIM Conference, May 9-13, 1983.
47

However, if Congress considers the Landsat

system to be primarily a public good and decides

that Government should not itself produce the

good a further issue arises—how much, if any,

subsidy Congress will continue to give the industry to ameliorate the efficiency problem. A related

issue is how much regulation of the industry will

be necessary to enable it to use other mechanisms

for such amelioration.

A widely used mechanism in public utility regulation, the two-part tariff, illustrates how some

of the efficiency advantages of subsidized Government provision of Landsat services can be preserved in the event that the public is unwilling to

subsidize them. In this mechanism, both a system access fee and a fee that depends on usage

are charged. The usage fee can be set closer to

marginal cost because the upfront access charge

finances part of the system cost. Departures from

USERS OF REMOTE SENSING

This section enumerates the organizations,

agencies and categories of private firms that are

the primary users of remote-sensing data from

both land and meteorological satellites. These

users constitute the primary customers for a remote-sensing industry. Although the two communities of land and meteorological data users overlap one another to a certain extent, and both include domestic, foreign, and international users,

in most respects they are separable.

Meteorological Data

The largest domestic user of metsat data is the

general public, with NOAA as supplier. The National Weather Service has a vital interest in the

metsat data and its sister agency, the National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service, operates the U.S. Weather Satellite system

currently consisting of two geostationary and two

polar-orbiting satellites—respectively GOES East

and GOES West and NOAA-7 and -8 (figs. 2, 3).

Both qualitative and quantitative data are collected, processed, and distributed via communications networks. Other users are included in table

2.

optimal production can be reduced in this way

even if there is no subsidized provision of the service by the Government. Given the relatively large

Government usage of remote sensed data, the access charges under such a scheme could possibly

be assumed by the Government, not as a subsidy

per se but as payment for its usage.

If the public-good aspects of land remote sensing are considered large or important to the general public, a further question arises as to whether

the industry should be continued under Government ownership or under private ownership, or

in some combination of Government and private

ownership. Whether the industry under full private ownership and operation, even with subsidy

or regulation to ameliorate the efficiency problem, would serve the public interest is an important aspect of commercialization that remains to

be determined by Congress.

Prominent among the domestic private sector

users of metsat data products are the airlines, private meteorological forecasting companies, the

fishing industry, sea-ice consultants, agricultural

industries, and a large number of research specialists such as climatologists, hydrologists, and

oceanographers. Many of these people are engaged in pioneering studies involving waterresources management; others use the satellites’

communication capabilities from terrestrial datacollection platforms to monitor various parameters such as water, soil, or plant temperatures or

snow depth for practical, operational management decisions.

Foreign users of metsat data are many. The

most popular aspect of the early metsat program

was the free availability of the U.S. meteorological

satellite data to all countries through the Automatic Picture Transmission program. This program engenders much good will for the United

States throughout the world. Inexpensive antennas and receiving equipment enabled even the

poorest of the third-world nations to have weather

satellite images for better weather forecasting, The

Canadians have taken particular advantage of

these data to provide better forecasting and bet-
48

Figure 2.—Geostationary Satellite System

Spac e — — —

Earth

Raw data

— .

Stretched data

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Infrared

I

I Space Environment Services Center

Boulder, Colorado I

data

●

Ground Data —

station processing and distribution

center —

I

Satellite 4

1 control Winds

I

center processing

●

I

I

Archival

I

1 J

I

Wallops Station, Virginia I Suitland. Maryland I Camp Springs, Maryland I

National Weather Service

Department of Defense

1 GOES - TAP and WSFO TAP users

Other departments and agencies

Worldwide user community

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
—..—.

49

Figure 3.—Polar.Orbiting Satellite System

Space Data collection

Earth ‘

–

– ‘

– –

Direct readout

I I stat ions ● Balloons

I

I

Ground Data

stations I

processing Space Environment Services

Center f30ulaer, Colorado

1 Argos Processing Center

:

Toulouse, France

i . National Weather Service

I

1

I

:

Fairbanks, Alaska I Suitland, Maryland

Lannion, France (secondary) 1

I

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admimstration

Table 2.—Domestic Distribution of

Polar Satellite Products

—

National Weather Service

Environmental Research Laboratory

Other NOAA offices

Department of Agriculture

Department of the Interior

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Defense (Air Force and Navy)

Coast Guard

Academic community

Commercial users (e.g., farmers, fisheries, oil

companies, engineering and consulting companies)

Private individuals

State governments

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment.

I , Navy (Fleet Numerical Weather Center, etc.)

Department of Agriculture

I ~ Other agencies and departments

I

[ Global Telecommunications Systems,

I WWB

i

i

I

\

I

I

I Retrospective users

~ Camp I Worldwide

I Springs, 1

user

IMarylandl

I

community

I

ter data for the more remote and inaccessible portions of their vast country. About 125 countries

of the world similarly collect data using their own

collection stations (see table 1 in ch. 3).

Certain scientific disciplines, such as meteorology, climatology, oceanography, and geology,

transcend political boundaries because the boundary conditions they deal with are physical rather

than national. Study of global phenomena requires global cooperation. The need for international cooperation in these disciplines has led to

international programs (e. g., the International
50

Hydrological Decade) and organizations (e.g., the

World Meteorological Organization).

Land Resource Data

The Landsat system (fig. 4) possesses several

properties that permit the development of a global

data base for resource inventory and monitoring

over time:

● perspective over a range of selected spatial

scales;

● selected combinations of spectral bands for

categorizing and identifying suface features;

● repetitive coverage over comparable viewing conditions;

Telemetrv

communications

network

D

TM

• direct measurement based on one set of reflectance conditions for a wide surface area;

● signals suitable for digital storage and subsequent computer manipulation; and

● accessibility over remote and difficult terrain

and across political divisions.

As with the meteorological data, the largest

single user of Landsat data is the Federal Government (see table 3). Within the Government, the

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the intelligence community are the two greatest users.

Both of these agencies and the other Federal agencies combine

formation to

Figure 4.— Major Elements of the Landsat

- Command s

Operations

these data routinely with other inassist their missions.

System

c

m

from foreign

TM and MSS h

data from I

and M SS data

r

. \

. / 1 1 \ \

\

\

Image generation

facll [f y /

-w /

\ t

i —

ground station

assessment

system

aPrior to TDRSS Phase-In

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Table 3.—Domestic Distrubition of

Landsat Products

Department of Agriculture

Department of Defense

Department of the Interior

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Intelligence community

Coast Guard

State planning and resource management agencies

Regional planning agencies

Academic community

Commercial users (eg., foresters, mineral exploration geologists, engineering and consulting

companies)

private individuals

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Landsat Ground Segment

Tracking

and data

relay

satelIites

(TDRS)’

51 —

The major commercial customers of Landsat

data include the agriculture, forestry, mineral industries, and land-use planners, directly or indirectly through the value-added industry (discussed below). The academic community (discussed below) primarily supports the research efforts of Federal and State agencies and the private

sector.

The Value-Added Industry

Transfer of the land remote-sensing program

to the private sector is likely to introduce both

desirable and undesirable changes in the remote0

I

\

TDRS

groun d

station

Global

posltlon I ng

system

. \ satell Ites)

Data NASA

Ground station

center ground tracking and

stat Ion

I

I

r

-J

Ground segment

I

I

I

1- 1

I assessment

I I

Foreign

groun d

station

1

Control and I

simulation

facility I

1

7 4

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisiration
52

—-———

Landsat Data Needs of Foreign and Domestic Users

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Agriculture (Federal, State, and private): specific sampling areas chosen according to the crop; time-dependent

data related to crop calendars and the weather patterns

Forestry (Federal, State, and private): specific sampling

areas; twice per year at preselected dates

Geology and nonrenewable resources (Federal, State,

and private): wide variety of areas; seasonal data in addition to one-time sampling

Civil engineering and /and use (State and private):

populated areas; repeat data required over scale of

months or years to determine trends of land use

Cartography (Federal, State, and private): all areas; repeat

data as needed to update maps

Coastal zone management (Federal and State): monitoring of all coast lands at selected dates depending on

local seasons

Pollution monitoring (Federal and State): broad, selected

areas; highly time-dependent needs both for routine

monitoring and in response to emergencies

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

sensing value-added industry. This small but expanding industry exists both as small units of large

resource companies and as independent smaller

companies. The business base of the independent

companies has developed since the late 1960’s in

parallel with the Nation’s space-borne remotesensing program. Value-added operations of various types exist not only in the United States but

also in free-market European countries and Japan.

The availability of remotely sensed data on an unrestricted basis at an acceptable cost is essential

to the continued strong growth of this industry.

Data services or products furnished by value-

-added firms range from improving the image by

simple processing of the raw data, to the provision of information services specific to various

natural resources industries. Petromining, agriculture, hydrology, land-use planning, and oceanographic companies all benefit from services provided by value-added companies. In many cases

the firms supplying services and products based

on remotely sensed data provide information that

can significantly alter the way many industries

make decisions.

Presently, over 50 commercial organizations

in the United States provide analyses of remotely sensed data. They or their customers use the

imagery acquired from space to evaluate specific

areas of Earth’s surface for hydrocarbon resource

potential, estimating future crop production and

water resources, and surveying land use. Several

of these firms also sell hardware designed to process data remotely sensed from space.

A strong value-added industry is essential to

creating a self-supporting land remote-sensing

business. For example:

Without the competitive nature of a strong

value-added industry it is unlikely that the products, the services, and the multilevel derived geological information will be made available to the

private sector energy and mineral explorationist

with whom the U.S. Charter for finding our future nonrenewable resources lies. If so, no commercial market is likely to evolve.4

It is also important to recognize that profitmaking value-added firms exist in an infrastructure

including other entities that provide ancillary

data, onsite inspection, and a variety of related

services. Important among these are the Government laboratories and management units that provide an essential research base from which the

value-added companies derive some of their information-processing techniques.

‘Frederick B. Henderson, “The Significance of a Strong ValueAdded Industry to the Successful Commercialization of Landsat, ”

presented at the 21st Goddard Memorial Symposium, Mar. 24-25,

1983.

USING LANDSAT DATA FOR FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURE

Landsat data have been used in a variety of examples from two areas where these data appear

fields where low- to moderate-resolution spectral to be especially helpful: forestry and agriculture.

data can be integrated with other information to It specifically excludes discussion of petroleum

provide analyses important to the exploitation and and other mineral exploration because these have

management of resources. This section presents been discussed in considerable detail in other
5 3

——.. .

publications. ’ However, the petroleum and mineral exploration industry is now the largest private

purchaser of Landsat data. Its relative importance

for the near-term prospects of commercializing

land remote sensing is high.

Forestry

In forestry, as in many other disciplines involving land management, there is a distinct need for

timely, reliable information about the resource

base. The “synoptic view” provided by images obtained from spacecraft altitudes is proving valuable when information over extensive geographic

areas is required, as is the case in managing our

Nation’s forest resources. For instance, the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act of 1974, in which Congress mandated the U.S.

Forest Service (through the Secretary of Agriculture) to provide information on the condition and

productivity of approximately 1.6 billion acres of

public and private land every 10 years, emphasized the need for efficient, cost-effective systems

to collect detailed data periodically over very large

areas.

Numerous other examples could be cited of requirements for accurate, detailed information for

a wide variety of resource-management and/or

policy decisions. These range from the needs of

an individual forester who works for a single forest company and makes market-related decisions

about a specific block of land to those of State

or Federal legislators who must make policy decisions which could affect forests and other natural

resources of an entire State or of the Nation for

decades to come.

In at least three respects, the characteristics of

the information required for effective and efficient

management of forest resources are unique. First,

the forests are so extensive, both nationally and

globally, that the quantity of data needed is gigantic. Second, the forests are highly complex and

diverse, which results in the need for detailed in-

—.

‘Alexander F. H Goetz ancl Lawrence C. Rowan, “GeOl(lgical

Remote Sensing, “ 5c]ence, vol. 211, 1981, pp. 781-790, “Sate]]ltc

Remote Sensing Data An Unrealized Potentla] for the Earth Science

C’(lmmunit},” The Geosdt Committee, 1nc , 1977; ‘Remote Srn+-

I n~ and Exploration C)eology, Proceedings ot the Geosat Panel

1)lwu\sion, COSPAR Conference, May 21, 1Q82, C)ttaw. a, Canada,

(je(]sdt Technical Repot-t NO 3.

formation on their various components. There are

different species and species mixtures, different

age classes, and varying stand densities. Third,

the forest grows slowly but can be harvested or

adversely affected relatively quickly, which makes

inventorying and characterizing the forests expensive. Yet, because of both human and natural influences (e.g., insects, disease, severe weather) on

the extent and condition of forest resources, inventories of some type are mandatory. The interval between inventories might well vary, depending on the type and severity of the particular

changes expected. In sum, the demands for the

type and frequency of information concerning forest resources are quite different from those involving crops, water, or mineral resources.

Because of these special information requirements and economic limitations peculiar to forestry, the Landsat system is uniquely capable of

obtaining the type and quantity of data needed.

Only the Landsat system provides reasonably detailed data (i. e., each pixel or minimum element

of Landsat data represents 1.] acres on the

ground), over the forested regions of the entire

Earth, at very modest cost (on a per-acre basis), *

and at a frequency that allows most changes to

be monitored effectively. However, if the cost of

the data used for forest inventories, on either a

local or worldwide basis, is too high, such data

will not and cannot be used to obtain the necessary information. Management decisions will, by

necessity, continue to be made, but may be based

on inadequate, outdated, resource information.

The advantages and limitations of Landsat data

to foresters, and examples of the use of Landsat

data are discussed in some detail in appendix F.

The following paragraphs summarize its conclusions.

Three major groups involved in forest resource

management have found Landsat data to be particularly effective:

‘ Current cost per c{lmputer-compatible tape ct>ver]ng apprt>ximate]y 13,225 square miles i> $650.00, wh]ch IS less than $0.05 per

>qua re m i ]e, or ]ess than 1 100 cent per acre. Hc~we\’er, t hl~ c(wt

tlgure dc}es not Include sizdhle clatd dcqul~lt](~n {)r &td analyvs c[wt~

Also, because aerld] photo~ c(~ntdin much more cktdileci int(lrmdt i(]n, and can be ordered to co~rer \maller more cllscrete area+, nldn}

users Are WI]] ing to pay much h]gher costs tt~r aerial phot~~graph}”

thdn i<]r Lancisat ddtd.
54

●

●

●

Forest industries. The St. Regis Paper Co. has

found Landsat data cost-effective in increasing efficiency of forest mapping, and improving field operations. Although other forest

companies have shown interest in using

Landsat data, they are reluctant to invest the

time, money, and personnel necessary to use

a new technology in their operations when

the continued availability of Landsat data is

in considerable doubt. They are also fearful

of continuing price increases that would decrease the cost-effectiveness of the data. In

addition, in forestry, the use of land remotesensing data has not reached the operational

level that has been obtained in the geosciences. Continued research by the companies

will be needed to determine just how to use

the data most effectively under day-to-day

operational conditions.

Federal and State agencies. The Federal

Bureau of Land Management (see app. F) uses

Landsat data for managing forests and rangelands under its care. In addition, States such

as Minnesota, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania,

as well as regional groups of States, have explored the use of Landsat imagery to aid in

monitoring their forest lands (see apps. D and

E).

Foreign countries. One of the primary

resource concerns in other countries, particularly developing countries in tropical regions, is the rapid loss of forests because of

clearcutting for agricultural purposes and for

fuel. Landsat data are particularly cost effective (at current subsidized prices) for monitoring the rate of deforestation (see apps, A

and G). They have been used for this purpose in Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, the

Dominican Republic, Nigeria, and Costa

Rica. A critical factor in the future use of

Landsat data, however, will be their cost as

well as their timely availability. Many of

these data were supplied by the Agency for

International Development (AID) as part of

the U.S. effort to make Landsat data available to developing countries. If AID dramatically reduces the support it gives to land

remote-sensing research programs in other

countries (see ch. 3), their ability to monitor

the rate of deforestation will decrease

accordingly.

Remote Sensing for Agriculture

Drawing on the information and analysis of appendix D, this section summarizes the use of remote sensing for agriculture. Land and meteorological remote sensing provide only some of the

data important to planning agricultural production. Yet, as agricultural analysts have gained experience in applying these data, the data have increased in importance. The repeatability, synoptic view, and spectral and spatial characteristics

of satellite-derived systems could make agricultural prediction and planning over wide geographical areas much more reliable than it now is.

Soon after the launch of the first Landsat

satellite, USDA entered a joint research program

with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NOAA, called the Large

Area Crop Inventory Experiment (LACIE). This

program developed software to estimate grain

production in the Soviet Union and Canada.

LACIE experienced both successes and failures,

but showed enough potential for USDA to develop a joint research program with NASA, Agriculture and Resource Inventory Surveys through

Aerospace Remote Sensing (AgRISTARS). The

AgRISTARS program seeks to develop satellite

remote sensing for practical agricultural purposes.

Most of the agencies at USDA are able to use

satellite data to support their missions. Much of

this current know-how resulted from either LACIE

or AgRISTARS. In the private sector, several

companies have learned how to combine meteorological with Landsat data to predict future crop

yields, These data are important to Government

agricultural planners as well as to farmers, farm

cooperatives, and merchants and traders who buy

and sell farm commodities.

Although remote-sensing data satisfy a small

part of the total information needs of agriculture,

timely delivery of accurate, comprehensive, objective, remote-sensing data could improve most

of the information areas for agriculture (table 4)

if the data were inexpensive enough.
55

Table 4.– Information Needs of Agriculture

Remote-sensing data could

Information type improve quality

Resources:

Physical . ... ... . ●

Human . . . . . . . . .

Economic ., . . . . ... . .

Farmer/producer behavior

Agronomy ... . . . . ... ●

Current crop and livestock ., ●

Market news . . . . . ●

Economic prediction s

●

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Criteria of a Good Agricultural

Information System*

Satellite technology has tremendous potential

to supply data with the necessary characteristics.

However, this potential has yet to be realized with

Landsat technology. Data from the meteorological

satellites meet most of the necessary criteria,

especially cost-effectiveness and timeliness, but the

low spatial resolution and limited spectral characteristics of the metsat data necessarily limit their

overall effectiveness for agriculture. These criteria

are:

●

●

●

●

—

Accuracy. To be used for predictive purposes, data must contain acceptably small

errors. Satellite data have the potential to be

both precise and accurate, but considerable

research on the data is needed to determine

how to reduce sampling errors. In the meantime, the data are being used to predict future

crop yield.

Timeliness. Agricultural decisions require

data that are no more than a few days to 2

weeks old, depending on the particular decision to be supported by these data.

Cost-effectiveness. To achieve maximum

usefulness to the agricultural community,

satellite data must be cost-effective compared

to older, less efficient, but more familiar ways

of gathering data (i. e., ground and aerial survey).

Expandability. An effective information system must be able to adapt to new modes and

new technologies without increasing costs ex-

●

cessively. Satellite technology has the potential of making objective, accurate crop yield

measurements with current data for large

farm plots. The thematic mapper (TM) and

other proposed sensors having high spectral

resolution are expected to increase the accuracy of these measurements and allow

sampling of smaller fields as well.

Repeatability y. Surveys made at different

times should reflect changes in the target population rather than alterations in the methods

for collecting data. Remote sensing from

space makes possible highly repeatable data

characteristics. Because the Landsat system

has been a research effort until recently, data

format, spectral and spatial characteristics,

and orbital characteristics have changed over

time. Such changes make it difficult to compare images taken at different times.

Implications of Improved Information

for Agriculture

Global, timely, reliable information on major

food and fiber crops is a significant element of

national economic and political intelligence. Such

information may affect a broad spectrum of public

and private sector activities. Better information,

distributed in a timely way, could lead to more

equitable sharing of the profits and losses of farming activities. Of more importance, it might lead

to avoidance of spot shortages or of overproduction in particular geographical areas. It could also

reduce the total energy consumption devoted to

agricultural production.

Because the agricultural community needs repetitive data over periods of days, weeks and

months, it would be the major customer for land

remote-sensing data if good data can be delivered

promptly and cheaply.

Concerns of the Agricultural Community

● Costs. For fiscal year 1984, USDA has allocated

$7.4 million to purchase the Landsat data it

needs. However, potential private customers

are likely to make little use of Landsat data until

the cost per scene is reduced considerably, the

data can be delivered promptly and the costs

of analysis can be reduced.
5 6

—

Continuity. Agricultural statistics assume

greater meaning when collected and analyzed

over time. Current data must be compared with

those of earlier years. For the agricultural community to make more use of land remote-sensing data, data format should be standardized

and the data should be available promptly and

continuously, without gaps in delivery.

Copyright. Existing legislation charges several

different Government agencies with managing

our national resources. Landsat data have begun to play a significant role in meeting this

responsibility. For these agencies to use the data

effectively, they must be able to pass them freely among themselves. Copyright restrictions on

data, if imposed by a private operator, could

impede the free exchange of information among

Government offices.

Data control. Although grain companies and

of Landsat data, they are interested in the technology. Some agricultural analysts fear that a

policy allowing discriminatory access to data

might result in predatory marketing practices.

Theoretically, a firm that could pay for first access to the data would have an unfair advantage and could make windfall profits simply by

postponing availability of data to the outside

world. This is especially crucial in agriculture,

where the value of the data is highly timedependent.

Technological improvements. Parts of the agricultural community are concerned that transferring the Landsat system might result in a

freeze of technology at the current level of

sophistication, In their view, not only improved

sensors are important, but lower cost, improved

image-processing.

other agricultural firms are not now large users

STATE AND REGIONAL USE OF LANDSAT DATA

Because computers are now used in most States

and regional organizations, Landsat data find a

ready niche in their resource information systems.

With considerable assistance from NASA, many

States have purchased the hardware, software,

and training to process Landsat data. At least 18

States have now merged Landsat data with other

data in broad-based geographic information systems (table 5). Some of these systems can use

Landsat data directly (app. B).

A prime example is the State of Mississippi,

where Landsat data are integrated directly in a

single information system—the Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS).

When operating fully, MARIS will provide a catalog of natural resources and cultural data about

the State, interpretive maps, and the analytical

staff to analyze and interpret trends (app. B).

Landsat data are being used in Mississippi to identify and study the available nuclear waste-disposal

sites, ground water depletion, and the amount and

type of ground cover. Landsat data have been

found to be highly cost effective in meeting Mississippi’s resource information needs.

Because of their synoptic coverage, Landsat

data are particularly useful for regional management. In 1975, the Pacific Northwest Regional

Commission, with support from NASA and the

U.S. Geological Survey, started a project to investigate the applications of Landsat data to a

variety of resource problems in the Pacific Northwest. The project’s goal was to integrate these data

with other data on the region’s vegetation, soils,

and terrain. The Pacific Northwest is particularly interesting ecologically because it is the site of

two major, but contrasting, ecoregions—the Humid Temperate Domain of the coastal areas of

Washington and Oregon, and the Dry Domain

east of the Cascade Mountains.

Participants in the study concluded that the

Landsat system was a cost-effective source of

management data. However, a “critical mass” of

individual agencies is necessary to prove the value

of Landsat data on a State or regional basis. Although the cost of the necessary processing hardware and software constitutes a barrier to using

Landsat data, “the most critical element is continuity of data. Without assurance of continui-
57

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

A.

B.

c.

D.

Water resource management

Surface water inventory

Flood control mapping and damage assessment

Snow cover mapping

Water resources planning and management

Irrigation demand estimation

Determination of runoff from cropland

Watershed or basin studies

Water circulation

Lake eutrophication survey

Irrigation/saline soil

Geothermal potential analysis

Ground water location

Offshore ice studies

Forestry and rangeland management

Forest inventory

Forest productivity assessment

Clearcut assessment

Forest habitat assessment

Wildlife range assessment

Fire fuel potential

Fire damage assessment and recovery

Fish and wildlife management

Wildlife habitat inventory

Wetlands location and analysis

Vegetation classification

Snow pack mapping

Salt exposure

Land resources management

Land cover inventory

Comprehensive planning

SOURCE National Governors’ Conference

ty, States (and therefore regions) cannot accept

the risks of utilizing Landsat data as a primary

tool. ”7 Here, as in Federal use of land remote-

—-

“Letter from Governor Straub of Oregon, State co-chairman of

the three-State project, to NASA Administrator, 1979.

E.

F.

G.

Corridor analysis

Facility siting

Flood plain delineation

Solid waste management

Lake shore management

Environmental management

Water quality assessment and planning

Environmental analysis or impact assessment

Coastal zone management

Surface mine inventory and monitoring

Wetlands mapping

Lake water quality

Shoreline delineation

Oil and gas lease sales

Resource inventory

Dredge and fill permits

Marsh salinization

Agriculture

Crop inventory

Irrigated crop inventory

Noxious weeds assessment

Crop yield prediction

Grove surveys

Assessment of flood damage

Disease monitoring

Geological mapping

Lineament mapping

Geological mapping

Mineral surveys

Powerplant siting

Radioactive waste storage

sensing data for resource

—

management, it was

often important to share the primary data among

State agencies, a practice that copyrighting them

could prevent.

REMOTE-SENSING RESEARCH WITHIN THE UNIVERSITIES

Universities use Landsat data for research in a

variety of resource and land-planning applications

encompassing the entire range of remote-sensing

applications. They develop techniques for specific

applications and carry out research on the spatial

and spectral characteristics of new, more powerful sensors. The universities work with local and

State governments as well as with the Federal

Government and industry. In some States, university researchers constitute the major source of remote-sensing information and support. University researchers have expressed concerns about the

state of land remote-sensing policy, and about the

proposed transfer of land remote sensing to the

private sector. They would also like to see future

research needs provided for.

