Remotely Sensed Data: Technology,

Management and Markets

September 1994

OTA-ISS-604

NTIS order #PB94-209939

GPO stock #052-003-01385-1
Recommended citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remotely

Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets, OTA-ISS-604 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994).

For sale by the U.S. Government Prlnting office

Superintendant of Documents, Mail Stop SSOP. Washington DC 20402-932X”

ISBN O-1 6-045180-9
F oreword

T

he increasing volume of data about the Earth collected using

spacecraft poses a challenge to U.S. data archiving and distribution facilities. The value of these data will depend on how effectively the data can be employed for scientific and other uses. As

this report notes, turning remotely sensed data into useful information

will 1 require adequate data storage and computers systems capable of managing, organizing, sorting, distributing, and manipulating the data at exceptional speeds. Efficient data management will be assisted by the large

and fast growing information industry, which includes computer hardware and software and electronic data networks.

This report examines U.S. plans for managing the prodigious quantities of data expected from current, planned, and future remote sensing

satellites. In particular, it explores the Earth Observing System Data and

Information System, which NASA is developing to manage and process

the data from its Earth Observing System of satellites. It also analyzes

the factors affecting the growth of the market for privatel y generated remotely sensed data. The recent entry of private firms into the development and operation of remote sensing systems affords U.S. firms the opportunity to develop a new space industry, supplying high-quality data to

worldwide markets. This circumstance raises questions about the appropriate role of the U.S. government in assisting this fledgling industry

in competition with foreign governments and companies.

In undertaking this effort, OTA sought the contributions of a wide

spectrum of knowledgeable individuals and organizations. Some provided information; others reviewed drafts. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intellectual effort. OTA also

appreciates the help and cooperation of officials with NASA, NOAA,

and the Department of Interior. As with all OTA reports, the content of

this report is the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment and does not necessarily represent the views of our advisors or

reviewers.

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director
Advisory Panel

Rodney Nichols, Chairman

Chief Executive officer

New York Academy of Sciences

James G. Anderson

Professor

Department of Chemistry

Harvard University

William Brown

President

ERIM

Ronald Brunner

Professor of Political Science

Center for Public Policy Research

University of Colorado

Joanne Gabrynowicz

Associate Professor

Department of Space Studies

University of North Dakota

Alexander F. Goetz

Director

Center for Aerospace Sciences

University of Colorado

David Goodenough

Chief Research Scientist

Pacific Forestry Center

Forestry Canada

Donald C. Latham

Vice President

Loral Corp.

Cecil E. Leith

Livermore, CA

John H. McElroy

Dean of Engineering

The University of Texas at

Arlington

Molly Macauley

Fellow

Resources for the Future

Earl Merritt

President

Space Systems Markets

Alan Miller

Director

The Center for Global Change

University of Maryland

Raymond E. Miller

Professor

Department of Computer Science

University of Maryland

Kenneth Pederson

Research Professor of

International Affairs

Georgetown University

Washington, DC

David T. Sandwell

Geological Research Division

Scripps Institute of Oceanography

Dorm Walklet

President

TcrrNOVA Int.

Albert Wheelon

Montccito, CA

iv
Peter Blair Ray A. Williamson

Assistant Director, OTA Project Director

Energy, Materials, and

International Security Division Stephen Wooley’

Alan Shaw

International Security and Space

Program,Director

P reject Staff

CONTRIBUTORS

Arthur Charo

Gretchen Kolsrud

CONTRACTORS

Paul Bowersox

Leonard David

Mark Goodman

Henry Hertzfeld

Paula Kern

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Jacqueline R. Boykin

Nathaniel E. Lewis

* until September 993.

v
workshop Participants

THE FUTURE OF REMOTELY

SENSED DATA

Ray A. Williamson

Chairman

Office of Technology Assessment

John D. Bossier

Director, Center for Mapping

Ohio State University

Dave Brannon

Deputy Director

NASA, Stcnnis Space Center

John T. Dalton

EOS Project Manager

NASA, Goddard Space Flight

Center

Tom Henning

Deputy Director, Technology &

Information

Defense Mapping Agency

Dick des Jardins

EOS Network Manager

Goddard Space Flight Center

John E. Estes

Visiting Senior Scientist

U.S. Geological Survey/NASA

Kass Green

President

Pacific Meridian Resources

Molly McCauley

Fellow

Resources for the Future

Raymond Miller

Professor

University of Maryland, College

Park

Stanley Morain

Director

University of New Mexico

Ted Nanz

President

SPOT Image Corp.

Alfredo Prelat

Texaco Exploration and

Production Division

Texaco

Bill Turnbull

Executive Officer

NOAA, Earth Systems Data and

Information Management

Program

Dorm Walklet

President

TerraNOVA International

Al Watkins

Chief

National Mapping Division

U.S. Geological Survey

GEOSPATIAL DATA:

AGENCY NEEDS, FORMATS,

AND STANDARDS

Ray A. Williamson

Chairman

Office of Technology Assessment

David Beddoe

Environmental Systems Research

Institute, Inc.

Tim Daniel

Project Officer

Central Imagery Office

Cliff Kottman

Executive Manager

Intergraph

Debra Knopman

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Water and Science

Department of Interior

Robert Kreider

Manager

NASA

Roberta Lenczowski

Technical Advisor

Defense Mapping Agency

Nancy Tosta

Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

Stanley Wilson

Assistant Administrator

NOAA

vi
Contents

Executive Summary 1

1

2

3

Policy and Findings 5

The Future of Satellite Data and Information 8

The Management and Analysis of Data and

lnformation 13

NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information

System 18

Public and Private Roles in a Developing Market 22

International Cooperation 26

Underutilization of Remotely Sensed Data 29

Environmental Monitoring 30

lnternational Development 30

Managing Remotely Sensed Data

and Information 33

The Information Industry 34

Collection and Processing of Remotely Sensed

Data 3 8

Data Archives 42

Technology for Archiving Data 46

Navigating the Archives 50

Geographic Infotmation Systems 53

New Ways of Visualizing Data 57

NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and

Information System 61

EOSDIS Overview 61

Data Management Technology (Organization and

Access) 74

EOSDIS Program Challenges 75

CIESIN Issues 79

EOSDIS Scientific Involvement 84

Data Fomats/Standards 90

vii
4

5

Government and Private Sector Roles in a

Developing Market for Geospatial

Data 93

Remote Sensing as a Public Good 94

Commercial Provision and Use of Remotely Sensed

Data 9 6

Elements of Risk and the Role of Government 101

Growth of Data Markets 105

International Competition in Data Services 111

International Issues in Data Management

and Cooperation 113

Reasons for Cooperation 114

Challenges of Cooperation 114

National and Regional Activities 116

International Treaties and Legal Principles 120

International Cooperation 121

Operational Environmental Applications 124

Weather Forecasting 125

Operational Data Exchange Issues 132

International Cooperation on

Global Change Research 134

International Coordination of Data Policies 140

Remote Sensing and International Development 143

A

B

c

D

E

F

Operational and Planned Earth Observing

Satellite Systems 147

Selected Remote Sensing

Applications 150

Applications of Remotely Sensed Data

for Forestry 168

Quantitative Products from Satellite

Observations 176

Acknowledgements 180

Acronyms and Abbreviations 182

INDEX 187

. . . Vll
B

y the early twenty-first century, satellite remote sensing

systems will generate prodigous quantities of data about

Earth’s atmosphere, land, oceans, and ice cover. The value

of these data will depend on how effectively they can be

used. Turning remotely sensed data into useful information will

require adequate data storage and computer systems capable of

managing, organizing, sorting, distributing, and manipulating the

data at exceptional speeds.

The large and fast growing information industry, which includes computer hardware and software and electronic data networks, is rapidly changing the way in which people handle data.

Innovations in storage, imaging, and networking technologies

could greatly improve the government’s ability to analyze, archive, and manage remotely sensed data. However, in order to

achieve higher performance from federal data management systems, the government will have to adapt quickly to changing

technologies and allocate greater funding to data management.

Innovations in information technologies will also assist the

rapid growth of a market for information produced from satellite

data. However, significant market growth will depend on the

availability of cheaper, improved data and less expensive, user-

-friendly software to process the data.

THE MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF DATA AND

INFORMATION

The federal government maintains several major archives that

store and protect U.S. satellite and other Earth data. In order to

serve future data customers most efficiently, these archives will

require periodic upgrades to improve data storage and retrieval,

data search algorithms, and online communications capability.

Exectuite

Summary
2 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

● predicting weather

● understanding climate

● assessing environmental change

● managing regional and global resources

■ resource exploration

■ land-use planning

(DMSP)-constitute a unique record of regional

and global change. The United States should

protect and maintain these data and make

them widely available for global change research. To create a more comprehensive global

land data archive, Congress may wish to consider

funding the purchase and archiving of a basic

collection of Landsat scenes collected at foreign

Landsat stations.

The information industry is well-positioned to

assist in improving the management of federal

data archives. Yet in the past, federal data analysis and management has often been underfunded. Congress may wish to scrutinize remote sensing budgets to assure that plans for

data analysis, distribution, and archiving are

adequate and that overruns of instrument and

spacecraft budgets are not made up by underfunding data management.

The rapid growth of online services and databases will markedly improve the ability of customers to locate and order data over the Internet

and other online systems. The widespread availability of high capacity networks is likely to increase significantly the number of users of remotely sensed data. Despite major advances in

database technologies, potential data users often

have difficulty locating U.S. and foreign sources

for data. In order to take full advantage of the existing investment in remotely sensed data, and to

avoid duplication in future data acquisition, Congress may wish to instruct federal agencies to

develop a centrally coordinated “metadata

set” that would provide a complete listing of

the sources and types of remotely sensed data

held in different U.S. facilities. Such a metadata

set should include a data tracking mechanism to

provide government and private customers with

access to data sources; it might also include listings of foreign and commercial archives.

Existing satellite data from the U.S. operational satellite systems—the Landsat system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

polar-orbiting and geostationary systems, and the

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEM

(EOSDIS)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has recognized the critical importance of data

management in designing its Earth Observing

System (EOS). EOSDIS will be the largest and

most challenging civilian data management

system attempted to date. To derive the greatest

value from EOS data, NASA plans to process and

manage extremely large quantities of raw data and

make them available to researchers quickly. Data

processing on this scale has never before been

done on a routine basis with such large data sets.

NASA has structured EOSDIS to encourage

interdisciplinary global change research. As

scientific priorities change, NASA will face the

challenge of remaining responsive to data-user

needs while also developing new methods of data

management and analysis. Maintaining EOSDIS as an operational system routinely accessible by data users and keeping up with advancements in technology will require adequate and

stable funding.

The success of EOSDIS will be measured in

large part by how extensively EOS data are used

beyond the relatively small community of NASA

principal investigators. Many users will find EOS

data advantageous for scientific research and for

managing U.S. public and private resources.

NASA is now developing methods to allow extensive, flexible access to EOSDIS, including

through private firms. If EOSDIS is successful,

NASA could be faced with sustaining the data

needs of more users than it is funded to support.
Executive Summary |3

EOSDIS must be flexible enough to provide

easy access to the governmentwide Global

Change Data and Information System (GCDIS),

which is being developed by the U.S. Global

Change Research Program. EOSDIS would also

likely serve as the core of an operational environmental monitoring data system that many believe

should follow the 15-year EOS program. Congress may wish to instruct the agencies involved in the U.S. Global Change Research

Program to examine the long term (decadal

timescale) needs for climate and other environmental data from satellites and other sources

and recommend a data system to produce, archive, manage, and distribute these data.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROLES IN A

DEVELOPING MARKET

The private sector is likely to play a crucial role in

shaping the future of satellite remote sensing.

Firms have already taken the lead in linking data

sources to data users by turning raw data into productive information. These value-added companies, and firms that develop new, more efficient

data management and processing software, will

remain critical elements in expanding the remote

sensing industry.

In addition, several private firms plan to market

raw data from privately financed remote sensing

systems. Their ability to operate a successful data

supply business will depend on: strong market

growth from new data applications; significant reductions in the costs of building and operating satellite systems; and the ability to transmit data to

customers quickly and efficiently. Government

could assist in reducing industry’s financial

risks by: maintaining consistent, stable remote

sensing policies and by not competing with private firms in providing value-added services.

Government could assist market development

by purchasing data rather than satellite systems from private enterprise.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Once dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, Earth remote sensing is now a broadbased international activity. This development

has transformed the ground rules for intergovernmental cooperation and offers new opportunities

to reduce the costs and improve the effectiveness

of overlapping national remote sensing programs.

Over the last three decades the United States

determined much of the scientific and operational agenda for international remote sensing

activities, and set the technical standards; it

now faces the more difficult task of leadership

through cooperation.

Global data from many sources are needed to

forecast the weather and to understand global environmental change. The United States established the tradition of free and open exchange of

data for these purposes. However, a growing interest in commercial applications and the desire, especially in smaller countries, to recover the costs

of developing and operating remote sensing systems, have led to increasingly restrictive data access policies. The United States should continue to press for open access to data that serve

global environmental needs.

The lack of adequate international coordination

of data management systems has undermined the

effectiveness of remote sensing programs. Users

who need data from several satellites and ground

systems are now forced to navigate a complex international array of data systems, each with its

own policies and protocols. International coordination could greatly enhance the usability of remotely sensed data by encouraging the development of compatible data management systems,

having adequate capacity to meet the needs of data

users. To improve U.S. access to global data, the

United States should make the coordination of

data management systems, including the creation of international metadata, a high priority

in future negotiations.
Policy

and

Findings 1

0

ver the past three decades, several countries have undertaken an assortment of publicly funded programs to gather data about the atmosphere, land, oceans, and ice cover

from Earth-orbiting spacecraft. The United States, in particular, has made a strong commitment to the development and

operation of new satellite remote sensing systems for global

change research. ] By the end of this century, these systems will

generate prodigious quantities of data, which will arrive on Earth

in a range of formats. If the United States is not prepared to

manage efficiently the increase in quantities of remotely

sensed data, it will not be able to reap the full benefits of its

investment in its satellite systems. In order to use remotely

sensed data efficiently, scientists and other users will require adequate data storage and computer systems capable of managing,

organizing, sorting, distributing, and manipulating these data at

unprecedented speeds.

Governments expect that such data will help them predict

weather, understand climate, and manage regional and global resources more effectively. Because satellite data can be acquired

over broad geopolitical regions under consistent observational

conditions, they are particularly valuable for supporting research

into the causes, magnitude, duration, and effects of regional and

global environmental change. Over the next 20 years, the U.S.

I Refcarch on the ~ausc5 of ~hang~s in climate, ecosystems, ad ()~h~r asp’cts of the

natural w (~rld as a result ~~f anthr(~p~gcn ic or natural causes.
6 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

government alone expects to spend some $30 billion on building and operating remote sensing satellite systems.2

Each year, private industry invests hundreds of

millions of dollars in hardware and software that

are, among other things, used to turn satellite data

into information for such markets as weather forecasting, mineral exploration, forestry management, urban planning, and fisheries. Although the

market for information generated from satellite

data is currently relatively small, it is likely to

continue to grow rapidly, especially as information service companies find new ways to bring the

benefits of remote sensing to the ultimate user.

The scale of public and private investments in

remote sensing technologies raises the following

question about the use of satellite data. How can

remotely sensed data be efficiently and effectively

collected, archived, and processed? Congress has

particular interest in policy issues such as:

■

■

■

What are the appropriate roles of government

and the private sector in these tasks?

Will scientific researchers and other users be

able to access and use data, equitably, quickly,

and easily?

What investments in new information technologies will be needed to manage the distribution

and use of these data?

This report, one in a series of reports and background papers on space-based remote sensing

(box l-l), explores these and other questions

about the application of data gathered by satellites

to scientific and practical problems on Earth. The

assessment of Earth Observations Sytems of

which this report is part was requested by the

House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the House

and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on

Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies; and the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This chapter presents OTA’s findings and

policy options related to the application of remotely sensed data. The value of these data depends directly on the ease with which scientists

and other users can turn such data3 into useful information. Hence, the ability to generate information from satellite data in the future will depend

directly on the development of user-friendly systems to collect, transfer, archive, and analyze a

wide variety of data in many different formats

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution,

Pricing, andApp/ications (Washington, DC Office of

Technology Assessment, July 1992).

Data Format Standards for Civilian Remote Sensing

Satellites (Washington, DC Office of Technology Assessment, April 1993).

The U.S. Global Change Research Program and

NASA'S Earth Observing System,OTA-BP-ISC-122

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

November 1993).

Reports:

The Future of Remote Sensing From Space: Civilian

Satellite Systems and Applications, OTA-ISC-558

(Washington, DC U.S Government Printing Office,

July 1993).

Remote/y Sensed Data Technology Management,

and Markets OTA- ISS-604 (Washington, DC U.S.

Government Printing Office, August 1994).

Civilan Satellite Remote Sensing: A Strategic Approach OTA-ISS-607 (Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

‘In 1992 dollars. U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, OTA-ISC-430, The Future of remote from Sensing From Space: Civilian

Satillite Systems and Applications (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), pp. 2, 19. The figure of $30 billion was reached

by summing planned expenditures between 1993 and 2000 and adding to them extrapolated estimates of what it would cost to continue the

major U.S. remote sensing systems until 2015.

3The teml “dam” as used in his repo~ refers to data that have received only minimal processing to make them amenable to manipulation ad

analysis within a computer.
Chapterl Policy and Findings 17

. “

/

. “

. “

.*

. “

. “

TDRSS link ● “

+

.“ .* satellite .* .“ .* 9 “

. “

.= .“ .“

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\ ‘,

\ “,

\-

\

\

\ /

Processing center Archive center

Ground stations

----

m---

--- -

---D

--- -

Iii211.::. .:. ......”’ Eiilill ...

,1

-G~l - ~— . . —— _ 43=

?. ,;... .

 — mdwiii ,. “.

Users Users

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

(figure 1 -1). Chapter 2: Managing Data and In- the technical and institutional features of this sysformation summarizes the use of remotely sensed

data in the context of the highly diverse information industry. The chapter further examines how

the federal government manages its extensive archives of remotely sensed data and makes them

available to potential users. It also enumerates the

technologies required to sustain these efforts.

In support of its Earth Observing System

(EOS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is constructing a large system to collect, store, and distribute data to its scientists. Chapter 3: NASA’s Earth Observing

System Data and Information System outlines

tern and examines issues related to the timely delivery of data to scientists and other customers. It

also explores the relationship of the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) to the broader Global Change Data and Information System (GCDIS).

Chapter 4: Public and Private Roles in a Developing Market examines the role of the private

sector in supporting the information needs of federal, state, and local governments, and in developing commercial uses for remotely sensed data. It

also analyzes the issue of how to strike an appropriate balance between public and private re-
8 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

GOES-W

(USA)

112W

Geosynchronous weather satellites

<

&

MOS-2 (JAPAN)

n

-

NOAA (usA )

b

GMS

(JAPAN)

14@E

\

*

OT(FRANcE) 

METEOR (RUSSIA)

1

)

&AN> I

t

(INDIA)

SPACE AGENCY) 74°E

METEOSAT

(EUMETSAT)

@

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

mote sensing activities. Some data—most notably those gathered by Landsat, Spot, and other

Earth resources satellites—have substantial commercial value for a wide diversity of applications.

Their use for public and private good therefore

raises potential conflicts over pricing of these data

and access to them.

Initiated by the United States and the Soviet

Union in the 1960s, remote sensing of Earth’s environment is now an international activity. China,

the European Space Agency (ESA), the European

Organisation for Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat), France, India, Japan, and Russia operate

Earth-observing satellites. Canada will join these

entities in 1995, when it launches Radarsat, a satellite designed to monitor global ice and ocean

conditions. Chapter 5: International Data Issues focuses on U.S. and international policies on

the management and global use of remotely

sensed data.

THE FUTURE OF SATELLITE DATA AND

INFORMATION

Satellite remote sensing began in the 1960s and

has become increasingly important for predicting

the weather, understanding climate, and a host of

other uses. Remotely sensed data from satellites

(figure 1-2; table 1-1)4 and aircraft have now be

4A~Fnd1x A presents a sumnla~ description of satellite systems. OTA’s report on The Future of Rernow ..$e~inl? Fr~rn SPa~’e: ci~ilian

Sa/e//ite Sysferns and Applications examines a number of issues about the development and operation of U.S. and foreign satellite systems.
Chapter Policy and Findings 19

System Operator Mission Status

Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite

(GOES)

Polar-orbltlng Operational

Environmental Satellitee

(POES)

Defense Meteorological

Satelllte Program (DMSP)

Landsat

Upper Atmosphere Research

Satellite (UARS)

Laser Geodynamlcs Satellite

(LAGEOS)

TOPEX/Pose(don

NOAA

NOAA

DOD

NASA/NOAA

EOSATb

NASA

NASA/ltaly

NAS#CNES

(France)

Weather monitoring,

severe storm warning, and

environmental data relay

Weather/climate, land,

ocean observations;

emergency rescue

Weather/climate

observations

Mapping, charting,

geodesy, global change,

environmental monitoring

Upper atmosphere chemistry,

winds energy inputs

Earth’s gravity field,

continental drift

Ocean topography

2 operational, GOES-1

launched in April 1994

2 partially operational, 2

fully operational, launch

as needed

1 partially operational, 2

fully operational, launch

as needed

Landsat 4 and 5

operational

In operation, launched In

1991

One in orbit, another

launched In 1992

In operation; launched in

1992

a The United States also collects and archives Earth data for some non-U.S. satellites

b EOSAT, a private corporation, operates Landsat 4 and 5. Landsat 6 failed to achieve orbit when launched In September, 1993

NASA and NOAA WiII operate a future Landsat 7

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

mandates. Federal, state, and local agencies and

many private sector entities routinely employ remotely sensed data in a variety of ongoing research and applications programs. Assisted by the

growing availability of powerful geographic information systems, users continue to develop applications for data from the Landsat and SPOT

systems (box 1-2). NASA’s research satellites

have contributed important environmental data

that scientists are using to study and understand

global change processes.