2 5 -357 0 - 84 - 5 : QL 3
58

Overview of Landsat Applications in the 50 States

Geologic

mapping

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Land

resources

management —

x

x

x

x

x

x

Water Forestry/ Wildlife

resources rangeland management

x x

x x

x x x

Environmental

management Agriculture

-.

x

x

x x

x

x x

x x

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connect i cut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

IIIinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts:

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshir

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

x x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x x x

x x

x

x x

x x x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

— x

SOURCE National Governors Conference
59

Photo credit National Aeronautics and Space Administration

New York/New Jersey area as seen by Landsat 1

In gathering data for this section, OTA interviewed 21 people at 19 universities. Most are State

universities with close ties to various State mapping and monitoring agencies that either now use

Landsat data or are considering it for the future.

University Experience With NASA’s

Landsat Program

Because land remote sensing from space is a

novel technique for obtaining information about

the Earth’s surface, its use requires innovative

educational and training programs. With no previous community of users, exposure to the technology, training, and experience were needed to

develop understanding of the potentials of Landsat data. Early in the development of the Landsat system, NASA instituted a Universities Program to demonstrate practical benefits from the

use of remote-sensing technology to a broad spectrum of new users, principally in State and local

governments. During the period 1972-82, NASA

provided between $8 million and $10 million to

universities a year as seed money for research,

demonstration, and training in the uses of land

remote-sensing technology.

A wide variety of State, local, and private

organizations, as well as the recipient universities,

matched NASA funds with direct financial support and in-kind grants. The university role assumed increased importance as NASA’s satellite

flight programs for remote sensing became bet-
60

ter understood and emphasis shifted from the

hardware to the resulting data and its users. A

1978 survey shows, for 20 selected universities,

details about program duration, size, scope, and

unique characteristics (see app. C). a

The interviewees generally agreed that university courses of instruction trained personnel in

new applications of remote sensing. They pointed

out that the close relationships established with

other disciplines allowed prompt feedback to the

universities, prompt assimilation of lessons, and

rapid revision of instructional programs. The

multidisciplinary course work and research have

led to several new domestic applications of remote-sensing data. The universities have trained

foreign students, conducted symposia, and assisted AID and other agencies in overseas development work. They have also assisted in introducing remote-sensing technology into the work of

State and regional agencies. Their work has even

resulted in the development of several small profitmaking value-added companies.

University Concerns Over Land

Remote-Sensing Policy

The university remote-sensing community expresses major concerns about three general questions: 1) the future of land remote sensing in the

United States, 2) the effect of current budget constraints on university research programs, and 3)

the effects of future costs of Landsat data on teaching and research budgets.

—— ..——.

“’Survey of University Programs in Remote Sensing Funded Under

Grants From the NASA-University Space Applications Program, ”

Battelle Columbus Labs, report No. BCL-OA-TFR-78-3, Mar, 31,

1978.

University researchers worry that both the operational and research aspects of the Landsat program lack direction. Uncertainty at the Federal

level has led to even greater uncertainty at the

local level. Industries, as well as Federal and State

agencies, are reluctant to invest in their own research programs on Landsat applications until

they are assured that land remote-sensing data will

be continuously, promptly, and inexpensively

available. This reluctance is having a significant

negative effect on remote-sensing programs in

universities throughout the country.

For the multidisciplinary centers of remote-sensing research (which were put together laboriously over a decade with Federal support) to continue

their work, they will require assured budgets and

flow of data. Decreased activity by Federal, State,

and local agencies, and by private industry has

caused many university programs to be drastically

curtailed—staff have been reduced, researchers

have redirected their efforts elsewhere. This trend

is likely to continue until the overall direction of

the Landsat program is defined or until the French

SPOT program becomes operational. If a strong

market for land remote-sensing data were to develop, some funding through private industry

would likely become available, In the meantime,

universities are losing the qualified, experienced,

and knowledgeable people needed for remotesensing research.

The third major concern is the cost of Landsat

data. Table 6 shows past, present, and future costs

of a few of the Landsat products. For teaching purposes, a professor often needs multiple copies of

a single image. Even if he or she can use the same

data in subsequent semesters, it soon becomes

frayed, torn, and marked up. The teaching budgTable 6.—Costs for Some Landsat Data Products

cost

Until October 1981 — October 1983– February 1985—

Product October 1981 October 1983 February 1985 ???

Multispectral scanner (MSS) computercompatible tape (CCT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200 $ 650 $ 650 $ 730

Thematic mapper (TM) CTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $2,800 $3,400 $4,400

TM CCT (quarterly) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $ 750 $ 925 $1,350

Color composite image (1:250,000 scale):

MSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5 0 $ 175 $ 175 $ 195

TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not available $ 235 $ 275 $ 290

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration –
61

— —

ets for supplies and equipment in many universities are extremely modest. As one university professor explained:

Ordering just four color prints of a thematic

mapper image would exhaust my entire teaching

budget for all of my courses for an entire year!

As of February 1985, a single frame of thematic

mapper data in CCT format would cost more

than is contained in my total teaching budgets for

4 years! It is quite clear that these prices will (and

already have ) caused me and many other teachers

to modify the course content, decrease the availability y of “hands on” laboratory materials for the

students to use, and virtually eliminate future

orders for Landsat products to use in the classroom.”9

This and similar examples from other universities demonstrate that the long debate over the

fate of land remote sensing in the United States

has negatively affected the quality of education

in remote-sensing techniques as well as further

decreasing the volume of products being ordered.

Issues Raised by Proposed Transfer

to the Private Sector

The issues of the proposed transfer are imbedded within the general concerns of the university research community towards Federal land remote-sensing policy in general:

—

Continued, open availability of data. This

is mentioned most frequently as the major

issue. As understood by university researchers, it includes a predictable and affordable

price structure, perhaps with special rates for

nonprofit groups, and the absence of restrictions on use of the data. In other words,

OTA’s respondents were opposed to copyrighting the corrected data. *

Research and training support. For the

universities to continue their programs, they

—

‘OTA Workshop on Remote Sensing, July 26, 1983.

‘Corrected data are the raw data as received from the spacecraft,

corrected only for radiometric and geometric distortion. This is the

way the data are now sold in standard packages from the EROS

Data Center.

●

●

●

will need assurances that Federal funding for

scientific research, methods-development,

and training will continue. Even if the proposed transfer to private ownership is highly

successful, it will take many years for the

market to build to the point that the private

sector and the States can support these important university programs. In the meantime, an important resource and the pool of

skilled labor will have dwindled to the point

that rebuilding them will be extremely expensive and time-consuming. Teaching programs

in remote sensing have declined and both

professors and students are directing their efforts elsewhere.

Data quality. The quality of the data over

time needs to be assured to obtain the value

of repetitive coverage. This is especially important for agriculture and forestry. Some

respondents expressed concern that the consistency of the radiometric and geometric corrections, which are now carefully controlled

by university and Government experts, may

degrade under private operation. Still, it

would be in the best interests of a U.S. private operator to maintain its data at a high

level of quality because of competition with

SPOT Image or other U.S. private companies.

Continuing university input. Members of

university remote-sensing programs fear that

transfer to private hands will diminish the

public-good aspects of land remote sensing

and reduce their role in finding new and better ways to use the data.

Long term data trends. Plotting potentially

harmful changes on the Earth’s surface requires data to be continuously available and

safely stored for later retrieval. It also requires a research community with adequate

resources. University researchers express concern that transfer to the private sector may

mean a loss of data continuity, reduction in

the quality and quantity of the archival material available, and reduction in Government support of research in this important

area.
62 ———

USING HIGH-RESOLUTION DATA

Thematic Mapper (TM)

Most research and applications projects using

Landsat data have used MSS data having a nominal spatial resolution on the ground of 80 meters

and four spectral bands. The TM, which is operated by NASA as a research instrument, has a

much improved 30-meter spatial resolution and

seven spectral bands. Studies with simulated TM

data sensed from aircraft, as well as with some

of the early TM data from outer space, indicate

that this higher spatial resolution will enable major advances in the utility of such satellite data.

For example, NASA research suggests that in

suburban areas land-use classification accuracies

of 89 percent are possible. In urban areas, the potential accuracy is difficult to estimate before more

detailed research is done .’” Certain aspects of TM — —————

‘“Dale A. Quattrochi, “Analysis of Landsat-Y Thematic Mapper

Data for the Discrimination of Urban Features, ” Decision Support

Systems for Policy, and Management, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Ga. ,

August 1983.

data have great promise. For tasks where spatial

discrimination is important, such as mineral exploration, high resolution is the most obvious improvement over data from the MSS; other attributes of the system are equally remarkable from

a technical standpoint. The TM digital data come

in an eight-bit configuration which potentially will

offer more information content than the six-bit

configuration of the MSS data. In addition, the

seventh spectral band is thermal which, when

combined with the other six bands, can be expected to provide new interpretive capacity.

For agriculture, the real advantage of the TM

derives from the narrowness of the spectral bands

as well as their extension into the near infrared

at 2.2 micrometers and thermal infrared at 11 micrometers, These attributes make the TM much

more than a high-resolution MSS. Initial analyses

of the TM data from U.S. agricultural areas show

much sharper delineations of crops having different textures and tone. These observations suggest

that TM data will be much more capable of sepLandsat Bands and Electromagnetic Spectrum Comparison

Electromagnetic spectrum

\ ●

Cosmic Gamma X-rays UV Microwave TV Radio Electric

rays rays - power

Visible

1 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Wavelength (micrometers)

Landsat bands

.5 .6 .7 .8 1.1

Landsat I 5 I 6

1 & 2

Landsat

3

13.5

same band)

MSS 4 I 5 1 6 ]7

(Two cameras

.50 .75

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

I

2.082.35

SOURCE U S Geological Survey
6 3

arating corn from soybeans and, perhaps, barley

from spring wheat. The improved resolution also

offers significant improvements in delineating

drainage in and around agricultural areas.

For forestry, the major improvements provided

by TM data will probably include increased accuracy of measuring areas occupied by different

types of vegetation—a highly significant improvement for forestry applications (see, however, below). The additional detail in the Landsat data

should enable more accurate analysis of the data

as well—small forest stands, roads, streams, and

other features not discernible on MSS images are

clearly seen in TM data.

For petroleum geology, the improved spatial

and spectral resolution of TM data have already

proved their usefulness. Nonetheless, those who

specialize in locating new sources of oil or other

minerals have indicated that the ability to sense

Earth in stereo would be more important to their

industry than the increased number of spectral

bands or higher resolution.’]

As the case of forestry illustrates, in some situations different analysis techniques will be necessary effectively to utilize the increased spatial and

spectral resolution of the TM data. A recent

study12 showed that with standard “per-pixel”

classification techniques, as the spatial resolution

of the pixels improves, the ability to classify forested areas with accuracy decreased significantly. Indeed, with data having 30-meter spatial resolution, overall classification performances were

considerably poorer than with Landsat MSS data

of much lower resolution. The use of 15-meter-resolution data resulted in a significant decrease in

overall classification performance.

— —

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

S}ttems be}ore th[ Subc{~mmlttee (In Space Scl~nce and Applic<it ]on~ c)! the Ilouw C ( )mm]t tee on SC ]ence and Technology, and the

Subc{~mmittc’c on Science, Techn(~lcjg}, and Space of the Senate

( (lmm]ttee on Commerct Science and Transportation (97th Cong ),

Iu]\ 22 and 23 lQ81 pp 213-2.32 .

121{ hl H<~tter N1 E [)ean, D K Kn{~wlton, anct R S Latty,

E\~luatlon IJI S1 AR and Simulateci Thematic \lapper Data t~>r

Ft,re>t ( ,,~,er \lapp]ng LT>]nx ~omputer-.$l]ded Anal>ws Techniques.

1..41{S Tc’chnlcal Rep<,rt 083182 Purdue Linlver\lt> \f’est [.ata>ctt(

Ind , 1Q82

These results substantiated earlier studies” that

found a similar decrease in classification performance with increasing spatial resolution primarily

in areas of forest cover, but not in agricultural

cover types. The reason is that images having

higher spatial resolution allow more detailed spectral data to be obtained. Thus, in forested areas,

the spectral response of one resolution element of

TM data could be dominated by tree crown,

whereas the adjacent resolution element could be

dominated by the shadow area between tree

crowns, and so forth. The coarser spatial resolution of Landsat MSS data averages such spectral

differences, resulting in much less variability from

one resolution element (pixel ) to the next.

In agricultural areas, where the field size is

larger than the 80-meters resolution of the MSS

instrument, approximately the same percentage

of row crop, bare soil, and shadow is being sensed

and integrated into the spectral response of each

resolution element, whether it be a 30- or 80-meter

spatial resolution. To take full advantage of the

higher spatial resolution of the TM data for forestry applications, therefore, the standard perpixel methods of analysis must be replaced by finer methods using both the spectral and the spatial

information of the data. This finding brings out

three key points which apply as well to uses of

TM data other than forestry:

1. Different disciplines may need to apply different analysis techniques in order to use the

same type of land remote-sensing data (e.g.

geologic analysis techniques often are significantly different from those used in agriculture).

2. Changes in sensor systems may cause such

significant changes in the characteristics of
64

the data that entirely different analysis techniques must be developed and tested,

3. The sheer volume of data in a TM scene for

seven spectral bands will limit their use. Research efforts should be directed to offering

the ability to select a windowed array of data

from anywhere in the scene; currently only

a quarter subscene is available on special

order from the EROS Data Center at Sioux

Falls, S. Dak. Thus, if one wants to process

a portion of Earth’s surface located near the

center of the four quarter-scenes, it is necessary to order a full scene.

So far, investigators have devoted relatively little attention to evaluating TM data other than

studying the quality of the data received. Neither

NASA or NOAA have conducted formal applications tests. Therefore, one can only speculate on

the uses or value of TM data for forestry, agriculture, or even geologic applications.

The French SPOT System

The SPOT satellite, with its 20-meter resolution, three spectral bands, and ability to point the

sensors, promises to provide coverage not available through the existing Landsat system. SPOT’s

pointability (i.e., the ability to obtain images at

angles to the vertical) will enable repetitive coverage of transient phenomena. 14 To take one ex-

“W. G. Broome, Larry J. Warwick, and G. Weill, “SPOT

Satellites: A Major New Information Source for Urban and Regional

Environments, ” Decision Support Systems for Policy and Management, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Ga., August 1983.

The SPOT

Characteristics of the high resolution

visible (HRV) instrument

ample, between April 13 and 18, 1979, the Pearl

River Basin in Mississippi, rose to an unprecedented level of 43.5 ft and devastated Jackson,

the State capital. Providing cloud cover did not

interfere, if coverage comparable to SPOT’s (e.g.,

pointability and resolution) could have been obtained on April 15, 16, or 17, estimations of damage and analysis of the event could have been

greatly improved. Landsat 3, which was in use

during the flood, passed over shortly before the

torrential rains occurred and again just as the

flood waters receded (an 18-day period).

The 20-meter resolution of SPOT data may not

prove to be as valuable as its paintability because

higher resolution data have a point of diminishing

returns. The sheer volume of data resulting from

such high resolution over a large study area can

quickly overload the storage and data-handling

capacities of most computer systems now processing Landsat data. This problem is faced already

by analysts attempting to use the TM data. The

fact that SPOT will use three bands, rather than

the TM’s seven, will ease the problem of handling data volume at the expense of losing important spectral information. In addition, the SPOT

satellite will sense a narrower swath of Earth’s surface. Each scene will be proportionately smaller,

making the data handling problem easier per

scene. *

SPOT has flown simulated missions in the

United States, and the results of these will answer

— —

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

to a swath width of 185 km for Landsat.

Satellite

Multispectral mode Panchromatic mode

Spectral bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50-0.59 μm 0.51-0.73 μm

0.61-0.68 μm

0.79-0.89 μm

Instrument field of view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 3° 4.13”

Ground sampling interval (nadir viewing) . . . . 20 m x 20 m 10 m x 10 m

Number of pixels per line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 6,000

Ground swath width (nadir viewing) . . . . . . 60 km 60 km

Pixel coding format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 x 8 bits 6 bits DPCMa

Image data bit rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 M bits/s 25 M bits/s

‘DpCM (dlqltal ~ui~e code modulator) IS a mode Of data compression that does not degrade the radlometrlc accuracy of the

Image data (256 grey levels)

SOURCE SPOT Image
65

—.—— — . ———————

many questions about its future application. Some

State agencies and other public and private groups

are interested in formatting SPOT data to use existing Landsat processing computer software. If

totally new software is required, it will slow the

use of SPOT data.

Comparison of SPOT and TM Data

It appears probable that the enhanced resolution of either TM or SPOT data would be of significant value for measurement, but how the seven

channels of TM data will compare to the three

channels of SPOT data is still a matter of conjecture. * The middle infrared portion of the spectrum (available only with TM data) should eventually prove invaluable for geologic and snow

cover mapping purposes. For forestry applications, the differences between TM and SPOT data

are not obvious. It would be surprising if the

stereoscopic capability of SPOT data had any major advantages in forestryr unless topographic

maps for the area of interest did not exist, a condition that is much more likely in developing

countries than i n the industrialized ones. As mentioned above, however, it should be highly useful

to the geologists, and will also improve the ability of mapmakers to generate high-resolution t(~poREMOTE-SENSING ARCHIVES

Data gathered from meteorological satellite

observations are obviously useful for short-term

weather predictions. Less well-known is their part

in forecasting over periods of weeks, years, centuries i.e., in the long-term prediction of climate.

As we learn more about the long term effects of

such climatic effects as El Nino (see app. H) and

increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide,

the utility of satellite data for climate studies

becomes apparent. The operational weather satellites make major contributions to the long-term

global climate record kept by the National Cligraphic maps. The higher resolution of TM,

SPOT, or future systems may eventually prove

to be very useful in differentiating and categorizing different varieties and maturity of trees, which

would allow better estimates of timber- volume in

a forest stand. It will also allow agriculturalists

to estimate crop production better in countries . .

where the average field size is significantly less

than the 80-meter resolution of MSS data.

Investigators have frequently raised questions

about the advantages of various data formats or

types of data from future proposed instrument

systems. Such quest ions clearly indicate the need

for an effective, ongoing research program to provide guidance and direct ion in developing meaningful operational systems.

For operational uses, TM data will tend to be

used in a sampled mode rather than as complete

coverage. This may limit the sales of TM data

once the newness wears off, even in the petromining industries where the data have received high

praise. At over $4,000 per frame, even the petroleum exploration geologist will tend to look at

narrow areas rather than broad ones.

and spatial resolut ion sensors, when linked with

on-board data processing and improved computer

processing may aleviate some of the near-term

problems investigators expect to experience in

using high-resolution TM or SPOT data.

mate Program within NOAA. It assembles these

data and combines them with other satellite and

terrestrial data from the Department of Defense,

the Department of Energy, USDA, the National

Science Foundation, and NASA to produce world

climate models.

Through this program, the Government has developed the mechanism to assemble and store meteorological data to meet the research needs 01 climatologists and others who require historical data

about the weather. These data are recognized as
66

a national resource and are treated accordingly

To continue the research on weather and climate,

it will be important to continue to archive satellite

data. Continuity of the format of the data stored

in the archive is particularly important:

The overriding requirement is for a continuous,

intercomparable data record for a span of time

that is climatologically significant . . . the longer

the more valuable it is in determining the likelihood of “extreme” occurrences. ”15

For Landsat data, the EROS Data Center in

Sioux Falls, S. Dak., maintains an archive containing most of the data it has received. Although

the archive includes foreign scenes taken by Landsats 1, 2, and 3 when their recorders were operating, and some other foreign scenes acquired by

special agreement with foreign ground stations,

the vast majority of these data are domestic

scenes. The EROS Data Center does not sell most

foreign data, either current or historical. Normally, customers must purchase data acquired from

foreign ground stations directly from the stations

in question.

The expense of maintaining a complete archive

of all the data ever received from the Landsat sys-

—

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

tern is great; in fact, not all data are equally worth

saving, and it would be helpful to purge the archive of certain scenes, such as those containing

a high proportion of cloud cover and duplicate

scenes. However, obtaining a complete set of

cloud-free data for the entire world would be a

worthy goal. Such a data set would be especially

useful for mapping, land-use planning, mineral

exploration, deforestation, and desertification.

Because of lack of funds, this has not been done

so far, although NOAA and NASA recognize the

value of such an archive. One of the problems

in setting up such a worldwide data set is that the

various foreign ground stations use slightly different standards for data acquisition and storage:

the data are not entirely comparable.

Whatever form the archive were to take, the

Government would have to decide whether the

limited archive maintained at the EROS Data

Center would be transferred to the private sector

and under what conditions. If the archive were

transferred, safeguards to protect it from later

deterioration or destruction should be instituted

so that all interested parties would continue to

have access to these

right restrictions.

data, at least, without copy-
●

Chapter 5

U.S. Government Needs for

Remote-Sensing Data
Contents

Page

Federal Metsat Data Users and Their Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Federal Landsat Data Users and Their Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Landsat Data Purchases and Use by Federal Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Relationship Between Federal Users of Data and Agency Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Review of Department of the Interior Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Survey of Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Concerns of Federal Landsat Data Users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Remote Sensing for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Criteria of a Good Agricultural Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Implications of Improved Information for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Concerns of the Agricultural Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

State and Regional Use of Landsat Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Remote-Sensing Research Within the Universities .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

University Concerns Over Land Remote-Sensing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Issues Raised by Proposed Transfer to the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Using High-Resolution Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Thematic Mapper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

The French SPOT System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Comparison of SPOT and TM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

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

Tables

Table No. Page

7. Federal Government and Total Sales of Landsat Data by

EROS Data Center and NOAA: 1973-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

8. Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

9.U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

10.U.S. Government Purchases in Number of Digital and Photographic Scenes., . . . . . 79

11.

12

13.

14

15.

16.

U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat Data for Domestic and for Overseas Purposes 80

NOSS Landsat Statistical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Operational Uses That Can Be Implemented With Existing or Planned

Satellite Technology .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Current and Projected High-Priority Interior Applications Amenable

to Landsat Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 86

Existing Legislation Requiring Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Federal Statutes Pertinent to Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figures

Figure No. Page

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

April 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

July 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOAA-7 Thermal IR Image of the GulfStream Meandering Eastward Toward Europe

Deliveries of Landsat MSS Data to Federal Users by NASA-GSFC and DOI-EDC. .

Quarterly Sales of MSS Imagery and Digital Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grand Total of Shipped Sales From EROS Data Center in Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abilities occurrent, Funded, and Future Systems to Meet Requirements, by Agency

Number of Requirements in Each Measurement Class, by Civil Agency.. . . . . . . . . .

70

71

73

79

80

82

83

84
Chapter 5

U.S. Government Needs for

Remote= Sensing Data

This chapter summarizes Federal requirements

for Landsat and metsat data as they apply to individual agencies. A number of Governmentsponsored studies based on the use of Landsat data

have engendered optimism about the utility of

space remote sensing for a wide range of resource

survey, mapping, and environmental monitoring

tasks. Howeverr the results of such studies remain

tentative because the Landsat system has not been

optimally configured for operational use nor managed according to business-like principles. Questions persist in Government agencies about system continuity, data cost, and timely delivery.

FEDERAL METSAT DATA USERS AND THEIR MISSIONS

The largest Federal user of metsat data is, not

surprisingly, the National Weather Service (NWS)

in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Indeed, the agency responsible for operating the first weather satellites in the

early 1960’s was the National Earth Satellite Center, a part of the old Weather Bureau. It was not

until a decade later that a separate satellite service (National Environmental Satellite Service—

NESS, now National Environmental Satellite Data

and Information Service—NESDIS) was established.

NOAA’S mission is to explore, map, and chart

the global ocean and its living resources; to manage, use, and conserve these resources; to describe, monitor, and predict conditions in the atmosphere, ocean, air, and space environment; to

issue warnings against impending destructive natural events; to develop methods of environmental modification; and to assess the consequences

of inadvertent environmental modification over

several scales of time. The global scope of

NOAA’s mission makes metsat data valuable to

the various agencies within NOAA. NWS makes

widespread use of satellite data to improve its

forecasts to aviators, farmers, fishermen, fruit

growers, commercial shippers, sport boaters,

recreationers, and just plain citizens.

For example, the geostationary satellites can

identify and track the characteristic cloud shapes

of tornadoes, allowing warnings to affected areas.

Hurricane tracking by satellite is a second vital

lifesaver. The NWS Severe Storm Warning Center

in Kansas City and the Hurricane Alert Center

in Miami would both be severely handicapped

without frequent satellite imagery to aid in issuing warnings.

The NWS Office of Hydrology produces riverbasin snow maps and precipitation estimates for

NESDIS to add to computerized hydrologic models for runoff and flood forecasting. Sounding

data, sea-surface temperature data, cloud cover,

and snow cover are but a few of the satellitederived data that are processed by the NWS computers to improve global analysis and forecasting.

The powerful mixture of computers and satellites has produced new data sets that could well

improve the ability of meteorologists to prepare

longer range, even seasonal forecasts. NWS is

now investigating sea-surface temperature changes

or anomalies in the North Pacific and the percentage of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere

as important new variables in the study of climatic

variations. Prior to metsats, these variables were

unmeasurable (figs. 5 and 6).

The National Ocean Survey (NOS) explores,

maps, and charts the oceans. The 1.1-km resolution of the polar-orbiting metsats is more than

adequate to provide NOS with sea-surface temperature charts and ice charts of polar areas and

the Great Lakes. NOS and NESDIS oceanograph69
70 — —

s

de

—

-J

m.-

1
Figure 6.—July 1983 Sea-Surface Temperature, Eastern Pacific Ocean

‘1/’”/ y, I

<

— .-—

b

-. —— --

— .- ——-

Zw ‘!

--,2 ‘y

I

),

—— — -— --— . . . . —.. -

SATELLITE I

.: - , ., , . ~.

,. i

‘ t ;-

. . 1

,1, ,’:. I

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

W .

I

— —- —-----

/

~

-——

. ——-—.—

—

4“%

I

-1,

CLIMATOLOGY I ‘: \ --- .- ( u -
72

—— ——— . . ————.—

ers also chart currents using thermal infrared

measurements. NOAA produces a monthly analysis of the Gulf Stream movements that aids in

ship routing as well as in oceanographic research

studies (fig. 7), It also uses satellite data to study

the highly variable tidal and estuarine currents

close to shore. It warns of tsunami from measurements collected by ocean buoys and relayed by

satellite telecommunications.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has for

many years used satellite thermal maps to indicate

areas of nutrient-rich upwellings for commercial

fisherman; such areas constitute the most probable good fishing areas.