Research on regional and global environmental

change places increasing demands on the acquisition and use of satellite data. Although data from

NASA’s EOS satellites (figure 1-3) will be of

much higher quality than most currently existing

satellite data,5 and will be designed to answer specific questions of critical importance to understanding global change, EOS satellites will not be

operating until 1998, at the earliest. In the meantime, global change scientists will have to depend

on data gathered from surface facilities, aircraft,

Agriculture

Forestry and rangeland management

Land resource management

Fish and wildlife inventory and assessment

Environmental management

Water resources assessment and management

Mapping

Archaeological assessment

Land use and plannlng

Oil, gas, and mineral exploration I

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

5VIZ. from NOAA’S OFmtlonal” satellites and from DOD’S DMSP. Although users are finding a wide variety of applications for data from

these systems, they were primarily designed to serve the operational needs of weather forecasters and therefore lack the radimnetric calibrati{m

and registration accuracy of instruments now in the design phase.
10 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

r

— ORNL

Ground-based

EDC -—

1

data relating

Land processes to biogeochemical

imagery dynamics

JPL

Ocean circulation and

air-sea interaction

ASF

Sea ice and polar

processes imagery

GSFC

Upper atmosphere,

atmospheric dynamics,

global biosphere, and

geophysics

~QR~

Radiation budget,

aerosols, and

tropospheric chemistry

ASF = Alaska Synthettc Aperture Radar Fachty, CIESIN = Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network, EDC = Earth Resources

Observation Systems Data Center, GSFC = Goddard Space Fllght Center, JPL = Jet Propulsion Laboratory, LaRC = Langley Research Center,

MSFC = Marshall Space Fllght Center, NSIDC = National Snow and Ice Data Center, ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admmlstratlon, 1993

operational satellites,6and pre-EOS research sat- in order to make them widely available for

ellites. Existing satellite data from the Landsat global change research.

system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric As noted in OTA’s first report of this assessAdministration (NOAA) polar-orbiting and ment, “To be effective in monitoring global

geostationary systems, and from the Defense change or in supporting resource management, the

Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) delivery of high-quality, well-calibrated, remoteconstitute a valuable record of regional and ly sensed data must be sustained over long perigloba1 environmental observations. The United ods.”7 In other words, the United States must

States should protect and maintain these data maintain continuity of data delivery. In addition,

bne ~eml ,. OP.raliona]”” ~pplled t. sate]]ite systenls refers primariiy to the way in which they are managed. Such systenls have a large established base of users who depend on the regular, routine delivery of data in standard fmrnats. Data users depend on such systems to operate

indefinitely, and for the system operator to replace aging satellites and other system components when needed to maintain system operations.

‘U.S. Ctmgress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Fuwe oj’Remote Sensing From Space, op. cit., p. 25.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings I 11

putting remotely sensed data to use for myriad

applications and for scientific research will require continuity in the management of data and

information, using consistent, transportable

data formats and methods to assure timely access to data originally acquired at many epochs.

Satellite sensors gather several types of data. For

example, most surface data, such as Landsat and

Spot data, are collected electronically and stored

8 Viewing these geospatial as digital images.

data 9 al lows the user to see the underlying characteristics and patterns of the sensed surface (figure

1-4). Many atmospheric data, by contrast, are not

images of a surface 10 but are sensed over a moderately wide field of view along a column of the atmosphere. Satellites can also collect data about the

global magnetic and gravitational fields. 11

Large data sets present a challenge to data and

information managers. 12 Geospatial data represent a particular y difficult task for storage and access because standard database software does not

handle spatial data particularly well. ] 3 Using spatial data more effectively and integrating them

with other forms of data will require the development of new methods of manipulating and analyzing spatial data.

As noted, by the year 2000, U.S. and foreign

satellite remote sensing systems will begin to generate massive amounts of data on a daily basis.

These data will require adequate storage capacity.

They will also require systems capable of managing, organizing, sorting, distributing, and manipu-

~~c Ru~~ian Resurs.F Sa(ellltes use a phonographic” imaging system, returning the film to Earth in capsules. MOSI a]rCraft lllEi:M_y IS C(Jlkcted photographically,” although the use of electronic imaging devices on aircraft is gr(m ing.

~Data (hat me ~)rgmlzed according to their ]OCatlon in SOnle space. See ch. 2

l~]n order t. Vlsuallze ce~aln pr(~esses, and to watch (hem change over space and time, scientists may create lnlageS fr~)nl n(MISpatlal data

sets. These domed data sets constitute powerful analytic tools but do not represent surfaces.

I I see us, congress, Offlce of Technology” Assessment, The Future oj’Remofe .%rz.\InK,/iom .$Pa(’t’, op. cit., P.6., f~~r a sYnWsls of satelllt~

remok sensing characteristics.

I ~~ach L,d$at ~enlatlc map~r scene of six “lslble and infrared spectral bands (so meters rCS(~!Uli(Ml ) and onC thcmlal band ( 120 ‘~e[crs

resolute covers an area of 170 kilometers by 185 kilometers on a side and equals about 400 meg:ibylcs. Each SPOT scene of three spectral

bands (20 meters resolu(i(m) and one panchromatic band (10 meters resolution) and 60 Lil(mwters (m a sde equals 100 megabytes.

l~see N~un~ Gersh(~n and Jeff Dozier, “me Difficulty With Data,”’ BY7’E, April 1993, pp. ] ~~- ] -$7. f(w a dlSCLISSl(MI of the dlffi~ultl~s of

using standard database software to handle spatial data.
12 | Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

wish to increase the U.S. investment in the development of data and information management systems. Such investment could also stimulate private sector development of high volume

data and information management systems.

Data acquired by satellite also feed into a large

and rapidly growing information industry that

contributes markedly to the U.S. and global economy. Hence the development of the market for

remotely sensed data will be strongly influenced both by government policy and the

capacity of the private sector to create new,

more efficient methods of working with large

assemblages of data. Consumers of remotely

sensed data increasingly expect the same type of

service from government data providers that they

expect from commercial suppliers in the information industry. Data consumers will demand online

access to increasing numbers of remotely sensed

data products, rapid turnaround, and responsive

service. Additionally, consumers will concern

themselves less with the technical particulars of

the satellite platforms that provide data, focusing

instead on the content of the data, and their value,

timeliness, and ease of access.

Remotely sensed data exist on several different

14 media, and in several formats. Futher, the SYSterns used to archive and process the data use different software formats and operating systems.

Data users often merge similar data from different

satellites, or merge different data types, in order to

create new information products. 15 For example,

users have commonly merged 10-meter resolution

panchromatic (black and white) data from the

SPOT system with 30-meter resolution multispectral data from the Landsat system in order to

achieve more detailed spatial and spectral coverage than is possible using the data from either satellite system alone.

More recently, as users gain experience with

synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data from the European Space Agency’s ERS- 1 satellite, they have

begun to merge these data with SPOT and Landsat

data. 16 However, because the data are of different

scale and stored in different formats, successfully

merging them can be extremel y labor and computer intensive and may require heroic software development. Although complete standardization

of data formats is not feasible because of the

various sensor characteristics, where possible

the formats of remotely sensed Earth data

should be selected to facilitate data transmission and processing with a minimum of reformatting. At a minimum, data experts suggest, all

data should contain a standard header that would

communicate to the user how to read the data electronically. Because the federal government is

the largest single supplier and purchaser of remotely sensed data, it could take a strong role in

establishing standards for all spatial data. The

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC),

operating under the aegis of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was established to coordinate U.S. geospatial data standards and formats.

Congress could assist the development of data

standards by supporting the role of the Federal

I ~See U,S, congress, office of T~~hno]ogy” Assessment, Data Format Standard.~ji)r Citilian Remore Sensing SateI/i(es (Wash ingttm,~:

ofticc of Technology” Assessment, April 1993), for a discussion of the wide variety of data fomlats and media in use for remotely sensed data.

I ~Sp~T ]nlage C(JT., for exanlpie, has deve]()~d a wide variety of data products to meet the diversi[y (}( market demand, including ItS

SPOTVIew get)graphically cmrected images available in 7.5 minute m 15 minute quadrangles.

l~h~ [TD R~mot~ Sensingcenterat st~mls Spacecen[er, Mississippi, has merged ERS-I and SPOT data toexamine the extent of the 1993

fl(xxhng ahmg the Mississippi River near St Louis, MO. The two systems produce data in quite different formats at 12.5 meters and 10 meters

rcst)luti(m, respectwely. The merged image reveals the boundaries of flooded agricultural fields and the extent of fl(Md damage to urban and

suburban areas. ““Merged Satelllte Images Map Midwest Flood Plain,” A\iatlon Week and Space Technology, Aug. 16, 1993, p. 27.

17LJ.S. congress, Of fIce of Technology” ,4Ssessment, Dafa Forma/ Slandardsjtir Citi/ian Remofe Seining satellites (Washingt(m, DC: Ofticc of Tcchni)logy Assessment, April 1993), p. 11.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings 113

Geographic Data Committee in setting standards for Federal Government data producers.

18

The development of commonly available highcapacity storage media such as CD-ROM will

make possible the delivery of remotely sensed

data to non-specialists who could use them for

education, entertainment, and to analyze regional

and local environmental, demographic, and municipal developmental conditions. 19 Non-specialized users who would like to use remotely

sensed data and integrate them with other spatial data will also need more user friendly software and cheaper, more powerful hardware. If

current trends continue, the general information

industry will have the capacity to develop the necessary hardware and software.

Remotely sensed data are collected by systems

operated by NOAA, NASA, and DOD. Many other government agencies, including the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture, make extensive use of satellite data. These

agencies have attempted, with partial success, to

coordinate geospatial data management and the

development of data standards through the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The congressional committee structure, in which responsibility for agency matters is spread across

several committees, complicates oversight of a

cohesive, comprehensive strategy for managing remotely sensed data. More intensive coordination among committees with oversight and

jurisdiction over remote sensing activities will be

essential in supporting attempts to establish and

use common data standards.

THE MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OF

DATA AND INFORMATION

The growing dependence on satellite data raises

sevcral significant questions: Is the United States

archiving the appropriate data? Can potential users retrieve existing data when needed? Does the

United States have sufficient institutional facilities and data management systems to serve users

quickly and efficiently? What new investments

might be needed to support the ability of Federal

agencies to protect and manage the data for which

they are responsible?

NASA, NOAA, and the Department of the Interior currently archive remotely sensed data in several facilities under a variety of physical conditions and data management regimes (table 1 -2). In

the future, most of these archives will participate

in NASA’s EOSDIS, either directly as distributed

active archive centers or indirectly as associated

active archives.

Even without the development of EOSDIS, the

proliferation of remote sensing systems requires

the federal government to devote increasing resources to archiving data and managing their distribution. Properly archiving remotely sensed

data will require periodic upgrades to systems for

data storage and retrieval, improvements to the

search algorithms, and expansion of communications capacity at archive centers. Handling data

distribution from future remote sensing systems

also will require innovative data management systems. Supporting the requests of increasing numbers of scientists and other data users may require

substantial additional future investment. Because

the efficient management of remotely sensed data

is so important to effective use of the data, Congress may wish to monitor the plans of NASA,

NOAA, and the Department of the Interior for

updating their data management facilities to

assure that they are meeting the needs of increasing numbers of data users.

Potential data users often have difficulty locating U.S. and foreign sources for their data, some

of which are now stored in universities or local

I Xscc. ,~:itlonal Rc$earch Councl], T(),tard ~ ~’()()rd;rlafcd .$l)a/la/ Dat~ /njra,~/r14[/l(rc /(jr OIC ,wfl/l~~n (Washlng[tln, DC: Nati(mal Academy

Press, 1993 ) for a dlscus~ic)n of spatial data Infrastructure issues and rect)mrnendatitms.

1,)~-he Prices of (D-ROM readcrj h:i~,c fa]]cn dramatica]]y (Jyer the past vear, increasing the}r availability to the ptlblic. Many data centers

.

already d] stnhulc selected chita set~ ( m CD-ROM.
14 | Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Archive center Location Archive holdings

U S. Geological Survey( EROS

Data Center

NOAA National Climate

Data Center

National Center for Atmospheric Research

NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA. Jet Propulsion Laboratory

NASA Langley Research Center

NASA Alaska SAR Facility

NOAA-GOES archive

NASA - WetNet: Marshall Space

Flight Center

National Snow and Ice Data Center,

University of Colorado

SIOUX Falls, SD

Asheville, NC

Boulder, CO

Greenbelt, MD

Pasadena, CA

Hampton, VA

Fairbanks, AK

Madison, WI

Huntsville, AL

Boulder, CO

Land imagery acquired by the US

government

Weather and climate data from NOAA

satellites

Atmospheric data; atmosphere and climate

modeling data

Upper atmosphere, atmospheric dynamics,

global biosphere, and geophysics

Sea surface, ocean circulation, and air-sea

interaction data

Radiation budget, aerosols and

tropospheric chemistry

U S ground station and archieve for ERS-1,

JERS-1, and eventually ERS-2 and

Radarsat

Soundings and images from U S GOES

satellites

Hydrologic data

Snow and ice data

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administratlon, 1993

government holdings. In order to take full advantage of the existing investment in remotely

sensed data, and to avoid duplication in future

data acquisition, Congress may wish to consider instructing Federal agencies to develop a

centrally coordinated “metadata set,” a complete listing of the sources and types of remotely sensed data held in different facilities, and a

data tracking mechanism to provide government and other customers with access to the

sources of appropriate data. A metadata set

would ensure maximum exploitation of data that

the government has already acquired, and allow

creation of an online catalog to facilitate use of

new data.20

| NOAA Operational Satellite Data

NOAA routinely archives data from its polar orbiting satellites at the National Climatic Data

Center (NCDC), whose central office is located in

Asheville, NC (figure 1 -5).21 NCDC is a division

of the NOAA Environmental Satellite Data and

Information Service (NESDIS). NCDC also archives all U.S. and many foreign historical climatic records, which NCDC receives on paper, magnetic tape, and through online delivery. Proper

storage of these important historic records of

weather and cl imate from land and ocean observations presents a considerable challenge to NCDC.

2~e Natl{)nal Research Council has recommended the development of such a metadata set for ge(~spatiai data generally. See National

Research Council, National Mapping Cmnmittee, Tow’arda Coordinated Spatial Data Injiasrruc[urefur /he Na[ion (Washingt(m, DC: National

Academy Press, 1993), recommendations 1 and 2, pp. 120-123.

z l~e archive of satellite data is maintained at NESDIS headquarters, Silver Hill, MD.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings I 15

cess. Up to 50 MB can be downloaded from the

system at a time free of charge via FI’P. Alternatively, users can order data offline at standard

NCDC charges. OASIS also distributes metadata

about the data that include weather station histories, data dictionaries, field experiment information, and data inventories.

NOAA collects data of 1 and 4 km resolution23

over the United States from the Advanced Very

High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor on

its polar-orbiting satellites 24. Among other

things, NOAA uses these data to generate vegetation index maps of 4 km resolution. These maps

have proved extremely useful in following broad

trends in the seasonal vegetation round (app. B).

SOURCE National Climatic Data Center, 1994

Satellite and other data are available to customers in a variety of forms, including paper;

photographs; magnetic tape; floppy disks; CDROM; electronic mail; online dial-up; telephone;

and facsimile. NCDC provides data for the cost of

fulfilling the user’s request. NCDC has a new archiving and data distribution facility that should

improve its efficiency in responding to the many

yearly requests it receives for data. In particular,

NCDC is experimenting with making current data

available online through Internet using NCDC’S

On-Line Access and Service Information System

(OASIS) .22 OASIS distributes weather and climate data as soon after processing as possible

through file transfer protocol (FTP) computer ac1 Land Data

The Earth Resources Observation Systems

(EROS) Data Center (figure 1 -6) is the official archive for all Landsat data. The Earth Observation

Satellite Corp. (EOSAT) manages the operation of

Landsats 4 and 5, collecting and marketing data

from the Thematic Mapper (TM) instrument. EOSAT ceased collecting data from the lower resolution (80 - meter) Multispectral Scanner (MSS)

instrument in December 1992 because the market

for such low-resolution data had become very

small. Following U.S. law, EOSAT sells TM data

to all customers25 on a nondiscriminatory basis.26

As the result of an agreement between EOSAT and

the Department of Commerce, the EROS Data

Center distributes all multispectral sensor (MSS)

data to all customers for $200 per scene (on

Z?sec ., National C]lma(lc Data Center ~(~ucts and Services,” brochure available from NCDC, Asheville, NC, for infmlati~m ab{)u~ ~CD~

products and services, and an Internet address.

23Resolutitm is the measure of a viewer to distinguish between objects. For data of 4-kilometer resolution, the sensor averages the Ilght

intensity gathered by the sens{)r over a 4 kilometer square. See U.S. Congress, 7’he Future of Remote Sensing From Space, op. cit,. p, 60, f[ v a

discussion of resoluti(m.

24Sce app. A.

2SC(msumers include federal, state, and local government agencies and private consumers.

267-he fznd Remore-Sensing Con~nIerci(J/iza~ion Act of) 984 codified the concept of mmdiscriminatm-y access to data fr{)m renl(~tc sensing

systems developed and owned by the federal government (98 STAT. 453; 15 USC 4204). See U.S. Congress, Office of Technol~)gy Assessment.

Remu(e .$err.sing and:he Prita(e Sector: /ssuesji~r Disc”ussion (Washington, DC: U.S. Government I%nting Office, 1984), pp. 34-.?6. The p~licy

was c(mtinued with the passage of The Land Remote Sensin~ Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-555).
16 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

SOURCE EROS Data Center, 1994

magnetic tape). Starting in 1994, it will begin to

sell thematic mapper (TM) data that are more than

10 years old for between $300 and $500 dollars a

scene. 

27 EOSAT retains the right to sell TM data

from Landsats 4 and 5 that are less than ten years

old.28 For certain uses, such as geological survey,

archaeology, or mineral exploration, the older

data are often sufficient. However, time-critical

uses, such as agriculture, natural disaster damage

assessment (box 1-3), or rights of way planning,

require recent data delivered quickly.

For observing and analyzing the extent and

types of changes to the landscape over the long

term, the archives of Landsat and SPOT data are

extremely valuable. Landsat data have been collected for more than 20 years; SPOT data since

1987. However, the EROS Data Center holds only

a limited number of scenes from other countries.

Foreign Landsat ground stations have archived

many MSS and TM scenes over the years. In order to assist with global change research, Congress may wish to consider funding the EROS

Data Center to assemble and archive a basic

collection of historic Landsat scenes collected

at foreign Landsat stations.

At a minimum, as noted above, data customers

should have access to a comprehensive database

of historic and contemporary international holdings. The EROS Data Center has begun to develop

such a database in connection with the development of its online database, the Global Land Information System (GLIS). GLIS enables potential

customers to browse USGS remote sensing, cartographic, hydrologic, and geologic data and in27The price of TM data has not yet been set, but will depend on the cost of producing and distributing the data.

28 EOSAT retains exclusive rights to sell data from Landsats 4 and 5 as long as they remain operational. See Ben hmatta “EOSAT Retains

Landsat Rights,” SpuceNen’s, May 2-8, 1994, p. 10. EOSATcharges $4,400. fma single standard TM scene. Other prices may apply for volume

purchases m for federal government purchases.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings I 17

I

As the recent experiences of Hurricane Andrew, with the Midwest floods, and the Los Angeles earthquake have demonstrated, remotely sensed data can be extremely useful for assessing the damage

after a natural disater. Of more Importance, such data can also be used to prepare for natural disasters by analyzing areas most at risk, Identifying escape routes, and making specialized maps to guide

assistance efforts

The broad availability of digital data and geographic Information systems for analysis makes these

complicated tasks much easier than ever before Thorough citizen preparation in land and coastal regions at risk could save millions of dollars In State and Federal disaster relief and possibly save Iives as

well However, such preparation WiII require a coordinated effort by local, state, and federal agencies

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

formation. In addition, users will need relatively

effortless access to information on other, nonspatial data sets.

Because SPOT data are also of interest for

scientific research, the United States may also

wish to purchase a representative set of SPOT

scenes for these purposes. Global change scientists and other users could be polled for suggestions of which areas are of greatest significance.

Some data from both Landsat 1 and Landsat 3

have become extremely difficult for the EROS

Data Center to make available to potential cusCostomers. 29 The Data Center holds some 310,000

scenes of wide band video tape from Landsat 1,

which, at present, cannot be read because they

were recorded on a proprietary system that no

longer functions. In addition, some 30 percent of

these tapes have degraded and will need special

processing in order to recover the data they contain. The EROS Data Center has a program underway to recover historic Landsat data and put them

on more permanent media. In order to complete

the task of recovering these early data, the

EROS Data Center will need between $1 and

$3 million of additional funding over the next

three years. Some Landsat 3 data tapes also have

degraded and will require special processing.so

Recovering the data on these tapes could be a relatively inexpensive way to gather data regarding

longterm ecological change.

These situations underscore the importance of

proper archiving of data from both government

and private sources. The experience with Landsat

1 data also illustrates the importance of avoiding

specialized data systems designed to optimize

storage and delivery of one type of data. Especial1 y given the wide availabil ity of standard information technology today, it should be possible for

agencies to avoid developing such systems.

The increasing number of online databases,

such as the EROS Data Center GLIS, will improve the ability of data customers to locate and

order needed data over the Internet. The availability of the Internet to a wide variety of users

will have a significant effect in increasing the

‘

9 Landsat 1 was launched in 1972 as the Earth Resources Tcchm)h)gy Satclli(e. 1[ transmitted data until 1977. Landsat 2 was launched in

1975 and transmitted data until 1977. Landsat 3 was launched m 1978 and rctumtxl MultlSpectral Scanner (MSS) data until 1982, when NASA

launched Landsat 4.

l~Dunng the earlv 1980s when [he Landsat Progranl was in doubt, man~ Landsal tapes were alhwed [() renlaln In slora~e at [he Goddard

.