Part of the National Climate Plan is to identify broad areas of environmental modification,

whether manmade or natural. The results of prolonged drought, such as areas of desertification

in the Sahel in Africa, are easily monitored by

metsats. Metsat data can also be used to monitor

the recent deforestation and development in Brazil’s upper Amazon basin. The Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) continuously monitors foreign crops

using some NOAA polar-orbiter imagery in its

efforts to project overseas markets for U.S.

agricultural products. The Forest Service has

found thermal infrared data from metsats useful

for early detection of forest fires.

The need for up-to-date meteorological information is acutely felt by the Department of Defense (DOD) (see also ch. 6). Though many of

its needs are met by the Defense Meteorological

Satellite Program (DMSP), a system which includes two polar orbiters, DOD also relies heavily

on NOAA satellites. The U.S. Air Force derives

information from both the DMSP and NOAA’s

metsats to make flight weather summaries and

forecasts; the U.S. Navy uses metsat data to monitor sea-surface temperature, currents, and water

mass or ocean color, important variables for both

surface and subsurface operations.

The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers includes programs to protect the environment, improve waterway navigation, control

floods and beach erosion, engage in water-resources development, and provide natural disaster

relief assistance. The Corps was an early user of

metsat and Landsat data. Data Collection Platforms (DPCs), which relay data to the metsats,

are widely used to provide operational hydrologic

data to Corps offices. The New England Division

of the Corps working with the Corps Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in

Hanover, N. H., and the University of Connecticut, are determining the effectiveness of satellite

imagery for real-time water-control management.

The Corps Great Lakes Division has studied how

to use data from space to improve their management of the Great Lakes water resources and navigation control.

The Office of Naval Research, the Naval

Oceanographic Research and Development Activity, and the Naval Oceanographic Command, as

well as DOD’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, conduct, manage, and coordinate research in

oceanography that requires metsat data.

The Department of the Interior is responsible

for managing public lands and natural resources.

A pilot program of monitoring vegetation in

remote areas of Nevada and Arizona with data

from the polar orbiters has been successful in the

Bureau of Land Management’s fight against range

fires. This work was actually performed by the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which has a

mandate to chart the Nation’s water and mineral

resources. Although the Landsat system is the

preferred data source for some of the applications,

especially hydrologic and tectonic studies, the

USGS has increasingly turned to NOAA metsat

data. The USGS’s North American Tectonic Plate

mosaic project is currently considering the use of

enhanced images from the polar orbiters. It is also

planning to make a mosaic tectonic map of Antarctica from enhanced metsat images.

In the Department of Energy, metsats furnish

certain hydrologic information useful for the

Power Administrations—e. g., Bonneville Power

and Alaska Power. The Department of Transportation’s U.S Coast Guard (USCG) has a direct

obligation to provide search and rescue for ships

in distress and to monitor the Contiguous Fisheries

Zone, USCG icebreakers benefit from metsat observations of ice. The Coast Guard also uses metsat data to monitor oil spills, such as the Xtoc well

in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979. Though it relies
73

.————. — —.———— —

\

25-357 0 - 84 - 6 : QL 3
74

on Government and private forecasters to advise

pilots, the Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA) mission to regulate air commerce and to

foster air safety requires that it consider all types

of meteorological hazards and volcanic hazards

as well; thus, metsat data are of direct interest to

FAA.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has been charged with the responsibility to protect and enhance our environment. The EPA mission is to control and abate pollution from solid

waste, noise, radiation, and toxic substances. Metsat data provide timely and frequent observations

of air pollution such as windblown dust, oil spills,

and nearby ocean currents, and trajectories for

toxic or nuclear airborne pollutants based on satellite-derived wind vectors.

Many of these agencies have a continuing interest in following potential national disasters

such as volcanic eruptions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) has the specific mission of enhancing emergency preparedness at Federal, State, and local levels to coordinate and

oversee hazard mitigation, preparedness planning,

relief operations, and recovery assistance. A recent studyl found that although metsats, by virtue of their coarse resolutions, are not highly

suitable for disaster management, they can be

used by FEMA to detect the overall effects of

drought and floods. Metsat data area useful adjunct to Landsat data, which are more directly

useful in disaster management.

NASA uses data from the metsats in its Earth

Science and Applications Program. It also conducts research on improved sensors in partial support of the NOAA/NESDIS metsat program.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has provided assistance to developing countries in building their capacity to receive

and use metsat data through programs like the

Sahel Development Program, International Disaster Assistance, Food for Peace, and Science and

Technology. Vegetation and hydrologic studies

are also prepared by AID scientists using NOAA

metsat data and imagery.

1

P, B. Richards, C. J. Robinov, D. R. Wiesnet, and M. S. Maxwell, “Recommended Satellite Imagery Capabilities for Disaster

Management, ” proceedings of the 33d Congress International

Astronomical Federation, Paris, September-October 1982.

FEDERAL LANDSAT DATA USERS AND THEIR MISSIONS

Landsat Data Purchases and Use

by Federal Government Agencies

During the 1970’s the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) was especially attentive and responsive to satisfying data needs of

Federal agencies as part of its program to demonstrate the new technology, and transferred funds

to potential user agencies for them to experiment

with applying Landsat data to their missions.

Because of the success of this close collaboration,

some Federal agencies became major users of

Landsat imagery and digital tapes. NASA followed the earlier precedent of the meteorological

program in encouraging and stipulating open access to the satellite data. Yet, while the Earth imagery has proved effective for broad-area monitoring of events which affect private sector interests, such as oil spills, floods, the spread of insect infestation, and regional geology, many private companies continue to rely on the use of

higher resolution aerial photography for commercial applications.

Over more than a decade of Landsat operation,

the market for the data has grown slowly and

Government agencies have not requested data at

rates forecast by early studies. Nevertheless, a

score or so of agencies have experimented with

the data and several now have operational programs dependent on the application of space imagery. Direct Government data purchases from

the EROS Data Center (EDC) account for between

20 to 30 percent of sales through 1982 (table 7).

Sales information, however, is a poor indicator

of actual data use, especially in the earlier, highly

subsidized years. Some agencies used the data

most extensively when they obtained them for

free. Users have employed a variety of means to
75 —. — ——

Table 7.— Federal Government and Total Sales of

Landsat Data by EROS Data Center and NOAA: 1973-83

(in thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year Government sales Total-sales

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

1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 528

1975 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 909

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 1,641

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 1,454

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 1,976

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 2,131

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 2,389

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 2,495

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 2,941

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,270 7,026a

(1,188) - - .(2,934)

a

lncludes special acquisltions and service charges The numbers in brackets

indicate the sales excluding these special charges

SOURCE EROS Data Center National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration

conceal or reduce the costs of acquisitions. Some

were able to arrange for direct transmission of

data to ground receivers, bypassing EDC completely.* In addition, agencies of both the Federal

Government and various industry organizations

have reproduced computer-compatible tapes

(CCTs) (the most expensive items) and imagery

and traded them among themselves. In the past

year, as stricter accounting measures and control

of data flow have been applied, overall dollar volume of sales to Federal agencies has increased dramatically. This change in procedures has resulted

from an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

directive that system operating costs will be

recovered by sales, and is a direct consequence

of the shift from R&D to an operational system.

Current Level of Landsat Data Sales

Information on the sale of Landsat imagery and

tapes is available from the authorized Government distributor, EDC at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., and

from cooperating foreign ground stations. The

January 1983 study of Landsat prepared by NOAA/

ESDIS provides information through fiscal year

1982.2 OTA has supplemented these figures by

data extending through fiscal year 1983, obtained

directly from EDC and NESDIS. Tables 7 through

12 and figures 8 through 10 express the sales in-

● For example, for a period, the FAS received transmissions directly

at its Houston receiving station.

“’Transfer of the Civil Operational Earth Observation Satellite

to the Private Sector, ” U.S. Department of Commerce, February

1983,

formation in a variety of ways and formats to

make it as meaningful as possible. Federal purchases are shown, variously, in absolute dollar

figures, as percentage of total sales, in number of

items distributed, and as broken down among separate Government agencies.

Sales of Landsat data to Federal agencies have

been negatively affected by two primary circumstances: 1) the present state of extreme uncertainty

over the future of the Landsat program has effectively deterred Federal agencies from placing

orders for future delivery of data to be used for

satisfying mission data needs in cases where failure

to receive the material on time would limit their

ability to carry out their assignments, and 2) OMB

has closely supervised purchases of Landsat data

and required that money spent for this purpose

by Government agencies be accompanied by a

corresponding reduction in funds allocated for

alternative methods of data collection. Agencies

are often unwilling to give up older methods when

they are unsure about their ability to receive Landsat data as needed. In addition, agencies that have

need for only one frame of multispectral scanner

(MSS) data for a given area have already satisfied

most of their data needs; other agencies are simply

waiting for thematic mapper (TM) data to be

more widely available.

Overview of Landsat Data Sales

In contrast with the rapidly expanding market

for the services of communications satellites, the

market among Federal agencies for Landsat data

has grown slowly. Thus, by fiscal year 1982, Federal purchases of Landsat data amounted to about

$500,000 out of a total sales for all imagery of $ 3

million (table 7). * This difference in growth is explained by the fact that the communications industry was already well established and organized

to use the new technology. For satellite communications, space technology replaced older terrestrial methods because it was cheaper or more efficient.

By contrast, data from the Landsat system presented unique and novel problems of handling,

—

*The more-than-doubled Federal sales in 1983 (bracketed figures)

reflects the dramatic Increase in 1983 prices over 1982 and the requirement that all Federal agencies must now pay for data.
76 —

processing, and interpretation. In most cases they

supplement other means of gathering data; in

others, they present an entirely new data resource.

The record of Landsat sales from 1973 through

1983 (table 8) reflects continuing, but decreasing,

interest in the data on the part of Government

agencies. During this period, Federal agencies

tested these data for a wide range of possible applications to determine the potential advantages

of switching away from conventional monitoring programs. NASA assisted the testing process

by supplying data free to selected investigators

(NASA investigators in table 8), and in 1976 some

21 percent of all reimbursed data distribution was

in this category. NASA broadened the base of

trained people and stimulated the purchases of

computers and other specialized equipment necessary to use the new material.

Recent Trends in Landsat Product Sales

Expressed in terms of unit deliveries, sales of

Landsat MSS data to all Federal users reveal a

downward trend after 1978 and by key user agencies after 1980 (fig. 8). These trends can be attributed primarily to the decrease in funding for

research in applying Landsat data, and price increases. In addition, the pace at which user agencies can marshal internal resources effectively to

exploit the data is governed by OMB oversight

and internal agency budgetary considerations.

Some of the potentially large users of Landsat data

are the resource survey and environmental agencies whose budgets have been most constrained

during the recent period of fiscal austerity. In such

times, managers find it more prudent to continue

with well-known conventional monitoring systems (which, however, require more manpower)

than to risk adopting new procedures based on

a novel type of data requiring large capital costs

for trained personnel and new processing equipment, especially when there is no guarantee of

data continuity.

Experience with the Landsat data has demonstrated the superiority of computer-compatible

digital products over Landsat photographic products for Government users as well as industrial

purchasers. The inherent advantages of information acquired from space (e.g., its repetitive stand-

— — . — .

ardized format) are best exploited through selective manipulation of digital tapes.

Total income from Federal Government purchases for calendar year 1983 increased substantially over calendar year 1982 (tables 7, 8, and

9). * This jump can be attributed to two major factors: a nearly threefold price increase and the

imposition of charges for special acquisition

orders. * * About 20 separate agencies of the Government are recorded as purchasers of the data,

but most purchases are made by about a half

dozen large data users.

Although income from data sales increased, the

number of scenes delivered actually declined (table

10). The extent of decrease is not known since the

deliveries to the FAS are not available. Special

acquisition charges paid by both FAS and the

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in order to

assure scenes of specified areas at desired times

and with minimal cloud cover, account for most

of the increase in income, In the absence of purchases by these two agencies, Landsat data sales

to Government agencies would have fallen dramatically .

The scale of Landsat data usage by FAS and

CIA (table 11), appears to indicate that their applications have moved well beyond the experimental or demonstration phase into practical operations. For example, years of research with

Landsat data have established its effectiveness in

some types of crop forecasting. The importance

to the national economy of accurate global crop

data increases as the world’s population increases

with the world population growth and with a proportionate rise in U.S. exports of agricultural

products, As an arm of USDA, FAS is charged

with this function.

Sales data show a dropoff in use by agencies

primarily concerned with domestic assessment

and management. Direct interviews with Federal

agency technical staff, however, temper any conclusions one may draw from inspecting only the

*Figures in tables 9 and 10 cannot be compared directly to tables

7 and 8. The former are expressed in terms of calendar year, the

latter in terms of fiscal year.

*‘ Purchasers may stipulate cloud-free coverage of specified areas

at specified dates by paying a surcharge.
Table 8.–Customer Profile of Landsat Total Data

FY 1975

Dollar (0 

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

FY 1973a

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

Federal Government

(less N.l.’s) 21,780 27% 62,756 270.

NASA investigators — — — —

State/local

governmen t 2,995 4 “/0 10,639 5 %

Academi c 13,071 16 % 28,679 13 %

Industria l 24,430 30 % 67,360 300 %

Individuals . 5,109 6 % 17,143 7 %

Non-U.S . 8,497 11 % 28,154 12 %

Non-identifie d 5,189 6 % 13,311 6“C

Total dat a 81,071 100 % 228,042 1000 ,

FY 1974”

items Item (%) Dollars

16% 34,346 1 7 % 169,28 3 19“ c

— 5.456 3% 15,992 2 %

28,493 18° % 87.156

— — —

2,534 2 % 10,920

18,611 12 0

‘, 63.964

35,890 23 % 114,14 0

17,266 11 % 67,127

37,038 23 ‘/L 120,499

17,346 1 1 % 64,708

157,178 100 % 528,514

2%

12°’0

220 ‘o

13 %

230“0

1 2“o

1000 0

1,969

27,727

45,671

18,643

47,174

17,397

198,383

1 %

14 %

23 %

9%

24 %

9%

16,988 2 %

142,054 16‘o

219,704 24 %

100,953 11 %

174,659 1900

69,376 7 %

100% 909,009 100”’0

FY 1976 TQ 1976 FY 1977

Customer category Items Item (%) Dollars Dollars (%) items Item (%) DolIars DolIar ( % ) Items Item (%) Dollars Dollar (%)

. - —

Federal Government

(less N.I ‘s) ., ., 31.645

NASA investigators 63,329

State/local

governmen t 1.214

Academi c 26.077

Industria l 42.833

Individuals ., 18,052

Non-U.S . 65,100

Non-ldentified . . 488

Total data 248,738

16%

11 %

21,074

9,827

16“O 269,825

7 % 96,032

19%

7 %

1%

10 %

28%

5%

30%

0%

100 %

1300 253,166

25% 341,056

1500

2100

7,77?

5,730

1 5“o

11 %

73,436

48.111

0 %

160.

24%

7%

27 %

0%

100 %

1% 8,191

11% 178,160

17 % 322,699

7% , 141,556

26 % 391<673

0 % 4,892

149

8.489

12,122

3,755

13,702

96

51.814

1.168

40,129

121,025

28,683

138. 632

1,087

452.271

0 %

9° o

27 c’ O

6% 

31 %

0 %

1000 0

1.360

14,063

36,979

8,003

40, 632

49

131,271

1 % 20,168

11% 141 ,077

28% 412,18 3

6% 72,129

31 442,079

0 344

100%1,453,83 7

0 %

11 

2

24 

0 0/0

1000 , 1,641,393 100 % I

I
78

N

,., . .

. . .

. . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

:

D

:p : : : : :

.0 , . . .
79

Figure 8.— Deliveries of Landsat MSS Data to

Federal Users by NASA-GSFC and DOI-EDC

40

30 — Other Federa l

users

20

‘-,

Interior

Agriculture

~ (includes LACIE and AgRISTARS) 1 I

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

NOTE Breakdown of purchases by Federal users in fiscal year 1983 unavailable

at present

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Off Ice of

Technology Assessment

sales evidence. The technical staff continue to see

large potential benefits for their agency operations

from the systematic application of Landsat data,

if the system could be depended on to supply data

dependably and promptly. The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), for example, has primary

responsibility for monitoring vast tracts of western U.S. range and forest lands. The Denver Office of BLM made major investments in dataprocessing equipment in order to take advantage

of the lower costs of Landsat data before prices

rose and special acquisition surcharges were instituted. BLM currently is restrained in placing

future orders for

and uncertainty

data because of insufficient funds

over the future of the program.

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

CY 1983

Agency CY 1982 (to 8-17-83)

Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,531 $ 14,006

Department of Agriculture (USDA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,101 70,986

USDA— Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N.A. 2,375,437 a

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,232 181,016

National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,967 29,108

Department of State (including AID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,682 380

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,013 74,076

Central Intelligence Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,435 1,390,650a

Other Federal agencies (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,558 10,390

Total dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $801,519 $4,416,049 —

al nCreaSed , nCome , n ~alendar Year 1983 attributed largely tC charges fOr SpeClal aCq UISltl Ofl S, I e , customer-stipulated area

covered, timing, and condition of cloud cover

SOURCE EROS Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

Agency

Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Agriculture (USDA) . . . . . . . .

USDA—Foreign Agricultural Servicea

. . . . . .

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of State (including AID) ... ,

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSC/CIA b 

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

aAcquisition charges of $2.4 million calendar Year 1983

bAcquisition charges of $14 milllion in calendar year 1983

CY 1982

Digital Photographic

5 2

-

-- ‘

- 4 8 6

118 2,492

N.A. N.A.

1,038 13,314

128 682

5 325

217 4,984

7 433

CY 1983 (to 8-17-83)

Digital Photographic

2 0

71 933

N.A. N.A.

121 2,059

28 602

0 5

38 1,634

0 5,293

SOURCE EROS Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospherlc Administration
80 —.——— — —

Table 11 .—U.S. Government Purchases of Landsat

Data for Domestic and for Overseas Purposes

(in dollars)

CY 1983

CY 1982 (to 8-17-83)

Domestic agencies:

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . $402,232 $ 181,016

Department of Agriculture . . 100,101 70,986

Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . 26,531 14,006

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

Agencies with overseas responsibilities:

Foreign Agricultural Service . . . . . N.A, $2,375,437

Department of Defense ... . . . . $122,013 74,076

Department of State (AID)a . . . . . . 11,682 380

NSC/CIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,435 1,390,650

Total ., ... . . . . . . $175,130 $3,840,543

aAid Stipulates~~” ~lt h,” I hls table Landsa[ Imagery In many overseas contract areas not

SOURCE EROS Data Center National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

provided to OTA on Sept 20 1983

While USDA is making operational use of the

data, the Department is now paying for data that

it previously received practically free through

the Johnson Center for Manned Space Flight in

Houston, Tex. The volume of data purchases reflects the agencies’ ability to pay for them in the

context of an overall budget. This, in turn, is attributed by some agency analysts to interventions

by OMB which overrode agency desires.

Information on recent overall sales trends based

on latest EDC reports as provided in table 8 is confirmed by detailed information supplied in the

NOAA Landsat statistical summary for fiscal year

1982 and fiscal year 1983 (table 12 and figs. 10

and 11), Figure 11 shows that in terms of dollars

spent, USGS and the category of non-Federal

users have maintained a fairly constant dollar

level of orders. The number of images and computer-compatible tapes purchased has decreased

sharply for all purchasers outside of the Federal

Government. For the first time, sales to Federal

agencies have exceeded sales to the non-Federal

U.S. community (table 8) and by a significant

amount. “This appears to be a result of the directive by OMB that each agency would account for

its actual use of Landsat data, and therefore may

not reflect a real trend.

Figure 9.—Quarterly Sales of MSS Imagery and Digital

40

30

20

10

0

Frames (total sales, including non• Federal

and foreign customers)

.

1 I 1 1 1 1

.

Relationship Between Federal Users

of Data and Agency Mission

The remote-sensing requirements of Federal

agencies as well as State and local governments

were examined in exhaustive detail by an interagency task force in 1978 and 1979. > Among other

uses, the report served to help justify continued

funding of the TM Landsat sensor. * Although it

was not distributed beyond NASA and DOD, an

unclassified section of the report listing the requirements for civilian agencies yields the data of

figures 11 and 12. It states the requirements of

eight Federal agencies as well as State and local

uses, posed against a set of physical quantities or

—-

‘Integrated Remote Sensing System Study (IRS’).

*TM development actually began in 1976
81

I I (6

r

. .

.,

.,

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

,.

.,

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

:V

. 3

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

(’u

%

, U

.03
82

Figure IO.— Grand Total of Shipped Sales From EROS Data Center in Dollars

(mainly Landsat data but also includes other satellite imagery,

aircraft imagery, and miscellaneous services)

2 . 5

2.0

—

USGS ——

Other Federal --- -

Non-Federal —

/ ’

/1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

5

--- -- — - --- -

0 ’

1 1

Jul. Oct.- Jan. -

Dec 81

Apr -

Mar. 82 June 82 Dec. 82 Mar 83 June 83

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

qualities that must be known in order to meet or

satisfy agency missions or objectives. Of the 62

measurement classes listed, 43 can be met at least

in part by the TM, or in some cases by the MSS.

The numbers applied in the matrix of figure 12

are simple additions and do not reflect importance

attached to one agency’s mission over another’s.

They do tend to emphasize subjects of greater

coincidence of interest.

Review of Department

Interior Requirements

of the

The Department of the Interior has maintained

a special interest in land remote sensing. A study

produced by Interior in partial response to the IRS

interagency study contains a comprehensive listing of uses to which the data could be applied

(table 13). Table 14 provides a summary list of

the various Bureau data needs which can be met

by remote sensing.

Survey of Relevant Legislation

The major assessment of desertification in the

United States, prepared by an interagency task

force, included a list of pertinent legislation (table

15) that requires periodic surveys and measurements. This list supplements information from an

earlier study (table 16). Both lists reflect the increasing demands placed on Government agencies during the decade of the 1970’s for types of

information that can be appropriately satisfied by

remote-sensing techniques.

Concerns of Federal Landsat Data Users

The apparent discrepancy between the present

relatively modest level of Landsat data sales and
83

al

0

c

m

tn

al

.-

I

I

I -

I

— .

;
Figure 12.— Number of Requirements in Each Measurement Class, by Civil
85

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

—. . —

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mapping geologic structure for mineral and fuel exploration (GS, BLM)

Digital enhancement and analysis of altered and

potentially mineralized zones and altered areas

(GS, BLM)

Monitoring seasonal consistencies and variations in

the Beaufort OCS sea ice (BLM, GS)

Regional environmental surveys for preparation of

environmental impact statements (LBR, BLM, F&WS,

GS, BIA, NPS)

Detection and monitoring of surface mining and mine

reclamation activities (OSM, F&WS, Mines, BLM,

BIA, GS)

Monitoring snow cover accumulation, melt, and change

in irrigation and hydroelectric catch merits in the

Western United States and adjacent areas of Canada in

order to contribute to predictive hydrologic models and

runoff calculations (LBR, GS)

Surface water inventory (LBR, F&WS, GS, BLM, BIA)

Real-time analysis of mesoscale cloud systems (LBR)

Water and wetland measurement to assess the amount

and type of waterfowl habitat and the impact of irrigation (F&WS, LBR)

Inventory of irrigated cropland, including acreage under

irrigation and a breakdown by crop type (LBR, BIA)

Mapping of flooded areas, estuaries, and shallow sea

features (BLM, LBR, GS, BIA)

Assessment of salinity problems in major watersheds

(BLM, GS, LBR)

Assessment and monitoring of physical water quality.

water turbidity, and algae blooms (GS, F&WS, NPS, -

BLM, LBR)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Monitoring ice conditions in Arctic goose nesting

grounds to aid in the prediction of waterfowl populations. (F&WS)

Vegetative cover mapping (BLM, F&WS, LBR, GS, BIA,

NPS)

Mapping extent of fire scars and rate of revegetation

(BLM, F&WS, BIA, NPS)

Contribute to land use/land cover mapping and land

use/land cover change detection and statistical

analysis of nonurban areas at scales of 1:250,000 and

smaller (GS, NPS)

Monitoring with Landsat to supplement and update

orthophoto coverage of Indian lands (BIA)

Mapping and classification of forest lands for the

northwest Indian tribes to produce updated land-use

plans (BIA)

Publication of Landsat image maps at 1:250,000,

1:500,000, and 1:1,000,000-scale of unmapped or poorly

mapped regions of Antarctica and other regions in

support of national and international cooperative

efforts (GS)

Route selection for utility corridors (BLM, BPA)

Monitoring ephemeral rangelands for drought and

overgrazed conditions (BLM, BIA)

Geographic positioning using doppler satellite

(BLM, GS)

Environmental data collection and relay (GS, NPS,

BLM, LBR, F&WS, BIA)

Teleconferencing and emergency communications

(NPS, BLM, BIA, TA)

——

KEY

BIA” Bureau of Indian Affairs F&WS Fish and Wildlife Service NPS National Park Service

BLM Bureau of Land Management GS Geological Survey OSM Off Ice of Surface Mining

BPA Bonneville Power Administration LBR Bureau of Reclamation TA Territorial Affairs

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior Secretary’s initiative Use of Aerospace Technology Draft Mar 30 1978.
86

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

Bureau applications

Bureau of Reclamation:

Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Irrigated Land Inventory . . . . . . . . . .

Agricultural Crop Inventory . . . . . . . .

Hydrometeorological Data Relay .

Mesoscale Cloud Analysis. . . . . . . .

Bureau of Land Management:

Natural Resource Inventory . . . . . . . .

Natural Resource Monitoring . . . . . .

Telecommunications Improvement . . .

Geographic Positioning . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Service:

Migratory Bird Management ., . . . .

Habitat Inventory and Analysis . . . . .

National Park Service:

Vegetation/Land Cover Inventory . . .

Resource Condition Monitoring . . .

Environmental Quality Monitoring . . .

Geological Survey:

Land Cover Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cartographic Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geologic and Mineral Assessment . . .

Conservation and Regulation . . . . .

Onshore Offshore

Energy and Energy and

Minerals Minerals

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

Water Land Fish and

Resources Resources Wildlife Telecommunications

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x x

x

x x x

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior, Use of Aerospace Technology in Interior Department Programs, March 1978
87

Table 15.—Existing Legislation Requiring Monitoring

Name

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

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

Carey Act of 1894 ., ... ... ... . .

National Irrigation Act of 1902 ., . .

Weeks Act of 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916,

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 ... ...

Recreation and Public Purposes Act

of 1926. . . . . .

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

of 1934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 . . . . . . .

Soil Conservation and Domestic

Allowance Act of 1935 ... ... .

(and amendments of 1936) .

Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention Act of 1954 . . .

Multiple Mineral Development Act

of 1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Plains Conservation Program Act

of 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 ., . .

Clean Air Act of 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Amendments of 1977 . . . .

Wilderness Act of 1964 . . . . . . . . . . .

Land and Water Conservation Act

of 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Amendment of 1977 . . .

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. ,

Community Planning and Resource

Development Soil Surveys of 1966 . . .

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 . . . .

and Amendments of 1976 . . . . . . . . . .

Endangered Species Act of 1973 . . . . . .

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control

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

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Bank Act of 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mining and Mineral Policy of 1970 ....,

Soil and Water Resources Conservation

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

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

Endangered American Wilderness Act

of 1978

Renewable Resource Extension Act

of 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Reference

Public Law 42, Ch. 152

Public Law 44, Ch. 107

Public Law 53, Ch, 301

Public Law 57-161

Public Law 61-435

Public Law 64-290

Public Law 66-146

Public Law 69-386

Public Law 73-121

Public Law 73-482

Public Law 74-46

Public Law 74-461

Public Law 83-556

Public Law 83-585

Public Law 84-1021

Public Law 87-703

Public Law 88-206

Public Law 95-05

Public Law 95-05

Public Law 88-578

Public Law 95-42

Public Law 89-90

Public Law 89-560

Public Law 90-542

Public Law 94-486

Public Law 93-205

Public Law 93-320

Public Law 94-579

Public Law 91-559

Public Law 91-631

Public Law 95-192

Public Law 95-217

Public Law 95-237

Public Law 95-306

Public Law 95-87

Agency

DO I

DOI

DO I

DOI/USDA

DOI/ACE

DOI

DO I

DO I

DOI

DOI

USDA

USDA

USDA

DO I

USDA

USDA

EPA

DOI

DOI

DO I

USDA

DO I

DO I

DO I

DOI/ACE

USDA/DOl

DOI

DO I

DO I

DOI/USDA/

EPA/ACE

DOI

USDA

DOT

Data required

Develop mining resources of the

United States

Desert lands in certain States

and territories

Reclamation of desert lands

Construction of irrigation works and

land reclamation

Watershed and river navigability

Unappropriated Federal land to

stock-raising

Promote mining of coal, oil, phosphate

Federal public lands to States and

cities for recreational purposes

Conservation of wildlife-fish games

Prevent injury to public grazing lands

Protection of lands against soil erosion

Protection of lands against soil erosion

Works of improvement to prevent

soil erosion

Multi-mineral mining of public lands

Great Plains Programs

Conservation of national resources

Regional air pollution control Iocations

Regional air pollution control programs

Water conservation and outdoor

recreation

Development of water and related land

Soil Survey Program

Preserve selected rivers

Preserve endangered fish and wildlife

Construction of public works on

the river

Public lands inventory

Conservation of surface water

Reclamation of mined land

Further the conservation of water and

related resources.

Improve biological integrity of the

Nation’s water

Protect wilderness preservation areas

Protect forest rain products

Protect society and environment from

suface operations

Abbreviations ACE — U S Army Corps of Engineers

USDA — U S Department of Agriculture

DOI – Department of the Interior

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

DOT — Department of Transportation

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
88

Table 16.— Federal Statutes Pertinent to Remote Sensing

Name

Cotton Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act . . . . .

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

Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act . . . .

Weather Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil Conservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest Pest Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Fish and Wildlife Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fishery Resources Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Watershed Protection and Flood

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

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

Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flood Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . .

Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taylor Grazing Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Reclamation Law. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest Resources Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Admission of New States . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Outdoor Recreation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food and Agriculture Act. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water Resources Planning Act . . . . . . . .

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

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

Federal Water Pollution Control Act . . .

Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hazardous Waste Management Act . . . .

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

National Resources Land Management

Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land Use Policy and Planning

Assistance Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marine Pollution Dumping Conservation

National Environmental Policy Act. . . . .

Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1973. .

Surface Mining Reclamation Act . . . . . .

-.

Reference

Public Law 92-331

7 USC 1010

7 USC 1622

7 USC 1652

15 USC 313

16 USC 590

16 USC 594

16 USC 665

16 USC 742

16 USC 744

16 USC 758a

16 USC 759

10 USC

16 USC 100-1009

Public Law 83-738

40 USC 641

Public Law 86-645

Public Law 90-448

43 USC 2

43 USC 31

43 USC 315f

43 USC 485g

16 USC 581

43 USC 857

43 USC 1181

Public Law 88-29

Public Law 89-321

Public Law 89-80

Public Law 90-448

Public Law 92-367

Public Law 92-500

—

NYP

NYP

NYP

NYP

NYP

—

NYP

NYP

Agency

USDA

USDA

USDA

DOI/USDA

DOC

USDA

USDA

DOI

DOI

DOI

DOI

DOI

DOI

USDA/ACE

DOI

DOI

ACE

HUD

DOI

DOI

DOI

DOI

USDA

DOI

DOI

DOI

USDA

DOI/USDA/

HEW/FPC

HUD

ACE

EPA/DOC

EPA

EPA

DOI

DOI

DOI

EPA

EPA

DOI

DOI

Abbreviations” ACE — U S Army Corps of Engineers DOI — Department of the Interior HEW

USDA — U.S. Department of Agriculture EPA — Environmental Protection Agency HUD

DOC — Department of Commerce FPC — Federal Power Commission NYP

-—

Data requirements

Estimates of cotton crop and acreage

Land inventory and monitoring of erosion, sediment, flood plain, land use

Statistics on agricultural product

supplies

Surveys of presence and effect of

Halogeton Glomeratus, a weed

Enabling legislation

Surveys and studies of soil erosion

Detection of forest insect pests on

wildlife

Studies of effect of pollutants on

wildlife

Studies of fish and wildlife

Studies of food, fish populations

Studies of fish resources in South

Pacific possessions

Studies of Atlantic coast shad

Studies of the Atlantic coast

Investigations and surveys for flood

prevention and watershed program

development

Surveys and research outcrop and

underground fires

Mineral exploration

Identification of flood plain areas,

damage assessment

Technical assistance to local planning

agencies

Enabling legislation

Enabling legislation

Land classification

Land classification

Survey of forest supplies

Survey of public lands in a State prior

to its admission to the Union

Land classification and management

Inventory of outdoor recreation

resources

Commodity acreage and land use

Studies of water supply adequacy

Establishment of flood risk zones,

estimates of flood losses

Inspection of dams, Landsat data used

to locate them

Oil spill surveillance, violation detection, pollution surveys and research

Studies and detection of pollution

Surveys of effects of hazardous wastes

on the environment

Research and monitoring of extent of

toxic substances

Land inventory and land-use

classifications

Comprehensive land-use planning

Monitor seas for pollution

Environmental impact statements

Surveys of land-use and surface mining

operations

Surface mining operations survey

– Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

– Department of Housing and Urban Development

– Not yet passed in 1974

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

the need postulated in earlier official Government

projections of demand is striking. In discussions

with remote-sensing specialists from several Federal agencies the difference has been attributed to

several technical and policy factors:

Considerable modification in Landsat performance characteristics between I.andsat 1

and I.andsat 4, and the likelihood that future

changes could seriously perturb the ways in

which data must be processed in the future.

Technical difficulties> experienced in the landsat 4 system.

Initial slow production rate (one scene per

day ) of the improved resolution TM scanner,

The X-band transmitter used to transmit data

from the TM failed only a few months after

launch.

Delay in design and procurement of a more

advanced solid-state and higher resolution

scanner comparable to the scanner to be employed on the French SPOT spacecraft in

1985.

Anticipation of a gap in data flow between

89

the failure of Landsat 4 and launch of Landsat D) ‘.

● Continuing delays in delivering data t o

customers.

• Uncertainty over Federal policy regarding a

continuing role for a [U.S. space remote-sensing system.

• The experimental phase of MSS is nearly

over.

The Federal user community has generally concluded that experimental and demonstration projects carried out using the data products of the sys -

tem have been successful in showing potential

cost-effective applications to agency missions.

These have included utility for a substantial]

number of national resource, environmental, and

land management purposes. On the other hand

the Landsat system, they note, had not been run

as an operational system until 1983. It has not provided the Federal user community with the assurances needed by managers of standardized data

flow available over an extended period.
Chapter 6

National Security Needs

and Issues
Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Land Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Civilian Remote Sensing and National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Contributions of the Civilian Remote-Sensing Systems to Meeting

National Security Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Civilian/Military Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Potential Military and Intelligence Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Possible Suitability of Projected Foreign Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table

Table No. Page

17. Contributions of the Civilian Remote-Sensing Systems

to U.S. Space Intelligence Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
— ———

Chapter 6

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

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Government operates two parallel

programs of Earth remote sensing from space.

Civilian systems operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provide unclassified low- and

moderate-resolution information about the physical parameters of the Earth’s land, water, and air.

Department of Defense (DOD) classified satellites

collect data for a variety of military and intelligence purposes such as early warning of missile attack, verification of compliance with international treaties, and strategic and tactical planning. While both programs may utilize similar

spacecraft and basic technologies (e. g., earthwardlooking sensors and ground processing), the programs differ in amount of funding, priority, and

visibility.

The classified programs, among other things,

provide essential data on activities in areas of the

world where U.S. access may otherwise be greatly

restricted. They are highly classified because they

produce highly sensitive information, some of

which could relate to ongoing classified military

activities. * They are also highly classified because

public knowledge of the capacities of the technology would be of considerable use to potential

adversaries. Even nonsensitive data from the systems could, upon analysis, reveal the technical

characteristics of the surveillance systems and

compromise their effectiveness.

The prospect of transferring the civilian system

to private ownership raises the question of what

effects private ownership might have on the relationship between civilian and classified military

remote-sensing systems and on the work of the

military and intelligence communities. This chapter summarizes data and program support which

civilian remote-sensing systems could provide to

the military and intelligence communities and lists

● For many years, even “the fact of” the existence of strategic surveillance satellites was classified Only in October 1978 was their

existence officially acknowledged by an American President.

likely concerns of military and intelligence agencies over the prospect of transfer of civil activities

from Federal ownership. It identifies requirements

or conditions which it might be desirable to place

on a private sector owner of a space remotesensing system. Finally, it discusses the possible

utility and availability for defense purposes of

data from foreign space programs.

Meteorological Data

Data provided by civilian satellites operated by

NOAA are an integral part of the DOD weather

forecasting service. Since weather data are essential to the global operations of U.S. air and naval

forces, a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

(DMSP) has been established to gather accurate,

timely, and precise meteorological information.

The DMSP is supplemented by the data products

of NOAA meteorological satellites. Careful coordination between the programs from the design

stage onward ensures that the family of polarorbiting and geostationary satellites are integrated

into a system for meeting both national civilian

and military global weather data needs.

Weather satellites have proven particular] y useful for obtaining data over oceans and remote

areas where there is a paucity of surface reporting stations. In addition to determining atmospheric conditions on a near-instantaneous basis,

the satellites contribute to observing slower acting phenomena such as ice-floe generation and climatic trends that could affect DOD’s operations.

A recent NOAA study’ states that any private

system supplying meteorological data would be

required to provide priority service to DOD and

would be subject to DOD direction when selecting and designing operational parameters.

1 “Transfer of the Civil Operational Earth Observation Satellites

to the Private Sector, NOAA, February 1983.

93
94

Land Remote Sensing transportable ground receiving and data-processThe military and intelligence communities puring unit, which permits rapid deployment to overseas sites, if required. This equipment could, in

chase the moderate-resolution Landsat data, in

both imagery and digital tape format, to suppletime of emergency, be used to supplement other

data-collection means. *

ment collections made by classified systems.

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

——

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

CIVILIAN REMOTE SENSING AND NATIONAL SECURITY

So long as both the military and the civilian

space programs are under the direct funding and

management of the Federal Government, the activities of both can be readily coordinated and

controlled in the overall national interest. Over

the past two decades, policies governing the

operations of unclassified civilian remote-sensing

satellite programs have been developed at high

levels of Government under the close supervision

of the National Security Council. NASA, in collaboration with other Federal agencies, academic

institutions, and industry, has carried on a substantial program of experimentation and demonstration which has served a variety of civilian and

national security needs. DOD has pursued its own

concurrent development program, which has returned some benefits to the civilian community. z

General policy governing the relationship between the national security and civilian space programs of the U.S. Government was established

by the provisions of the National Aeronautics and

Space Act of 1958. For reasons cited at the beginning of this chapter, details of the extent and nature of collaboration are not publicly available.

Policies have been implemented through interagency agreements. The sharing of facilities and

equipment, the setting of permissible limits for

civil sensor operation, and many details on the

acquisition and processing of data have been determined by Government policymakers, out of the

public view. This has caused some discontent

among some U.S. data users. However, the interest in commercializing the technology, and the

‘Civilian Space Policy and Applications (Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Report, OTA-STI-177,

June 1982.).

simultaneous emergence of a number of competitive foreign space remote-sensing systems, require reevaluation of the intragovernmental arrangements and networks which have been used

over the past decade for collaboration and control of remote-sensing programs.

Any transfer of U.S. civilian remote-sensing

systems would be accompanied by a review of the

obligations, conditions, and stipulations to be

placed on the operator to protect national security

interests. In some cases, such as control of technology transfer, existing regulations should serve

to oversee adequately the operations of U.S. companies. The continued supply of data from civilian systems to defense organizations, similarly,

should be a straightforward matter of adjustment

to possible new price structures and delivery

routes.

Military and intelligence agencies face other

more difficult questions—e. g., the steps to be

taken to preempt and operate commercial systems

in time of national emergency. These and other

safeguards, such as guarantees of the long-term

availability of data, require both careful planning

and commitment to some Government subsidy.

Defense agencies can be expected to pay a proportionate share of the system costs incurred by

a private satellite owner/operator to meet special

Government needs.

A less tractable problem is to keep openly available data products of U.S. civilian systems from

revealing classified information about the United

States’ sensitive installations and activities to

potential adversaries. Since the Soviet Union possesses competent space reconnaissance systems,
95

——..——— —

the problem really applies more to other potential adversaries, including those who might consider sponsoring terrorist activities on U.S. soil.

Inclinations to set a limit on sensor resolution or

to screen the data for content will run counter to

the private entrepreneur’s desire to maximize the

information content of the data, shorten the time

of delivery to customers, and generally to meet

the competition posed by the advanced systems

of France, Japan, and other countries. It appears

that by the end of the decade, high-quality imagery and data on the entire surface of the globe

will be generally available from foreign systems.

This development will require accommodation

among the sometimes conflicting aims of the U.S.

military, political, and commercial sectors.

In the event of transfer of the Landsat system

to private ownership, military and intelligence

agencies will want to place certain limits on the

design and use of the technology and the resulting

data products. Though their special interests may

be unique to this particular field of space activity, meeting defense limitations should require

nothing beyond licensing and regulation. Principal

areas of concern of the defense and intelligence

agencies include:

●

●

●

●

limits on technology and design criteria embodied in a civilian system;

potential limits on day-to-day operations as

they relate to sensitive contents, regions, or

customers;

impact of aggressive worldwide market development that may intrude upon national

security needs; and

policies on access and cost of data.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CIVILIAN REMOTE-SENSING SYSTEMS

TO MEETING NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS

Under the terms of the National Aeronautic and

Space Act of 1958, the Landsat and meteorological

satellite systems must provide data that are not

duplicated in their characteristics by any other

U.S.-funded system, classified, or unclassified.

This establishes a unique role for civilian systems

in contributing to the net national pool of global

land and meteorological information. Table 17

summarizes the contributions they have made.

The Defense Mapping Agency has used Landsat

data to revise hydrographic and aeronautical

charts inexpensively. For example, the Landsat

multispectral scanner (MSS) sensor is able to

observe underwater detail, making possible a new

class of shallow sea maps of interest to the U.S.

Navy.

The MSS on Landsat scans continuously a

swath of about 100 miles wide on the Earth’s surface and rescans the same track every 16 days. *

Thus, it has become possible economically to

monitor vast areas in a routine way. Subsequent

‘Successful acquisition of Landsat images depends on the absence

of cloud cover. Some regions of the world, especially tropical areas,

are particularly hard to sense, even with repeated access.

improved scanners like the multispectral linear array would have the same areal coverage with improved reliability and lower costs. Higher resolution sensors sacrifice the ability to cover such wide

areas as cheaply because the number of picture

elements increases as the square of the improvement in resolution. Although most human works

or activities are not visible on MSS Landsat

scenes, they are capable of revealing agricultural

and other gross disturbances of the landscape. The

higher resolution thematic mapper (TM) data, on

the other hand, have rather good capacity to

record the presence of human activity. Landsat

data or their equivalent could signal the need for

more detailed investigations of an area and, to

some extent, guard against surprise developments

in out-of-the-way parts of the globe, thereby freeing up more expensive and sophisticated surveillance systems to concentrate on areas of high

priority.

The Landsat system, used in conjunction with

meteorological satellites, has shown value in observing agricultural conditions and land-use patterns, Land degradation, population shifts, and

other stressful conditions resulting from a combi-
96

Table 17.—Contributions of the Civilian Remote.

Sensing Systems to U.S. Space Intelligence Systems

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Complementary data: The civilian metsat systems provide

data complementary to those provided by the Defense

Meteorological Satellite Program. U.S. intelligence and

mapping organizations are substantial users of the unique

data produced by Landsat to supplement other sources.

Backup system: In the event of failure of a military or intelligence system, or a temporary overload, civilian metsat

or Landsat data can be used instead,

Technical emergency support: Landsat’s worldwide network of communications, ground facilities, processing

centers, etc., can, in an emergency, be used to support intelligence collections,

Broadened technical base: A larger group of trained personnel and technical competence are available as needed,

Unique data products: Information drawn from civilian

sources, e.g., environmental monitoring information, can

be used as a basis for further intelligence analysis,

Cover data: Landsat imagery can be released and used as

a basis for discussion involving the U.S. public or international forums, when the original source may be classified

data which should not be compromised.

Political leverage: Landsat and training can be used to extract reciprocal rights from foreign nations where intelligence operations may need base rights or special access.

GeneraI information needs: Meteorological or Landsat

technology helps to maintain cognizance of foreign remotesensing developments by serving as the U.S. contribution

at international technical symposia.

Political tool: Open distribution of metsat and Landsat data

has served to deflect and diffuse international criticism

of U.S. space intelligence operations.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

nation of environmental problems, population

pressures, and political conditions, can contribute

to instability and tensions and thereby may affect the overall security of the United States. Landsat data can be merged with data from other

sources, including highly classified sources, to

provide enhanced information on events in remote

areas or regions where conventional information

is scanty and unreliable. Some types of analysis,

such as estimating foreign crop yields, can be

made with Landsat data without necessarily revealing the precise areas of U.S. interest or requiring expensive collection activities.

Civilian/Military Interrelationships

The following paragraph items present a variety

of examples of the types of relationship that DOD

or intelligence agencies may wish to have with a

private firm chartered to provide remote-sensing

services. This issue will be the degree to which

a private owner will be able to assure direct sup-

——

port to Government activities, whenever these are

requested by the Government. These examples are

intended to illustrate the range of potential applications, without attempting to evaluate their

relative importance:

●

●

●

✎

Provision of Primary Data in an Emergency. —Earth-orbiting satellites are unique in

their ability to view distant parts of the globe

and relay the data back to the United States

in near-real time. * Landsat and meteorological satellite systems also can serve as backup

units in the event of a failure of one of the

comparable classified satellites. In a national

emergency, these civilian systems are subject

to takeover by the defense forces. In the event

of transfer of these systems to the private sector, it maybe appropriate to require that data

format and handling characteristics be compatible with military data management approaches.

Controlled Distribution of Data.—Access to

civilian remote-sensing data distribution

channels and the ability to influence or control data flow can be of value to the intelligence and military communities. Analysis of

sales records of land remote-sensing data may

show patterns of foreign purchases, tipping

off specific areas of interest for resource exploitation or military purposes, for example.

In time of international stress, it might be desirable to delay or deny altogether distribution of land remote-sensing data to hostile

countries if these data might be used directly against the United States or its allies.

Guarantee of Beneficial Data Exchange.—

The open, free distribution by the United

States of meteorological data has created

much good will and helped to develop patterns in which the United States benefited by

receiving data in return from other countries.

The U.S. lead in civilian space technology

over two decades allowed the United States

to gain acceptance of its right to operate in

space and to sense other countries. Through

the World Meteorological Organization and

other international organizations, the United

● When the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System is completed,

it will be possible to send data from the spacecraft directly to the

United States, no matter what part of the globe it is over.
97

States was able to advance the exchange of

weather data worldwide to the benefit of

many of its civilian activities as well as those

of the military and intelligence agencies. This

prompt and reliable supply of weather data

from foreign sources is used extensively i n

air operations of the U.S. military. In addition, foreign data assist in ground-checking

U.S. satellite data.

Use in International Meetings.—The military

and intelligence communities may, on occasion, be required to use classified data to

assist U.S. civilian agencies in analyzing a

major event for presentation in an international organization. An example might be fixing responsibility for damage from a large oil

spill. In such a case, civilian imagery is obtained rapidly and presents objective information (e.g., Landsat data showed the extent

of the recent Mexican oil well blowout as it

affected the Texas coast). It can be used for

multinational negotiations or for briefing the

public without compromising more sensitive

U.S. sources, if the event is sufficiently gross

to be visible on Landsat imagery. As civilian

instruments increase in resolving power,

many more activities related to the security

of nations could be revealed—troop activity in desert areas for example. The advantages and disadvantages for the United States

of “open skies” and nondiscriminatory data

distribution will have to be weighed. There

is considerable value in having a source of

open and unclassified data.

Continuing Source of Information on Foreign

Space R&D.—As the use of remote sensing

becomes more widespread and the technology diffuses around the world, it will be increasingly important for military and intelligence agencies to be alert to new developments which can either be adopted and used

for U.S. national security purposes or which,

in the hands of others, could make the U.S.

systems relatively less advanced. The maintenance of an open, advanced civilian program

at all stages of development of satellite and

remote-sensor instrument and data processing is necessary to preserving a broad technical base. Demonstrated U.S. competence

in these fields assures that U.S. nationals will

continue to be aware of technical advances

at all stages and will be in a position to monitor developments of colleagues in other

countries.

Civilian Program Hardware as Backup to

Defense Programs. —The command and control, communications, ground reception, and

data-processing facilities needed for the civilian program are related to those used for

classified remote-sensing programs. In the

event of international tension, and by Presidential directive, civilian Government systems may be partially or wholly diverted to

military use, To facilitate planning for such

contingencies, the equipment used in civilian

programs may have to be designed and constructed so as to be compatible with corresponding military components. Elements of

the civilian system may also be preempted

for interim backup service during, for example, the partial failure of a classified system.

Civilian Program Value in Providing Training and Special Skills. —Trained personnel

are a prerequisite for the management and

operation of advanced technology remotesensing programs at all levels, from equipment design, construction, and operation, to

data reception, management, and interpretation. An open program helps to ensure a pool

of trained personnel in each of these categories. Technically trained people constitute a

pool of labor available to be drawn upon by

classified programs as needed. Technical educational institutions must be operated on a

largely unclassified basis and require the existence of a viable civilian program to attract

students and to justify continued research

and educational efforts.

Preferential Access to U.S. Data or RemoteSensing Programs.—As a new and somewhat

glamorous technology combining space science and the potential for practical Earth applications, remote sensing has proven to be

a means for entering negotiations with other

countries. It is generally necessary to deal

with foreign nationals on the basis of unclassified technology. In some cases, foreign

governments stipulate the desire to deal with

civilian agencies of the U.S. Government to
98

assure themselves of the high level and reliability of the exchanges. For example, the

U.S. Geological Survey has been the prime

instrument selected to manage mineral exploration by remote sensing in some Middle

Eastern countries. On occasion this has resulted in finding mineral reserves that have

national security implications.

Ability to Monitor and Influence the Course

U.S. civilian remote-sensing sponsorship

and/or participation in international technical meetings enhances U.S. ability to observe and monitor closely the technological

state of the art in foreign countries as a basis

for judging the degree of technology transfer

and determining whether such activities are

to the net advantage of the United States, or

should be inhibited.

of Remote-Sensing Technology Transfer. —

POTENTIAL MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE REQUIREMENTS

The military and intelligence agencies are by

no means monolithic or uniform in their views

of civilian remote sensing. Indeed, sometimes their

individual goals conflict. Nevertheless, it is possible to summarize the possible requirements that

various members of both communities have suggested if the proposed transfer of remote-sensing

systems to private ownership proceeds:

●

●

●

Continuity of meteorological data supply is

an absolute necessity as a complement to military weather satellites. Orbital characteristics must be appropriate and sensors must

perform as specified.

It may be necessary to encrypt communications links and harden satellite components,

or otherwise make the system conform to

Government specifications on orbital parameters and sensor specifications.

The operator must design the resolution and

operating wavelength of sensors to meet military and intelligence restrictions.

●

●

●

●

●

In dealings with foreign entities the operator

will need to guard against unacceptable forms

of technology transfer.

Design and operations will need to take into

account contingency planning requirements

to assure compatibility and ability to operate

in a possibly hostile environment.

Operations will require that some private sector personnel possess special clearances and

that secure facilities be available.