Space Fllght Center under px)r enwrmrnental ctmditions. There, they t(~(A (m mf~lfture, which caused {he binder in the tape to degrade. The

[apes arc now stored in a humidity-controlled em lrmnent at the EROS Data Center. B) carrying out careful research on the tapes with the help

of [he Natl(mal Media Lab{) rat(my, the center has discovered that It can rec(n cr data (m w)nw of these tapes b> baking them. See National Media

Latx~rato~ Bu//c/ln, 1993.
18 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

number of potential customers for remotely

sensed data and other forms of environmental

data. Eventually, customers may be able to acquire data online as well, rather than waiting for

data sets to be delivered on magnetic tape or other

media. However, because most satellite data sets

are so large, such improved methods of data delivery will have to wait until higher capacity transmission lines are installed. At present, online database systems display spatial data scenes that

have been drastically reduced in detail and size by

sampling so they can be transmitted to the customer for viewing over normal telephone lines. The

costs of installing high-speed, high-capacity

transmission lines will be substantial. Although

users of remotely sensed data are likely to benefit

from having access to improved transmission

lines, driven by large-scale commercial applications, the remote sensing market alone is too small

to propell such installation.31

NASA’S EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM

DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEM

NASA has begun full scale development of the

Earth Observing System Data and Information

System (EOSDIS) in order to support the data

storage and distribution needs of its Earth Observing System (EOS), the centerpiece of NASA’s

Mission to Planet Earth. NASA is designing EOS

to provide continuous, high-quality data over a

minimum of 15 years32 to assist in the scientific

study of Earth’s atmosphere and surface.33 When

EOS is fully operational, sensors aboard EOS satellites will generate immense quantities of data.

NASA scientists estimate that each day, EOS

instruments will generate an average of 220 gigabytes 34 of digital data, the equivalent of the storage capacity of 2,200 one-hundred megabyte hard

disks found on modern personal computers. Data

from other U.S. and foreign satellite systems

could double this inflow. When EOS and EOSDIS

are fully operational, scientists may use the unprocessed data to generate as much as 400 megabytes

of additional processed data per day, most of

which would be stored and distributed through the

EOSDIS network. The complexity and amount of

EOS data will therefore require a highly sophisticated data system in order to make these data useful to EOS program scientists and other potential

users. EOSDIS will be the largest and most complicated civilian data system ever attempted. Possible future satellites using many visible and infrared spectral bands or synthetic aperature radar,

would add substantially to the EOSDIS data burden.

Architecturally, EOSDIS will represent a departure from previous data management systems,

as it will be composed of eight interconnected

Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs).

Located at regional sites across the country (fig.

1 -3), each archive will store, process, and distribute data related to specific disciplines. For example, the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, South

Dakota, archives and distributes satellite and aircraft land data; the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in

Pasadena, California, holds data on ocean circulation and the interaction between the atmosphere

and the oceans; and NASA’s Alaska SAR facility

archives synthetic aperature radar (SAR) data of

snow, ice, and sea surface (table 1 -2). However, if

EOSDIS works as planned, users stationed at terminals in any EOSDIS archive or other properly

3 I The [e]ephone ~onlpmies and the cable television C(mparlks are competing for the opfx)rtuni(y tO instaii high transn~ission capacity ‘ines

ft)r ctmnncrcial purp)ses.

‘ZT() achieve 15-year data sets, NASA plans to fly EOS “AM” and “PM” platforms 3 times at 5 year intervals. NASA scientists expect that 15

years will be long enough (o observe the effects of climate change caused by the sunspot cycle (1 1 years), several El Nios, and eruptions of

several major volcanoes. Large-scale changes such as deforestation should also be detectable over such a period.

~ssee u s Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Future oj’Remote Sensing From Spac’e, op. Ck Ch. 4 and aPP. B! for descriP-

. .

ti(ms t)f the E(XS program.

\~A ~lgabyte is equa] t. I billion bytes of data; a megabyte iS equal to 1 million Wtes.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings |19

equipped facility will be able to access data from

anywhere in the system routinely.

Concern over the size and complexity of EOSDIS has caused some data processing experts to

question whether the system will ever meet one of

its primary objectives-ass i sting scientists from a

wide variety of disciplines to work collaborative y

on global change research online, using data sets

that have been acquired by satellite only a few

hours or few days earlier. Data management will

be especially challenging for EOSDIS. Not

only does NASA plan to process extremely

large quantities of raw data daily, it also expects to make them available to users within a

day or so of initial reception.

As part of its EOSDIS efforts, NASA has

funded the development of so-called Pathfinder

data sets composed of data gathered over the past

decade or two from sensors aboard the Landsat

satellites and from the NOAA operational environmental satellites (box 1 -4), These have already

proved extremely valuable in pointing the way toward more effective global change research; they

are proving especially helpful in managing natural

resources.

35 The early experience of NASA,

NOAA, and the EROS Data Center in developing

these Pathfinder data sets illustrates some of the

difficulties NASA will likely encounter in processing the massive amounts of data from the EOS

satellites. 36 Not only have experimenters had to

recalibrate data from various epochs to the same

standard, they have had to locate sources of data to

assemble complete data sets. For example, NASA

funded the EROS Data Center to develop a global

data set of 1 -km AVHRR data from the NOAA po-

■

■

■

■

m

●

■

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

(AVHRR) data sets held by NOAA

`TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS)

data held jointly by NOAA and NASA

GOES data by the University of Wlsconsln under contract with NOAA

Special Sensor Microwave/lmager (SSM/1)

data acquired by NOAA from the

Department of Defense

Scanning Multichannel channel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) data recorded from the Nimbus-7

satellite

Landsat data in the USGS arch we at the EROS

Data Center.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

lar-orbiting satellite system (POES).37 NOAA

does not routinely archive 1 -km data collected

globally and does not normally record 1 -km data

on its POES tape recorders. Hence, the EROS

Data Center, working with NOAA, the international Committee on Earth Observations Systems

(CEOS), and other organizations had to establish a

network of foreign suppliers of data collected on

High Resolution Picture Transmission (HRPT)

stations38 around the world. The EROS Data Center now receives AVHRR data tapes from about 26

foreign and 3 domestic HRPT stations on a

monthly basis.

The very creation of EOSDIS represents a major departure from existing practices for NASA.

Generally, scientific data acquired by satellite are

first examined and used by the principal investiga-

\fFor ~.arllple data fr[)nl A\’HRR are ProY,lng how Eafih ‘S vege[a[i(m reacts to changes in ~]llllate. Sce Debra P~)lskY Werner. “’satellite

D:ita Llsed In Cartxm Dioxide E\changc Study”’ , Space Ne}is Jan. 17-23, 1994, p. 17. They arc also serving t{) m{)nit[~r def(wcstati{m in Anuut~-

nia.

~~LT s C{)nvrcfs, ~.G~n~ral A~ctJun[;ng ~ffjce, fjA()/]M~c-9~-79, Earrh ob,$cn’lrl<q S\.!fr’DI: lrrfimnflfion OH NA.’M’s ~11(’t~r~~(~r~~flon @’~’.~-

l,fffrr,q IXII(I /m(~ I; OSDI.$ ( W’ashingt(m, DC General Accounting Office, September 1992).