Guarantees of specified types of operations

with products conforming to agreed levels of

quality, format, etc., may be necessary for

2 to 3 years in advance, as may guaranteed

readiness of replacement satellites.

The satellite operations may be subject to

override or preemption in the event of national need, and the sale of product likewise

may be “sanitized” or sales forbidden to certain foreign customers.

POSSIBLE SUITABILITY OF PROJECTED FOREIGN SYSTEMS

As discussed in chapter 3, within the next 5

years several foreign countries will possess remote-sensing satellites designed for a variety of

land, ocean, and meteorological tasks. The U.S.

military and intelligence remote-sensing communities can be expected to acquire and analyze

quantities of data from these new systems for

research purposes. To the extent that some unique

kinds of information can be extracted from the

data, it is possible that U.S. defense agencies may

purchase some data sets for practical application.

On the one hand, continuing provision of specialized data from foreign systems, data impossible to obtain with U.S. satellites, might be advantageous to U.S. purposes. On the other hand, U.S.

satellites, which collect and transmit global data

back to U.S. collection points, have proven to be
99

the most rapid and efficient means of accomplishing a host of sensitive national security operations

because they can be tightly controlled. Information about both the surface areas and the time

periods of interest to U.S. data collections must

be controlled, because either would be of considerable interest to potential adversaries. Yet it is

extremely difficult to control foreign sources, even

systems operated by close allies, to the degree necessary. For most important satellite missions, the

U.S. military and intelligence communities are

likely to insist on totally in-house operations or

the use of private U.S. contractors who can be

regulated and closely supervised. Thus, it is

unlikely that procurement arrangements would

be worked out as part of the defense alliance

agreement or that the material would constitute

a primary source for U.S. forces.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Remote Sensing in the

. . — — -.

Commercialization of

and U.S. International

Developing Countries

—

Remote Sensing

Relations*

Understanding the international effects of U.S.

policy to transfer satellite remote-sensing systems to

the private sector requires placing them in the context

of 25 years of “space relations” as well as overall U. S.-

developing country relations. U.S. actions with respect

to outer space may affect negotiations over Law of the

Sea, Trade, and other international areas. In addition,

they must be placed in the context of overall U.S. foreign policy and policy towards the United Nations and

other international organizations, Finally, they must

be understood in the context of the perceptions of the

foreign policy community, as distinct from the user

community, in developing CoUntries.

Historical Perspective and

Developing Country Perceptions

The utilization of space has always raised political

questions. However, initial discussions within the

United Nations over rules governing outer space often

fo u n d the U n i ted S t a t es a n d the U. S. S. R. o n the sa me

side, Neither desired international regulation of its

space activities. The Outer Space Treaty formalized

t hit po i n t of view by allowing countries open access

to space, w i the the caveat that no weapons of mass

destruction would be placed in outer space, and the

understanding that benefits from space-related activities would be used to the benefit of all countries,

and particularly the developing countries. The political

tradeoff between the two space powers and the developing countries during these earl y stages of space exploration was straightforward, In exchange for sharing of benefits and explicit promises that space would

be reserved for peaceful purposes, there would be little international regulation.

Space applications, especially remote sensing, were

first discussed in this context. The United States took

the position in the U.N. Committee for the Peaceful

Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) that no international

regulations were necessary for an experimental remotesensing system (or any other space application), and

—

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

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

promised that when the system was proven and

became operational the developing world would share

in its benefits. At the same time, the United States,

while not directly supporting U .N. technical assistance,

developed extensive bilateral agreements with, and

technical assistance to, the developing world.

The developing countries have been particularly

concerned about the possible use of satellite data by

multinational companies to exploit the resources of

developing countries. These countries have also expressed concern over the possibility that such data

could be used for military purposes to the detriment

of their own national security. Thus, they argued for

restricted dissemination of the data and for technical

assistance to aid them in developing their own ability

to use them. These concerns, while mitigated to some

extent in the mid-1970's, are still at the forefront of

the international debate regarding remote-sensing

satellites,

International negotiations to establish a regime to

govern the distribution of remote-sensing data from

space slowed to a near standstill early in the 1970’s.

The United States, for its part, was opposed to the

establishment of any regime restricting the open development of satellite systems and the open dissemina -

tion of information. Many developing countries and

the Eastern bloc countries, for their part, argued for

regulating the distribution of remote-sensing data.

Over the course of these negotiations, the United

States mitigated some concerns of the developing countries by disseminating data on a nondiscriminatory

basis and by continuing its own technical assistance

programs. However, as it became clear in the late

1970’s that the United States was beginning to think

in terms of an operational (and perhaps commercial )

system, the position of the developing countries once

again hardened, and the rhetoric of the debates became

increasingly harsh. Ironically, one of the key concerns

of the developing countries is that a commercial system might mean the end of open and nondiscriminatory access to data—the very policy they argued

forcefully against for so many years. However, they

see a policy of nondiscriminatory distribution as far

better than one in which a U.S. company would own

and control data acquired by remote-sensing satellites.

The issue of commercialization comes to the international arena in the context of over 100 years of international cooperation in forecasting and reporting

103
104

the weather and 25 years of U.S. assurances that space

would be developed for the benefit of a]], particularly

developing countries. It also must be seen in the context of 15 years of discussion regarding land remote

sensing in which the United States has argued against

regulation of remote-sensing satellites and has promised that remote-sensing data would continue to be

available on an open, nondiscriminatory basis.

Interdependence

During the past decade, the nations of the world

have become increasingly interdependent. This has affected international negotiations and organizations by

creating linkages between issues which make it increasingly difficult to treat any issue in and of itself. Discussions on the distribution of satellite remote-sensing

data carry over into the debate over such issues as

direct broadcast satellites, the use of the geostationary

orb it, the Law of the Sea, negotiations in the International Telecommunication Union regarding radiofrequencies, and the regulation of transborder data flows.

This tendency is compounded by the fact that in the

developing countries, it is often the same individual

who negotiates a wide range of issues. Hence, on a

very personal, as well as substantive, level, what is

said and done in one forum carries over into others.

In understanding the broader ramifications of U. S.

policy towards increased private sector involvement

i n, space, one must consider not only remote sensing,

but a broad range of other issues.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives

Delegates from some developing countries regard

U.S. actions at the U.N. and in other international

organizations as increasingly insensitive to the needs

of developing countries. They suggest that the United

States has missed excellent opportunities to generate

good will and strength in international organizations.

The UNISPACE ’82 conference, which was organized in part to discuss the potential benefits of space

for the developing countries, was the latest example

of U. S. policy i n this area. The Department of State

approachcd the conference from the perspective of limiting the damage to U.S. policies. In that, they were

successful. However, developing countries view the

c(lnf~~rc’net’ as d failure because i t did not result in d

plan of action.

According to some conference participants, the United

States left them with the image of a nation unconcerned about the functioning of the U. N., pushing

commercialization without consultation with the inter-national community, and preparing to militarize

space. Although these perceptions are not shared by

all countries, they may well influence developing country activities in future international negotiations.

Although the issue of commercialization of satellite

remote sensing appears of little consequence compared

with the major troubles facing the world today, the

development of space policy now depends on military

policy, natural resources and economic development,

and global environmental problems. In addition, as

the national papers contributed to UNISPACE ’82 illustrate, it is a highly visible arena upon which the

developing countries have placed a tremendous

amount of national prestige. As such, space cannot be

seen as an issue of little consequence, even though it,

in and of itself, may not be of the highest national

priority.

Some developing countries view the commercialization of space as a hostile action because it removes the

U.S. Government one step from its responsibility for

U.S. actions in outer space. This ultimately may place

the United States in a weakened position in the U.N.

and other international forums.

Organizational Infrastructure

The ability of a country to adopt remote-sensing

technology depends on its capacity to create appropriate institutions for its use and management. This

is particularly at issue in the developing world, where

space-related organizations have only recent] y emerged

as part of the governmenta] institutions. Although

there is no single best way to organize satellite remotesensing programs, the successful adoption of the technology coincides with the development of a strong institutional infrastructure, including effective organiza -

tion, equipment, and personnel.

Thailand’

The Royal Thai Survey Department, through the use

of aerial photography, has benefited from remote-sensing technology for nearly 30 years, In 1971 , the Royal

Thai Government became aware of the possibility y of

using Landsat data to supplement its aerial survey data

and joined the NASA-sponsored ERTS-I * international investigators.

Since that time, the United States has contributed

to three U.S. Agency for International Development
105

—.

——.— —.—.—.

—

the institutional commitment to remote sensing in NRC

will not help Thailand in its national planning.

In particular, the Royal Forestry Department, the

Office of Agricultural Statistics, the Soils Science Division of the Department of Agriculture, the Royal Irrigation Department, and the Land Development Department have all made commitments of equipment

and manpower to the use of satellite remote-sensing

technology. For instance, within the Royal Forestry

Department, Forest Mapping and Remote Sensing Subdivision, 20 people are directly involved with remote

sensing ---10 using aerial photography and 10 using

satellite data. The latter have received training in the

United States, at ITC/ Netherlands, in Canada and at

Thai NRC training programs. The Forestry Department’s use of the data is limited by its equipment

(which includes adequate visual interpretation equipment hut not computer analysis equipment) and by

the availability of satellite data, The Office of Agricultural Statistics has within i t a Remote Sensing and

Service Branch that is working on an Area Frame

Sampling Program in which satellite data will play a

minor role. Its commitment to Landsat data is less than

that of the Forestry Department because it has found

the data less useful. Within the’ Soils Science Iii\’isi[ln

of the Department of Agriculture, three people are currently working with satellite remote-sensing data. In

addition, eight to ten masters theses have been written applying satellite remote sensing to soils survey in

Thailand.

The Thai Government user agencics, then, constitute the beginnings of an institutional infrastructure

to support the use of satellite data. The use of those

data is limited by the data themselves, slow data turnaround time, * and the lack of computer analysis equipment, as well as by organizational impediments,

These organizational impediments are the result, in

part, of the manner in which the Thai Government

has approached the organizational development of its

remote-sensing program. Creating a separate entity

within an existing institution separated the technology

from institutions which have as their primary focus

the solving of resource and environmental problem.

Instead, it was housed in a sevrice agency and this

generated problems in data availability and the application of satellite data by user agencies.
Figure A-1 .—Organization of the Thailand National Remote Sensing Program

< Land Development Department

\

National Environmental Board

Department of Fishery

Department of Mineral Resources

. Post and Telegraph Department

Board

NASA \

General Service

and Follow-up

Data Analysis

Technical and Maintenanc e

User Service

Computer Analysis

Agriculture, Forestry and

Land Use \

Geology, Hydrology,

Oceanography and \

\

cool

\\\’

Tra[ n Ing and Seminar

\ of Science, Technology and Energy

National Research Council

1

Remote Sensing Division

Research Coordination

and Follow-up

Technical and

Maintenance

Ground

Receiving Station General Service Data Analysis User Service

● Responsible for ● To plan, follow-up

general administrative services

including budget

and financial

matters, clerical

work, procurement, inventory

affairs of the

Division

from both satellite

photos and aerial

photos by conducting optical interpretation and field

surveys and to

process data from

computer compati.

ble tapes in

nary applications

To conduct,,ground

truth survey

To establish a

data bank

I Responsible for

remote sensing

technology devel

opment, equipment design and

testing, and

maintenance of

equipment of

the Division

.

●

●

sat and other

remote sensing

data to users on

request

To reproduce

Landsat imagery

and other related

photos for

dissemination

To provide image

analysis equipments, e.g. zoom

transfer scope,

four channel

viewer and stereoscope, etc. to user

with various agencies both within

the country and

abroad on

research and

survey for natural

resources by

remote sensing -

. To prepare and

translate articles

on remote sensing

for dissemination

● To organize training courses and

seminars on

remote sensing

with NASA for reception of Landsat signals and

coordinate with

other organizations performing similar

functions

To establish and

operate a ground

receiving station

To coordinate

with other ground

receiving stations

agencies

SOURCE U S Agency for International Development

Bangladesh

The Bangladesh

resources, etc., and was overseen by the National

Landsat Committee of Bangladesh, an advisory group

Landsat Program (BLP) was created

in 1971, following Bangladesh’s War of Independence,

representing government user agencies, universities,

and the Planning Commission. In addition, Bangladesh

has a Landsat Task Force, consisting of over 30 investigators from user agencies, which works under the

National Landsat Committee.

BLP recently merged with the Space and Atmospheric Research Center of the Bangladesh Atomic

Energy Commission to form the Space Research and

within the Science and–Technology Division, Cabinet

Secretariat. BLP was created as a multiuser program

covering agriculture, forestry, land use, fisheries, water

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

1981
107

Remote Sensing Organization (SPARRSO). This new

entity is responsible for both research and operations

for space science and remote-sensing technology in

Bangladesh. SPARRSO currently operates an Automatic Picture Transmission (APT) meteorological

ground station to receive signals from international

weather satellites. With the aid of the United States

and France, SPARRSO will soon be building a new

ground-receiving facility capable of receiving both

Landsat and SPOT data, as well as Advanced High

Resolution Meteorological Satellite Data. Bangladesh

has recently completed a new applications laboratory

that contains visual and digital image-processing

equipment, color and black-and-white photographic

processing equipment, and photo-interpretation facilities. At the same time, the United States and SPARRSO

have trained a nucleus of over 25 resource specialists

in handling and interpreting satellite data. This training will continue under the upcoming U.S. and French

programs.

The Department of Meteorology in Bangladesh is

the government’s weather forecasting agency. It integrates data accumulated by conventional methods with

satellite data collected by SPARRSO. Most of the user

agencies in Bangladesh use satellite data collected and

disseminated by SPARRSO. In this way, SPARRSO

has been and will continue to be a service organization for the rest of the government’s user agencies.

SPARRSO has attempted to avoid becoming isolated

from the user agencies by bringing personnel from

those agencies to work within SPARRSO. This approach seems to have been fairly successful in spreading the use of remote-sensing technology throughout

Bangladesh. Bangladesh has developed a solid institutional commitment to the use of satellite data.

Kenya and Peru’

While both Bangladesh and Thailand have created

new entities overseen by national coordinating committees to develop remote-sensing capabilities, they do

not represent the only form of institutional development in the developing world. Both Kenya and Peru

present examples of an alternative way of developing

remote-sensing capabilities.

Kenya’s initial interest in satellite remote sensing

came from the Ministry of Natural Resources, which

formed a national steering committee composed of representatives from agencies throughout the Kenyan

Government. Until recently, however, no central focus

for remote-sensing activities developed in Kenya, as

primary responsibility for the new technology shifted

from the Survey of Kenya to the Central Bureau of

Statistics to the National Environment Secretariat to

the Kenyan Rangeland and Ecological Monitoring Unit

(KREMU). Outside funding of specific projects within

each of these agencies caused these shifts of emphasis.

Today, KREMU functions as the national remotesensing agency within Kenya. With a World Bank

loan, KREMU is installing a digital processing system.

This is a key step in Kenya’s ability to use remote-sensing data, since up to this point Kenya has relied solely on visual analysis. This also marks a further, and

substantial, commitment by Kenya to the continued

use of satellite data. Kenya is studying the potential

for establishing a regional remote-sensing center and

ground facility in Nairobi. Intergovernmental coordination is the responsibility of the Committee on the

Application of Satellite and Space Technology

(COASST).

Kenya is also the host country for AID’s Regional

Remote Sensing Facility in Nairobi. This facility, serving the whole of East Africa, has benefited from the

active participation of the Kenyan Government, which

has cosponsored several training courses and symposia

and helped to set up the center.

In addition to its work in land remote sensing,

Kenya is actively using meteorological data from

satellites. The Kenyan Meteorological Department receives APT images from the NOAA-6 polar-orbiting

satellite, which it uses in determining cloud formation,

type, location, and general cloud movement. The Department uses these data to map and monitor tropical

cycles and to forecast hurricanes. Kenya hopes to improve its meteorological forecasting from satellite data,

and plans to train more technicians in the near future.

Kenya is just beginning to develop an organizational

context for incorporating remote-sensing technology

into national planning. It is also securing the necessary

equipment and personnel, a fundamental link in using

remote-sensing data. Kenya has also shown a strong

commitment to the use of remote-sensing technology

through its participation in the African Remote Sensing Council and the AID regional training facility in

Nairobi. More than 200 Kenyans have received training in satellite remote sensing and photo-interpretation

techniques since the mid 1970’s.

Kenya has taken a different approach to the development of remote-sensing capability than have either

Thailand or Bangladesh. KREMU is not a space-oriented agency, but much more a user of satellite data

and a provider of resource surveys to other Kenyan
108

— .

agencies. This type of organizational structure ties the

use of satellite data more directly to actual resource

and environmental problems, but it may make it more

difficult to establish a focal point for remote-sensing

activities. Nonetheless, Kenya’s commitment to the future use of satellite remote-sensing data and the necessary manpower, equipment, and organizational infrastructure is strong.

Peru, like Kenya, has placed responsibility for satellite remote sensing in a well-respected agency that will

be a user of Landsat data and provide resource information to other Peruvian agencies. Like Kenya, Peru

has chosen not to house its remote-sensing program

in a special remote-sensing agency or a space agency,

choosing instead to make it a part of an existing agency which sees the use of remote-sensing data as another

tool for carrying out its mandated tasks.

Peru is now working with AID on a program to

strengthen its infrastructure through institutional

development, equipment purchases, and personnel

training.

Other Programs

Several other developing countries have begun the

institutional development necessary for the effective

use of satellite remote-sensing data.

Egypt established the Egyptian Remote Sensing Center in 1971.5 This center has become a focal point for

remote-sensing expertise in the Middle East and North

Africa. It employs more than 65 qualified/trained personnel and engages in cooperative work with many

remote-sensing institutions worldwide. This center carries out its own research and is also supposed to coordinate remote-sensing activities within Egypt.

India has developed a strong national space program, with a large remote-sensing component .6 Building on a strong organizational base and training program, India has established a full ground-receiving station and has plans to launch its own remote-sensing

satellite in the near future. India’s National Remote

Sensing Agency is fully equipped with the latest in

photographic and processing equipment. At least 65

of its employees were trained abroad in the United

States and other industrialized countries.

In sum, then, whether the institutional commitment

made by a developing country takes the form of a newly created remote-sensing/space organization or a newly created entity within an existing resource survey

agency, it requires substantial commitment to developing institutional infrastructure.

——.

Rt,rnott \<,n\lng (Jt N<lturdl I{t.[,ur(et in Ikvtl{)plng ( (~untrlt,s I he I R\Ip

t Id n F kfx,rlt,nc e [ ‘NIsI’AL [ 82 l’lenna klan h IQ81

‘ Nat t{~n.~1 I’~pt,r indl.i [ lx]\f’,.\( E 82 L’lennd \fcl\ IQ8 1

The Use of Satellite Technology

in Solving Environmental and

Resource Problems

A great deal has been written about the application

of satellite remote-sensing technology to the solution

of environmental and resource problems of the developing world. Using examples from Thailand and Costa

Rica, this section attempts to distinguish between

potential and actual uses of satellite remote-sensing

data.

Thailand7

Thailand has made numerous attempts to apply remote-sensing technology to the mapping and management of its natural resource areas. Some of these attempts have been remarkably successful and have led

to operational use of the technology. Others provide

good examples of innovative and adaptive use that

may prove to be of significant value in the future. Still

others have been complete failures.

● Forestry. --- The deforestation problem in Thailand

is severe. Each year an average of 4,650 square

kilometers (km’) of forest land is cut while only 800

km2 are reforested, resulting in a net loss of 3,800

km2 of forested land each year. At this rate of deforestation, Thailand would deplete its forests completely in the first quarter of the 21st century.

The first indication of the extent of the deforestation problem came from a resource inventory done

in 197’3— the first year Landsat data were used to

aid the Forestry Department. The results of the first

full study utilizing Landsat data led to a more vigorous reforestation policy. The outcome of this policy

which indicates an increase is shown in figure A-2,

in the number of forest plantations throughout Thailand.

Using Landsat data, the Forest Mapping and Remote Sensing Division of the Royal Thai Forestry

Department has been able to map and summarize

the status of forest lands nationwide every 3 years

since 1973. Because of the high cost of aerial photography, this task would be impossible to accomplish

without satellite data.

In August of 1981, the Prime Minister’s Office requested a report on the status of forest lands and

deforestation throughout Thailand. The Forestry

Department prepared this report using Landsat data.

Since that time the Prime Minister has required

reports every 3 months on the state of the forests

in different parts of Thailand. The staff of the Prime

——. - ——-

~!(]~( ,IL ( r,il[ fll{twn ,in~l }j’]ll,ird {1[) < rt ]un[, IQ83
.—— .—

109

Figure A-2.— Relative Number of Forest Plantations in Thailand

First Landsat satelllte map showtng extent

of deforestation nationwide (1977) ~

i

First Landsat data Indicating widespread

extent of deforestation problem (1973)

Remote Sensing Program started in Thailand (1972)

1

1970 80

Time in years

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
110

. — .

Minister then works with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives on agricultural development

projects designed to settle farmers in already deforested areas rather than having those farmers move

onto still-forested land.

Without Landsat data, Thailand would be unable

to maintain an ongoing and up-to-date inventory

of its forested lands and the level of deforestation.

In fact, without the use of Landsat it is possible that

the magnitude of the deforestation problem would

not have come to the attention of decisionmakers

in Thailand at all. This is one of the most dramatic

examples of the successful use of Landsat data

anywhere in the world.

Environmental Impact .—Thailand has been less successful in using remote sensing to monitor the environmental impact of tin mining and offshore

dredging near Phuket in southwestern Thailand. In

1980, the National Environmental Board started a

program to monitor sedimentation, water pollution,

and destruction of coral reefs in this area. The Environmental Remote Sensing Section has conducted

extensive field-sampling surveys here, many timed

to correspond with Landsat satellite passes over this

area. They have also ordered satellite data over the

Phuket region from September 1982 until the present. Unfortunately, although it is likely that the required information could be extracted from Landsat data, this project as been unsuccessful because

the data have not been available from the Thai

ground station or from the United States because

of problems in the satellite sensor and tape recorders

(of Landsat 3).

Landsat data have been useful in evaluating the

extent of soil erosion problems. One project, completed in 1982, identified several areas of severe erosion near the Pitsanuloke-Lomask Highway and in

the Phumipol Dam Region. Some of these areas

have lost upwards of 20 cm of topsoil on steep

slopes. This study led to a bill, introduced in the

Thai Parliament, to prohibit agriculture on steep

slopes.

Crop Forecasting.—Thai use of the Landsat system

for agricultural crop production forecasting has not

been nearly as useful as had been expected. Members

of the Office of Agricultural Economics who have

applied remote-sensing techniques to agricultural

crop production forecasting believe that the technology is far from operational and that it is still in

the research stage in Thailand. Impediments to using

Landsat for crop yield forecasting in Thailand

include:

—Small field size.—The practices of interspersing

different crops on adjoining fields and planting

adjoining fields with the same crops at different

times makes it very difficult to use satellite data

from the multispectral scanner (80-meter resolution).

—Cloud cover .—The presence of cloud cover during the growing season prevents substantial use

of Landsat data.

–-Lack of timely delivery.—In order to evaluate the

state of the crops and take necessary remedial action, remote-sensing data need to be delivered

within a few days.

Still another difficulty with crop production forecasting is the lack of good yield models for crops

in Thailand. It is necessary to predict both crop area

and yield per acre.

The failure to apply Landsat data effectively to

agricultural crop production forecasting has been a

major disappointment. Remote-sensing programs in

many developing countries were justified on the expectation that they would improve agricultural

forecasts. The fact that the enthusiasm for satellite

remote sensing remains strong in developing countries despite the failure of Landsat with respect to

agriculture, shows the strength of commitment of

the developing world to the use of satellite data.

Costa Rica8

Costa Rica, like many developing countries, faces

severe environmental and resource problems. It has

experienced both rapid deforestation, as forest land is

cleared to accommodate agricultural and grazing, and

rapid urbanization, which destroys prime farmland.

Costa Rica is following a trend which is characteristic of all of Latin America. In 1978, Latin America

was believed to possess 25 percent of the developing

world’s forest land area. If current trends continue, this

forest area (around 550 million hectares) will be reduced by 40 percent. Most of the remaining forest will

be found only in inaccessible areas. In Costa Rica

alone, an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 hectares per year

of forest land is destroyed, compared with a reforestation rate of only 1,000 hectares per year.

Although the Costa Rican Government was aware

of these problems, it had not grasped their extent, In

fact, during the 1960’s and 1970’s the Costa Rican Government did little to survey its resources. By the late

1970’s Costa Rica realized that it needed a nationwide

survey to define its current resource base and the rate

“’The Utility, Cost and Effectiveness of Remote Sens]ng for Forest and Urban Sector Assessment in Costa Rica” (Los Altos, Calif : Resources Development Associates, March 1978); and “Design of a Natural Resources Inventory and Information System for Costa Rica: The Pilot Project Report” (Los

Altos, Calif. Resources Development Associates, June 1979),
777

of change of land use (either agricultural to urban or

forested to grazing and agricultural) in the country.

In 1977, Costa Rica began an AID demonstration

and pilot project to determine the feasibility of using

Landsat to aid in a natural resources inventory for

Costa Rica. The project was successful in confirming

the magnitude of the resource and environmental

problems facing Costa Rica—it created a clear picture

of the rapid deforestation and rapid urbanization taking place in various “project areas” in the country. The

study also showed the feasibility of integrating Landsat data into a national resources survey effort. In

Costa Rica, even though Landsat data were used to

illustrate the magnitude of a particular resource problem, and were shown to be a useful tool in monitoring that problem, the government did not follow up

by undertaking a national survey.

Although Costa Rica has continued to use remotesensing data, it has not adopted remote-sensing technology on the scale recommended by the studies. Two

factors have brought this about: 1) there is no central

institution in Costa Rica charged with remote-sensing

responsibilities; and 2) in spite of the fact that each

AID project had a strong training component, few

trained personnel have afterward been able to devote

their time to remote sensing. As the example of other

developing countries has shown, the creation of a national advisory committee and the designation of a

lead agency are clearly critical to the effective use of

satellite data, even when the data are shown to be

highly useful for monitoring serious environmental

and resource problems.