37NOAA ~[k.s, h(~w ~y,cr, arChlvC 4-kl]onleter data that it uses to create global Y’cgctatl(m n~aps.

~~~e }] ,Qh

~

Res, }lutlon picture Tran\nlisslon s[a[ions are standard systems for cx)llecting data fr(ml NOAA’S POES satellites. SOIIK I w

c(mntnes and (~thcr cntltltes maln[a]n such systems. Tbey are much more capable than the Aut(mlatlc Picture Transmissi(m statl{)ns that ct)l Icct

low rcs~~lutlon data fr(ml the p)lar (~rbiters.
20 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

tors, and later made available for other users.

NASA has no central guidelines for archiving data

for possible future use. Each facility has established its own methods and guidelines. Over the

years satellite data have been stored on a diversity

of media in many different storage facilities and

environments.

However, with the advent of global change research, which requires consistency in the collection, archiving, and distribution of most satellite

data, NASA recognized the need to establish a

much more structured approach to the storage and

management of data. Hence, it is attempting to design and develop a data system that can be

employed to detect subtle changes in the Earth’s

environment by providing long term data sets.

NASA expects to operate EOSDIS for at least 15

years after the launch of the second major satellite

(PM-1 ) in the year 2000. The program will therefore take on the characteristics of what has been

called an “operational program’’—in other words,

sustained, routine acquisition of data that must be

consistently available to researchers and other users on a timely basis. NASA may not be well

structured to operate a program like EOSDIS on a

. 

39 The development of an opera- long term basis.

tional system for EOS data will challenge NASA’s

institutional culture, which prides itself on adopting the latest in technology for its systems, and

pushing the limits of research. However, to maintain operability of EOSDIS, the technology

employed in EOSDIS must be capable of operating continuously and with high reliability.

On the other hand, NASA also must make

EOSDIS responsive to changes in scientific priorities and in the development of new technologies

for data management and analysis. A continual

tension will exist between the need to maintain

EOSDIS as an operational system that can be

accessed routinely by a wide variety of data users and the desire to keep up with advancements in technology that would make the system ever more capable. EOSDIS will require

periodic oversight by the scientific community to

ensure that it serves the needs of scientists studying local, regional, and global change and other

long-term environmental effects. Current plans

call for EOSDIS to receive upgrades of hardware

and software over time. NASA will have to work

diligently to make certain that these upgrades will

not interfere with the routine operation of EOSDIS. Maintaining EOSDIS as an operational

system routinely accessible by data users and

keeping up with advancements in technology

will require adequate and stable funding.

NASA has designed EOSDIS primarily to provide researchers, particularly those funded by

NASA, with access to the data collected by EOS

and other satellites supported by NASA’s Mission

to Planet Earth. However, the utility of data held

in EOSDIS extends far beyond the use of these

data by NASA-supported scientists. Myriad

other users will find them useful for scientific

research and for managing U.S. public and private resources. As a result, NASA is now developing methods to enable extensive access to EOS -

DIS. In broadening access to EOSDIS data and

information, NASA could be faced with pressure

to support the data needs of more users than it is

funded to support, thereby jeopardizing NASA’s

plans to develop a research data and information

system for the global change research community.

Many of these data will be of interest to regional

users. NASA plans to limit direct involvement in

providing data to the general research and data applications community by making data available at

the cost of reproduction. Congress may wish to

monitor NASA’s plans for making EOS data

available to the community beyond NASA in

order to assure itself that these data are widely

distributed.

Making EOSDIS data available online requires

the use of extremely high speed data lines. NASA

intends to create its own high-speed data links

39u.s. Congress, Office Of Technology Assessment, Ci\ilian Space Po/icy arid App/IcaIions (Washington, DC: U.S. Government~inting

Office, July 1982), pp. 242-43.
Chapterl Policy and Findings 121

among DAACS. Unless the federal government

plans to underwrite public high-capacity data networks, the high costs of high-capacity data communication could constrain public access to EOSDIS. Although broader network access entails

significant benefits beyond EOSDIS, the development and operational costs of a broad communications network could be extremely high.

The need for a data and information system for

global change research extends well beyond

NASA’s EOSDIS. The Subcommittee on Global

Change Research, Committee on Environment

and Natural Resources Research of the National

Science and Technology Council, 40 which coordinates research of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, has noted the desirability of establishing a Global Change Data and Information

System (GCDIS) that would bring all global

change data together in one system .4] GCDIS, as

conceived by the ad hoc Interagency Working

Group on Data Management for Global Change

(IWGDMGC), would provide mechanisms for assembl ing, storing, and sharing global data and information among participants in the USGCRP.

EOSDIS is the largest single element of GCDIS.

Although CEES has included funding for archiving and sharing global change data in projected

USGCRP budgets, GCDIS is not funded as a separate activity. In addition, no single agency has responsibility for assembling and managing the data

that would be included in GCDIS.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology has proposed assigning NASA the

lead role in GCDIS, on grounds that the effort

could otherwise remain a “rhetorical program,”

42 without sufficient focus. In terms of funding,

NASA already has de facto leadership in global

change research.43 Its EOSDIS eventually will

also contain the largest holdings of global change

data. From a practical standpoint, therefore, making NASA the lead agency for GCDIS might be

appropriate. EOSDIS could be expanded to include access to other, nonsatellite data. However,

this would require NASA to increase spending on

EOSDIS by modest amounts to make EOSDIS

fully interoperable with other data sources. Additional funding for this would 1ikely amount to a total of $10 to $20 million, spread over several

years. In addition, such an action would also give

NASA even more responsibility and authority in

global change research, and increase the influence

of satellite data in that research.44 The objectives

of EOSDIS are challenging enough, and giving

NASA responsibility for GCDIS would add complexity to its program. If Congress decides to give

NASA responsibility for GCDIS, the decision

should be made soon in order to allow NASA to

include GCDIS requirements in its plans for EOS -

DIS. Attempting to add GCDIS requirements to

EOSDIS after NASA completes its specifications

would be costly. If Congress gives NASA the responsibility for managing GCDIS, it will also

have to provide additional funds to do so. Alternatively, it could direct NASA to transfer

funding from its other programs to accommodate the requirements of GCDIS.

~~hls ~oll)rlll[tec ~uw.rceded the ~olllnllttee on Etih and Envir(mmental Sciences (CEES). See Cwnnlittw on Enk Ironnlenl and ~’a[l]ral

Rcst)urce\ Research. oltr Chan,q/n<q Planet: tho F}’ 1995 U.S. Global Change Rcseorch Program, Supplement to the President “s Fiscal }’car

1995 Budget, 1994.

~ I Corllrlll[(ec on Eafih ~lnd En\ irt~nnl~n[a] sciences, The U.S. Global Change Data and Inji)rnmfron Management prOgrfJnl plan (wash mgt(m, DC Natltmal Science F(mndati(m. 1992).

~~Ll s congress, offlc~ of Tcchn(~logy Assessment, The Fumre of Renwte Sensing, op. Cit., p. I ~.

‘See LI, S. C(Jngress, Office of Techn(}logy Assessment, G/oba/ Change Research and NASA’s Earth Obscr\ln,g Sj$frm, OTA-BP- ISC- 122

(Washlngt(~n, DC U.S. G(~vemnwnt I%nting Office, November 1993).
22 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

As noted above, the NOAA archives hold significant global change data. Under present NASA

plans, the NOAA archives would be affiliated archives, and not part of the DAAC structure.45

NASA prefers not to fund NOAA data centers and

NOAA prefers to maintain a high degree of autonomy for its data centers. If the NOAA data archives do not become part of EOSDIS, it will be

extremely important for NASA and NOAA to

work closely together to assure that EOSDIS data

centers and the NOAA data centers are full y interoperable. Otherwise. the United States could lose

a valuable asset in the study of global change.

Congress may want to hold periodic hearings

focused on the structures and roles of the various data centers to assure that they will operate

efficiently and effectively for the greatest benefit to the nation.

If EOSDIS is successful, it could provide a

model for operational data archives of the future.

For example, EOSDIS could continue to operate

after the existing EOS program has been completed, when or if EOS has been superseded by an

international global satellite monitoring system.% However, EOSDIS will be expensive to

maintain. For EOSDIS to continue to provide data

will require continual efforts to reduce operating

costs. EOSDIS will also require steady funding on

a long-term basis.

Increasingly, researchers see the need to develop an operational climate monitoring system to

operate over decades, well beyond the 15-year

lifetime of the EOS program. 47 That system will

also need a data archiving and management system in order to make the data from climate monitoring satellites available to researchers in a timely manner. Congress may wish to instruct

NASA and NOAA to examine the long-term

needs for climate data from satellites and recommend a data system to archive, manage, and

distribute such data. The agencies should also

recommend which agency or agencies should

operate such a system, if developed. Although a

decision about a system will not be needed before

the end of the century, the development of EOSDIS and NOAA’s data systems could provide

some useful lessons for such a long-term climate

monitoring system.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROLES IN A

DEVELOPING MARKET

If current trends continue, the private sector will

play a crucial role in the future of satellite remote

sensing. Until recently, private industry acted

solely as supporting contractors in building and

operating government remote sensing systems

and as participants in the value-added industry,

turning raw geospatial data into useful information. More recently, several private firms have decided to build and operate their own satellite systems, providing raw geospatial data as well.

Private industry has particularly demonstrated

its strength by developing methods to enhance the

utility of remotely sensed data. The commercial

value-added industry has grown significantly

over the past decade. Increased interest in, and

availability of, remotely sensed data, combined

with advances in data processing and storage

technologies, have enabled value-added data resellers to process and analyze data for Federal,

State, and Local governments and many industries 48 Value-added companies and firmS dewl-

.

oping new data management and processing soft-

~5As noted ak)vc by Corltrast [he U. S.G. S, EROS Data Center will be a NASA DAAC, and will receive funding frOm NASA to Paflicipatc in

EOSDIS.

au s Congress, ofice of Techno]{)gy Assessment, The Future ofl?emole Sensirrgfiom space, op. Cit., P. 31.

. .

47u. s. Congress, Offlce of Techno]t)gy Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Obser\’in~ system, op. cit., pp. 3-4; PP.

34-36.

WFor ~xanlple, for the agriculture, tinlk>r, mining, and oil and gas industries. See aPP. ~.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings |23

ware will remain important elements in the data

industry, as they find more efficient, powerful

methods for turning data into information.

Private industry is very active in providing

photographic and digital data from aircraft (figure

1 -7). Recently, four private firms or consortia

have developed plans to build and operate private

satellite systems (box 1 -5). Others may also enter

the marketplace. The ability of private firms to operate successful private satellite systems will depend on several factors, including potential market growth provided by the development of new,

more capable data sources and new applications.

It will also depend on government policy toward

these firms, including how many of the sources of

production the government decides to retain.

| Potential for Market Growth

OTA estimates the existing market for raw data

alone to be about $150 to $200 million per year,

growing at a rate between 15 and 20 percent per

year. 

49 These estimates include the sales of satellite data from Landsat (through EOSAT and

EROS Data Center50), SPOT (through SPOT

Image Corp.), and aircraft data from private corporations and the EROS Data Center. The market

for value-added services is much larger, and is estimated at $300 to $500 million yearly. It is growing at a similar rate. Remote sensing experts contend that as satellite systems become more

capable and begin to produce data of higher resolution in stereo mode that can be used for detailed

maps, the global market for remotely sensed data

will grow much more quickly.

Prospective satellite operators expect to compete directly with the aerial imagery industry,

SOURCE EROS Data Center, 1994

which use photographic, rather than digital means

to acquire imagery. However, data of 1 to 3 meters

resolution are at the low end of the potential resolution scale for aerial imagery. The aerial imagery

industry is likely to respond to competition from

satellite-generated data by developing powerful

digital sensors and by targeting markets for data of

higher resolution than 1 meter. Satellite data will

be of greatest interest over areas that for political

or geographic reasons are difficult to reach by aircraft. They are likely to be in especially strong demand for military and intelligence uses.51

4~e ]oss of Landsat 6 ~1]] ]lkeIy inhibi[ expected market growth. Had Landsat 6 functitmed successfully, the Enhanced Thematic Mapper

(ETM) aboard Landsat 6 would have provided panchromatic data of 15 m resolution, 6 visual and infrared bands of 30 m da[a, and 1 thermal

infrared band of 60 m resoluti(m. The improved resolution of the ETM compared to Landsats 4 and 5 was expected tt) hx)st the m:irkct for land

remote sensing data.

5%e U. S.G.S. EROS Data Center distributes all Landsat multispcctral scanner (MSS) data. It charges fees for data equal tt) the ct)st of

repr(xiucti(m and distributi[~n.

$1 Brian Mccue, “me M i]itary Utility of Civilian Remote SenSlng Satell ites,” Spa(c 7imes, January - February, 1994, pp. I I - 14: and Ray A.

Williams(m, “Assessing U.S. Civilian Remote Sensing Satellites and Data,” .Spa(e Times, January - February, 1994, pp. 6-10.
24 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen~ and Markets

Orbital Sciences Corp.

The Seastar satellite will carry the SeaWiFS sensor for measuring ocean color and other attributes of the

ocean surface. Seastar is scheduled for launch in January 1995 aboard a Pegasus launcher, Orbital Sciences

Corp. (OSC) plans to market SeaWiFS data to the fisheries, ocean shipping firms, and to other ocean-related

enterprises, However, OSC’S primary customer is NASA, which will use the data for global change research.

WorldView Imaging Corp.

World View is developing atwosatellite-multispectral land remote sensing satellite system capable of 3-meter resolution in stereo (3-meter panchromatic; 15-meter in three color bands), It received an operating license

from the Department of Commerce in January 1993 and has begun to develop a satellite and data distribution

system. WorldView expects to launch its first satellite in late 1995 and the second in 1996,

Space Imaging, Inc.

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., has formed a company to design and build a multi spectral stereo land

remote sensing satellite system capable of achieving resolutions of one meter (panchromatic), The Department

of Commerce has granted Lockheed an operating license. Lockheed expects to launch its first satellitete by late

1997.

Eyeglass international

Orbital Sciences Corporation, Litton’s Itek, and GDE Systems, Inc. have entered into a joint venture to build

and operate a land remote sensing satellite system capable of gathering 1-m resolution panchromatic stereo

data. The Department of Commerce has issued an operating license for the system, and Eyeglass plans to

launch its first satellite in 1997,

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994.

Growth of the market for geospatial data

will depend primarily on:

1.

2.

3.

4’.

5.

—

the ability of the marketplace to find additional

applications for data from existing systems;

the distribution of data with higher spectral,

spatial, and temporal resolution;

the development of user friendly software that

will enable a wider set of users to apply raw

data to new problems;

the ability of data providers to reach the customer quickly and efficiently after aquiring

data; and

reductions in the costs of providing raw data.

The availability of data having better features

(e.g., stereo) than currently offered by either

EOSAT (the Landsat system) or by SPOT

Image, could also stimulate the market, especially if these data can reach the customer in a

timely and cost-efficient manner.

| Government Production

Private industry has the capability of building and

operating high resolution satellite systems. As required by the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of

1992, 52 the federal government plans to develop

and operate Landsat 7 to generate moderate-resolution (30-meter) data for public and private uses.

Landsat data, which are extremely important for

global change research and other uses, will continue to complement high-resolution aircraft data. In

5Z1n ~)rder ~() maintain dab ~ontlnuity from the Mdsat system. See Public Lilw 102-555, 106 STAT. 41 63! SeC. 2+ Findings”
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings |25

the future, Landsat data are likely to contribute to

the growth of data sales of higher resolution (1 to

3m) data from privately operated systems.

| Government Policy Toward Private

Satellite Operators

Government policy toward private operators is

likely to be the most important determinant in the

success or failure of private firms. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 removed two

major impediments to potential private data suppliers. First, it clarified and simplified the rules by

which the Department of Commerce could grant

an operating license, and restated that the Department of Commerce had 120 days to rule on a license request. 53 it also clarified data distribution

and pricing policy by allowing firms to set their

own terms and prices for remotely sensed data,

provided they receive no direct development support from the Federal Government.

Commercial growth in remote sensing poses

several challenges for government policy. The

federal government could let the market grow naturally, provided such activity would not threaten

U.S. security.54 However, private firms Still may

face competition from data gathered and sold by

the Federal Government, which could inhibit the

firms’ ability to earn a profit.55

Government could also assist in reducing the

risks faced by new entrants into the remote sensing industry by purchasing data from private enterprise rather than procuring competing satellite

systems in competition with industry.56 If Congress wishes to encourage the market for data

from private satellite systems, it could require

the Federal agencies to purchase data rather

than satellite systems from the private sector,

where feasible. If the proposed private sector systems prove successful in delivering high-quality

data in a timely manner, federal agencies are likely

to save money on their data needs.

In particular, data purchase arrangements, in

which the government agrees in advance to purchase a specified quantity of data of specified

quality and type, might enable agencies to reduce

the costs associated with data acquisition. Such a

data purchase agreement also helps the commercial provider to mitigate some of the financial risk

associated with commercial ventures. On the other hand, the government must be prepared to accept market conditions that might produce data to

specifications other than what the government

would set; i.e., the government might not be able

to set the precise terms of data acquisition, especially if external market forces dictate different

specifications. Scientists might have particular

difficulty purchasing appropriate data from private firms because they are likely to have less control over such matters as data calibration and spectral characteristics.

Because privately acquired data are likely to

have considerable importance in research on global change and for long-term resource management, the federal government may wish to archive

many of these data. The Land Remote Sensing

Policy Act of 1992 provides for the federal gov5~H(Jwever, L~)ckheed cow. submitted its forma] request for a license to operate a satellite capable Of colkcting data Of 1 meter res(~lutit)n

and selling these data world wide. The Administration took until March 10 to agree on the set of policies that wmdd guide I icense decisions. It

took another month to develop the conditions for Lockheed’s license.

S@ee Ray A. Williamson, “Assessing U.S. Civilian Remote Sensing Satellites and Data,” op. cit., and Brian McCue, “The Military Utility of

Civilian Remote Sensing Satellites,” op. cit., for a discussion of both commercial and national security issues related to private operation of

remOte sensing satellites.

5SF{)r example tie Centml In(el]lgence Agency (CM) plain to make some data collected by the so-called National Technical Me~S (Classified remote sensing satellites) available for purchase. If these data were of recent origin, they c(mld well compete with privately acquired data

and inhibit the ability of firms to obtain needed financing. However, the CIA plans to make only data frmn older systems available for purchase.

See lames Woolsey, testimony before a joint hearing of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Permanent Committee on

Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 9, 1994.

56u.s. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Fuwe of Remote Sensing From Spac’e, OP. cit., P. 87.
26 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

emment to archive data collected by privatelyowned systems.57 However, the choice of which

data to archive and under what terms are not

spelled out. Congress may wish to instruct

NASA, NOAA, and DOI to establish guidelines

for the types and quantities of privately acquired data to archive, based on market demand and anticipated future applications for

such data. Such guidelines should also take into

account the needs of private data consumers.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International remote sensing activities involve

both governmental and commercial interests.

Governments cooperate in remote sensing activities to broaden their capabilities, reduce costs, and

expand their base of scientific and technical expertise. They compete for political and technical

prestige by developing new indigenous capabilities and by establishing leadership in managing

remote sensing systems. Commercial interests

compete for market share of the rapidly growing

value-added services market and the market for

raw data. Although the growing number of countries involved in remote sensing (app. A) has contributed to expanded international competition by

governments and the private sector, it has also produced a striking increase in the scope of international cooperative efforts.

Government-funded remote sensing programs

have a long history of international cooperation,

in which for many years the United States was the

dominant player. U.S. practices formed de facto

international standards for data policy and management. But as other countries have become active in remote sensing, they have taken a variety of

approaches to data policy. In most cases their policies are still being formulated. This new international environment dictates a new approach to

cooperation. Over the past three decades, the

United States was determined much of the scientific

and operational agenda for international remote sensing activities and set the technical

standards; it now faces the more difficult task

of leadership through cooperation.

Several factors encourage national and regional

space agencies toward greater cooperation in remote sensing.58 First, remote sensing from space

is an inherently international activity. Earth satellites are capable of providing data from around the

world. By international treaty, “outer space is not

subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.”5 9 Hence, although nations retain jurisdiction and control over objects they have

launched into space,60 satellites pass over national

boundaries with impunity. Because of the limited

onboard data storage capacity and the limited

availability of satellite cross-links, collecting remotely sensed data often requires ground stations

61 Operating these dispersed in many countries.

ground stations usually requires formal agreements on data access and exchange. Increasingly,

the satellites themselves are owned and operated

by more than one agency and require formal data

exchange agreements.

Second, many applications of remotely sensed

data, such as weather forecasting and global

change research, are by their nature regional or

global in scope. Modem weather forecasting requires global data, especially to improve longrange predictions, data that are provided by satellites and ground-, sea-, and air-based instruments.

57~~ Remote SeMing policy Act of )99?, Public LAW 102-555, S&t. 502 (15 USC 5652).

58John M. Logsdon,” “ch~ing a course for Cooperation in Space,” Issues in Science and Technology, VOI. 10, No. 1, fall 1993, pp. 65-72.

59 United Nations, Treafy on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, tnciuding the Moon

and Other Celestial Bodies (The Outer Space Treaty), Jan. 27, 1967, Article II.

~The Outer space Treaty, Article VIII.

61F{)r ~Xa~ple, even ~Ou@ ~&a@ A nds Wem &@ned to transmit data on X-band through NASA’S ~RS system, ~eY also cW

antennas to transmit to ground stations. Because the TDRSS transmitters have failed, Landsat data can only be transmitted to Earth by means of

the ground stations located around the world.
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings |27

Research on the status of and changes in the global

environment also depends on access to data on a

global basis. Obtaining this access in turn rests on

cooperative agreements for sharing data from a

variety of satell ites and ground stations. Effective

cooperation on these applications requires established international user communities and organizations to represent them, such as the World Meteorological Organization and the International

Council of Scientific Unions, which are actively

involved in international discussions of data

policy. For many other applications of remotely

sensed data, such as resource management and environmental monitoring, similar communities do

not yet exist.

Finally, space budgets are shrinking in most

countries and man y agencies may be forced to curtail their ambitious plans for remote sensing. International cooperation offers the opportunity for

each country to save money by eliminating unnecessary redundancies and improve program effectiveness by sharing data and eliminating unwanted gaps. Recognizing their overlapping

interests, agencies from various countries and regions have pursued joint remote sensing projects.

However, they have generally embarked on such

projects on an ad hoc basis.

Typically, cooperative projects involve placing

instruments developed by one agency on satellite

platforms developed by another. For example,

France and the United Kingdom have contributed

instruments to NOAA’s Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites,62 and the United

States and Europe are contributing instruments to

Japan’s Advanced Earth Observation Satellite

(ADEOS), designed for global change research.

Such cooperative arrangements will continue into

the next century, when Japanese and European

instruments will fly on U.S. spacecraft and vice

versa. These projects require formal agreements

to coordinate data policies and management systems.

Alongside the growth in these ad hoc cooperative arrangements, a number of formalized organizations have arisen for cooperation in remote

sensing and related activities. The most striking of

these are the regional organizations in Europe.

The European Space Agency (ESA), organized in

1975, provides a formal mechanism for European

countries to develop and pool resources for joint

space programs; ESA has given a high priority to

Earth observations. The European Organisation

for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

(Eumetsat) was formed in 1985 to maintain and

expand European cooperation on weather satellites and their uses.

A number of less formal organizations provide

fora for discussions of policy and coordination of

plans. The one with the broadest scope is the Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS),

which includes almost every national and international agency involved in remote sensing as participants. These agencies are broadly committed

to improving the level of international cooperation on remote sensing in order to harmonize and

increase the overall effectiveness of their remote

sensing programs, but the ultimate scope of this

cooperation remains uncertain. Resolution of data

policy issues will be critical to enhanced future

cooperation.

Closer international cooperation carries significant potential drawbacks, however. Commitments to cooperative ventures can limit the resources available for national programs.63 Close

62U. S. Ctmgress, Office of Techmdogy Assessment, The Funm oj”)?emute Sensing From Space, op. cit., ch. 3.

63[n EuroF, for ~xanlplc, where Sonle countries contribute I() ESA programs and fund their own space %enCieS c(x)perati~’~ ‘ffons ‘laY

compete with national (roes for a share of the budget. Officials of the the French space agency, Centre National d’Etudes Spatialc-s (CNES), have

expressed concern that ESA’S needs might take over the CNES budget and have thereby capped CNES contributions tt~ ESA. Peter B. de Selding, “French Space Agency Holds Budget Ground,’” Space Neus, Mar. 21-27, 1994, pp. 1, 20.
28 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

cooperation may also result in programs that are

more cumbersome and less flexible than if agencies pursued their own programs independently.

Flexibility is particularly important for data and

information systems, where the technologies for

data transmission, storage, and processing are rapidly evolving. Efforts to coordinate programs can

also result in disagreements that delay project

progress and ultimately raise costs. To date, U.S.

efforts at international cooperation in remote sensing have not reached the level where they would

impede U.S. national programs.

As increasing numbers of national and regional

agencies have undertaken remote sensing programs, each one has had to develop policies regarding data archiving, distribution, and management. Who should receive the data, how quickly,

and at what cost? What raw and processed data

should be kept in archives, and for how long? How

should the archives be maintained? The emerging

policies of some agencies are quite different from

those in the United States. For example, in order to

assure that users of Eumetsat’s meteorological

satellite systems help support them, Eumetsat has

developed a policy in which it charges nonmember European states for the raw data.64 Canada has

contracted with the private Canadian firm, Radarsat International to collect and market data from

its Radarsat synthetic aperature radar satellite system after Radarsat is launched in 1995.65 Differences in policies internal to each agency can create

problems for the exchange of data among agencies, particularly when it comes to access for users

outside those agencies.

Failure to coordinate policies on data access

and exchange could greatly complicate access to

data; users who need data from a variety of sources

could be forced to navigate a complex array of different data systems, each with its own policies and

protocols. This outcome would seriously undermine the effectiveness of remote sensing programs, especially for cooperative global change

research, where large amounts of complex data are

often needed to develop and verify global environmental models.

Coordination of policies on data access and

pricing has been high on the agenda of CEOS and

other international bodies and in a variety of bilateral negotiations. To date, international discussions have dealt primarily with weather forecasting and global change research, both concerns that

extend across international boundaries. These

data requirements have led to the establishment of

international exchanges of data from satellites and

other sources. The increasing diversity of approaches to data access among nations with remote sensing programs poses significant challenges, but the United States and most foreign

agencies share a broad commitment to maintain effective data exchange mechanisms.

Coordination of data and information systems

is as important as the coordination of formal data

policies in making satellite Earth data useful to

potential users. Given the challenge of managing

large quantities of satellite Earth data, agreed

policy statements have limited effect without data

and information systems to provide ready access

to data. This raises two questions. First, will the

data and information systems of various national

and regional agencies be capable of operating efficiently together? This compatibility is essential

for data to flow easily from one country to another.

Second, are foreign agencies devoting adequate resources to their data and information systems? So far, no other agency has matched

NASA’s level of commitment to data management

and analysis systems equivalent to EOSDIS; most

are only beginning to grapple with the issue. For

example, the European Space Agency discovered

that its data management system was inadequate

bAEumetsat, however, provides data freely 10 the less developed countries of Africa. (See discussion of international Development, kKh)w.)

bs~ls ~)]icy is siml]ar t. tie c(~mmercializati(m policy adopted by the United States in 1984 for Landsat, but changed in 1992 with the

adoption of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-555).
Chapter 1 Policy and Findings | 29

to process and distribute more than a fraction of

the synthetic aperture radar data gathered by its

ERS-1 satellite.66 Because the United States has

no instrument that provides data on ocean conditionsandland and sea ice cover similartoERS-1,

U.S. scientists are dependent on ERS-l data (figure 1-8) for their global change research. 67 Inadequate data systems or inadequate coordination

of international data systems could undermine

the ability of scientists in the United States and

elsewhere to use foreign sources of data, some

of which will be extremely important in developing global environmental models.

Preliminary international discussions are now

underway to deal with these issues. Congress

may wish to monitor these international developments in order to assure that U.S. scientists

and other users have as much access as possible

to data from international sources.

Several authors have proposed developing international remote sensing consortia as a way to

pool international resources on remote sensing

and its applications.68 Eumetsat, the European organization devoted to satellite systems and data

management for weather forecasting and climate

monitoring, provides one possible model. A more

modest approach might be to establish new organizations or strengthen existing ones for particular

international applications of remotely sensed

data, such as ocean monitoring. The final report of

this assessment will explore the advantages and

drawbacks of an international consortium for remote sensing and relate it to U.S. remote sensing

policy.

SOURCE European Space Agency, 1992

UNDERUTILIZATION OF REMOTELY

SENSED DATA

The United States has made a major commitment

to Earth observing satellite systems, but many potential applications of remotely sensed data, such

as routine monitoring of wetlands, coast fisheries,

or National Forests, remain untested or little used.

Often, these applications are suggested by basic

scientific research, but their development requires

fihERS. I Gives European News views of (kHiIM,” Science, vol. 260, June 18, 1993, pp.1 742- 174~.

67R. Keith Raney, ‘*Probing Ice Sheets With Imaging Radar,” Science, vol. 262, Dec. 3, 1993, pp. 1521-1522.

68J{Jhn H. McElroy, “INTELSAT, INMARSAT, and CEOS: 1s ENVIROSAT Next’?” In Space Morrifor~ng of Globa/ Change, C(mference

Pmeeedings, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and the California Space Institute, (let. 8-10, 1992. John McLucas and Paul M.

Maughan, “The Case for Envirosat,” Space Po/icy, vol. 4, No. 3, August 1988, pp. 229-239; Neal Helms and Bert Edelson, “An Intemati(mal

orgarrizamn for Remote Sensing,” Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Astronautical Federation, Montreal 1991,

IAF-9 I - I I 2.
30 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

some additional investment. Investments in applications are generally modest compared to the

cost of the satellites themselves, but NASA has

often found it easier to suggest new satellites.

Congress may wish to provide greater funding

to the Departments of Agriculture, Energy,

and Interior, and to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Weather Service

to develop new applications of remotely sensed

data to support their missions, and to standardize access and data requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Human activities are causing dramatic changes in

the natural environment, changes that have provoked widespread concern. This concern has led

to increasing interest in the use of remote sensing

for environmental monitoring. But environmental

monitoring has been used in two distinctly different senses. In the scientific context, monitoring

seeks to collect and maintain a lasting record of

the state of the global environment for current and

future scientific use. 69 For example, systematic

archives of weather data can be used to study

changes in the Earth’s climate, and to inform environmental decision making, especially in the long

term. The international scientific community is

developing organizations to address these needs,

but the U.S. Global Change Research Program has

not yet committed substantial resources to those

efforts. 70 In funding global change research,

Congress may wish to consider giving a higher

priority to development of the capability for

(decadal-scale) calibrated measurements of

Earth’s environment.

Environmental monitoring is also used to describe operational activities to gather and analyze

environmental land data that support the more immediate needs of decision makers, just as meteorological forecasts help people respond to changes

in the weather. Earth data collected by a variety of

land and ocean remote sensing satellites can provide timely support for the management of rangeland, forests, 71 coastal zones, arid lands, polar regions and other ecosystems and natural resources.

These applications have become especially costeffective with the development of geographic information systems (GIS). Operational monitoring

activities such as weather forecasting can provide

broad benefits to the general public as well as particular benefits to a few individuals. Except for

weather forecasting, the level of investment and

institutional commitment to operational environmental monitoring is generally low. Because of

this, operational users of satellite Earth data are

not strongly represented in international discussions. 72 Many potential applications of remote

sensing for environmental monitoring are untested or only partially developed and tested. To develop these applications to the point where they

can become operational requires investment in applied research and development. Congress may

wish to ask the mission-oriented agencies to expand their attention to applied research and

the development of new applications of remotely sensed data for environmental monitoring,

as well as for other purposes.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Social conditions in many parts of the developing

world are desperate and not rapidly improving, in

part, because of inadequate economic planning

and the associated erosion of environmental quality. The United States and other developed counbgsee U.S. congress, Office Of Technology Assessment, Globa/ Change Research andNASA Ear/h Obser\’in~ .Sysrem, OTA- BP-lSC- 122

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oflice, November, 1993), pp. 34-S6.

‘“Ibid., pp. 3-4.

T I For example, see app. C.

721n Apri] 1994, NOAA hosted a meting of CEOS to discuss data policies for operational environmental monitoring. CEOS arrived at a

draft “Resolution on Principles of Satellite Data Provision in Support of Operational Environmental Use for the Public Benefit,” which will be

discussed at the CEOS plenary session in fall, 1994.
tries are committed to supporting economic development in these countries which is economically

and environmentally sustainable. Remote sensing

can contribute important information to improve

the quality of planning for environmental protection and natural resource management. For many

of these potential applications, satellite data are or

will soon be available, but most developing countries lack the capability to use those data effectively. 73

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S.

Agency for International Development (AID) and

NASA had an active training program in the use of

Chapterl Policy and Findings | 31

remotely sensed data. Congress may wish to consider reinstituting a training program and providing greater technical and financial assistance to improve the use of remotely sensed

Earth and environmental data in developing

countries. This will require funding for equipment to receive, process, and archive satellite data

and training and technical support in the use of the

equipment and data. Among other things, such

training would make developing countries more

skilled in managing their own resources (see app.

B). It might also help build a larger general market

for remote-sensing data.

73 Indla has an active remote sensing program and is a maJOr eXCeptlOn I(J his role.
B

y the end of this century, U.S. and foreign civilian remote

sensing satellite systems will begin to generate huge volumes of data about the Earth on a daily basis. In order for

weather and climate forecasters, researchers, resource

managers, and other users to make the most efficient use of these

data, the U.S. government will have to invest in new technologies

for collecting, storing, distributing, and analyzing remotely

sensed data. Private industry and government have already invested billions of dollars in a robust data and information infrastructure that can support government efforts to cope with the new

data sources. The information industry will greatly facilitate

the rapid growth of a commercial and governmental market

for information produced from satellite data.

In the 1970s, when the operational environmental satellite systems and the Landsat system were first developed, data users had

to rely on large, expensive mainframe computers to analyze the

data. They further had to depend on the creation and delivery of

data tapes and/or “hard copy” images from the central processing

facilities. If users wished to browse through data files to select the

best quality data, they would either have to depend on the judgement of personnel at the facility, or travel to the facility themselves and examine the data directly. Storage and archive facilities were highly limited and usually relied for data storage on

thousands of paper copies, photographic images, or magnetic

tapes. Working with the data meant physically retrieving archived

data from storage by hand and copying them for each different

user.

Since the 1970s, the rapid development of computer processing, storage, and data communications technologies has revolutionized the way data and information, including remotely sensed

Managing

Remotely

Sensed

Data and

Information 2

| 33
34 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

data, are treated. Today, for example, it is possible

to examine sample data delivered online from the

archive to the user’s computer work station or PC,

select the required data, and have the data subsequently delivered over the same data transmission

lines. In many cases, billing for the data can be accomplished online as well. 1 These capabilities

have come about as a result of the dramatic improvements that have occurred over the last decade in information technologies, changes that

have led to the development and vigorous growth

of a broad-based information industry.

This chapter provides an overview of the U.S.

information industry and the technologies that

support it. It explores the role these technologies

play in the management and application of remotely sensed data. The chapter also summarizes

Federal programs currently in place for archiving

and distributing remotely sensed data and examines options for improving archive services.

THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY

Virtually all segments of modern industrial society use some form of data and information

technology to improve efficiency and capability.

Research, manufacturing, service industries, financial markets, and governance have all been affected by the growth of the electronic information

industry. Modem computers and allied technologies make it possible to acquire, organize, store,

update, and distribute large amounts of data and

information for a wide variety of tasks. In large

part, the information industry, which consists of

manufacturers and sellers of computer hardware

and software2 and data storage and transmission

equipment, as well as information services, will

determine the nation’s ability to manage and process remotely sensed data. Although information

technologies are increasingly capable, the requirements for making large quantities of remotely

sensed data available to diverse users will stress

the capabilities of existing storage, processing,

and transmission systems. Improving the ability

to deliver remotely sensed data quickly and accurately will also require improved institutional arrangements.

| Processing Data and Information

With the development of high-speed, integrated

computer chips and other innovations, the ability

to manipulate and analyze large amounts of data

conveniently has improved dramatically over the

last decade and a half. Personal computers and

workstations with fast processing speeds, large

amounts of storage, and random access memory

adequate for rapid image processing have become

standard.

Computer technologies are now much more

broadly distributed now than they were just 10

years ago. Rather than working in a mainframe environment, most computer users now use personal

computers and/or workstations, which may be

linked electronically to mainframe databases, but

are capable of running their own software appl ications independently.

Over the last three decades, computer hardware

performance per unit cost has increased by a factor

of a million,3 and has led to rapid growth of digital

processing capabilities. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the cost of computing capability

dropped substantially—it costs less today in 1994

dollars to purchase a personal computer based on

a 486 processing chip operating at processing

speeds of 50 Megahertz (MHz) than it did in 1985

to purchase a system based on a 286 chip operating at 8 MHz.4 Similar improvements have been

I Data fees vaV according to the service provided, but for data supplied by government agencies, ptices chmged, if any, gene~lly reflect the

marginal cost of fulfilling a user’s need.

2con1puter hmdw~e ~d periphe~]s accounted for sales of at least $65 billion in ]993. See U.S. Department Of COrnrneKe, international

Trade Administration, U.S. Industrial Out/ook /993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, 1993), p.26 -1.

3Ma]coln] Brown, “me March of the Mighty Chip, ’’Marwgemenr Ttiay, quoting Andrew Sayer of Sussex University, UK, I W 1, pp. 26-36.

41n ~ls Conlpmison,” he LNM chip not only operates about 6 times faster, h is also much more CaPable.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 35

realized in workstation processors, data storage

technology, and display technology.

These changes in the information industry have

revolutionized the ability to process remotely

sensed data. As recently as five years ago, digitally manipulating a remotely sensed image required

expensive software and a high capacity workstation. Since then, advances in personal computer

capability and software, and reductions in costs

have led to much broader access to technology capable of processing remotely sensed data. Many

image processing software packages now exist,

ranging from “freeware” products to comprehensive professional systems that cost several thousand dollars. 5 Current systems also incorporate

far greater amounts of data storage than did their

predecessors. Data storage technologies, which

include both magnetic and optical media, have

improved dramatically while costs have plummeted (figure 2-1 ). In addition to making the data

sets more usable, improvements in storage

technologies have had a major impact on the ability of satellite operators to collect and store large

amounts of data.

| Accessing and Using Data

In order to be beneficial to a variety of users, data

must be transportable. Data can be hand carried on

portable media like magnetic tapes and disks or

optical disks; they can also be transmitted over

standard telephone lines, fiber optic cables, or

relayed by satellite. Increasingly, individuals and

institutions transmit and receive data and information over computer networks similar to telephone

lines, but capable of transmitting data at higher

rates. 6

1 4 0

1 2 0

2 0

Magneti c

0) 1

197 5 1980 198 5 1990 199 5 200 0

SOURCE National Med!a Laboratory, 199 3

The distribution of significant processing pow -

er in personal computers and workstations has so -

lidified the interest in online access to data and information. Most large companies (box 2-l) ,

universities, research organizations, and state, lo -

cal, and Federal government agencies now rely o n

computer local area networks (LANs)7 to hel p

workers organize and use a wide variety of dat a

and information. The available software allow s

users to transmit and receive messages, operat e

software programs, and access data and informa -

tion stored in central locations. U.S. industry ha s

spent over $30 billion on local area networks t o

link workstations.8 Additionally, users can also b e

linked together through wide-area network s

‘Many of the c(mm~erclal packages developeci exclusively for remote sensing/geographic information systems applicati(ms art priced

c(~mpct}til ely at $500-$2,5(X) .

6Because ~able lc]c~lslon cables can [ransnllt data at higher rates than existing telephone lines, they provide One P)ssible avenue for lln~ing

c(m~puters. Recently, C(mtinental Cablevision, Inc., and Perf(mnance Systems International, Inc., introduced a service to link home c~~mputers

with the Internet, making It ~~ssible [(J transmit voice and full feature graphics quickly. See Jared Sandberg, “Cable That Ties PCs to Internet to

be Unvclled,”’ Whl/ Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1994, p. BIO.

TL{Xal ~ca netw,orks (LANs), Consist of a

 series of computer workstations linked together through a network

sewer

 that pr(~vides eac h

w[mkstatl(m with operating software and the abiIity to share electronic mail, data, and information .

81nfornl:~tlon” ]ndustg Ass(~iati(Jn, Digital Information Group, Link Resources 1993.
36 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

U.S. industry depends on the ability to manage, interpret, and transmit data quickly and efficiently.

For example, retailers like K-Mart and Wal-Mart use real-time electronic data interchange to control inventory, meet customer requests, and handle payroll and scheduling. Efficient transfer of large data

sets can cut costs to the retailer, and allow transfer of point-of-sale data to others on the computer network, 1

For example, Wal-Mart’s operating costs are low relative to its competitors, in part because the company dedicates only about 10 percent of its stores’ square footage to inventory, compared to an industry average of 25 percent. Because sales data are tabulated immediately, the company is able to inform

suppliers in a timely manner, and use the information to negotiate better prices from suppliers. Wal-Mart

uses satellite links to provide this electronic data interchange, as do K-Mart, Home Depot, and others.

t See Lucle Juneau, “Luring Consumers With Conspicuous Efhclency,” CornputerWor/d, September 14, 1992

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

(WANS) that operate over a wider geographic

area. A WAN might be made up of one or more

LANs and a number of individual computers. In

order for distributed information systems to be effective, they must allow easy access to multiple

users, segment information in searchable fields,

and generally increase the efficiency of those who

use the system.

This amalgamation of technologies and businesses has led to important synergies among

technologies: technology developments in one

sector necessitate and encourage technology development in other sectors. For example, the recent dramatic growth in the availability of multimedia CD-ROM9 readers, driven by market

demand for entertainment and educational CDROMS , has led to increased use of the CD-ROM

for storing and distributing large amounts of digital data. The development of smaller, more powerful computer processors has led to an explosive

growth in cellular telecommunications (currently

an industry worth over $7 billion annually). l0

This development, in turn, has made the concept

of handheld computers more viable, since cellular

links will eventually make wireless computer networking practical in the near future. 1 ]

The growth of the online information industry

(table 2-1) reflects increasing demand for databases, analysis, and information products. Although online access to data and information is

Market segment 1990 1995

Financial 2,3 3.4

Travel 1.7 2.7

Marketing 1.5 2.9

Credit 1.5 2.0

Legal/regulatory/scienti fic* 1.0 1 9

Real estate 0.3 0 4

Insurance 0.3 0 5

News 0.3 0.4

Other 0.6 1,3

Total 9 5 15,5

* Including patient imformation

SOURCE. Information Industry Association, Digital information Group, LinkResources, 1993

ycD-RoM Stmds for Conlpact disk wi~ mad-~n]y memory, A CD-ROM is technically identical to the compact disk of the music industry.

IOU s ~ptiment of CO1llmerce, 1ntemational Trade Administration, U.S. /ndus~ria/ Oullook /993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

. .

Printing OffIce, 1993).

I I Nine major Careers have teamed with IBM to develop a cellular data standard, and another, Cellular Data Inc., received an experimental

license fr(m~ the FCC to begin testing its technology in 1992.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 37

5

c

t)

,—is

1,400,000,

1,200,000 1

1,000,000 I

800,000

600,000-I

400,000

1

200,000

i

Aug 81 May 82 Aug 83 Oct 84 Oct 85 Nov 86 Dec 87 Oct 88 Oct 89 Oct 90 Oct 91 Jan 92 Jan 93

SOURCE SRI International as cited in inforworld, April 12, 1993, p 38

only part of the information industry as a whole,

the growth of online systems provides insight to

future possibilities for remotely sensed data. The

consumer of remotely sensed data can expect,

eventually, to be able to tap into a wide variety of

online databases.

Although U.S. industry and government have

extensive experience using and transferring large

tabular data sets among users, fews ystems require

the amount of image storage and manipulation

that data from some remote sensing systems, such

as Landsat and SPOT, require. Processing and

storing these geospatial data, which contain several levels of data about each geographic point, provide challenges that sales data do not. In addition,

most applications of sales data are well known,

making the selection of database formats relatively straightforward. By contrast, applications of

satellite geospatial data are continually evolving

as data users gain experience with the data. Thus,

data and information systems for geospatial data

must be flexible and easy to use.

The online distribution of remotely sensed data

has been enhanced by the availability of the Internet, a wide-area information system funded in part

by the National Science Foundation. Because of

its ability to connect individuals with other Internet users and with widely scattered databases, Internet has grown rapidly over the past few years

(figure 2-2).13 The rapid growth of Internet has

come about, in part, because many users have access

to Internet through commercial data networks, provided by a host of commercial suppliers.

Growth of independent commercial systems

such as Prodigy, America On-line, or CompuServe

has occurred at rates similar to the growth of Inter-

! Zlntcmct ~.gan in the 1 970s ~~ ~ ~pafimen[ of ~fense e~perimenta] project [() ctmncct mmputer systems ~isperse~ ar(~un~ ‘he coun[~’”

Tlw success of this system led the Nati(mal Science F(mndation (o fund the development of similar technology to allow scientists and g(wemnwnt employees to communicate electnmically.

I 3sec us, ~ongrcss, office ~)f Technology” Assessment, A~l,anc.ed~efi,.ork Tec.hn<J/(j,~},, ~TA. Bp.TCT- 10 I (W&hingl(m, m: U.5. GOVemment Pnntmg office, 1993) for a summary of issues c(mceming the improvement of Internet and t~ther ctm~puter rwtork technologies.
38 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

net. Commercial and public information networks

now link millions of people.14 Customers of such

systems can exchange files, electronic mail, and

obtain news and other current information. These

commercial systems also provide links to the Internet. New remote sensing information systems

will make use of Internet or Internet-like systems

to serve consumers who want to browse data system holdings, but do not require rapid transfer of

large data files.

Because of increased traffic, Internet needs to

be upgraded continuously. Despite its value, the

fate of the National Research and Education Network (NREN), which would provide a significant

increase in communication capacity, is uncertain. } 5 Because providers of remotely sensed data

and information tentative y plan to use such a distribution system,

16 the Internet will have a Significant impact on remotely sensed data systems.

Should a successor(s) to Internet be developed, it

will place government in the position of providing

services to customers who may want to use Internet for commercial traffic. 17

Access to online information also provides

quicker access to information than most other

forms of distribution, and for some applications,

timeliness is a key to effective data use. As data

transmission techniques and capacity improve,

more rapid delivery of data is likely to result in

greater numbers of network users. The distribution of large data sets, such as remotely sensed

Earth data, will require increasingly powerful

communications networks (box 2-2).

Because upgrades to new transmission technologies are expensive, many data communication

systems still operate at low data rates. Most dedicated data networks have a data transfer rate that

ranges from 64,000 bits per second (bps) to 1.544

million bps. To see what these rates mean

compared to a common storage medium consider

a standard CD-ROM, which can store 5.4 gigabits

of data, or approximately 680 megabytes. Current

communication networks have data rates that

range from slower integrated signal digital network (ISDN) standard lines 18 that would require

nearly an entire day to transmit the equivalent of a

CD-ROM to high speed, high capacity T-3 lines

that can transmit this amount of data (table 2-2) in

about a minute.

COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF

REMOTELY SENSED DATA

Remotely sensed data are acquired by a sensor,

then are either transmitted to Earth or stored on

board for transmission at a later time. ‘

9 If stored,

data are eventually transmitted to a data relay satellite or directly to a ground station when the satellite’s orbit takes it within line of sight of the station.20 The amount of data generated by a sensor

depends on several variables: resolution, swath

width, and the number of spectral bands included

in the sensor. As the resolution of a sensor im-

[~F{)r ~xanlp]e, as of August, 1993, CompuSeme, a provider of online services, had 1.4 million paying custtmlers. The comPanY adds

approximately 10,000 online subscribers (on average) per month. America Online’s subscriber base rose from 300,000 in July 1993 to 600,000

in January 1994. See Michael Dresser, “Getting on Line,” The A’un. Mar. 6, 1994, pp. 1 D, 4D.

I SNREN would ~su]t in a significant upgrade of the government-operated part of the Internet. See Off Ice of Science and Technology policy,

The National Research and Education Nefn’ork Progrum, A Report to Congress in response to a requirement of the High Performance Cmnputing Act of 1991 (P.L. ] 02-194), December 1992.

I bNASA b~efings. see also Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, The U.S. G’/oba/ Change Data andln@nmtion ~ana~ement

Plan (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1992) pp. 81-83.

17u,s. Congress, Offlce of Technology” Assessment, Adt’anced Nerw’ork TeC.hnolo~y, OP. cit., P. 19.

lg~e ISDN st~dard is current]y met by phone lines in many piMtS of the country.

19Data ~ou]d ~ stored if n. appropriate ground station or relay satellite are wi~in range of the remOle sensing Satt3111tf3.

20cunently, he Tracking Data ~d Relay satellite system (TDRSS), a set of three satellites, receive data from proper’] y equipped Satd]k

for retransmission to ground stations.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 39

Data can be transmitted in either digital or analog mode, each of which has technical advantages.

Current communications networks generally rely on a mixture of old and new communications media

that support both analog and digital transmission. An analog signal is a continuously varying electromagnetic wave that can be propagated over a variety of media. A digital signal is a sequence of electrical, radio, or optical pulses that represent (binary) 1s and 0s (each 1 or O is referred to as a “bit” of

data), Either analog or digital signals can be sent over wire or optical fiber transmission Iines, A signal