Weather Satellites in

Developing Countries

The flow of data from the weather satellites, rather

than requiring the development of new institutions has

been incorporated into the programs of existing weather agencies. The World Meteorological Organization

(WMO) helped to provide the necessary receiving stations. Data have always been available at no cost.

Weather satellite data have been used for a multitude of routine tasks, from disaster and storm warnings to crop forecasting. Over $100 million has been

invested worldwide in direct readout equipment and

manpower, space processing, and dissemination equipment. At present, over 1,000 APT ground stations

have been established in over 125 countries worldwide,

including an extensive number in developing countries.

Forty-four stations located in twenty-nine countries

receive HRPT data.

These numbers are increasing all the time. The wellestablished weather-satellite user community in developing countries stands in marked contrast to the limited user community for land remote-sensing data. In

fact, the “market” for Landsat data in developing countries is still in its developmental stages, primarily

because the resource information programs of developing countries are only beginning to prove their worth.

Potential Effects of Commercialization

The transfer of all or part of U.S. space remote-sensing systems to the private sector would certainly affect the use of satellite data by the developing countries. The extent of its effects and how they are played

out in political and scientific relationships will depend

on several key factors: 1 ) the remote-sensing user community and the foreign policy community in the developing countries are separate, independent, entities; 2)

regardless of U.S. policy in this area, France, Japan,

and the European Space Agency are planning commercial remote-sensing ventures; 3) the market for remotesensing data from space is in its early stages. While

some users are clearly ready to integrate these data into

their standard operations, others are still in the process of exploring the usefulness of remote-sensing data;

4) in the arena of foreign policy, the perceptions of

Third World political leaders regarding transfer may

be more important in determining their actions than

the actual outcomes of commercialization on data users

in developing countries.

The effects of transfer to private sector can be discussed in terms of five variables:

Data Type and Continuity

Development of a commercially operated Landsat

system implies that all data would be available on a

continuous and timely basis. If this were not the case,

any commercial effort would fail. In fact, one could

surmise that Landsat data would become available in

a way which would compare to the current availability

of metsat data. In isolation, such a development would

clearly encourage the use of satellite data in the developing world.

One of the major complaints developing countries

have made since the outset of the Landsat program

has been that uncertainty over the future of Landsat

has made it nearly impossible to develop the capacity

successfully to incorporate remote-sensing data into

national development planning. At the same time, the

difficulty of receiving Landsat data promptly after a

satellite pass has made it difficult to rely on such data.

To the extent that ultimate commercialization of the

Landsat system would mean the timely and continuous

availability of data, it would greatly enhance the developing countries’ use of satellite data.
112

In addition, it is likely that a private operator would

also “tailor” its satellite sensors to its primary market

areas. While the Government might well continue to

perform R&D for advanced satellite sensors, the private sector would have to develop its own sensors in

continuous interaction with the market. For instance,

in the tropical areas of the developing world, a satellite

sensor capable of penetrating cloud cover would greatly enhance the commercial value of remote-sensing

data. * To the extent, then, that a private sector owner

and operator would match satellite sensors to the needs

of the market, commercialization would have a positive impact on the use of satellite data by developing

countries.

Pricing

If the Landsat system is transferred to private hands,

the price of data may well increase. Such a price increase, however, might have an adverse effect on the

use of data and the further development of institutional

infrastructure in developing countries.

This is not to say, however, that a price increase

would eliminate the use of satellite data in developing

countries. If the data were available promptly and continuously, then it is likely that developing countries

would continue to use remote-sensing data to replace

other, more expensive, means of obtaining resource

information. Higher prices for satellite data would not

necessarily discourage serious users of the data. They

are more likely to discourage those users who are in

the early stages of adopting remote-sensing technology, which would inhibit the growth of the market.

U.S. technical assistance programs have, for the past

15 years, helped developing countries adopt remotesensing technology. If the U.S. Government wished

to continue its technical assistance programs for

satellite remote sensing, and thereby decrease the negative effects of a price increase, it could subsidize the

cost of commercial remote-sensing data in its development projects.

In addition, a private company might well provide

some incentives to developing countries to encourage

them to use remote-sensing data. Many computer companies donate computers to developing country institutions to promote their products. There is no reason

to think that the private sector would not operate in

a like manner to develop a remote-sensing market.

Copyright and Data Protection Laws

Another key set of issues tied up with the transfer

of remote-sensing data are those of copyright, proprie- ——

‘Recently the F!etherlands and Indonesia have explored the possibility of

bu]ldmg a satell]te system speclf]cally designed for use over tropical regions,

tary data rights and data protection laws. Commercial interests generally want private ownership of data,

thereby making the data a scarce resource for which

the customer would pay more. As such, a commercial venture is likely to require data protection

guarantees or proprietary rights to data. This is in line

with traditional notions of private ownership, but goes

against public notions of open access to information.

This is a key point in the entire commercialization

discussion. It is clear that if a private firm, and particularly a multinational firm, were allowed proprietary rights to data acquired by satellite, many countries of the world—including the developing countries—would react negatively.

Government Technology Transfer and

Technical Assistance Programs

In order to achieve success in commercializing

remote-sensing technology, the U.S. Government will

have to stop competing with the private sector in offering value-added services. Although they have been

instrumental in spreading understanding and use of

remote-sensing technology throughout the world, technical assistance and technology transfer programs may

compete with the private sector.

Ever since the opening of the international debate

over the future of remote sensing the United States has

offered technical assistance to the developing world.

This has helped to mitigate international concern over

the U.S. policy of open dissemination of satellite data.

If the United States were to stop providing technical

assistance completely, the international debate over

data dissemination might become more heated.

The U.S. technical assistance programs are largely

responsible for the development of the international

user community. To the extent that any market for

remote-sensing data exists internationally, it exists

because of U.S. aid. Discontinuing this aid would slow

the further spread of land remote-sensing technology.

In attempting to provide technical assistance to developing countries U.S. policymakers will have to consider carefully the effects of their policies on the U.S.

private sector. It may not be appropriate to discontinue technical assistance programs, but if the transfer

is to be successful the Government will likely have to

implement them at the market price for data and value-

-added services. As part of their marketing strategies,

private sector operators might find it in their interest

to assist developing countries in the use of the technology. Hence, transferring land remote sensing to

private ownership would not necessarily mean an end

to technical assistance, sponsored either by government or by the private sector.
113

—.——— —

U.S. Regulation its own territory. Other regulations might involve pricSeveral forms of regulation might be used to ensure ing regulations, guarantees of technical assistance and

data continuity, etc. These types of regulations would that a commercial entity would conform to U.S. for- have a positive influence on the use of satellite data eign policy objectives. These include such things as a by developing countries—however, they might dis- guarantee of open access to data, much as they are

available now from the EROS Data Center, or assur- courage private sector commercialization efforts.

ing a particular country access to data collected over
Appendix B

The Use of Landsat Data in

State Information Systems — ——

Computers have revolutionized the way States manage statistical, demographic, and natural resource

data. Because they are acquired in digital form, data

from the Landsat system have been particularly appropriate for inclusion in broad-based information systems. Early research efforts were directed primarily to

producing land cover maps from Landsat digital data.

These land cover maps were generally used as the single source for resource management analysis.

Geographic Information Systems

in State Government

The Landsat system has the promise of providing

up-to-date, low-priced, land cover data. In the IWO’S,

many States and universities, with assistance from the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), began to purchase specialized hardware that

could support NASA’s software for Landsat data processing.

With the publishing of Ian McHarg’s book Design

With Nature, I State and local governments began applying multiple data sources and multiple disciplinary

approaches to resource analysis. McHarg advocated

the use of hand-drawn overlays depicting a particular

element (as defined by a particular specialist) affecting

the suitability of area for a particular use. This overlay

system, McHarg recognized, would eventually be computer-assisted. Shortly after, Carl Steinitz and his associates (Harvard Graduate School of Design) began

to develop an automated “geographic information system” (GIS) to manipulate data geographically referenced to a position on the Earth’s surface. Steinitz and

his associates developed the first widely accepted

geographic information systems software —IMGRID.

Data elements used in IMGRID software are the data

equivalent of the picture element of Landsat data

(pixel): * attributes could be assigned to grid positions

(X, Y coordinates) or cells, with each cell representing

specific areas of the surface. Because both Landsat

processing systems and IMGRID use computerized digital storage and manipulation techniques, it is possible to link the two systems by computer to perform

rapid analysis.

‘Ian McHarg, De.wgn J\’Ith Nature (Garden City, N.Y Natural History

Pressr 1969)

“ Each pixel covers an area on the ground of about 1,2 acres

In particular, it is possible to present to the user multiple solutions to a resource management question

based on values specified by the user. GIS technology

blossomed in the late 1970’s; these GIS software packages were made available to the States at little or no

cost .

Several small companies started up which used the

same technology, but modified the software to suit

particular markets—primarily energy development. A

few private firms added Landsat data-processing software to their systems, but most relied on users to obtain their own Landsat data. The applicability of Landsat data to resource management is now clear: many

States accepted the startup expense associated with

processing Landsat data because they were to obtain

final products that could assist in managing their limited resources.

Currently, about 19 States have developed geographic information systems (table B-l). Not all of

these systems have direct Landsat data-processing capability, but most do utilize Landsat data in some

form. These geographic information systems are, for

the most part, less than 3 years old; they were developed in response to pressures for increased efficiency

and the recognized need to develop an information network among State agencies. Texas and Minnesota

have systems which have been in existence for more

than 10 years.

State agencies have approached the development of

State systems in two ways. The first, and less successful, scheme has been to spend millions of dollars

on hardware, software, and staff. The aim was to establish a very large, technically sophisticated system

to serve all users for digital data, satellite data procTable B-1 .—State Landsat Data Users With

Geographic Information Systems

Alabama Montana

Alaska Nebraska

Arizona New Jersey

Florida North Carolina

lowa New Mexico

Kentucky Ohio

Louisiana South Carolina

Maryland Texas

Minnesota Virginia

Mississippi

SOURCE This listing IS not comprehensive and does not Include reference to

the several universities which support State systems

114
115

—.. ..— — — ——

essing, resource management, and analysis. Because

they are costly and unwieldly, these systems produced

both users and strong opponents within State governments; about half have fallen into disuse and currently are not operational or are severely underutilized.

The second approach has been one of a very measured growth, with systems acquisition and staff development based totally on user demand for projects

which could utilize Landsat and GIS technologies. The

systems that have evolved from the second approach,

while smaller and much less sophisticated, are the most

stable and are beginning to grow larger as demand for

them increases.

Landsat Data and the Decisionmaking

Process in Mississippi

The Mississippi Automated Resource Information

System (MARIS) was created by Executive Order 459,

signed by Gov. William F. Winter in May 1983. Mississippi had joined with other States in developing a

broadl y based system for acquiring, storing, analyzing, and disseminating cultural and natural resource

data.

Much earlier, in 1970, a group of 10 State agencies

had met with NASA officials from the Earth Resources

Laboratory located at Bay St. Louis, Miss., to obtain

NASA’s help in developing statewide land-use maps

based on aerial photography. Participants at that

meeting agreed that the State would provide interpretation of aerial photography, and that NASA would

provide the aircraft from which the aerial photography

would be obtained.

NASA supplied 1:120,000 color infrared photos

which the Mississippi Research and Development

Center enlarged to 1:24,000 and printed in black and

white. U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle sheets were

used as geographic reference control. These photos

were manually interpreted by the R&D center and participating agencies’ staff using the Anderson Classification System employing 51 categories of land use. The

training and quality control were provided by the

R&D center and a Lockheed consultant.

The project produced 1,440 manually interpreted

photos (one per township). These became the statewide

land-use base map. The mapping project, which was

not completed until 1975, ultimately required a combined effort of the 10 sub-State planning and development districts, the University of Southern Mississippi, NASA, and the Mississippi Research and Development Center.

This photographic data base was completed during

the peak of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 701 Planning Program, a

program that required each of the State’s 10 sub-State

planning districts to produce future county land-use

maps for their multi-county areas. To assist those districts in developing future land-use plans, HUD suggested that each sub-State planning and development

district, using the State mapping project’s aerial

photography as a base, prepare overlays depicting

selected factors that would affect future land-use

development. The overlays included 100-year flood

plains, prime agricultural lands, dilapidated housing,

water and sewer districts, areas of ecological concern,

and noise hazards.

The actual use of these hand-drawn overlays met

with marginal success. At that same time, the traditional approaches to land-use planning were coming

under heavy attack because of the top-down planning

philosophy encouraged by the HUD programs. The

HUD 701 program had failed to educate decisionmakers in dealing with problems associated with

managing the growth they began to face in the late

1960’s and early 1970’s. When Federal funding of planning activities faded, it appeared that in Mississippi

land-use planning would cease to exist. However, the

problems associated with growth continued to mount,

and the need for land-use planning or, as it began to

be called, “resource management, ” became obvious

even to the most skeptical. If State or local officials

were going to make resource allocation decisions, they

needed understandable and accurate information on

which to base those decisions.

Major advances in the acquisition and manipulation

of land-use related information were made during the

early 1970’s, Landsat 1 introduced a new and exciting

data source. Computerized data management systems,

geographic information systems, and Landsat satellite

digital data all became readily available to planners

and resource managers. The problem no longer was

the acquisition and manipulation of data, but how to

introduce the user to the land-use management process. The problem now was to generate a “defensible

process” for regional planning or resource management.2

At this stage, recognizing the advances in data acquisition and management, many States invested hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in

sophisticated computer equipment which gave them

the capability to process these new digital data.

Mississippi, however, did not have the capital available to purchase one of these sophisticated data management systems, and, therefore, had simply to observe the progress of other States. Many of these sys-

‘Carl Ste{nftz, L)e[enslble Processes tor Regl(>nal Landscape Des)gn Harvard Graduate School O( Des]gn Latls vol 1, NIO, 1, W’ashlngton D C , 1Q79
116

terns proved to be as much of a disaster as the old HUD

701 Land Use Planning Program. It appeared that the

potential users would not accept and could not deal

with sophisticated methods for managing data exhibited in these systems. A few systems failed and were

closed down completely, and others were underutilized. The ingredient lacking in most States whose systems had fallen into misuse was a strong user community properly educated in the use and application

of these new technologies,

To develop a geographically referenced information

system for Mississippi, the system had to be cheap,

and it had to produce products that were immediately usable by State agencies in fulfilling their mandated

responsibility. In the tradition of Mississippi government, the organization would have to be voluntary.

Membership would be only those agencies which could

be convinced that they directly benefited from membership. Because legislators of the State of Mississippi

sit on the boards of all major State agencies, the legislators must be convinced directly that new systems are

beneficial. Representative Wes McIngvale, of Batesville, Miss., was the original advocate of automated

systems technologies and information-sharing networks in Mississippi. He wished to see the State central data-processing computer network heavily used

by State agencies.

The first organizational meeting involved only directors representing the four agencies that would most

obviously benefit from a new information network. *

These agencies also had been exposed to satellite and

geographic information systems through past projects.

The Mississippi Department of Energy and Transportation agreed to provide staff support and to house

any specialized hardware. This group, with assistance

from the R&D center staff, prepared a “policy structure” for the system. The term “policy structure” was

painstakingly selected to describe an organization

which assisted in policy decisions, but did not make

policy decisions. A primary mandate was that this

organization would not become a new agency or level

of bureaucracy. Its purpose would be to reduce the

cost of agency operations and assist all members in

their legislated functions. It would also serve to educate

and inform member agencies about automation. Users

of the system would have the ability to play “what if”

games based on the iterative capabilities of the computer system and multiple data sources. Two new technologies were to be introduced by the Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS)—geographic information systems and Landsat satellite data.

‘ Mlsslsslppi Department of Natural Resources, ME.sIssIppl Department of

Energy and Transportation, M1s51ss1pp1 Research and Development Center,

and MIss]ssIppJ Department ot Economic Development.

Using these criteria, a consortium of 19 State agencies was formed. It is directed by a policy committee

made up of the agency directors from each of the 19.

The MARIS central staff oversees the operation of the

specialized computer system which serves MARIS

member agencies. This computer is a stand-alone system with software that allows for interpretation of

multispectral scanning (MSS) and thematic mapper

(TM) satellite data. The software also includes a

geographic information system.

MSS and TM data provide a quick and reliable

source of historic and current land cover data. When

properly geographically referenced, these data can be

compared with other data concerning topography,

flood hazards, or census. This ability to combine data

and compare and analyze their interactions is of great

value.

Two major functional divisions make up the MARIS

organizations: the MARIS catalog and the MARIS

analytical effort. The MARIS catalog is an interactive

computerized catalog of natural resource and cultural

data. The catalog allows a user with the proper I.D.

to query the State central data-processing records and

ascertain the locations of reports and data stored in

each member agency’s files. The catalog can be

searched by agency, publication title, or key word.

Presently only a description of the document stored

within each member agency files is available. However, more detailed information and actual data from

the documents will be added next. MARIS can also

be called on to aid in analyzing the data available.

User satisfaction is the key to the MARIS operation.

MARIS is not funded directly in the State’s budget.

It depends on voluntary participation and support

from its member agencies. If MARIS loses the support

of its users, MARIS loses its funding. By supplying user

agencies with data needs, MARIS has begun to build

an impressive data base for Mississippi. The original

aerial photography and overlays mentioned earlier

have now been digitized and added to the State’s geographic information system. New elements include the

State’s transportation network as classified by the

Highway Department’s standard classifications, major and minor watersheds as defined by the Soil Conservation Service, Federal and State park lands and

preserved areas, water and sewer districts, 412 soil

types, major population centers, and various interpretive maps based on these elements. Statewide models of preservation, conservation, and development

suitability have been developed. Each model depicts

the areas least suitable and most suitable for a specified

use. The maps are not future land-use plans. They are

presentations of levels of suitability for a particular

use, and will serve as a policy tool for those agencies
177 —

in State government that deal in development of the

State’s resourccs.

The Mississippi Automated Resource Information

System is unique among Southern States. It uses a

state-of-the-art computer system and an active political

systern which provides support and guidance. The future of the system will depend on its ability to pro-f

duce products usable to the consortium members.

Cost, the aspect of MARIS most vulnerable to transfer

of the Landsat system, is a major concern to member

agencies. The MARIS central staff and the specialized

computer system which they manage represent a major investment by the State Miississippi,

Projects in Mississippi Using

Landsat Data

Nuclear Waste Storage Disposal Studies

A ste in Perry County, Miss., has been selected as

one of the prime sites for potential development of a

nuclear waste storage disposal site. The unique salt

dome geology of the area possesses many attributes

which appear desirable for such a facility. Mississippi

has acquired Landsat data of the area surrounding the

potential site and will classify these data to produce

land cover maps of the area. Landsat data were found

to be suitable in this Study because the study area was

predominantly rural in character, and high-qua lit}’

I.andsat data were readily available. The land cover

maps will be merged with other elements stored in the

state's geographic information system to assess the impact of the development of the facility and to assist

in developing a management plan for the area. Other

peripheral studies will include transportation access

studies concentrating on nuclear waste transportation

safety .

Delta Ground Water Studies

Although the Mississippi Delta has traditionally

been the land of cotton, two new crops rice and catfish –-have made substantial gains in recent years. Rice

area has increased to over 300,000 acres, and catfish

farming is currently estimated to consume 60,000 acres

of delta and. Because these new industries are heavy

water users, ground water depletion is now a problem in the delta, The Mississippi Department of Natural Resource\ and several Federal agencies were asked

to investigate ground water use and to assess future

alternatives to manage the water resources of this most

critical area.

With the assistance of NASA’s Earth Resources Laboratory and a private consultant, Mississippi acquired

and classified four 1981 scenes (two dates -- ]uly and

September) of Landsat data of the Mississippi Delta.

The product was a map of rice and catfish operations.

These data were then merged into the State geographic

informnation system. The spatial allocation of these

operations affects ground water quantity availablc for

irrigation. The allocation is also dependent on soil

characteristics; clay soils make better field and pond

bottoms than do more porous soils. The occurrcnce

of existing rice and catfish operations can be expected

to be consistent with the’ occurrence of clay soils and

depletion of ground water.

Statewide Land Cover Update

The State has acquired Landsat satellite data coverage for the entire State, which will be used to produce a statewide land cover element in the existing geographic information system. This will be the first statewide land cover classification since 1 1975, when aerial

photography was used.

Land cover information acquired from the Landsat

satel lite has many advantages over traditionallly acquired data when merged with at statewide geographic

information system. They are consistent in format and

resolution, are digital, and are therefore machine-processable; the same classification methodologies can be

applied to all elements of the complete data set.

The level of detail acquired from Landsat data cannot match that of aerial photography. Therefore, the

Landsat data will be grouped into approximately 12

to 15 classes instead of the 51 classes used in the

photographic survey. However, the cost of the 1975

photo project was approximately $450,000. The cost

of the Landsat project will be less than $75,000, which

will be allocated over several projects, The 1983 cost

of repeating the original photographic project would

be over SI million
118

The Pacific Northwest Project:

A Regional Resource Inventory

Demonstration

In 1975, the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, with support from NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey, initiated the Land Resources Inventory

project for the application of Landsat data to resource

problems on a regional basis. The project helped introduce new land-monitoring techniques and was a

major Commission activity until its termination in

1980.

The primary objective of the Pacific Northwest project was to provide to a wide variety of natural resource

planning and management agencies in Idaho, Oregon,

and Washington, an opportunity to extract, apply, and

evaluate information derived from Landsat multispectral data and other collateral sources. The results of

the project were assessed by the users according to

demonstrated utility and cost; these results formed an

input to future monitoring and planning.

The use of Landsat data for public purposes is most

effective when user needs in a given region are aggregated and the data can be applied to solving a variety

of problems. The Pacific Northwest depends on its forests and irrigated crop lands as well as expanding urban areas around Puget Sound and inland; collectively, these present a range of informational mapping and

monitoring needs. The project focused on the contribution to be made by satellite multispectral data modeled

to the peculiarities of the region’s vegetation, soils, and

terrain.

The Pacific Northwest encompasses two major and

contrasting ecoregions. Each is typified by a combination of climate, soils, and topography radically different from the other. They are sharply separated by

the crest of the Cascades. The western or coastal portion of Washington and Oregon is classified as the

Humid Temperate Domain. It contains the Pacific Forest and the Columbia Forest provinces. To the east and

south lies the Dry Domain, an area of net water deficiency. This section is further subdivided into the

Palouse Grassland, the Intermountain Sagebrush, and

the Rocky Mountain Forest provinces.

The areas covered are extensive; for example, the

Palouse Grassland covers 12,400 square miles and is

an important wheat producer. The Willamette-Puget

Forest covers 13,000 square miles and is a major supplier of forest products.

Under the aegis of the Pacific Northwest Commission, some 50 State agencies studied the economics of

using Landsat data in a variety of applications. They

undertook projects covering the major concerns over

forest inventory, wildlife habitat, land cover, irrigated

land inventory, urban areas, toxic weed occurrence,

rangeland resources, reservoir volume, and surface

mining.

A report prepared by the Commission lists examples

of significant results attained on a State-by-State basis.

Idaho

• Idaho Department of Water Resources. —Surveys of

36 million acres of agricultural land were accomplished at a cost of $41,646, compared with a cost

of $65,800 by conventional means.

● In a 4-million-acre area along the Snake River, yearly increases in irrigated land were recorded and crop

types identified. A multistage statistical analysis incorporating Landsat data was developed and integrated into the activities of the Idaho Department

of Natural Resources.

Oregon

●

●

●

●

Oregon Fish and Wildlife reported a cost savings of

43 percent using Landsat for habitat inventory.

Oregon Water Resources Department.—By interstate compact, the extent of irrigated farmland along

the Klamath River Basin is reported. The department developed a system depending in part on Landsat data for monitoring irrigation.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. —Landsat

digital data were used to identify areas of a noxious

weed, the Tansey Ragwort. Infestations of the weed

cause $3 million to $8 million a year in direct losses

of livestock.

The Department of Transportation, along with

other agencies, used Landsat data to determine the

type and percentage of land cover. They produced

statistical summaries as an aid to zoning and pollution control. The department adopted the method

for continuing use.

Washington

●

●

●

Washington Department of Natural Resources.—

An estimated cost saving of 48 percent was achieved

in a forest inventory covering over 13 million acres.

A timber volume inventory was conducted in western Washington involving analysis of data from 20

million acres. The resulting information was used

in State productivity studies and the technique was

adopted and expanded by the Washington Department of Natural Resources.

Central Puget Sound, a multiagency organization,

incorporated Landsat data into urban planning in

an 8,000-square-mile area. It used the results in

transportation planning and water and air quality
studies. A new computerized data base was prepared

and put into use by the city of Tacoma.

Governor Straub of Oregon, State cochairman of

the three-state project, concluded in a letter to the Administrator of NASA that Landsat has provided a new,

more effective and less costly source of management

data. He emphasized that the involvement of a “critical

mass” of individual agency participants is prerequisite

to proving the overall value of Landsat data on a State

regional basis. He further stated that “the acquisition

of equipment and changeover to a new data base can

bean expensive proposition” and that “the most critical

element is continuity of data. Without assurance of

continuity, States cannot accept the risks of utilizing

Landsat data as a primary too] ."3

In a letter to the Chairman, Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) of the White House, the

chairman of the Pacific Northwest project’s Technology Transfer Task Force commented on remote-sensing capabilities demonstrated in the Pacific Northwest. He said that much of the information derived

is being used for remote areas where data were previously unavailable. The letter noted the uniqueness of

the Landsat system to provide frequent coverage which

,,

. . . establishes a historical record of the changes and

transit ions.” He pointed out that from fiscal year 1975

through fiscal year 1979, roughly $6.5 million was

committed by participating agencies— Federal, State,

and local. As a result of the success of the initial 3-year

demonstration, a follow-on Landsat applications pro--

gram was approved which provided for- a larger share

of funding by local participants. The States began the

purchase of software as well as arranging access to major hardware systems for the exploitation of the data

on a continuing basis.