attenuates (e. g., becomes weaker) the further it travels from its source. Hence, some type of amplification is used to boost the energy in the signal. Unfortunately, amplification also increases the amount of

noise mixed in with the signal, To prevent data errors digital transmission can use regeneration the use

of repeaters to recover the bits (the pattern of 1s and 0s), and retransmit the signal This procedure

preserves the integrity of the data,l The error rate can be made as small as desired (but cannot be

made zero) by placing repeaters sufficiently close together

Transmission media (the physical path between the transmitter and receiver) range from insulated

copper wires, known as twisted pairs, to optical fibers made from silica or high-grade plastics Twisted

pairs carry most analog and digital transmissions. For analog signals, twisted pair transmission Iines

require amplifiers every 5 to 6 km, digital signals require repeaters every 2 to 3 km. Twisted pairs can

accommodate data rates as high as 4 megabits (mega=million) per second (Mbps). Coaxial cable also

uses two conductors, but is constructed differently than twisted pair to enable transmission over a wider

range of frequencies Cable iS used to transmit telephone and television signals and for local area computer networks. A data rate of 500 Mbps makes cable a versatile medium and, because it iS better

shielded than twisted pair, cable is less susceptible to external interference. Fiber optic cable, which

transmits an encoded beam of light by reflecting it at shallow angles through the fiber at data rates of

up to two gigablts (giga=billion) per second (Gbps) was one of the most significant technological

breakthroughs in data transmission of the 1980s. Low attenuation and the need for fewer repeaters, in

addition to Iight weight and small size, make fiber highly attractive.2 However, the cost of fiber remains

prohibitive for many applications, For instance, lease fees for a fully switched optical network would

cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per month, depending on capacity, length of line, and the indvidual

carrier’s fee structure.3

lwlllla~ sta[llngs, ~afa and comPu~er con-rrnur-ma~lons (New York, NY MacMillan publlshlng, 1 ~1 ) PP. 4@59

2 Stall lngs, op clt , pp 59-72

3 AT&T to Slash T1 Line prices, ” Cornmurucaoons Week, Aug 10, 1992

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

proves, the resulting data rate increases as the area. As higher resolution sensors become a realsquare of the resolution, all other factors being ity, the data handling problems become more seequal. For instance, a sensor with a ground reso- vere. Higher rates of data collection also require

lution of 10 meters has 4 times the data rate as a ground stations capable of receiving more bits of

sensor with 20 meters resolution viewing the same data per second.21

2 10r, for systems that transmit data thrwgh another satellite such as one of NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS), the relay

satellite needs to have the capability of high-capacity transmission.
40 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

Transmission Data rate Approximate

medium (bits per second) time Required

1,200 bps modem 1,200 1 month

9,600 bps modem 9,600 1 week

ISDN 64,000 1 day

T1 Fiber 1.544 million 1 hour

T3 Fiber 45 million 1 minute

OC-48 Fiber 2.488 billion 1 second

SOURCE U S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making

Government Work. New Directions for Electronic Service Delivery,

OTA-TCT-578 (Washington, DC U S Government Printing Office,

September 1993), p 40

Once received at the ground station, data undergo an initial stage of processing. Ground stations

apply some calibration and geometric corrections

to the sensed measurements. The data may also be

geocoded—registered so that each data pixel corresponds to a known point on Earth.** In addition,

data may be enhanced for visual presentation, analyzed for information content, and archived according to date, area of coverage, etc. These steps

are important in transforming raw data into useful

information.

As noted earlier, remotely sensed data can be

delivered to the customer in a variety of ways—

magnetic tape, photographic prints and transparencies, optical disk, CD-ROMs, and by online

electronic transmission. Remotely sensed data

present special problems for information systems

because of their relatively high demands for storage, processing, and transmission capacity. Most

land remote sensing scenes, which are typically

100 megabytes or more, have been transfered on

magnetic tape or photographic media.23 For customers who request delivery of a data product immediately, electronic delivery over commercial

telephone lines or dedicated communications

lines is possible. In order to transfer the large data

sets represented by remotely sensed data, data

providers must maximize the data flow rate by using high capacity data lines (box 2-2) and by employing compression techniques to condense the

data files.

For example, a typical (multispectral) SPOT

scene of 60x60 km is a digital file that requires

about 100 megabytes of storage.24 Hence, transferring an uncompressed SPOT scene of 100

megabytes at a rate of 64,000 bps would require

nearly four hours. A single, 7-band Landsat Thematic Mapper image

 25 of 185 km by 170 km contains about 400 megabytes of data, therefore taking about four times longer to transfer over an

ISDN line than the SPOT scene. The amount of

time required for transfer is also influenced by the

method of connection. For example, users can

download data faster from a database via Internet

than over a modem26 and phone line. This is because telephone line bandwidth is lower than network lines.27

Telecommunications companies are rapidly increasing the capacity of their networks. However,

the average users’ limited access to high capability T-3 lines often requires offline data distribution

methods, particularly for a series of large data

files. Most data from U.S. remote sensing satellites are available online only for preview; actual

scenes are mailed to customers on tape or disc.

zzs~T, Image cow. for example, now markets data from the SPOT satellites that are corrected for terrain distortions and geoeoded. These

SPOT view image data are available in several different sizes, including the standard 7.5 minute quadrangles of the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS).

23SPOT Image COT. has &gun to sell data in a wide variety of formats and along geographic lines customized for customer needs. For

example, it can put up to 16 standard scenes on a CD-ROM or sell data by the square mile or by the linear mile (with a minimum of 2,500 square

miles or minimum length of 100 miles). EOSAT, too, has broadened its range of data delivery media and products.

24A by[e is g bits of infomatlon,” tie number required to forman ASCII character. Hence, each character in this file requires I byte Of storage.

A megabyte is one million bytes.

25 Six of the seven speetral bands have a spatial resolution of 30 meters. Band 6, the thermal band, has a resolution of 120 meters.

2bMc~ulate-dem~u]ate (essentially a digital-to-analog CUIlVf31er).

27&cause of [his, many large &ta and information systems are not accessible via mOdem.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 41

While the delay in transmitting data in this fashion

may seem insignificant in most applications,

more timely delivery is needed for uses such as disaster monitoring, agricultural production, or ship

routing. In its Earth Observing System Data and

Information Systems (EOSDIS)28, NASA expects to provide the ability for scientists at widely

dispersed sites to use networks to conduct research together on large remotely sensed data sets.

Many telecommunications experts expect the

costs associated with data transmission over highspeed lines (Tl and T3) to fall as capacity increases. Yet despite falling data transmission

costs, minimizing the size of files transmitted will

ensure further cost savings as data transmission

needs increase.

In order to speed transmission and reduce the

storage requirements, computer experts have devised a variety of data compression schemes to

condense the amount of data into files of manageable size (box 2-3).

The development of compression techniques is

critical to the development of large data systems

and archives. Compression techniques can be

“lossy” or “lossless,” that is, the data can absorb

some acceptable error level through compression

Data compression is the process of condensing, or compressing, the amount of data that must be

transmitted from point to point. For example, a single, black and white typed page (like this one) requires about 3.74 million bits (468,000 bytes) of storage when scanned at 200 pixels 1 per inch, and

132,000 bits (1 6,500 bytes) when compressed, Compression ratios (the ratio of uncompressed to compressed data files) range from 71 to 30:1, most remote sensing applications need compression

schemes that have near zero loss and achieve 101 to 20:1 compression,2

One of the challenges for future remote sensing satellites will be the application of reliable data compression schemes to minimize the transmission time required for large amounts of data. Compression

schemes for remote sensing work in two general ways. First, an image or other data set has a great

deal of repetition For example, a printed page has many blank spaces that can be condensed for

transmission by inserting a single symbol that indicates the length of the blank spaces. A half-tone

photograph has fewer blank spaces, but many contiguous areas of equal density that can be indicated in a similar manner A measurement of ocean temperature represented by a color image WiII simiIarly contain large areas of the same color A compression scheme will represent that area with a short

instruction to the image processing software to recreate the area with the correct color. When the image

iS decompressed, the processor fills in the color appropriately,

A second compression technique involves reducing the changes required between scenes, Using

the same example, if the temperature profile is updated, or a new area in the same region is measured,

only the changes to the original image wiII be transmitted. New generations of remote sensors will rely

on Improved compression techniques. At present, 10:1 compression is achievable for most Imaging

applications.

1 Picture elements

2 Don M Avedon, /ntroduct/on fo E/echzmic /magrtg, (Silver Spring, MD Assoclahon for Informahon and Image Management,

1992)

SOURCE OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1994

28Sce ch. 3.
42 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

or can emerge from a low rate compression

scheme with no errors. For high-precision measurements, lossless compression is required.

Archiving data ordinarily requires lossless data

compression because of the need for an accurate

and complete record of the data. The use of lossy

compression methods is acceptable when the user

can tolerate some loss of precision. For example,

users who wish to browse through low-resolution

versions of data in order to check the appropriateness and quality of particular data sets do not require high precision.29

DATA ARCHIVES

In order for data and information to be useful to a

wide range of users over many years, they must be

stored under archival conditions and made easily

accessible. The federal government archives an

astounding variety of data and information generated by the various departments and independent

agencies. Because the government continues to

make considerable investment in the acquisition

of remotely sensed data, and since many of these

data are crucial to environmental studies, especially studies of environmental change, protecting

that investment by ensuring that the data are accurate, standardized, and of high quality has become

increasingly important.

The U.S. government maintains several data

archives, located around the country, which store,

protect, and distribute climatic, hydrologic, geophysical, and other environmental data (table

1-2). Many of these archives currently have significant holdings that are used by government,

academia, and industry. The two largest archives

provide a glimpse of the challenges facing the archiving and distribution of satellite and related

data:

 U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data

Center

Established in 1972, the Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center is the primary

archive for land remote sensing data collected by

the U.S. government. As the National Satellite

Land Remote Sensing Archive,30 it archives digital data totaling nearly 80 terabytes3] (figure 2-3)

53 terabytes of which are data from the Landsat

system collected between 1972 and 1978.32 The

EROS Data Center also maintains an archive of

data collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) advanced very

high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) carried by

the polar orbiting satellites,33 aerial photographs

collected by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)

National Aerial Photography Program, and USGS

airborne radar data. It also contains a variety of

Earth science, cartographic, and geographic data.

In 1993, the EROS Data Center distributed

nearly $5.7 million worth of USGS and Landsat34

data products and services. EROS Data Center

provides data on a repay basis to government

zg~]ine data services commonly offer images for customers to browse through, from which Up to 90 percent of the information has been

removed in order to handle them quickly and easily. Nahum Gershon and Jeff Dozier, “The Diftlculty With Data,” Byle, April 1993, pp.

I 43- I 47.

J~ovlded for in the ~~Remo(e Sensing Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-555, section 50*:

“The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Landsat Program Management, shall provide for long-term storage, maintenance, and

upgrading of a basic, global, land remote sensing data set (hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic data set’) and shall follow reasonable archival

practices to assure proper storage and preservation of the basic data set and timely access for parties requesting data.”

The Lund Remote Sensing Commerciuli:arion Act of 1984, Public Law 98-365, sec. 602 contained a nearly identical provision relating to a

data archive.

3 I A terraby[e equals 1,000 gigabytes; a gigabyte equals 1,~ megabytes.

-nu s ~pmn,entof tie Interior, u-s. Geological” suwey, EROS Data Center, National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data ArchIvet Con-

. .

ference Aug. 26, 1993, Sioux Falls SD.

JsJsRos Data center’s AVHRR holdings equal about S kmabyt=

~qAppr[)ximate]y $1 million of tie L~dsat data were produced at EOSAT, but billed by tie EROS data center.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 43

1

?

a

z

$’

I

,

-

r -

A

I A

-J

- 1

A

(J3

u-l

z

m

lx

1

>

<
44 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

agencies and on a direct payment basis to foreign

users and the public. It sells all data at the cost of

reproduction, following the guidelines of the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A- 130,

which sets out the terms by which government

data and information are made available to the

public.

In order to inform data customers about its

holdings of satellite data, EROS Data Center has

developed a “metadata” system that provides data

about its digital data holdings, called the global

land information system (GLIS). GLIS, which

can be accessed through Internet, allows customers to determine what Landsat and other digital

data the EROS Data Center holds. In addition,

GLIS allows potential customers to examine data

on-line 35 to check for extent of cloud cover and

other features before placing an order. GLIS does

not allow for direct digital downloading of data,

primarily because officials of the EROS Data

Center did not consider the investment in a billing

system to be cost effective.36 In addition, as described earlier, existing transmission rates are too

low for efficient data transfer. Multispectral Sensor digital data on tape cost $200 per Landsat

scene. Thematic Mapper data, when they first become available later this year, are likely to cost between $300 and $500 per scene on tape.

The EROS Data Center maintains a staff with

expertise in the Earth sciences, such as geology,

hydrology, cartography, geography, agronomy,

soils science, and forestry. These scientists work

on scientific problems of local, regional, and global change and assist EROS Data Center customers

in making the best use of their data. The center’s

staff also includes experts in systems development, telecommunications, and computer sciences,

which are needed to improve the center’s ability to

archive and deliver data more efficiently.

The EROS Data Center will serve as a distributed active archive center (DAAC) for NASA’s

EOSDIS, 37 adding archival responsibilities for

land processes data from new NASA satellites to

its current functions. It will archive data from several Earth Observation System sensors, including

the advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) and multiangle

imaging spectroradiometer (MISR). The process

of archiving data from both sensors will require

EROS Data Center to install new hardware and

software to handle the additional archiving and

distribution load.

| NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

The Federal Records Act of 1950 originally established the National Weather Records Center in

New Orleans. In 1951, it was moved to Asheville,

North Carolina and renamed the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). NCDC is currently the

world’s largest active archive of weather and climate data, containing about 30 terrabytes of

weather and climate data (figure 2-4).38 It serves

as the archive for data from the National Weather

Service, military services, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Coast Guard. NCDC also accepts weather data from foreign sources (figure

2-5). The center archives 99 percent of all NOAA

data, including satellite weather images back to

1960. The center archives data collected by satellites, radar, aircraft, ships, radiosonde, and National Weather Service stations. It archives about

55 gigabytes of new data each day. NCDC operates the World Data Center-A for Meteorology,

and both gathers and shares data internationally.

35~e~c ..~a,llpled’. scenes, Which are generated by extracting about ] O percent of the original data, Me no[ of sufflci~nt quality to use. but

provl(te cust(mwrs with an excellent visual tool (o determine whether the data can be used for their project.

~6Data Center staff expressed concerns about n~alntalnlng cr~dit card numbers and o[hm cOnfidentlal information” in a data sYstenl that

would allow virtually unlimited fr(mt-cmd access.

3TSCC ch. ~ for an extensive discussion of EOSDIS.

38 S,)urcc: NOAA, INESDIS, briefing, 1993.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 45

OBJECTIVE Multimedia

Increased productivity: all current multiformat

production plus NEXRAD, AWIPS, input datasets

PROFILER and other.

\ j

METHOD

Automate: job control generation, UNISYS

production run QC, database updates Mainframe

and inventories. Select

SUN/UNIX Merge

copy workstations QC

.-l Inventories

NCDC and Summaries

research users Reports

\ /

[

Permanent

data archives

SOURCE National Cilmatic Data Center, 1994

Data from NOAA’s Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) system are

collected and stored at NCDC’S facility in

Suitland, Maryland. Backup copies of data

tapes are stored in Asheville.

NCDC maintains 455 different data sets

and responds to about 90,000 data requests

each year, supporting many forms of data dissemination: paper, photographs, magnetic

tape, floppy disks, CD-ROM, electronic mail,

online dial-up, telephone, and facsimile. Data

costs vary according to the amount of effort

NCDC personnel expend in providing the information. For example, NCDC charges an

additional fee for certifying the authenticity y of

climate data, often needed to support legal

proceedings. In order to deliver data to data

users as quickly as possible, NCDC has developed the OASIS online services (table 2-3).

In addition to publishing their own research on climate, center staff also provide

historical perspectives on climate vital to

studies of climate change and the environment. For example, in September 1993, the

Global

\ /

v

\

‘)

Q

World

Data

Centers

“w\

~

Country

to country

exchange

National

+ Climatic

Data

Center ~

!

‘D

Wvlo

Resolution 35

Exchange

<

I 1

SOURCE National Climatic Data Center, 1994
46 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

Process time before

Data Period of record online availability

Wind Profiler

Winds -60

Surface -60

Moments -60

Moments -60

National Weather Service, surface hourly

National Weather Service, rawinsonde

National Weather Service,

Hourly

15 minutes

N American rawinsonde

Cooperative Summary of the day (TD 3200) state files

General Circulation Model carbon dioxide

Field Experiment

CaPE

STORM -FEST

GCIP

NEXRAD Level II

Inventories

31 days

31 days

7 days

7 days

2 year

2 year

2 year

2 year

from Jan 1, 1992

1992

100 year

06- 07/ 1991

02- 03/1 992

02- 04/ 1992

03 / 91-

1 1/2 -2 hours

1 1/2 -2 hours

1 1/2 -2 hours

1 1/2 -2 hours

2-3 weeks

3-4 months

8-9 months

8-9 months

24 hours

as required

as required

as required

as required

as required

2-4 months

NCDC has online data and metadata available by file transfer protocal (FTP) computer access Data are placed online as soon as

possible after receipt or processing, Those data are available without charge via FTP for immediate downloading (up to 50 MB) or

users can order data for offline delivery (standard NCDC charges). In addition to data, important metadata are Included with the

online data Station histories, data dictionaries, field experiment information, and data inventories are Included,

SOURCE National Climatic Data Center, 1994

center published a technical report on the special

weather stresses experienced in the United States

during the summer of 1993 and their effects on

the U.S. population.

39 The center also supports a

wide variety of industrial, agricultural, and engineering applications for historical climate data

(table 2-4).

TECHNOLOGY FOR ARCHIVING DATA

Data archiving requires use of high-density storage media. Current media used by some of the

larger data bases include magnetic tapes (1/2-inch

tape, 8mm tape, 4mm tape), and optical disks

(CD-ROM, CD-WORM,W and larger optical

disks). Manufacturers now routinely develop and

market new magnetic and optical media, forcing

difficult choices among the government agencies

and other data providers about how to improve

their archives and distribution system. The development of storage standards can be a significant

problem. If data are stored on media supported by

only a few suppliers, they could become expensive and difficult to replace as they wear out. In the

worst case, they could become unreadable as the

3gNea] LON, “me Summer of 1993: FIWJding in me Midwest and Drought in the Southeast,” NCDC Research Customer Service Group,

Technical Report 93-04.

~CD.WORM stands for compact disk, write-once, read-many times memo~.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 47

Customer type Data used PurPose

A Manufacturing

1 Automobile

2 Weather dependent products:

umbrellas, shoes, firelogs,

sunglasses, etc

3 Software manufacturer

4. EPA/consultants

B Energy

1

2

3

4

5

Electric power companies

Gas utility

Energy consultant

Battelle Pacific Lab

Oil companies

“Local Climatological Data”

Surface Weather Observations

“Local Climatological Data”

Surface Weather Observations

Mixing Height Studies

Heating & Cooling Degree Data

“Monthly Station Normals of Temp, Precip,

Heating and Cooling Degree Days”

Wind Energy Resource Information System

DATSAV 2 data

(Hourly Surface Obs)

Navy Marine Summaries

International Station CD-ROM

C Agriculture

1

2

3

4

5

6

NWS Agricultural Weather

Service

Horticultural firm

Herbicide manufacturer

Horticultural firm

Entomologist

Commodities exchanges

COOP Data

International Station

CD-ROM

Surface Weather Observations

“Frost/Freeze” Publication

COOP Weather Reports

“Local Climatological Data”

Testing new batteries

Determining cause of air conditioning

failure

Determining impact of weather on

sales

Database development

Air pollution control

Determining level of electrical demand

through computer models

Determine rate adjustments and expected demand

Determining possibility of using wind

mills

Study for wind energy usage in Third

World Countries

Planning offshore oil drilling platforms

Advisory and research

Design of greenhouses and determining areas for crops

Determining effects of temperature

Planning for crops

Determining life cycle of insects

Crop storage planning

Effect of climate variations on crop

yields
48 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen$ and Markets

Customer type Data used Purpose

D Consultants and Engineers

1

2

3.

4

Meteorological consultant

Marine consultant

Engineering firm

Engineering firm

5 American Society of Civil

Engineers

6 Architects

7 University research

8

9

Unversity research

Engineeting firm

E. Entertainment

1

2

3

4

5

Festivals, concerts, sports

events, conventions

Golf course development

Resort development

Conference

Insurance industry

Authors

F. Communications

1 Institute of Telecommunications

2. Television advertising

3 Ad agencies

4 IV/Radio programs Magazines

All types of observations

Map Analyses

Climatic Averages

Marine Wind/wave summaries

FAA Wind Rose

Weather Bureau Technical

Paper No, 40

NOAA Tech, Memo Hydro-35

DATSAV 2

COOP/Climatlc Summaries

North Atlantic Hurricane

Tracking Data

Summary of the Day Weather Data

Soil Freeze Depth Maps

COOP Weather Reports

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Hourly Precip Data

‘(Local Climatological Data”

Climatic Averages

International Station CD-ROM

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

“Local Climatological Data”

Surface Weather Observations

Expert testimony

Climatic Studies

Port design

Airport design

Building, highway, dam design/

flood control

Development of ice Ioadlng

Guidelines

Planning construction

Storm risk analyses

projects

Land Use impact study

Construction design and planning

Establish normals and patterns for

planning purposes

Planning useage

Development

Planning insurance for

entertainment events/verification

Books: verification of data

Communication system planning

Establish ideal filming times

Determine markets

Fact verification
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 49

Customer type Data used Purpose

5 Cable television firm

G Services

1 Physicians/medical

research centers

2 Highway departments

3 Insurance companies

4 Insurance companies

5 Attorneys

H Housing/real estate

1 Contractors

2 Real estate developers

I Transportation

1

2

3

4

Trucking companies

Airline companies

Marine shipplng companies

Railroad companies

COOP Data

Surface Weather Observations

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Climatlc Averages

Surface Weather Observations

Surface Weather Observations

COOP Observations

Surface Weather Observations

COOP Observations

Surface Weather Observations

“Local Climatologlcal

COOP Observations

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Climatic Averages

Map Analyses

Climatic Averages

Storm Tracks

Marine CD-ROM

Climatic Averages

Data”

Microwave attenuation study for tower

planning

DiSeaSe/Climate-weather

correlations

Planning snow removal

Planning and verification

Settle weather related disaster

claims

Settle legal disputes

Determine construction deadline penalties or extensions

Site selection for resort and retirement

developments

Expedite transport of perishable goods

Determine favorable air routes

Determine optmal shipplng routes

Determine favorable seasons and

routes for transport of goods and commodities

As the repository of weather data from the United States and the world, the National Climatic Data Center is charged by law with provid -

ing accurate, historical data about US weather and climate. Historcal data about the climate serve a variety of useful applications in

agriculture, construction, engineering, law, and transportation This table lists a sampling of uses of climate data in the U S Economy

SOURCE National Climatic Data Center, 1994.
50 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen$ and Markets

Because data must be stored on media available at the time of collection, electronic databases not

only benefit from but require periodic storage upgrades. Upgrading data storage provides a number of

benefits, including better performance, reduced storage costs, and greater storage density.

Data managers must transfer electronically stored data to new media for two reasons: First, magnetic media deteriorate over time, resulting in some data loss. Second, media often become obsolete as

new technologies are developed and the readers for older media lose market share. The rapid shift

from long-play records to compact disk technology for commercial music provides an instructive example of such changes in the consumer marketplace.

In the smaller marketplace for scientific data, major improvements in technology can cause special

problems in maintaining data. For example, the EROS Data Center has encountered difficulties transferring data acquired from Landsat 1 to new media. Some of these data are of particular significance because they represent the oldest multispectral satellite data available about Earth’s surface, and are

therefore of considerable importance to research on local and regional land changes. NASA originally

recorded the data using proprietary recording equipment that has since failed as a result of age. The

development and production team for the original Landsat 1 tape system has dispersed over the years,

making it impossible to replicate the system without extraordinary investment.

The EROS Data Center has encountered a different problem with data from Landsat 3. The tapes

had been stored at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Landsat facility, which was operating in the

late 1970s before Landsat operations were transferred to NOAA. Many of these high density tapes now

suffer from “sticky tape syndrome, ” a condition they developed when subjected to excessive humidity

while in storage at Goddard Space Flight Center. The magnetic tape coating absorbed moisture making

them unusable without special treatment. The EROS Data Center and the National Media Laboratory

have discovered that by heating the tapes in an oven, they can literally cook the moisture out of the

tapes, which restores their readability for several weeks. ’ After undergoing such processing, they can

then be read by the center’s tape readers and transferred to more stable modern media, allowing the

EROS Data Center to make the data available to customers.

I ‘%olvlngStlckyTapeS yndrome at EROS Data Center, ”lVMLEIW (Newsletter of the National Media Lab), VOI 3, September 1993

SOURCE: EROS Data Center, OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1994

technology becomes obsolete (box 2-4; figure sets are useless if the appropriate information can2-6). Fortunately, the existing large market for information technologies gives archive managers

some comfort that a storage medium in wide use

will not become obsolete quickly.

NAVIGATING THE ARCHIVES

Many archival data are increasingly stored as digital images in specialized databases.41 Yet, data

not be accessed and applied to solve problems.

The development of powerful database software

has resulted in systems that can sort through a

wide variety of data quickly and provide users