Following several years of experience with remotesensing systems, the Commission stated, “It is our

strong belief that the Federal Governrment should continue to be responsible for Landsat research and development as well as Land sat data at the Federal level.

The burden of analysis belongs at the State and local

level with the agencies and communities that will apply

the data in their planning and management decisionmaking process. “4

In the course of about 5 years, project leaders made

a number of management decisions. Partly in view of

the unknown or unresolved future of the Landsat series, the States determined that rather than set up a

single regional data center, each would be responsible for its own data handling and processing schemes.

Considerable Landsat data are now stored in various

.

z [ etter tr,lrr~ ( ,{~vvrn,}r Strtiub I t (>rt,~[~n f[,itt c (K h.iirm<in (It tht, t hr(,t

St,itt ~~ri)~t( t, I ( I N’A5A Adm]n).t r,it ion I Q7Q

‘1 ttttr Iron] \\’ Lill<l( t f } ~f,,lrjt L t,, [)t T 1’ Lla) 5 1 Q78

computer banks in the region. However, the abolition

of the Commission in 1980 removed a key coordinating body. Although many of the original participants

continue to exchange data and to interact with one

another through professional meetings and on a collegial basis, an essential part of the cooperative program now is absent. Nevertheless, as a direct result

of the demonstration project, the States involved have

acquired the improved capability to perform digital

analysis and manipulation of Landsat and other georeferenced data on State computers. This operational

capability, to greater or lesser degree, continues to be

employed as funds and availability of data permit.

Effects of Private Ownership

on Use of Landsat Data

At a conference on natural resource inventory methods held in Corvallis, Oreg., in August 1983, three of

the leading participants in the Pacific Northwest project were asked to react to the proposed transfer of

Landsat to private ownership. They expressed the following concerns:

Cost. —The profit incentive may raise costs to levels unacceptable to State managers.

Data Continuity.– If the I.andsat program should

not prove sufficiently profitable, it might become

only seasonally active or be abandoned altogether.

Uncertainy. —The private sector is not accountable to the users in the sense that public agencies

are; therefore, there could be a relaxation of qualit y control and service.

Monopoly. - Private sector monopoly could

mean less incentive to improve service and keep

costs down.

Prioritization. —Data availability may become

restricted and preference shown to those parties

who can afford to pay the highest prices to receive

data or to reserve time of limited transmission

and /or processing capabilities.

Data Archive. –A private sector operator may

choose only to collect, process, and store those

data that have been requested and paid for.

Therefore, data of less productive, remote areas

may go uncovered and historic data for many regions may become unavailable or nonretrievable.

Support Photography,—The private sector

operator would not be motivated to provide ancillary support to Landsat projects by such things

as U-2 underflights and ground checking.

Data Processing. —The private sector might not

choose to put in the time and dollars necessary

for cleaning up and processing the data as is cur-
120

—.

rently done. Alternatively, the operator might not

do it as well or might charge extra.

● Data Inquiry. —The present free search and inquiry service, considered a public service, might

become unavailable or available only at a price.

● Data Restriction. —The distribution of data may

no longer be on a nondiscriminatory basis, but

instead may either be made available to the first

party to order or subjected to a price bidding

where the part y that can pay the most will reserve

data and processing time.

● Landsat Data Users Notes. —The Government

publication describing Landsat activities may

stop .

● Research. —Many research and application demonstration projects now occurring at government

and other public facilities may stop or else only

continue with a charge for the findings. Research

might not be conducted with complete objectivity if the end is to support market development.

● Technology Feedback. —-Linkages with university and other research facilities are beneficial for

learning new technological approaches and require free give-and-take and feedback. Such an

arrangement might not be possible for a private

operator.
Appendix C

Survey of University Programs in

Remote Sensing Funded Under Grants

From the NASA University-Space

Application Programl

Summary Conclusions

●

●

●

●

All of the programs surveyed have attained some

level of State / local involvement. One program has

worked in projects with 39 State agencies, maintains

regular contact with 74 others, and has 150 other

contacts that can be drawn upon as needed. Such

involvement depends on seed money to demonstrate

applications before State /local agencies will provide

funding.

NASA grant funding has reduced the time which

would otherwise be expected for State/local governments to become operational users of remote sensing. NASA grants are the base which assists and supports university programs to demonstrate proven

applications to first-time users. The States will

generally not support development/demonstration

programs.

State governments are beginning to use remotesensing technology and capabilities in operational

areas. Capabilities have, in general, not been institutionalized in the sense that many programs would

not continue if NASA seed support were withdrawn.

About 9 percent of the total funding in 1977 was

from State and local sources. Estimates for prior

years indicate that State funding is accelerating as

remote-sensing applications are beginning to be applied in State and local programs. In many pro-

) ] A Lladlgan and R W’ Earhart, NASA contract No NASW2800, task.

N(, 27 Batte[le Columbus I.aklrat(~rws rcpt)rt Nc) FKl -OA-TFR-78- 3 hfar

31 1Q78

grams, significant nonfinancial support is contributed by the university (faculty and graduate

research assistants), and by State/local agencies

working with the university.

Total funding for the university programs surveyed

has grown approximately 50 percent since 1974. A

large part of non-NASA funding comes from Federal

sources to develop applications which also interest

State, local, and private users. NASA grant funds

have been an important stimulus to attracting nonNASA Federal funds.

The programs are adaptive to the expressed interests

of State/local governments. The distribution of application areas and specific expertise developed

reflects State/local interests and funding patterns.

State/local participation is dependent on the applicability of remote sensing to near-term problems.

University participation in remote-sensing is large

and growing. Some universities offer several courses

in specific remote-sensing disciplines. Overall, during 1977, 137 courses were taught to a total of 2,906

students; 195 faculty members and 393 research

assistants were involved in the research projects.

Sixty-five percent of the programs have minor

private sector involvement, which ranges from

geoexploration assistance for the major oil companies to rangeland productivity y projects with local

ranchers.

Twenty-five percent of the programs have foreign

involvement. The University of Utah, for example,

has a $150,000 land-use project with the Government of Korea.

121

25–3V O – 84 – 9 : Q 1, 3
122

Figure C-1 .—University Programs: Sources of

Funding 1974.77

0

9.3

Non-NASA

7.6 7.6

‘6.4 6.6

. Other NASA

2.7

2.2 1.9

. .

. .

1 I

1974 1975 1976 1977

Year

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration
123

Program

Figure C-2.— Students and Courses in University Remote Sensing Programs

Number of

courses offered

in 1977

Arizona

California

Purdue

Minnesota

Oregon

MSU

South Dakota

Cornell

Texas A&M

ERIM

23

Univ. of Michigan

I

Colorado

Wisconsin

Florida

Mississippi

Alaska

Kansas

Louisiana

Nebraska

Utah

Virginia

I

I

I

6

15

7

8

5

5

9

11

12

6

10

4

4

3

3

2

2

0 100 200 300 400

Number of students enrolled in remote sensing courses during 1977

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admintstration
124

Figure C-3.— Faculty and Research Assistants in University Remote Sensing Programs

Program

Purdue

California

ERIM

Univ. of Mich.

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Texas A&M

Arizona

Minnesota

Florida

Colorado

MSU

Mississippi

Nebraska

Oregon

Kansas

Louisiana

Cornell

Alaska

Utah

Virginia

Key:

I

\

150

I

I I

h I

r

1 ’

1

I

1 I I

1

L

L

I

I

I

I 1

L 1 A

L

I

I

I

1 I

1 I 1

1

I

J

Faculty Research

assistants

25 50 75 100 125

Number of faculty and research assistants participating in programs during 1977

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Figure C-4.— University Programs: Major Applications of Remote Sensing

* {

Hydrology/water management

,

Land-use planning

Agriculture

Resource management/geology

.

Forestry

, I

Soils

L b

Environmental quality

1 i

I

General mapping I

Wildlife

a

Rangeland

management

1

Snowpack runoff

L ●

Coastal

r Total programs = 87

erosion

b

I I 1 I I 1 I I 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Number of universities engaged in application

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appendix D

— — —

In the late 1960’s, work began on aircraft and space

remote multispectral sensing systems for agricultural

applications. The Laboratory for Application of Remote Sensing (LARS) at Purdue University did much

of this initial work and showed how to use data from

multispectral sensors to classify major agricultural

crops .

The corn blight watch experiment in 1971 demonstrated that a single crop —i. e., corn—could be identified by multispectral techniques and that variations

in crop health —e. g., blight infection—could be

mapped with multispectral data. The corn blight program showed the validity of the concept using aircraft,

but it took experiments on Apollo 9 to demonstrate’

that crops could be recognized and mapped from

space.

Early experiments conducted with Landsat over a

series of test sites—e, g., the joint U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) /Canada spring wheat program4—

showed clearly that Landsat data could provide useful

information, though their ability to separate similar

crops like spring barley and wheat was limited.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) LACIE (Large Area Crop Inventory Experiment) < was designed to extend the early wheat test

results to other wheat areas of the world. While success was claimed for the LACIE program, it is clear

that major questions remained about the ability of

Landsat data to discriminate between crops and about

the negative effects of extensive cloud cover. These

problems: 1) reduced the effectiveness of the system

to assess crop area, a major objective of LACIE; and

2) severely limited the ability to use satellite data during the growing season.

The results of the U.S. /Canadian spring wheat experiment led to two conclusions, that: 1) Landsat data

are at their best when used to assess the stress conditions of the agricultural system, and 2) a system was

needed to allow daily computer simulation of the agri-

——

‘‘ Remote Multlspectral Sensing in Agriculture, ” Bullet]n 844, I.aboratory

tor Application of Remote Sens]ng (LARS), Purdue Llnlversity, vol. 3, An

nual Report, September 1968,

2“C(~rn Bllght t\’atch Experiment Final Report, Experimental Results, ‘

NASA S[’-353, 1074

I ‘Crop Surveys Fr,~m Muitlband Satelllte I’hotograph} Uwng D]gltal T“echnlques, ” LARS Inforrnatlon Note 032371, Purdue University, 1971

‘ An Investigation ,)t the Feas]btl]ty of Developing a Semt-Automated System for Monitoring Spring Wheat Production, ” prepared for the USDA

(A. X’S), contract N,) 123341024, May 1974, by Earth Satellite Corp , WrashIngttln, D.C

‘ ‘The 1 arge Area Crt,p Inventory Experiment (LACIE), ‘ In Proceedings

of the NASA Earth Res~lurce Survey TM X-58168 JSC 09930, June 1975,

Houston, Tex

cultural scene using basic modeling of soils, precipitation, solar radiations, and plants.

These conclusions implied that it was possible to develop a cost-effective crop assessment system. Such a

system should reduce concentration on crop area mapping during the year in question from Landsat, and

emphasize instead crop yield relationships inherent in

the crop stress information available from the Landsat spectral data. A crop simulation system (conclusion 2) would provide the framework in which to use

the Landsat crop stress information as well as provide

useful crop assessments when clouds obscured the field

of view.

Development of the crop simulation system, initiated in 1973,6 concentrated on the use of the meteorological satellite data to overcome the limitations of

ground meteorological reporting stations. This approach had the distinct advantage of offering the

potential of a near continuum of the meteorological

data needed to run plant simulation models. The system was first tested in Iran; 7 later tests were made in

the United States under the NASA LACIE programs.

The results showed the metsat-based simulation system to be sound, but in need of further development.

In “1976, another test of the system was run to test

the ability of the system to assimilate Landsat crop

condition information and thereby improve yield estimates; it showed that Landsat crop condition data did

improve when yield estimates made by meteorologically derived yield simulation models were added,

In 1977, Earth Satellite Corp., a value-added company, placed the Landsat/metsat conjoint simulation

system in commercial operation over various areas of

the world. This value-added system, called CROPCASTTM 

now covers over

countries.

Landsat Data Uses

Landsat data today offer

the following useful data to

12 “different crops in 12

opportunities to provide

agricultural assessments:

●

●

●

spatial distribution of potential crop yield classes

in three to six unique categories;

spatial location of winter kill in winter wheat

areas of the world;

area of irrigation in a crop area;

— -

“’Iran Agriculture Program Evaluation of Techniques and Procedures, ”

prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture Iran, Interim Report lune-October

1%’4 Earth Satellite Corp., Washington, D C

7“CR01’CAST Crop Reports, ” vol 5, Issue 15, Aug 15, 1982, ct)ntinulng

series of CRO1> Reports, prepared by Earth Satelllte Corp

126
127

—— —

●

●

●

●

●

●

areas of abandonment —i. e., planted fields that

are not harvested because of low yield or other

reasons;

replanting areas—i .e., areas where another crop

is sown in the spring following losses to a winter

crop;

soil moisture distributions at planting times;

snow cover and perhaps depth assessments;

winter wheat crop area at spring green-up; and

flood area mapping and crop damage assessment.

USDA started using some of these Landsat-derived

data on a routine basis in 1980. CROPCAST TM introduced some of the Landsat data in 1977 and expanded

their use in 1983, after negotiating a program with the

Swedish Space Corp. in Stockholm to provide nearreal-time Landsat analyses directly from the Swedish

Landsat station at Kiruna. The Swedish analyses provide Landsat data to CROPCASTTM in 4 to 5 days

after acquisition. This compares favorably with the

scales of 4 to 5 weeks for the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service operation in Houston.

In addition to the highly dynamic, real-time applications discussed above, Landsat data are used in various other ways to assist with agricultural problems:

● soil maps are prepared over areas that have

limited conventional soils data,

● Landsat data are used in the design of a crop area

sample survey design, and

● irrigation potential can be mapped using Landsat data.

Specific Examples of Key Landsat

Information Applications

Operational use of Landsat data in agriculture

centers primarily on the delineation of stress and irrigation potential. Some recent examples drawn from

CROPCASTTM operations include:

●

●

●

●

The 1983 delineation of drought stress in the

Odessa region of the U.S.S.R. The meteorological models indicated dry conditions and stressed

plants, but Landsat provided positive evidence

that this was true.

The 1983 confirmation of drought stress in

Rumania and other Eastern Europe areas.

The 1980 delineation of the drought stress in soybean areas on the west side of the Mississippi in

Arkansas. The meteorological system had indicated general problems, but Landsat data provided a detailed inventory of the stressed fields.

In 1981, China was undergoing drought in the Bejing area, The meteorological models and ground

reports of drought conflicted because of the extensive use of irrigation in the area. Landsat data

ordered from the Japanese ground station provided verification of a serious decline in the irrigation reservoirs and the existence of some crop

stress.

These few examples show the value of Landsat data

to confirm, and thus to add confidence to, agricultural

assessment worldwide.

Meteorological Satellite Data Uses

Meteorological satellite data from both geosynchronous and polar orbiters are used routinely in the

CROPCAST TM Agricultural Simulation System. The

AgRISTARS program also includes plans to use them

on a routine basis because they provide a quantitative

source of precipitation estimates for many value-added

meteorological services in the United States and

overseas.

In the current CROPCASTTM system and in the

planned AgRISTAR in 1986, the data from the geosynchronous meteorological satellite from the United

States, the European Space Agency, and the Japanese

provide a primary input to a global analysis of rainfall and solar radiation—key factors in plant simulation models.

The manipulation and analysis of metsat data by

Earth Satellite Corp. provides a useful example of how

value is added to primary satellite data. Data from the

U. S., Japanese, and European metsats are delivered to

Earth Satellite’s offices via the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA facilities. Earth Satellite takes facsimile photographs received over this system, converts them to digital form

and enters them into a common grid system with various other kinds of data. After processing by computer

models, analyses of soil moisture, plant growth, stress,

yield, etc., are produced. The spatial resolution of

these analyses, obtained with the use of the satellite

data, is unobtainable in any other way.

Data from the polar-orbiting NOAA satellites* are

used in the CROPCASTTM (and will be used in future

AgRISTARS programs) in two ways; one is to supplement the geosynchronous data at latitudes above

about 50° N and S, the other is to make use of the

resolution (1 km) and spectral capabilities of the polar

orbiters to map vegetation, flooded lands, and snow

cover.

The ability to map vegetation is made possible by

sensors operating at wavelengths of 500 to 7 0 0

nanometers and 800 to 1,200 nanometers. These spectral bands measure the level of plant reflectance in the

red and infrared parts of the spectrum in the same way

‘ From the automatic i,ery h]gh-resolution radiomc+er [ A\’t{I{f{ I
128

that the Landsat multispectral data are used. The l-km

resolution will only resolve large fields, but the spectral capability provides excellent delineations of vegetation stress over large areas.

The low-resolution, low-cost data from the polar orbiters have many advantages in comparison with

higher resolution Landsat data; among them are daily

coverage and broad area vegetation condition mapping. These attributes make the data very attractive

to customers of value-added services, to the future

USDA AgRISTARS program, and to the U.N, Locust

Program. The following examples illustrate some actual uses of these data by CROPCASTTM since 1980.

● The U.S.S.R. coverage by Landsat is limited to the

western half. In 1982, polar-orbiter data were used

to map crop stress in the U.S.S.R. spring wheat belt,

and thereby accurately to assess yield.

● In 1973, drought and fires dotted the cacoa areas

of west Africa. CROPCASTTM used these data to

delineate the drought area and to estimate the location and extent of the damaging fires.

● In 1980, polar-orbiter vegetation analyses were used

to map the extent of the drought in the United

States.

● In 1981, 1982, and 1983, polar-orbiter vegetation

analyses were used to assist in assessing sugar beet

yields in the European Community and the U.S.S.R.

In the foregoing examples, the use of only polar-orbiter

data was discussed; however, conjoining data from the

metsat and Landsat systems leads to cost-effective

ways to use these data in agricultural assessments.

Conjoint Applications of Landsat and

AVHRR Meteorological Satellite Data

Landsat data by themselves have some significant

limitations—e.g., the satellite views the same point on

the ground at intervals of only 16 days, thereby reducing the data’s potential to monitor short-term changes

in crop condition and other factors. On the other hand,

Landsat data offer higher resolution. Although polarorbiter data possess lower resolution (1 km at best)

the satellite views the same area once per day, in

daylight, and once per night.

Conjoining data from both the Landsat system and

AVHRR offers improved confidence in delineating

vegetation stress because Landsat data provide calibration samples on which to “tune” the AVHRR data.

Tests conducted by Earth Satellite Corp. indicate that

AVHRR data used in this way over the U.S.S.R. can

provide accurate crop stress information at a cost significantly less than that obtained from Landsat alone.

The data are also available more reliably because the

daily passes allow cloud screening not possible with

Landsat.

NOAA polar-orbiter data will be used more and

more in agriculture as users learn how to acquire and

process the data. Data from Landsat, SPOT, or other

higher resolution satellite systems will continue to be

important for calibrating these data.
Appendix E

Hydrology —

Meteorological Satellite Data

The river and flood forecasting service of the National Weather Service (NWS) produces more than

400,000 forecasts annually for about 2,500 riverside

communities from its 13 River Forecast Centers. 1 The

NWS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.

Geological Survey operate thousands of river gages

that transmit data via the geostationary meteorological satellite (GOES) to central sites for near-real-time

analysis. Transmission via satellite solves the common

problem of interrupted service during floods. All these

agencies, as well as local and regional water authorities, are continually expanding their use of satellite

transmission of data.

For the past 10 years the metsats have been used for

mapping the areal extent of snow in river basins in the

Pacific Northwest and California to improve river

forecasts on the Columbia River and the rivers draining the Sierra Nevada. Rainfall estimates from convective storms and hurricanes are now routinely done

by the National Environmental Satellite Data Information Service (NESDIS) at the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They draw

heavily on the satellite measurement of cloud-top

temperatures and the rate of growth of cumulonimbus clouds from the half-hourly images taken by the

GOES satellite.

Another important unknown in the hydrologic cycle is soil moisture, which controls the amount of

precipitation that will form storm runoff. Some thermal infrared experiments indicate that this technique

has promise, but no operational soil moisture estimations are currently being made.

Flood mapping from both NOAA polar-orbiting

and geostationary satellite imagery and data has been

demonstrated under cloud-free conditions on large

rivers such as the Mississippi, and on smaller rivers

with wide flood plains such as the Red River of the

North (North Dakota and Minnesota) and the Kentucky River. The daily coverage of the metsats provides opportunities to map the progress of the flood

as it moves across a large basin drainage system. The

thermal infrared channels permit nighttime flood

mapping.

‘~ A Clark Satellite Appllcatlons In River and Flood Forecasting, ‘ In

.Satel//fe Hydro/ogy NI Deutsch D R. W’lesnet, and A Rango (eds I [’r{)-

ceedlngs of the 5th Annual W T Pecora Memorial Sympos]um on Remote

Sensing 1979, SIOUX Falls, S Dak , 1981, pp 6 - 8

Several new hydrologic models for basins that have

substantial snowmelt contributions have been developed to use the new snow-area data made available

by satellites.

The AgRISTARS program of the Department of

Agriculture includes a large amount of hydrologic data

derived from NOAA satellites. Hydrologic requirements are integrated into almost all sub areas of the

program:

● early warning and crop condition assessment,

● commodity production forecasts,

Ž renewable resources inventory and assessment,

● land-use classification and measurement,

● land-productivity estimates,

● conservation practices assessment, and

● pollution detection and impact evaluation.

Some of the hydrologic information developed from

metsat data under the AgRISTARS program involved:

flood damage assessment, warning of the onset of

drought, soil-moisture modeling, rainfall, solar radiation, vegetation indices, land-use changes, and snowpack characteristics.

NOAA has used satellite data to provide evaporation estimates for Lake Ontario, to detect ice dams on

rivers and ice conditions on the Great Lakes, and to

determine the best ship routes on the Great Lakes.

NESDIS routinely prepares thermal maps of the

Great Lakes. In addition it is able to detect coastal circulation patterns at river mouths, estuaries, lakes, and

bays using the thermal infrared channels.

In sparsely settled Canada, the use of metsat data

has been widespread. Snow cover mapping, freezeup,

and ice breakup on large lakes, flooding, and telemetry

of hydrologic data are common applications; because

of the vastness and remoteness of much of the Northwest Territory, use of the data is increasing in popularity. The Atmospheric Environment Service, the

Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing, and the various Provinces are heavily involved in these hydrologic

applications.

Metsat data (channels 1 and 2) are also used to produce vegetation indices. The Goddard Space Flight

Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has prepared a series of computerenhanced images of Africa showing by color the

vegetation of the country. NOAA/NESDIS now produce vegetation index maps of both the Northern and

Southern Hemispheres on a weekly basis (see figures

in app. H).

129

25 – 357 0 – 84 - 1 () : Q L 3
130

— —

In Bolivia, GOES data have been used to determine

convective storm characteristics in small- or mediumsized basins for the design of dams or other waterresource engineering development. Cloud indexing

techniques have improved rainfall estimates in northwest Africa in connection with a desert locust control

survey sponsored by the U.N. Food and Agricultural

Organization. 2

Snowpack can be routinely mapped with the l-km

resolution Advanced High Resolution Radiometer.

Tests in California have shown that these measurements are equivalent in accuracy to traditional aircraft

survey techniques. 3

Snow inventory and runoff forecasting in Norway have been done largely through

NOAA polar-orbiting satellite imagery, with effective

cost savings resulting from improved water-power

management.4

Although the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has been the lead Federal agency in

transferring the technology of remote-sensing to

developing countries, it has commonly emphasized

Landsat data rather than metsat data. NOAA has run

training sessions for a wide variety of scientists and

engineers at its U.S. facilities to assist in remote-sensing

technology transfer as it pertains to the metsats. Much

of this work has been financed by international and

AID programs. NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey have also engaged in international on-the-job

training for foreign nationals.

Landsat Data

Landsat investigations over the decade have proven

the ability of the Landsat system to map floods, snow

cover, and ice cover; delineate surface permeability;

etc. Used together with meteorological satellite data,

they offer a formidable resource survey tool:

● In 1973, some of the most disastrous flooding on

the Mississippi River in recent years was mapped

with Landsat, vividly delineating the extent of inundation over large parts of a major river basins

‘E. C. Barrett, “Satellite Rainfall Estimation by Cloud Index]ng Methods

for Desert Locust Survey and Control, “ in Satel/ite Hydrology, M. Deutsch,

D. R. Wlesnet, and A. Rango (eds. ), Proceedings of the 5th Annual W T

Pecora Memorial Symposium on Remote Sens]ng, 1979, Sioux Falls, S. Dak ,

1981, pp. 92-100.

‘D. Wiesnet and D McGinnis, “Hydrological Application of the NOAA-2

Very High Resolution Radiometer, ” in Remote Sensing and Water Management, Proceeding No. 17, American Water Resources Association, June 1973

‘G. Ostrem, T. Andersen, and H Odegaard, “Operational Use of Satelllte

Data for Snow Inventory and Runoff Forecast, ” ]n Satellite Hydrology, M

Deutsch, D. R Wiesnet, and A, Rango (eds. ), Proceedings of the 5th Annual W. T. Pecora Memorial Symposium on Remote Sensing, 1979, SIOUX

Falls, S. Dak , 1081, pp. 230-234 .

‘M. Deutsch, F H. Ruggles, P Guss, and E. Yost, “Mapping of the 1973

Misslssipp] River Floods From the Earth Resources Technology Satellite

(ERTS), ” in Remote Senwng and Water Management, Proceeding No 17,

American Water Resources Assoc]atlon, June 1973

●

●

●

Snow pack extent was mapped in California using

Landsat data, resulting in reduced errors in stream

flow forecasts. ’

Landsat data have been effectively used in South

Dakota to model soil erosion. Landsat’s unique

contribution was in delineating land cover in the

basin. ’

Landsat data have been used to enforce water

pollution regulations. In this case they provided

the extent of pollution and turbidity levels at a

plume in Lake Champlain; these data were used

in a court case against a New York papermill.

These examples are only a small sample of the total

applications of Landsat data to hydrology. The limitations of the Landsat system in its applications to

hydrology are similar to those in agriculture: timely

coverage may not be available because of the 16-day

repeat cycle. Part of this limitation can be overcome

by using meteorological satellite data.

Conjoint Applications of Landsat and

NOAA Polar-Orbiting Data

Used together, Landsat and NOAA polar-orbiter

data offer a formidable resource survey tool. As in applications to agriculture, the role of Landsat data is

to calibrate the more frequently gathered but poorer

resolution meteorological satellite data. Some specific

examples include:

●

●

●

✎

Use of Landsat data to calibrate the snow/no

snow boundary. Once a reflectance value has

been calibrated defining the reflectance of the

snow boundary, then the NOAA polar-orbiter

data can be used with high accuracy to map the

snow boundary at less cost with greater

frequency.

The same rationale outlined for snow mapping

works for flooding-i .e., Landsat spectral data—

can be used to define a signature for flood-damaged vegetation and actual water areas where vegetation may be seen through the water. Once calibrated with the Landsat data, polar-orbiter spectral data can be applied to map the flood boundaries.

Land cover and deforestation which may influence a watershed runoff can be mapped using the

6A. Rango and P. O’Nelll, “Effective Watershed Management Using Remote

Sensing Technology, ” in Remote Sensing for Resource Management, SOI1 Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1982.

‘B. J. Ripple and S Miller, “Remote Sensing and Computer Model]ng for

Water Quality Plannlng in South Dakota, ” In Remote Sensing for Resource

Marragement, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1982
737

Landsat system, but a calibrated NOAA polar- proved delivery of data sets from the NOAA polarorbiter data set can be used at less cost. orbiting metsat and Landsat systems would open the

Clearly the polar-orbiting metsat-Landsat mix of- way for significant increases in the use of such mixes.

fers many advantages that are yet to be applied. Im-
Appendix F

Forestry

Remote-sensing techniques have been widely used

by forestry companies and individual consultants for

many years. The most frequently used type of remotely sensed data are black-and-white panchromatic aerial

photos, usually having a scale of 1:15,840 (i.e., 4

inches = 1 mile). Such photos show a tremendous

amount of detail about the forest and other surface

features; stereo pairs of photos can be used to obtain

information about the species of trees present, number

of trees per acre, area] extent of the forest stands, location and characteristics of existing or needed transportation networks, etc. Although a tremendous amount

of highly useful information can be obtained from aerial photos, much of this information requires imagery

having high levels of spatial detail—individual tree

crowns, topographic characteristics of the terrain, etc.

It is largely for this reason that many people have questioned the value of Landsat data for meeting information needs in forestry, since the ground resolution of

each Landsat pixel is approximately 59 X 79 meters.

However, several different levels of detail are needed

in characterizing or evaluating the forest resource. At

the most detailed level, one must obtain actual measurements in the field from a sample of individual trees

to estimate the merchantable timber volume per acre

in individual stands of timber. On the other end of the

scale, knowledge of the location and extent of forest

stands is also important. It is this type of information

for which Landsat data are of particular value, since

the location and extent of forests can change dramatically over the course of a few years or even from one

year to the next.

In other words, the average rate of growth of individual species of trees is known. Once the species composition of a specific stand has been determined, the

changes in stand volume can be predicted reasonably

well, barring unforeseen changes due to fire, insects,

or disease. These unforeseen changes, from natural or

human causes, require periodic assessment of the areal

extent of forest lands; this can best be accomplished

quickly and cost effectively by remote sensing. Traditionally, the forest industry has used aerial photography.

In recent years, as the quality of both aerial cameras

and film has improved, and as the capability for

obtaining photos from high-altitude aircraft has been

developed, the use of relatively small-scale (e.g.,

1:120,000) aerial photos has been of interest to forest

industries because of the relative economy of such

photography for many applications.

132

For example, in Maine, the Great Northern Timber

Co. uses 1:120,000-scale color infrared photos for a

wide variety of timber land and road network assessments, and for monitoring logging operations (i. e., the

extent and location of clearcut areas). The company

converts the information derived from these aerial

photos into digital form and adds it to a data base

which is part of a highly sophisticated Georeferenced

Information System (GIS). The foresters at Great

Northern are highly interested in the potential of Landsat data to supply much of the information they need,

but they have yet not incorporated them into their procedures because of their concern about the continued

availability of Landsat data in a standardized format,

and the recent very large increases in the cost of the

computer-compatible types (CCTs), If the price for

digital Landsat data rises too high, they will continue

to rely on aerial photography, where the cost of obtaining the necessary data and the source of data are

known, predictable factors.

The Southern Timberlands Division of St. Regis

Paper Co. (headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla. ) has

also developed a sophisticated GIS, which is tied into

the corporate computer network. St. Regis foresters

were interested in integrating the data from such a system into their forest management operations. Because

some of the early research results appeared promising, St. Regis submitted a proposal to the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration to evaluate the

use of such data for meeting some of the information

needs of the forest industry. St. Regis asked Purdue

University to work with them on this project.

Researchers set up a three-phase evaluation of the

Landsat data and digital-processing techniques. Phase

I involved a detailed assessment of the benefits and

limitations of using Landsat data to meet operational

information needs of the Southern Timberlands Division. Specifically, the division wished to know the accuracy and reliability of identifying coniferous forest

cover, the optimal times of year to obtain Landsat

data, and the accuracy and reliability of acreage

estimates. In addition, it had many questions concerning the procedures for incorporating such data into the

existing resource management system, the cost and

availability of hardware and software for utilizing

Landsat data, personnel and training requirements, etc.

They also wished to know the cost and timeliness as

well as the continued availability of the Landsat data.

When dealing with a new technology such as this,

a myriad of unknowns, both technical and financial,
133

must be examined before it becomes reasonably clear

that the technology can meet operational needs for specific types of information. The results of Phase I indicated that Landsat data and computer analysis techniques could provide useful input to a Forest Resource

Information System (FRIS)–a computer-based GIS;

approval was given to proceed with Phase 11 and III.

In Phase II, a computer terminal in Jacksonville was

connected to the main computer at the Laboratory for

Applications of Remote Sensing (LARS), Purdue University, where appropriate data analysis software existed. The staff at LARS trained St. Regis personnel

in analyzing Landsat data. After St. Regis obtained additional equipment to implement completely the St.

Regis FRIS, the “umbilical cord” to Purdue was cut.

During Phase III, St. Regis tested and made the entire

system completely operational.

Integrating Landsat remote-sensing technology into

FRIS required St. Regis to spend over $1,300,000 for

hardware and to hire two data specialists (one analyst

and one programmer). However, the company estimated that these costs would be recovered in approximately 8 1/2 years through: 1 ) increased efficiency in

forest mapping, and 2) considerable improvement in

efficiency of field operations. By using Landsat data,

the company was able to identify areas where only

minor changes in the area or condition of the forest

could be better defined, and to assign less field work

to them. This decreased the total amount of field-crew

time required and enabled more effective use of the

field crews in areas where significant changes were

occurring.

The utilization of Landsat data in the FRIS was

described in detail at a symposium held in Jacksonville in May 1981, to which key personnel from all of

the forest industries in the country were invited. As

an indication of the widespread interest in the possible use of Landsat data, all except one of the forest

industry companies sent representatives (usually

senior-level executives) to the symposium. Two different types of users can be defined: the larger forestry

companies like St. Regis or Great Northern, who

would develop their own capability to analyze and use

Landsat data, and the smaller companies who would

like to have access to the same type of information,

but cannot afford such an operation themselves. The

smaller companies would be interested in purchasing

value-added services. Companies specializing in analysis of Landsat data as a service to forest industries

might have considerable demand for their products.

To date, however, forestry companies other than

St. Regis have made little progress in incorporating

Landsat data into their information system. Value-

-added companies have not increased their business

with forest companies significantly. The reasons for

this may be varied and complex, but two factors predominate:

1<

2.

It

There is no commitment by the U.S. Government

or any private group to supply data promptly on

a continuous basis, and forest industries are not

yet ready to modify their entire method of

monitoring the resource base. *

Potential users of the data are worried about the

cost of the primary data. As previously indicated,

because of the number of decades required to

grow a crop of trees to merchantable size and the

fact that periodic inventories of the resource base

are necessary, the resources that can be allocated

to any one inventory are minimal. At $200 per

CCT, the cost of the price of digital data was very

reasonable, even when the forested areas of interest involved only a small portion of the area

covered by that particular frame of Landsat data.

However, the announced price of $4,400 per

frame of Landsat 4 thematic mapper data {starting February 1985 ), makes the cost of obtaining

the data a major issue for forestry companies, especially when there seems to be no indication that

such data costs will stabilize. If the Landsat system is transferred, cost increases will remain a

major concern.

seems clear that the forest industries are not about

to commit themselves to use a data-collection system

such as Landsat unless the long-term implications of

such a commitment are clear, and that the cost, availability, and utility of the data can justify such a change

in their current methods of obtaining needed information.

The forest industry will not begin to use satellite data

on a regular basis until it is assured that they will meet

forestry information needs. Unfortunately, many individual studies have shown the benefits and limitations of Landsat data, but most of these have been of

a research or a one-time demonstration nature; very

few involved industry-defined operational constraints.

Therefore, there is still a major need for development,

demonstration, and evaluation of the technology

under operational conditions. For instance, in the St.

Regis project, researchers found that wintertime Landsat data were superior to spring or summer data because the primary information need was for stands of

coniferous rather than deciduous forest cover.

As the St. Regis project and other studies have

shown, Landsat data for forestry purposes have con-

‘ lk[ auw(>I annual c } CIL+ <,! lndl.~t r} i~p{ r~t l(,n~ th{ p{>t{nt jai ftlr obt<])n

Ing I andwt data r. It h] n ~ rc..i+( )nable t imt, at ter It I\ c <lII{Jc ted IS (~t c tjn( ern

The corslstenc) 01 Iormat I> JIW) 01 L (Inc .rn because t~l the ( ,wts (lt rev)i)n~

s(~tt~i are and h,irdii ar( w hene~ er c h.in~e+ In t ht, I t,rm~t (~t the ddt a LX L ~i r
134

siderable potential. The St. Regis project used geometrically rectified Landsat data overlaid onto a landownership map. Areas of coniferous, deciduous, and other

cover types were then identified and these results were

compared with existing cover-type maps to locate

areas where differences existed between the two data

sets. Field crews then concentrated their efforts in these

areas of discrepancy. Landsat data from a second date

were overlaid onto the first data set, and used to determine the extent of logging and reforestation operations, and whether the field records agreed with the

results obtained from the first Landsat data set. Areas

in which no significant changes in forest cover occurred were also defined; this led to modifications of

the statistical sampling strategy for field inventories.

Landsat data have been applied to selecting the optimum location for a paper pulpmill in relation to the

potential timber supply and transportation network.

Such procedures may also prove effective for locating

potential sources of wood supply for existing mills and

then arranging a mutually beneficial long-term forest

management lease with the owner.

In summary, Landsat data have been or could be

of benefit in monitoring field records and rapid updating of maps, improved efficiency of field operations, timber supply monitoring, and long-term planning. It must be emphasized, however, that the effective use of Landsat data by forest industries involves

developing entirely new information management systems that integrate Landsat data with many other types

of data obtained from a variety of sources.

The decision to use Landsat data therefore represents

a very major change in the data-collection and information analysis techniques of a corporation. In spite

of many potential uses of Landsat data, it is clear that

such satellite data will not entirely replace aerial

photography because the characteristics and information content of the two data types are quite different,

each having unique advantages and significant limitations. The key to effective use of Landsat data involves

their appropriate integration with other data. However, unless concerns over continued data availability (in a standardized format that does not change at

frequent intervals), and the future cost and timeliness

of the data are effectively addressed to the satisfaction of corporation executives, many potential users

of Landsat data will continue to use other forms and

sources of data for their information systems.
—

Appendix

Monitoring Desertification Processes

The Landsat remote-sensing system has proven

uniquely effective for measuring and determining

changes in the global landscape. It is particularly applicable to monitoring and assessing processes that lead

to desertification. About one-third of the Earth’s surface is arid or semi-arid and therefore highly vulnerable

to a variety of degradation processes. Such stresses,

if continued unchecked, may lead to ecological impoverishment and, ultimately, to desert-like conditions.

Most commonly, desertification is triggered or intensified by periods of drought, and exacerbated by

poor land-use practices such as rapid land clearing for

agriculture or fuel. As food production becomes more

important, large land areas run the risk of becoming

less and less productive as a result of losing forest. Until recently, attempts to quantify and map the locations of desertification were based on fragmentary and

highly local data subject to differing interpretation.

Land remote sensing from space could provide the

necessary information to monitor desertification.

The Conference on Desertification, held in Nairobi,

Kenya, in 1977, recognized the need for developing

a means for systematic land assessment. Agencies of

the U.S. Government, especially the Agency for International Development and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, have since experimented

with using the Landsat system as a primary land

survey tool to monitor desertification.

The global dimensions of desertification are not precisely known but, by any account, are grave indeed.

Each year, as many as 14 million acres of previously

productive land become barren. Acreage lost to production represents a substantial economic loss to the

global economy. One study2 estimates $7 billion in

losses from loss of range and pastureland and $9 billion

in lost agricultural production each year. Financial

losses in industrialized countries are paralleled by

adverse human and social consequences in arid lands

of the less developed world.

With the advent of satellite multispectral scanners

(MSS) it has become possible to sweep Earth’s surface

-—..——

‘ [)esert, t,c at lonIS the sustained dec!ine and destruction c~f the h]t>l[)~]cal

Pr{ductlvlt} [ t dr},ldnds c>wlng t[~ stress cauwd b} humans ~(~met ]rnes In

c t~n]unc t lt~n w]t h extreme weather or drought

‘ ~J N ( c)nterence on IIewrtlt !{ atl[)n Septemher 1 Q77 Rt~undup Plan (~f

Actl(\n and Resolutions !’-!ew }’(~rh, lQ78

‘Desert Ii icat Ion paper~ prepared ft )r the Na]rob] St, mlnar on Uewrt ]t I( a

tlc)n Prlw illa Relnlng ~ed ) Amerl( an 14SWN latlon It)r the Advancement (~t

%lence ki’ashlngt(~n 1) L I Q78

G

*

by Landsat

—

repetitively, depict the scene in pixels about 1 acre

across, determine surface reflectance characteristics in

multiple bandwidths, and process these data rapidly

by computer for interpretation and presentation. Based

on this capability, desertification specialists, meeting

under the international auspices of the U .N. Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), have concluded that land

condition should be expressed in gradation of geographical units. 3

The objective is to enable land comparisons on the basis of vegetation complexes, ecosystems, soil associations, and other qualities amenable

to identification by remote sensing. They have created

models which permit Landsat data to be combined

with meteorological and other data to determine

general conditions over relatively vast and sometimes

remote areas. Use of this new technology presently offers the only economical y feasible method for obtaining synoptic information over wide areas, which is

essential to understanding and controlling desertification.

The special properties of the Landsat system which

permit development of a global data base and the

means for accomplishing resource inventory and continuing monitoring are summarized as follows:

• perspective over a range of selected scales,

● combination of spectral bands for categorization

and identification,

● repetitive coverage under comparable viewing

conditions,

● direct measurement based on one set of reflectance

conditions for a wide area,

● signals suitable for digital storage and subsequent

manipulation, and

● accessibility over remote and difficult terrain and

across political divisions.

With the establishment of baseline conditions it is

possible to monitor the severity, rate, and trends based

on standard sets of indicators (see table G-1 )4 T h e

absence of this type of information in the early 1970’s

contributed to the failure to institute relief measures

in the drought-stricken Sahel region of West Africa

135
136

Table G-1 .—lmplementation of Desertification Indicators With Remote Sensing

Detailed

SOIL ‘

1. Mosaic coloring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Surface seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Major dust storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.Sand drift, dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Remobilized dunes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Obliteration of field patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.Salt crust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Water

1. Falling water tables or increasing saline

ground water (depth or stress on phreatophyte)

2. Abandonment of irrigated lands based on

ground water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Waterlogging moist ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Abandoned land in irrigated systems . . . . . . . . .

5. Surface water changes in extent and duration .

6, Silting ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Turbidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Extension of gully sytems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Regional changes in seasonal limits on

rainfall (climate and water balance) . . . . . . . .

Vegetation:

1. Changes in cover or perennial vegetation . . . . .

2. Changes in distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Annual vegetation (crops) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Denuded areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Biomass of crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Animals:

1. Key species, populations, herd composition

(larger animals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Land use:

1. Changes in irrigation . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .

2. Changes in dryland area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Proportion of fallow to cropland . . . . . . . . . .

4. Stressed rangeland areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Devegetation of mined areas . . . . . . ... . . .

6. Ground disturbance around mines . . . . . . . .

7. Mine waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Deforestation around settlements . . . . . . . .

9. Deforestation in relation to sand drift . . . . . . . .

10. Tourism and recreation (ground disturbance) . .

11. Change in settlements (new settlements,

expansion of existing settlements, and

abandonment of settlements). . . . . . . . . . . .

Key +can be used

– cannot be used

Notes

Detatied = scale 1 10,000, Iow.level aircraft

Reconnaissance Synoptic Repetition Rate

+—

+

+

+—

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

—

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(ma; or

may not

be seen)

—

+

+ daily

– annual or longer

+ annual

+ annual

– annual

– annual

+ annual

– annual

+ annual

+ half monthly

+ annual

+ half monthly, event related

+ 5 years

+ half monthly, daily over long period

+ dry season, 5 years

– dry season, 5 years

+ half monthly

+ half monthly

+ seasonal

– annual

+ annual or longer

+ annual or longer

+ annual

+ annual

+ 5 years

annual

– 5 years

+ annual

+ annual

– annual

(+) annual

Reconnaissance = scale between 120,000 and 1 100,000 (Landsat.TM or SPOT-M LA)

Synoptic = scale 1250,000, satellite (Landsat.MSS)

SOURCE UNEP, Report of Expert Meeting on Methodology for Desertiflcation Assessment and Mapping
137

until after thousands had died of starvation and many

more had been forced to migrate, a condition that led

to enormous social and political instability in the area.

With U.S. help, several international organizations

are attempting to monitor and understand desertification. s A Global Environmental Monitoring System

(GEMS) is being coordinated under the U.N. Earthwatch Program. FAO has under construction a Global

Information and Early Warning System aimed at mitigating the effects of famine around the world. These

systems will not become fully operational until civilian

satellite remote sensing attains greater maturity. Land

and meteorological satellites and a full panoply of

aerial and ground observations will eventually be required to carry out the objectives of these ambitious

but feasible programs.

The World Weather Watch (WWW) provides an important input to monitoring desertification through the

Global Observing System (GOS). WWW is a collaborative effort by which 145 member nations pool

meteorological capabilities and the data from 8,500

synoptic stations and other sources. GOS acquires data

from both polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites.

In the United States, desertification is a major land

problem for substantial portions of 17 Western States.

The United States and Mexico have made the combatting of desertification in their common arid ecoregions

a major continuing item of technical cooperation, and

have placed particular emphasis on common use of

Landsat imagery. The Department of State has been

responsible for organizing periodic joint meetings of

experts, and has directed U.S. contributions to

monitoring activities.

Within the United States, a number of agencies and

institutions are active in studying, assessing, and

monitoring desertification processes. Those most

prominent are:

● U.S. Department of Agriculture

— Soil Conservation Service

—National Forest Service

● Department of the Interior

--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

—Bureau of Indian Affairs

‘Intern<it l{~ncll \\mp[ ,.]um I ,n I{rnlt]te %nslng [If Fnvir(~!lment Conterem e

t ~n Rt,m ( )1 [ >t,ns] n~ t~t .Arj(] .] n(i $em-,~lrl{] 1 and~ Nc~vember ] Q8 ] Calrt>

t,x\ pt

—U.S. Geological Survey

—Office of Surface Mining

● Department of Commerce

—Climate Change Assessment

—National Weather Service

—National Environmental Satellite System

In April 1982, a comprehensive interagency study

published by BLM reported the status of desertification in the United States. ’ It emphasized monitoring

needs and statutes mandating land condition-monitoring projects including:

1. the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

of 1977 (RCA), Public Law 95-192;

2. the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (RFP); and

3. the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976 (FLPMA).

Collectively, the RCA, RPA, and FLPMA direct in

very specific terms the preparation and maintenance

of continuous resource inventories by the Federal agencies. Congress has further recognized the importance

of effective coordination of the collection and analysis

of natural resources information. One active vehicle

for accomplishing this was provided by the Interagency Agreement Related to Classifications and Inventories of Natural Resources, which was signed by five

leading land agencies in 1978. It has produced several

standard manuals. The product of a single national

land satellite system, has helped pull together resource

specialists who are addressing different tasks using the

same basic data.

BLM, custodian of 427 million acres of public land,

provides one specific example of response to monitoring requirements. BLM joined with the U.S. Geological

Survey in modeling and categorizing Landsat digital

data for purposes of mapping and describing wildland

vegetation for a large section of the arid southwest.

Strict cost records were kept, and the task was accomplished at a favorable rate of $0.07 per acre, including labor, computer time, and cost of tapes.

— — —

‘L” S [department (>t tht intcrlt~r Buria(j <~f I an(l hl.inagt,m{,nt I)c,wrtlt Icatlon In the L] S Sta tu \ an~! l~sut,~ \t’JstJln~tt,n [> (- Apr]] IQ8J
Appendix H

El Nino and Climatic Variations

-——— ———-——

Periodically, the failure of the Eastern Trade Winds

to develop in the eastern equatorial Pacific causes abnormal weather and climate, especially in Peru, as the

Peruvian Current, an upwelling nutrient-rich system,

gives way to a warm easterly flowing current. This

extreme condition is called El Nine. Because of its

strength and widespread effects on global weather patterns, the El Nino of 1982-83 has been labeled by some

as the most remarkable climatic event of the century .

1 2 3 Satellite-derived sea-surface temperatures

will eventually allow scientists to monitor the development and extent of the change and lead to better understanding, and hence predictions, of El Nino conditions. New techniques of measuring sea-surface temperature from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administrations (NOAA) satellite sensors were inaugurated in November 1981 by the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

‘kl A Cane, “Oceanographic Events During El Nmo “ .%wrrce 222, 1983,

pp 1189-1194.

‘E M Rasmussen and J M Wallace, Meteoro]og]cal Aspects ot the El

Nlno Southern Osclllatlon, ’ Scmnce 222, 1983, pp 1195-1202

‘R. T Barber and F. P Chavez, ‘ B]ologlcal Consequences ot El Nlno, ’

Science 222, 1983 pp. 1203-1210

(NESDIS), The 1982-83 El Nino began to develop over

the central equatorial Pacific during June and July

1982, but it did not reach the South American coast

until September 1982.

Several excellent NOAA-7 images have enabled delineation of surface thermal patterns off the South

American coast (figs. 5 and 6 in ch. 5). These temperature patterns agree with buoy temperatures and permit an integrated picture of this climatic anomaly.

With extensive monitoring by satellites, bouys and

ships, this, the most significant El Nino of modern

times, has been documented, studied, and understood

better than any other El Nine.

The 1982-83 El Nino has temporarily destroyed the

lush fishing industry of Peru, thereby harming the

economy of that nation. It also produced torrential

rains in desert areas, triggering mudslides and floods;

devastated the adobe housing of most of the rural inhabitants; and generally disrupted transportation. Abnormal rains related to El Nino patterns have also

plagued Central America and California. The circulation patterns producing this El Nino have extended all

around the world.

138
— - ——. .———. —.

Appendix 1

Monitoring Volcanic Activity

Until the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens

in Washington State on May 18, 1980, most Americans

regarded volcanoes as curious geologic features that

affected other countries. The eruptions of Mount St.

Helens have renewed public interest in this spectacular

form of geologic catastrophe.

Within minutes after the initial blast from Mount

St. Helens the geostationary meteorological satellite

(GOES) began recording this awesome event at halfhourly intervals from 22,OOO miles above the Equator

(fig. I-1 ). A vast plume of ash and smoke rose into the

atmosphere and was carried by the winds for hundreds, even thousands of miles. Each half hour the

progress of the dust veil was recorded by GOES, allowing meteorologists to advise those downwind what

to expect in terms of ash fallout and when it might arrive. Aircraft were rerouted. In fallout areas, local

governments issued advisories. The magnitude of the

blast alerted hydrologists that rivers could change

course, lakes could drain, and floods were both probable and imminent.

Other volcanic eruptions that have been studied by

satellites include the Krafla, Icelandr eruption of

February 1981; the Heckla, Iceland, eruption of April

1982; the Alaid, U. S. S. R,, eruption of 1981; the Galunggung, Indonesia, eruption of July 1982 (fig. 1-2);

and the El Chichon, Mexico, eruption of April 1982.

The Icelandic eruptions tended to be in the form of

large lava flows, and were best detected by the thermal infrared channels on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) polar orbiter.

The Alaid eruption sent a plume of ash across the

North Pacific for hundreds of kilometers. El Chichon

sent a plume of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide

gas high up into the stratosphere, where it girdled the

globe in about 28 days, then spread slowly over all

the Northern Hemisphere in the form of sulfuric acid

droplets. This highly unusual eruption is being monitored carefully all over the world because of its potential for temporarily altering the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The stratospheric migration of this

atmospheric “cloud” was ingeniously tracked by

NOAA scientists by noting artificial temperature anomalies in sea-surface temperatures caused by the attenuation of solar energy by the sulfuric acid aerosols.

Galunggung in southwestern Java has erupted in fits

and starts for years, but it made headlines when its

plume was penetrated by a British passenger airliner

which nearly crashed when hot volcanic dust clogged

its jet engines. Incredibly, the same airliner 6 months

later again was victimized by a Galunggung eruption

and again was nearly incapacitated by volcanic dust.

Aviation authorities are seriously considering a

monitoring scheme using the World Meteorological

Organization’s World Weather Watch satellites to put

out aviation alerts on possible volcanic eruptions based

on satellite imagery.

139
140

—— —

Figure I.1 .— May 18, 1980, Eruption of Mount St. Helens, Wash., as Recorded by the GOES Satellite, 0845 PDT

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
141 — —

N

-

0