with information in several formats. The number

and size of data and information systems continues to increase. In addition to the growing collection of data sets archived by the federal govem-

‘$lGershon md Dozier, Op. d.
IT

Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 51

Network

interconnection

/- 1

l-l

v

II

(1● 5m

1

(

/ ● 0 0

—

r“-,

t------ I -

1– –A- 1

I I

t’:

L -—- –-– --- ,

Cu

Ug %
52 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ment (table 1-2), many states are attempting to

develop comprehensive information systems to

store and access data specific to their needs. Many

of these data are geospatial data.42 Data and information systems dedicated to managing specific

resources (land, timber, oil, minerals, agriculture)

are also being developed by companies with a financial stake in such resources.

As archival holdings grow, it will be essential

to have the ability to search databases quickly and

obtain useful information. Each data center maintains its own database. However, data users, both

within the federal government and outside, often

have difficulty in determining precisely where

data they may need reside, or if the data exist at all.

Some data exist in hard copy form such as maps,

photographs, lists, and charts. Others are stored in

electronic form. Several advisory groups have

suggested that the use of available data would be

made much more effcient the creation of a metadatabase that listed all data that falls within certain categories in one readily accessible place.

Metadata provide summary information about

data holdings and guides to accessing them—

what data are available, where they are held, and

how to access them. Metadata therefore function

like a library’s electronic card catalog. Having

such information is not only helpful in navigating

the many available archives, but may make it possible for agencies to avoid creating data sets that

are already available elsewhere.

The Federal Geographic Data Committee

(FGDC), 43 which is composed of representatives

from Federal agencies that generate and use geospatial data, was established to “lead the development of the national spatial data infrastructure

(NSDI) and to coordinated its implementation.”~

For geospatial data generally, the President has directed:

■ FGDC to establish a National Geospatial Data

Clearinghouse that would gather geospatial

metadata from the agencies,

■ each agency to:

a) document all new geospatial data with the

FGDC metadata standard and make that

documentation electronically accessible,

b) adopt a schedule for documenting (where

feasible) existing data,

c) adopt a plan to establish procedures for public access to geospatial data, and

d) adopt internal procedures to use the clearinghouse prior to expenditure of federal

funds for data collection.

The Executive Order further states that FGDC

is to develop standards for implementing the

NSDI, and to submit a plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for:

completing the initial implementation of a national digital geospatial data framework... and

for establishing a process for ongoing data maintenance.

It further instructs FGDC to develop strategies

for:

maximizing cooperative participatory efforts

with State, local, and tribal governments, the

private sector, and other nonfederal organizations to share costs and improve efficiencies of

acquiring geospatial data.45

Geospatial remotely sensed data are also subject to these directives. However, as noted above,

421n other ~ordS, hey have ~ttnbuteS Such ~S Sol} t~~, resources, or other characteristics mat can be placed geographically.

43~e FG~ IS ~uthorlzed by he Offlce of Management and Budget, Circu]ar A. ] 6 to coordinate” federal agency involvement in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

~offlce Of the Vice Fresldent, Department Of the lnteri(~r, “Recommendation DO1O3,” Accompanying Report of the National Perjbrmance

Re}iewt, September 1993. The Federal Government generates and uses many kinds of geospatial data. As conceived by the FGDC, NSDI is

composed of the large collection of digital, gempatial data that constitutes a major part of the overall Federal infm-rnation infrastructure. By

establishing minimum standards for data acquisition and distribution, the FGDC hopes to “enable analysts and decisionmakers to integrate diverse geographic infomlation” quickly and easily.

qsExecutlve @der 12906 ~)f Apr. ] 1, 1994, “ coordinating” @(JgraphlC Data Acquisition and ACCeSS: ne National Spatial Data lllfraSbUCture.”
Chapter 2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 53

satellites collect nonspatial data about Earth systems. For the purposes of global change research,

environmental monitoring, and other applications, users will need ready access to information

about the location and availability y of these data as

well.

To avoid duplication in data acquisition and

archiving, Congress may wish to consider

instructing Federal agencies to coordinate on

developing an online database that would hold

metadata about all civilian remotely sensed

data. Such a database would be able to field

queries from government and private customers interested in remotely sensed data. This metadata set, which would be small enough to be located in one site, or distributed among several

sites in a network, would not be the source for the

data themselves but provide a guide to the holdings thoughout the federal government. It could

also store information about data held in local and

state government offices, and in private archives.

Development of a central metadata set will require

the cooperation of the many government agencies,

including the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Interior,

Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, and

NASA, as well as agencies that hold other kinds of

geospatial data, such as census and land use data.

A centrally-organized metadata set would ensure

maximum exploitation of data sets that have already been acquired by the government and other

users.

46 It would constitute an important component of the larger geospatial metadata set recommended by the FDGC.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Over the past decades, users of spatial data have

harnessed the spectacular gains in the power and

speed of computer hardware to develop systems

capable of meeting their spec ial needs for processing and manipulating spatial data. These systems

have become increasingly flexible, allowing users

to analyze and manipulate digital images, add new

information, and create layers of data that focus on

different forms of information. Recent systems

also allow users easily to convert various kinds of

data to color-coded images that enable researchers

to isolate patterns in the data.47 This recent development is in part a result of new software programs that take advantage of increased processing

speeds available in newer workstations.48

Data systems capable of assembling, storing,

manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced data49 are known as geographic information systems (GIS). Driven by simple commands,

GIS can be used to display and analyze spatial data

{box 2-5) in many different ways. GIS users can

select from among many categories of information to display on a single digital image, depending on their needs. For example, in figure 2-7. the

GIS layers display land use, transportation routes,

potential hazardous waste sites, and hydrography.

These scenes can be displayed with categories of

information (grid lines, roads, zip codes) withheld, and added at a later time, or they can all be

displayed at once. The variables are stored in relational data files, and the flexible program relates

each variable to the proper image.

~TFor ~k:irllplc th~ }{lch Re\L~lu[i(~n fnfrar~~ Ra~i~[i(m S{)undcr ah~ard NOAA’s POES satellites takes tmpcraturc and humidily sollndlngs ~

In ;i “C( )1 unm ” through the mm )\phcrc. By C( )I(we(xting [he data and plotting obscrvati(ms [taken at different geographic I(KM i(ms, sc icntl sts can

visual I/c chimgcs in tcn)pcralurc and humidity at a gi~ m ICY c1 of [hc a[m)sphcrc as the satellite sweeps across Earth ”s surface.

W)\ ~orllp LJter ,Ilic, ropr{)cessor ” dcsl:n dc[crllllnc~ the nunlk.r of ca]cula[i(ms that can be made sinlu]tarwms]). The cl~)~h s~’~d is a n~~a-

~urc of h{ )W fa~t the n)lcr( )pr( wcsv)r ( )pcratcf, The n~lcropr(wcssor” must sy nchron I/e S) stem opcrati(ms, read in structlons fr( )IN [he ma!n

nwn)or) cache. manipulate data stored there. ,.4 n)icroproce~s(m” in a systcm opcra[ing at I MHz would operate 1 mill i{m t]nws per stmmd. hlany

new sy sterns o ~ntaln 486-hascd pr{wcsst)rs that {~pcrate at a clt)ck speed of either 33 MHz, 50 MHz. or 66 h4H/.
54 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Spatial data sets provide information about conditions at various locations in 2 or 3 dimensions There two

broad categories of spatial data raster data and vector data

Raster data sets are obtained by imaging (photographically or by electronic sensor) an area of interest In obtaining a raster data set, the imaging device develops a value of intensity for the physical quantity of Interest (e g

land cover features, elevation in meters, land use class) for every cell, or picture element (pixel). The individual

pixel represents what IS essentially an average Intensity within that area Pixels are defined by their columns and

rows; pixels may be square or rectangular

The minimum mapping unit or resolution unit , is the smallest element that can be distinguished by the Imaging

system. The pixel size should be smaller than the minimum resolution element, so as not to miss Important features. For example, in the schematic below, if the gray shaded area represents the minimum mapping unit, and IS

thus detectable by the Imager, it would not show up in the pixel, since it would not cover the majority of any one

cell. ’ If the pixels were smaller, the feature would show up in the image.

Vector data sets are collectiions of Information based

on elemental points whose locations (made up of a point

and a direction from an origin) are known to arbitrary

precision such as “point A is 25 kilometers north northeast from the map’s origin “ The placement of a point on

a vector-generated map is not limited by the size of a

pixel Vector representation allows the map maker to

represent map elements much more simply than raster

~ ‘ixe’

representation. For example, in a vector data structure a circle can be represented in the computer by a point, a

radius, and the thickness of the line By contrast, to represent the same circle in raster format would require storing

all the pixels that make up a circle in the right sequence to represent the circle as an image Conventional maps

developed in a computer have been based largely on vector data sets because vector representation iS much

more economical of computer memory Because cconventional maps are collections of standard symbols arrayed

in a pattern that represents an abstract image Vector data sets such as maps focus primariy on major features

(e g., roads, rivers mountain ranges, cities) and present information in a relative way.

Both raster and vector data are Important to consumers of remotely sensed data Increasingly, both data types

are being combined to produce products that hold valuable information regarding details of land features, land

cover, elevation, and relational aspects such as distance between objects For example, the U S. Geological Survey develops combination products known as digital ortho-photo quads, or quadrangle maps that use dlgitzed

photographs to correct standard vector maps (produced by USGS for decades) Vendors that produce software

for GIS have found a significant market in software that can convert between raster and vector data sets

Increasingly, electronic maps are used to replace or augment paper. Paper maps, while an extremely effective

way to display information, cannot match the density of similar information stored on floppy disks or CD-ROM A

compact disk can store many digital maps and even images of places of particular interest.2 Further, digital maps

can be designed to contain Information of interest to specific classes of users Digital map readers can also be

combined with Global Positioning System receivers, providing real-time position Information to the user

1 If, however, the feature IS extremely bright compared to Its surroundings, it could be detected as present, though not resolved

For example, the Landsat themahc mapper Image of the Chernobyl reactor lust after It suffered a fadure and was burning registered a

“hot spot” m the thermal band, which has a surface resolution of only 120 meters The burning reactor therefore could not be Imaged,

but the fact that It was burning was never the less observed

2 For example De Lorne t&pplng markets a CD-ROM, Street Atlas, USA, which enables users to IOCate most U S streets and

create and print maps of varying scales The data are stored In vector format for quick call-up and presentation

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information | 55

“-

. , .

:

:

.-

-h

.-. u—:.-.

. .

eL
56 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen~ and Markets

The development of GIS has been a major force in

the enhanced use of remotely sensed data during

the late 1980s and early 1990s. A rapidly growing

collection of users now has the ability to use GIS

to analyze remotely sensed data and to incorporate

other data with them. For example, a remotely

sensed image could be used as a foundation for adding ownership boundries, sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, zoning, historic sites,

population densities, and transportation routes.

All or part of the additional information could be

displayed or printed as needed. GIS users are becoming more familiar with satellite data, and are

using them with greater frequency. For example,

civil engineers increasingly rely on satellite

images of large geographic areas to analyze and

explain construction projects, such as the

construction of new highways. 50 Planners of

routes for pipelines or high-capacity electrical

transmission lines find remotely sensed data,

coupled with GIS software, extremely useful in

locating suitable routes quickly and accurately.sl

Field positions derived from the military’s global

positioning system (GPS) make the accurate determination of geographical locations much simpler than ever before (box 2-6). Appendix B presents other examples of the combined use of these

powerful technologies:

The past few decades have witnessed tremendous development and change in spatial data

handling....What some have characterized as

the “digital revolution’ ’...has had a profound effect on almost all activities utilizing geographic

information. These effects have been felt in the

research and academic sector...in the private

sector, which is populated with a large number

of digital spatial software system vendors and a

larger number of users of such systems; and in

the federal, state and local levels of government,

which are some of the largest producers and users of digital spatial data.52

The rapid increase in computing capabilities

and geographic information systems has resulted

in many different methods of storing and using

data. Because data formats are seldom standardized, 53 data analyzed by one GIS software package may not be readable by another.54 Lack of

standardized data sets can cause serious logistical

problems for data users intending to integrate data

from multiple sources. This problem is particularly acute in the federal government, where purchases of remotely sensed data are difficult to

coordinate across agencies, and operating systems

are purchased independently. The development of

GIS standards could improve the usefulness of the

technology and enhance the market for remotely

sensed data.

Data standardization efforts are underway. For

example, as noted earlier, federal agenc ies formed

the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

to serve as a forum for the discussion of spatial

data issues within the federal govemment.55

Among other things, the committee has taken the

lead in insuring that various software applications

s~Huold Hough, “Satel]ite 1mage~ Charts Course for Civil Engineers in Jacksonville, Florida,” Earth Obser\’ation Magazine, June 199s,

Pt). 25-28.

S IT() accomc~ate such users, SPOT Image Corp. now sells data of arbitrary shape by the square mile. It will for example, sell data that

stretches along linear features such as pipline rights of way. See “The New Benefits of Space Age Technology, ’’A-E-C Automation Newsletter,

November 1993, pp. 2-7.

szHmc)ld Moe]lering, ‘* OpP~nities for Use of the spatial I)ata Transfer Standard M the State and hxal hvel,” Carr~graPhy and Geographic Information Sysrems, Journal of American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, vol. 19, December 1992.

53s& VictorCal]aghM, **The image Fi]e Format Mess: What’s Your TIF’F?’’Advanced Imaging, March 1994, pp. 44-47,85, for a discussion

of the different file formats and the dif%culties of working with so many.

Sdsee also us Congress, Offlce{)fTechno] ogy Assessment, Data Format Standards for Civilian Remote se~in~ ~tei~itest (Washington,

,

. .

DC: OTA, ]ntemational Security and Space Program, May 1993) for a discussion of data format issues. This background paper highlights incompatible data formats and storage media, concluding there is no central organization positioned to develop and implement data standards.

~~o~ginally Chalnd by a representative of the USGS, in fiscal year 1994, Bruce Babbit, Secretary of tie Interior took over chairmanship of

this committee. His chairmanship demonstrates how important the Department of [nterior considers the issue of data standards.
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information 157

The ability to determine position quickly, simply, and with high accuracy from the Global Positioning

System (GPS) constellation of satellites has markedly enhanced the use of remotely sensed data m

geographic information systems. Developed by the Air Force for Department of Defense uses, GPS has

found extensive use among a wide variety of civilian users.

GPS consists of three major segments: 1) a constellation of 24 satellites orbiting at approximately

11,000 nautical miles above Earth, 2) a mission control segment; and 3) a user segment, consisting of

indwidual fixed and portable GPS ground receivers. GPS satellites have a 12-hour repeat cycle and an

approximate 60-degree equatorial spacing. Between six and 11 satellites are always visible 5 degrees

or more above the horizon. Ground recewers determine positions by measuring the signal travel time

from four or more satellites, Civilian users can achieve position accuracies within 100 meters of the true

geographical position. Better positioning (a few meters) is possible by using a correction signal from a

ground-based differential position receiver/transmitter. The differential position recewer/transmitter, located at a known position, receives GPS signals from the satellites and calculates a correction, which It

then broadcasts to GPS recewers within its range. Users with properly equipped GPS receivers can

then automatically correct their calculated positions.

GPS can be used to geocode SPOT or Landsat imagery, and also to find .Wes within a study area.

The merger of satellite imagery and GPS has proved invaluable in creahng and updating GIS databases quickly and accurately. Doing so has saved time and money compared to using traditional methods such as field surveying and aerial photography.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, David A Turner and Marcia S Smith, GPS Safe///(e Nav/ga//on and Pos/f/orrmgandfhe

DoDS Navstar Global Poshormg System, 94-171 SPR (Washington, DC Congressional Research Serwce, Feb 15, 1994)

for GIS within the federal government are compatible. By coordinating with the user community

and software developers, this committee has enabled the federal government to adopt a transfer

standard.5b As a consequence of this committee’s

work, as of February 15, 1994, all federal agencies

must purchase and use computer hardware and

software that allow the transfer of information

among dissimilar systems. Vendors of spatial data

processing software must comply with what has

become known as Federal Information Processing

Standard (FIPS), and can turn to the FGDC for advice. The vendors are now developing hardware

and software to comply with the FIPS. USGS has

designed a spatial data transfer processor to support transfer of data between various formats.57

GIS software has also suffered the drawback of

requiring specialized training to use it effectively.

Although GIS software is becoming more *’user

friendly,” most users still require intensive training.

NEW WAYS OF VISUALIZING DATA

People are often more adept at extracting information from properly prepared images than from

text, and sometimes capable of culling information from a series of images or video. Increasingly,

therefore, researchers use spatial data in video or

simulated video. In addition, remotely sensed data

sets can be used to simulate (in three-dimensions)

landscapes and geologic formations. These too,

can be used in video representations of spatial

5~e Secretaw of Cc)mnlerce approved the Spatla] Data Transfer Standard, known as a Federal Information” ~I~essing Standard 173 in

July 1992.

57More inf{)matl[)n regarding Federal Inf{)matlon ~(~esslng standard 17’3 and its implementation is aval]able from the Federal Geographic Data Committee, within the USGS.
58 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The U S Geological Survey prepared this dlgltal elevation model of the Hetch Hetchy Canyon in Yosemlfe National

Park, California using aerial photographs

SOURCE U S Geological Survey, 1993

data. Data collected by remote sensors, when

joined with digital terrain models, have been used

to simulate airborne approaches to airports, geologic formations, and to produce topographic

models of cities and countries around the world

(figure 2-8). Converting spatial data to threedimensional scenes or video presentations is useful because:

■ three-dimensional and video representation allow researchers to visualize more information

than with two-dimensional still images;

●

m

three-dimensional and video representation

provide a sense that the viewer is within the

landscape and moving through it;

three-dimensional and video data sets increase

the potential application of remotely sensed

data—more stimulating presentations of spatial data make the prospect of commercial use

of data more likely.

Using information in three-dimensional format

requires increased processing capacity and large

amounts of data storage. Many current users of
Chapter2 Managing Remotely Sensed Data and Information 159

three-dimensional imagery rely on advanced data. For example, the interest in “virtual reality,”

computer work stations (computers that can per- or “computer simulation of reality,” has become

form hundreds of million instructions per second, more widespread than it was several years ago, in

or MIPS). Methods of employing spatial data that part because image intensive applications have

were once regarded as frivolous have gained broad demonstrated the value of high resolution data

acceptance because of the value of visualizing display.58

Sssee ‘“me ~ird Branch of Science Debu[s,” Science, vOI. 256, Apr. ~, 1992, pp. 44-47.
NASA’s

Earth Observing

System Data

and Information

System 3

T

he National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) plans to make its Earth Observing System Data

and Information System (EOSDIS) the world’s most capable and advanced data and information system. Although some aspects of EOSDIS are unique, the program is an example of some of the capabilities and challenges common to

advanced remote sensing data and information systems of the future. EOSDIS can also be expected to have influence beyond

global change research, serving as a catalyst for advanced computing and data system technologies.1

EOSDIS OVERVIEW

As a result of concerns that humanity is having a major, detrimental influence on the global environment, in 1990 the U.S. government initiated the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(USGCRP). 2 NASA has played a major role in the USGCRP by

orienting its Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) toward the scientific objectives of the USGCRP. The centerpiece of NASA’s MTPE,

1 As one example, new tools for manipulating scientific imagery could benefit other

fields relying on databases of three-dimensional structures, such as crystallography, medical imagery, and computer-aided design.

z “The USGCRP was established as a Presidential initiative in the FY 1990 Budget to

help develop sound national and international policies related to global environmental issues, particularly global climate change.” The USGCRP seeks (() “address significant uncertainties in knowledge concerning the natural and human-induced changes now occurring in the Earth’s life-sustaining environmental envelope . . The USGCRP is designed to

produce a predictive understanding of the Earth system...” Office of Science and Technology Policy, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, Our Changing Plane/: The

FY 1993 U.S. Global Change Research Program (Washington DC: National Science

Foundation 1992), pp. 3-4.

161
62 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

as well as the USGCRP, is the Earth Observing

System (EOS). EOS consists of a space-based observing system (figure 3-1 ), a scientific research

program, and its data and information system,

EOSDIS.3

EOSDIS plays a crucial role in global change

research. EOSDIS helps transform heterogeneous

remotely sensed and other data into useful information for integrated, interdisciplinary, predictive studies of the Earth’s environment. NASA

planners expect EOSDIS to provide increasingly

effective access to data, as well as extensive data

processing and analysis, the tools needed by researchers to transform data into useful information for policy makers.

EOSDIS (figure 3-2) presents NASA with very

difficult management and technology challenges.

By the first years of the next century, NASA expects EOSDIS to manage over 80 trillion bytes of

data per year from EOS satellites alone. Other

spacecraft could contribute an additional 80 trillion bytes per year. Processed data from EOSDIS

would be well over 300 trillion bytes per year,

equaling more than 250 million 1.2 megabyte

high-density floppy disks.4 NASA faces the

daunting challenge of making this enormous

quantity of data easily usable for a wide variety of

users, including 10,000 physical scientists and

possibly as many as 200,000 other users, many

with little detailed technical knowledge of remote

sensing. 5 Fu rt hermore, these data USHS and ‘heir

needs will change, as will the data system technologies used in the program.b

In addition, EOSDIS will administer the scheduling of observations, the calibration of EOS

instruments, and the control of EOS spacecraft. To

be successful, EOSDIS must effectively incorporate data from a wide range of sources: the EOS

satellites, all other NASA Earth remote sensing

missions, data from non-NASA space systems,

and essential data from atmosphere-, ocean-, and

land-based sensors.

NASA has strongly supported the EOSDIS

portion of the Mission to Planet Earth since initial

planning in the early 1980s. NASA officials believe interdisciplinary global change research demands much more from data systems than the

traditional discipline-specific missions of the

past. Data management from scientific spacecraft

has sometimes suffered inadequate planning and

budget neglect. Data systems in NASA programs

generally have lower external visibility than accompanying space hardware, and problems in

spacecraft and instrument development sometimes have depleted the nonspace portions of program funding. Figure 3-3 shows that most NASA

Earth science funding in the 1980s was allocated

to spacecraft development. In the 1990s, mission

operations and data systems are a much larger proportion of NASA’s Earth science budget.

NASA plans to devote more EOS funding to

the nonspace segments of the program than to the

3 See U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, The Future ofRemote Sensin~fiom Space: Ci\’i/ian Satellite Systems and Applicarions. OTA-ISC-558 (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993) ch. 5.

4 In contrast, in ] 990 the amount Of data archived from all NASA missions to date was about 8 trillion bytes, about 2.7% Of what is expected

each year from EOSDIS.

5 l-he m{)st recent estimates from Hughes predict 7, ZOO to 16,000 EOSD1!$ users by 1998, excluding social scientists, I ibraries, and students.

Adding these categories brings the estimated number of users to 76,000 to 200,000 (including a possible 174,00Q students). In contrast, today’s

major supercornputer centers normally serve between 1,000 and 3,000 users. NASA and Hughes currently expect up to 1,000,000 EOSDIS user

requests annually. NASA, EOSDIS: EOSDara andlnformarion System (Washington DC 1992), p. 25, and Pitt Theme, “Denmgraphics,” EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13- I 4, 1993, Landover, MD.

6 Recent exFfience with Europe’s ERS- I satellite underlines the importance of data systems in the success of research nlisslons involving

remote sensing. Although ERS is a single satellite with much smaller data flows than those planned for EOS, ESA has had difficulty processing

some of the detailed data researchers need. “ERS- 1 Gives Europeans New Views of Oceans,” Science, vol. 260, June 18, 1993, pp. 1742- 1743;

see also ch. 5.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 63

I a

g

m )

$4

i

IT

P

J

\

F “

-.

g

0

N

. . . . .

(

. . . .-< +.,

., (

● . --- . .a vJy\

~ &u \

.- a- ~ .-. .

‘ ---::-.. ---

u) : “3 ,1

.-. +---- /

------ -- :::.. ./

-----

-: -.. . 0 ---- :.,. $

(n a

$ &z) ..--- ”--

-&+ . . . . . . . . .

24 . . . . . . . . .

3 -...- aIx

7

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

. . . -nmm =

m ,

----- c %= 1

..- ~. &

E-’-&g- -----

6 (n

, . : {

,: j: : . . . . . . . . , .

u) . . E ‘- 

‘“

8 ‘- ““ ‘“ .
64 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

/’

m+

-J

EOS Data

and Operations

System (EDOS)

Al

‘and’ + - -

Complex

Non-EOS Nasa

Satellites and

Research Proiects u

Commands

&

Data I

I

Distributed Active

~~

Archive Centers (DAACS)

ml Instrument

Control

Facilities

(ICFS) 3

Quality

Control

Science

Computing

Facilities 7 (C)C SCFS)

International

Partner

Operations

Centers

(IPOCS)

Product Data Archive

Generation and

System Distribution

(PGS) System

(DADS)

EOS

Operations

Center

(EOC)

System

Management

Center

(sMC)

l—

Information Management

System (lMS) L I

?

I Instrumd

support

Terminals

(ISTS) I

+. EOSDIS External Networks

!“+ PGS DACN II User

~ Science 1111 I OTHER 1111

- .-

.

0

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admmistration, 1994
Chapter3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System 165

800

m

600

m

z=

%

: 400

c

,—o

=

s Space hardware Mission operations and data systems

1

1981 1982 1983 1984 19851986 1987 1988 19891990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19961997 1998 19992000

SOURCE National Aeronatics and Space Administration, 1994

space segments, a major departure from previous

space missions (figure 3-4). In the 1990s, about 30

percent of EOS funding will support EOSDIS,

totaling about $2.37 billion.7 NASA expects this

massive government investment in EOSDIS to

maximize its return on investments in space-based

remote sensing hardware.

The previous chapter noted problems data users

currently face navigating data archives. If EOSDIS is successful, researchers will spend much

less time acquiring data, and will have easy and

quick access to vastly increased amounts of data,

allowing more time to transform these data into

information.

Some other problems in the use of Earth observation data stem from the isolation of research

disciplines. Research communities and individual

researchers have highly individual views of how

data should be organized and used. Disciplinary

researchers also approach their research differently, using widely disparate nomenclature and

methodologies, sometimes making communication across disciplines difficult. Some researchers

claim Earth remote sensing data sometimes suffers from inadequate peer review of production algorithms, scientific quality control, and assessment. If EOSDIS is successful, it will help bridge

the gaps among these diverse environmental re7 At a projected 10,000 scientific users, EOSDIS funding in the 1990s would be an expenditure of $240,000 per research user. NASA Modeling, Data, and Information Systems Program Office, February 1993, and NASA Budget Estimates, FY 1993 and FY 1994.
66 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

EOS hardware development

a + Earth probes

0 ? I I

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

search communities, increasing interaction among

disciplines and stimulating new research questions.g

Thus, the success of EOSDIS will be critical to

the overall success of the Mission to Planet Earth

and the USGCRP (box 3-l).

\ Incremental and Evolutionary Design

NASA states it has adopted an “incremental and

evolutionary” approach to the development of

EOSDIS. Because science and data requirements

for studies of the Earth system will change as

knowledge and experience grow, while computer

technology develops extremely rapidly, EOSDIS

must be capable of evolving.

NASA’s approach to EOSDIS is a marked deviation from the typical data system development in

which scientists and engineers perform a detailed

“requirements analysis” for the system, followed

by a comprehensive system design and development. Instead, by using an “open” architecture,

NASA plans to reduce system costs and increase

performance by delaying acquisitions of system

components to take advantage of technology

growth. This approach should also allow system

users to play a role in each new increment of EOSDIS, a “learn-as-you-go” approach. NASA hopes

to avoid costly system modifications that would

follow delivery of a “monolithic” data system.9

However, traditional government policies for

budgeting, procurement, and contracting are all

challenged by the trends of rapid increase in performance and decrease in cost of information

technologies and rapidly changing user expecta8 For further information on the possible impacts of information technology on scientific research, see National Research Council, National

Collaboratories: Applying Information Technology for Scientific Research (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1993).

9 Futher explanation of this development on on the possible impacts of information oach can be found in Taylor, Ramapnyan, & Dozier, “The Development Of tie Eos Data and

Information System,” paper presented at 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno Nevada, January 1991, p. 2.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 67

Criteria to measure long-term success in EOSDIS are not quantifiable, However, NASA management

Will consider EOSDIS a “success” to the extent it meets the following descriptive criteria

1 Maximization of number of users and ‘(intensity” of use of Earth science data.

2 Continuous Improvement in data access and services,

3 User satisfaction expressed in endorsements, political support, integration of EOSDIS into research plans,

4

5

6

7

8

9

and willingness to use and contribute to the system.

Research results Increasingly robust to invalidtion by previous results or overlooked data

Users able to acquire the observations they request.

Voluntary provision of researchers’ datasets for archiving and use by others,

Decrease In lag time from data Ingest to published research results.

Decrease in proportion of researcher time spent handling data vs. analyzing them

Increased use of EOSDIS data in wide ranging applications.

SOURCE NASA Modeling and Data Information Systems Program Management breif to OTA, Feb. 11, 1993

I

tions. The EOSDIS evolutionary design will re- Until recently, these DAACS functioned as relquire steady, continuous funding, extremely

close cooperation between NASA and the system contractors, and rapid procurement.

| Distributed Architecture

NASA states it has implemented a “distributed architecture” for EOSDIS, rather than central processing for all Earth observing data. Because expertise in various Earth science disciplines is

geographically distributed across the country,

NASA has chosen eight of the existing disciplinespecific data centers as “Distributed Active Archive Centers” (DAACS); they will serve as geographically distributed “nodes” of the EOSDIS

system (figure 3-5). ]0

atively independent data centers requiring users to

contact each one individually in order to view data

stored there. Each center set its own policies and

methods for distributing data. By contrast, when

EOSDIS is fully operational, users at any DAAC

site will have complete access to all data sets anywhere in EOSDIS, regardless of physical location.

Box 3-2 discusses DAAC system architecture.

A truly distributed system approach reduces

the problems associated with failures at a central

or controlling site. NASA expects the specialization and competition inherent in a distributed architecture to result in much better overall service

to the EOSDIS user community, and avoid problems inherent in centralized, “bureaucratic control” of the system. ] 1

I ~ E~sD]s is wor~lng C] OSe]y with [he NOAA data centers, both tc~ broaden access to NOAA data through EOSDIS, ~d to acquire ~~peratlmal, rea]-time or near-real-time data required for some EOSDIS data products. The special agreements between NASA and NOAA designate

the NOAA data centers as ‘“Affiliated Data Centers” in EOSDIS. Affiliated Data Centers are not as closely linked to EOSDIS development as the

DAACS and dt) not receive funding from NASA. However, officials of both NASA and NOAA expect to be able to access data easily from each

other’s systems.

I I An early description of the rationale behind distributed architecture can be found in Dozier and Ramapnyan, “Plmning for the EOS Data

and [nfom~ati(m System (EOSDIS ),” 1990.
68 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

EDC ‘—

Land processes

imagery 1

applications

4(

/ I GSFC

Upper atmosphere,

atmospheric dynamics,

global biosphere, and

geophysics

JPL

Ocean circulation and LaRC

air-sea interaction Radiation budget,

aerosols, and

tropospheric chemistry

~

ASF

Sea ice and polar

processes imagery

.

,d’

,. -**

ORNL

Ground-based

data relating

to biogeochemical

dynamics

CIESIN

Socioeconomic n

ASF = Alaska Synthetic Aperture Radar Facility, CIESIN = Consortuim for International Earth Science Information Network; EDC = Earth Resources

Observation Systems Data Center, GSFC = Goddard Space Flight Center, JPL = Jet Propulsion Laboratory; LaRC = Langley Research Center:

MSFC = Marshall Space Flight Center, NSIDC = National Snow and Ice Data Center, ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

SOURCE National Aeronauhcs and Space Administration, 1993

Technical requirements call for a distributed

system as well, as NASA expects the computational power required to produce high-level EOSDIS data products to be immense. No single system could provide this performance. Instead,

EOSDIS requires multiple systems, each with different characteristics. Also, the sheer number of

expected users projected for EOSDIS would present a formidable service task if all users were using one site or had to interact with EOSDIS

through a single site or system.

I EOSDIS Status

EOSDIS implementation includes three comprehensive contracts with information systems

firms:

● The EOSDIS Core System (ECS) provides

command and control of EOS spacecraft, science data processing, data archive and distribution, and communications, networking, and

systems management. NASA selected Hughes

Applied Information Systems as prime con-
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 69

Three systems Will operate at each DAAC

1)

2)

3)

Product Generation System (PGS); the Product Generation System at each DAAC WIII convert raw data

signals into standard sets of Earth science data, using data processing software developed by the scien -

tific user community

Data Archiva/and Distribution System (DADS); the Data Archival and Dlstribution System at each DAAC

wiII serve as the archive and dlstribution mechanism for EOS and interdiscplinary data products, as well

as essential ancillary data such as radiometric and geometric calibrtions, metadata, command history,

algorithms documentation, and correlative data from EOS and non-EOS Sensors

information Management System (/MS) The Information Management System IS the user Interface for

EOSDIS The IMS at each DAAC will give users access to all data throughout EOSDIS, as well as help in

locating and ordering data, through convenient, easy user Interfaces for both novices and experts The

IMS will use simple search critera such as instrument name, product name, time of collection, and spatial

location, as well as cross-instrument and cross-disciplinary searches

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration , 1993

1 J

tractor on September 29, 1992; contract negotiations were completed March 30, 1993. The

combined cost and fee has been set at $766 million for the contract period 1993 through

2003.12

The EOS Data and Operations System

(EDOS) will capture data from EOS spacecraft, provide systematic corrections processing, distribute preprocessed data to the

DAACS, and archive these data. NASA has selected TRW for this contract; cost and fee are

under negotiation.

The Independent Validation & Verification

(IV&V) contract will provide for the testing

and verification of the performance and capabilities of all elements of the EOS ground system and their integration with the EOS flight

system. This contract will also provide for "ac -

ceptance testing” of all EOSDIS contractor deliveries. NASA has selected Intermetrics Corp.

for this contract, at a cost and fee of $64 million.

NASA and the EOSDIS contractors will build

EOSDIS in a series of versions. The first is Version O, which is providing interoperability

among the 8 DAACS and connections with other Earth science data systems. NASA expects

Version O to be fully operational as an integrated “virtual” system in July 1994 (box 3-3).

The strategy and schedule for delivering subsequent EOSDIS “versions” is undergoing major revision, because NASA and Hughes are reevaluating

overal1 planning for EOSDIS .As a result of advice

from the EOS Investigators Working Group in October 1993, and the National Academy of Sciences

report of January 1994,13 NASA and Hughes have

bids were much lower and rejected as unrealistic estimates. Subcontractors to Hughes are : Electronic Data Systems (new technology evaluation), Loral AeroSys (flight operations Applied Research Corp. (algorithm tookits) the Center f{~r Space and Advanced Techm)logy (research ), and NYMA (independent verification I iaistm).

Is ~a[lona] ReSearCh council, space s[u~les Board, Panel lo Re\’lew EOSDIS flan.~, F“imd Re/xm (Washingt(m, w: National Acadenly

Press, 1994).
70 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Version O is a working prototype of EOSDIS with some operational elements. However, Version O will

not have all the functions, reliability, and performance of subsequent versions. Planning and preliminary

design of Version O began in the summer of 1990, and development of Version O as an integrated system began in January 1991,

NASA has focused the bulk of Version O prototyping on achieving system interoperability among the

DAACS, NASA’s philosophy for Version O is to allow individual DAAC systems to develop at their own

rate, and focus on providing interconnections among those systems, Version O is improving user access to the DAACS by providing an overall view of the data available from the various DAAC systems,

establishing common systemwide services, e.g., user assistance and support, problem resolution, and

request and tracking statistics, and providing a single point from which any user can search and order

data

■

●

■

■

■

■

●

■

from any archive. 1

NASA Climate Data System

NASA Ocean Data System

Cryospheric Data Management System

Alaska Synthetic Aperture Radar Facility

Global Land Information System

NASA Pilot Land Data System

NASA Crystal Dynamics Data Information System

Trace Gas Dynamics Data Information System

NASA and the EOSDIS contractors plan to transfer knowledge and experience from Version O into

subsequent Versions of EOSDIS However, Version O IS not a true working prototype of EOSDIS in many

respects. Version O is a relatwely small effort, compared to subsequent versions of EOSDIS, Thus, Version O projects cannot address some of the technically critical areas of EOSDIS, nor IS the effort substantial enough to allow users to assess some important EOSDIS functions. Nonetheless, the Version O

effort has already successfully achieved user involvement, Interoperablllty among heterogeneous and

distributed data systems, and a cooperative development environment that enables NASA to use DAAC

expertise and data system experience,

‘ Such mteroperabllty E Ilkely to be an expenswe task, since computer and network systems are mcreasmgly complex, usually

requmng specialists to enable appltcahons to operate properly

SOURCE Officeof Technology Assessment, 1994, and Judy Feldman, “Bulld[ngonVerslon O’, EOSDIS Progress Rewew, Dec 13-14,

1993, Landover, MD,

Implemented a major shift in orientation, focusing of the details and results of this reorientation are

on responsiveness to user needs and a more open, not yet clear, but the reaction from the Earth scidistributed, and evolutionary architecture. Many ence community is generally positive. 14

IA~e fomr pIm was for version I to provide a fully functioning science data processing segment of EOSDIS (processing, archiving, and

distribution). This Version would be much more capable than Version O, appearing completely integrated to users. NASA and Hughes planned

its initial release for 1995, with a fully operational system in 1997.

Version 2 would have provided for full EOSDIS data system capacity and flight operations for the EOS-AM spacecraft launch in 1998. It

would have been followed by Version 3, which would have supported data collection and operation of other EOS flights, in 2001.

Instead, Hughes plans 8 releases of the ECS, through 4 overlapping release cycles, beginning with the first full releases in September 1996.

Hughes expects this “dual track” approach to improve incorporation of operational feedback as well as feedback from incremental development activities. “Release Schedules”, John Gainsborough, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-14, 1993, Landover, MD.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 71

| Impact of EOS Restructuring

The overall EOS program has undergone major

restructuring since its initial congressional approval in 1990, resulting in significant reductions

in scope and capabilities. In the summer of 1991,

the EOS External Engineering Review Committee, organized at the request of the Office of Management and Budget and the National Space

Council, restructured the EOS program. The result was a smaller more focused program of about

$11 billion through fiscal year 2000 (down from

the previous $17 billion estimate). The External

Engineering Review Committee focused on distributing EOS instruments, and the reduced EOS

instrument requirements, onto a larger number of

smaller spacecraft to provide increased budgetary

and technical resilience. The Restructuring Committee did not examine EOSDIS, but the delay in

deploying some EOS instruments allowed EOSDIS to be smaller than originally planned, with a

reduced budget.

15 

NASA Stated it made this adjustment in EOSDIS without altering the basic architecture or the evolutionary design of EOSDIS. ]6

In the fall of 1992, the restructured EOS program was further reduced by an internal NASA review to fit within an $8 billion budget envelope

through fiscal year 2000. Again, NASA reduced

the overall EOSDIS budget roughly commensurate to the overall program reduction. NASA reduced the planned suite of data products available

at launch of EOS-AM 1 from 600 to approximately 160 data products. IT Other changes included

deferring the migration of existing data sets into

Version O in cases where the data are already available through an existing operational system, deletion of the HIRIS science computing facility, and a

major reduction in program reserves. ] 8

As a result of these changes, EOSDIS is smaller

than originally envisioned and program resources

are substantially reduced. However, resilience in

meeting future challenges has also been reduced,

although many goals regarding data delivery remain unchanged. EOSDIS remains complex and

demanding, raising a number of technical and programmatic challenges, discussed below.

EOSDIS TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES

EOSDIS will be only as capable as the information systems technology on which it relies. Overall data rates and volumes will be unprecedented.

EOS instruments will require very precise calibration, and data will require extensive validation to

be useful. The DAACS will need to reprocess previously acquired data periodically, to accommodate

updated processing algorithms. EOSDIS will

have many simultaneous users, many of whom

will require access to interactive databases. Data

analysis and visualization 19 will be highly sophisticated and complex. Although EOSDIS faces

these and other technical challenges, there appear to be no technical obstacles to an operational EOSDIS that NASA could not overcome

with sufficient funding and infrastructure. In

15 The EOSDIS estlnlated budget dr{JpPd frt)nl $3.900 billi(m to $2.141 billi(m, a change of 45~0 compared tf~ an overall EOS pr(~gmm

budget change of 3 I %. U.S. C(mgrcss, General Accounting Office, NASA: Changes to the Scope, Schedule, and Estimated Cosl of the Earth

Obser]~ng System, NSIAD-92-223 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, July 1992), p. 18.

t h 16 Nationa e l Earth observing SYstem* Mar. 9, 1992v P.

I 3.

I T NASA Eaflh Science and Applicati(ms Division, “Earth Observing System (EOS) Status,” briefing to OTA, Washington DC, Nov. 6,

1992.

18 National Aeronautics and Space Administrati(m, “Adapting the Earth Observing System (o the Projected $8 Billion Budget: Recommendations from the EOS Investigators,” Washington DC, Oct{)ber 1992, p. 39. The H(mse Science, Space, and Technology Committee Report to

accompany the NASA FY 1994 and FY 1995 Authorizati(m Bill, Report 103-123, notes EOSDIS reserves were cut by S550 milli{~n, or 60 percent, in the rescoping (p. 46).

19 Uslng computer-generated Plc[ures t. represent data instead of a list of numbers, and viewing tinle sequences to track tem~)ml change.
72 I RemotelySensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

other words, data processing and communication

capacity and speeds have evolved to the point that

a system approximating an EOSDIS in some respects, but with less capability, could conceivably

be built with existing hardware. Developing a

highly capable EOSDIS, however, will present a

challenge to NASA.

Simply “keeping up with” rapidly advancing

technology will bean important challenge. Rapid

new technology insertion will be essential for the

system to retain its value to researchers. If users

have independent access to data processing systems significantly more advanced than EOSDIS,

many researchers would eventually use EOSDIS

simply to download data into their own computing systems. This would defeat one of the primary

goals of EOSDIS—interoperability among a variety of researchers and disciplines. On the other

hand, reliance on emerging technologies that are

not field proven would threaten system operability if they were to fail in full-scale implementation.

~ Data Storage and Access Technology

The data storage systems for EOSDIS will be extremely demanding. The archives will last for at

least the lifetime of the EOS satellites,20 and will

be interactive with users, in contrast to the more

traditional (and simpler) view of archives as a repository in which to store data for occasional

use.

21 In short, as a result of the high demands for

data storage that will be placed on EOSDIS, performance and cost of storage media may need to

be much improved over current technology.22

Data mass storage costs are falling rapidly, but

they remain a major expense for a system like

EOSDIS. Most industry experts expect no breakthroughs in the cost of data storage in the next several years, although the development of optical

storage systems should continue to bring storage

costs down. Perhaps what is more important is

that storage and access performance is not improving as rapidly as storage capacity. Searching

the vast Earth science datasets for specific features

will require major improvements in the ability to

access specific data sets.

The advanced mass storage systems attempted

in recent years have experienced serious problems.23 Since the EOSDIS program philosophy is

to procure hardware as late as possible to take advantage of falling cost and improved performance, EOSDIS may rely on advanced mass storage systems that have not yet proven commercially

reliable. Maintaining a flexible system development strategy to accommodate rapid technological change successfully will be important.

NASA has not decided how much and which

kinds of EOSDIS data will be directly available

online to users but expects to use a hierarchy of

data storage, in which small, often-used data sets

are rapidly accessible, and very large datasets that

are rarely used are stored offline. EOSDIS offline

archives will be vast, and standards and media

considerations (tape, cartridge, optical storage

technologies) for offline archives should not be

overlooked. The offline media will need to be easily serviced, and have reliable backups. Technology advancements and funds to archive and service

Zo NASA EOSDIS P]mning currently extends only through the 15-year EOS mission lifetime.

z] Seveml Wh ~ience &~5y5tems are already improving on this model. Forexarnple, the EROS Data Center, operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and included in EOSDIS as a DAAC, operates a large active archive for Landsat and AVHRR data, featuring online search. Some

smaller data sets at NASA centers, such as the Coastal Zone Color Scanner System and the NASA Climate Data System, also allow these capabilities.

22 me EOSDIS pro~ct mmagement team at Goddard Space Flight Center has estimated that a roughly thousand-fold increase in NASA

Earth science data volume will occur during the 1990s. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Presentation to the EOSDIS Team on

Ground Infrastructure Interfaces, Formats, and Directions,” paper presented at IPD/EOSDIS seminar, Mar. 12, 1992.

23 U.S. Congress, General Accounting GftIce, Space Data: NASA’s Future Data Volumes Create Formidable Challenges, IMTEC-91 -24

(Gaithersburg , MD: General Accounting Office, April 1991).
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 73

The EOSDIS network system consists of four networks:

1,

2

3.

4,

Ecom (dedicated network providing real-time, high reliability and secure communications between

ground and spacecraft)

ECS Internal Network (dedicated EOSDIS network providing communication among EOS Principal lnvestigators, DAACS, and the External Network)

External Network (NASA Science Internet) (shared network providing communications among EOSDIS

and users who are not Principal Investigators, including CIESIN and the Affiliated Data Centers)

Version O Network (dedicated network for prototyping)

Although more demanding than previous Earth remote sensing satellite communication systems,

NASA does not expect serious difficulty implementing the Ecom network. NASA expects more challenges Implementing the EOSDIS Internal Network, but the “External Network, ” which will essentially

connect EOSDIS with the outside world beyond NASA, will offer the most difficult technical obstacles

The External Network, using the services of NASA’s Science Internet (coordinated by Ames Research Center), supports several protocols and is interoperable with the NSF Internet, This network con-

.sIsts of T1 transmission lines (1.5 million bits per second (Mbps)) connecting 27 regional networks and

over 100 lower capacity circuits to research sites (although the tail circuits have much lower bandwidths) The NASA Science Internet reaches approximately 2500 end users. In 1994, NASA plans to

upgrade the NASA Science Internet to T3 technology (45 Mbps). Eventually, NASA expects half of the

NASA Science Internet (NSI) users to be EOSDIS users,

NASA planned to employ the UNIX operating system, HDF format, and the communications-related

standards of the Consultive Committee on Standard Data Services where appropriate. However, a

more “open” system is now planned,

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Adminiarration, 1994

the tremendous amounts of EOSDIS data, often determined by network capacity. Fortunately, netoverlooked in the past, maybe critical to EOSDIS

long-term success. Recent surveys show substantial increases in estimates of EOSDIS processing

and storage/distribution requirements.24

| Data Communication

Networks perform the crucial tasks of linking researchers to EOSDIS and integrating the EOSDIS

user community through cooperative research

(box 3-4). The mode of delivery of data to EOSDIS researchers and the uses of the system will be

work performance continues to increase as system

costs decrease.

EOSDIS users are likely to request increasingly greater online access to increasing volumes of

data. NASA has designed EOSDIS to deliver

large data sets through EOSDIS networks, in contrast to routine data delivery through physical media (tapes, CD-ROMs, optical disks, etc.).25 Current input/output and networking technologies

cannot support this increased on-line data demand, nor the expected data rates required for

24“CostiPerfonmmce,” Joe Guzek, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-14, 1993, Landover, MD.

25 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Adapting the Earth Observing System to the Projected $8 Billion Budget: Recommen

dations from the EOS Investigators,’$ Washington DC, October 1992, p. 9. On the other hand, if a researcher acquires a large datasct through a

network, he or she still must store it on a physical medium.
74 | Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

browsing and visualization of EOSDIS data. Very

high data rate workstation network interfaces also

will be required for doing research using EOSDIS.

26

External EOSDIS users will vary greatly in

their sophistication; most will connect to EOSDIS

through the future equivalent of today’s personal

computer and modem. NASA does not plan to

provide a level of service to the larger global

change community and other users equal to that

available to NASA Investigators. However,

NASA plans to provide the maximum of services

to users who do not possess highly sophisticated

workstations. This will place a considerable burden on EOSDIS design. Because providing the

maximum benefit from the public investment

in EOSDIS may require broad access, Congress may wish to examine the potential of providing EOSDIS services to a broad community

of users. On the other hand, it is not feasible for

EOSDIS to provide full service capabilities to

casual users.

The National Research and Education Network

(NREN) is currently of great value to the EOSDIS

program in distributing data widely. However,

NREN must be an operational system to be of use

for EOSDIS; development of NREN is in the early

stages, and the question of its status as an operational system has not been decided. It is also undecided whether NREN will be free for researchers,

or if the system will require tariffs similar to the

national telephone system (the EOSDIS program

has not budgeted the funds to pay for NREN service for Earth science researchers). Finally, access

to NREN would need to be widely distributed,

serving the broader academic community outside

the networks operated by the National Science

Foundation, the Department of Energy, and

NASA. It is unclear whether NREN will achieve

such extensive distribution. For these reasons,

EOSDIS planners are avoiding dependence on

NREN.

DATA MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY

(ORGANIZATION AND ACCESS)

Advanced techniques for indexing data for storage

and access must be developed by NASA, the

EOSDIS contractors, and the computer industry.

Current relational data management technology,

developed for use in commercial applications, is

improving significantly in performance, and is accommodating some new types of data. However,

relational databases have difficulty accommodating searches of spatial data sets and many other

data processing and display requirements of EOSDIS. Relational data management software is

most appropriate for manipulating small records

of highly similar text or numeric data. Earth science data records are enormous, temporal, highly

varied, and contain many more dimensions (time,

latitude, longitude, spectral value, etc.) than most

data records. Current commercial relational database systems and data processing software cannot

efficiently work with these diverse types of data

(e.g., point, vector, raster, text) .27 Version O (box

3-3) focuses on satellite data, but EOSDIS must

incorporate non-satellite datasets28 and their special requirements, complicating data management.

The interdisciplinary nature of global change

research requires the capability to view the same

data in different ways. It also requires common,

and broader, access of data among different disciplines. In order to give data maximum utility, the

EOSDIS program may have to support basic re26 Note that access to EOSDIS capabilities will be quite limited without advanced equipment. For example, at present, using a typical 9,600

baud rmdem, a single typical browse image of approximately 1.4 Mbytes would require approximately an hour to transmit.

27 See ch. 2 for a discussion of different data types.

28 Data acquired for ground-based facilities and from aircraft provide essential calibration for satellite data, and provide much essential data

impassible to acquire from orbit. See U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, OTA-l SC-538, The Furure of Remote .Yen.ring from

Space: Ci}i/Mn Satellife Sys/ems and App/ica(ions (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993), ch.5 and app. B.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 75

search into data management software tailored to

scientific needs.

| Data Processing, Analysis, and

Assimilation Technology Issues

Much data acquired by satellite instruments go

unused as a result of the time needed to process

them on conventional computers, particularly to

compute images. The tasks of visualization and

assimilation of EOSDIS data into climate models

are critical steps in the transformation of data into

inform at ion.

The algorithms used by scientists to transform

digital remote sensing data into information will

undergo revision as knowledge grows. Because

changes in processing algorithms could leave

small errors larger than any change in the

global environment, rapid reprocessing of

years of older data must be possible to maintain a continuous record of comparable data

for research use. Given the high spectral and spatial resolution of EOS instruments, and massive

data volumes, this will be a formidable, continuous task.29 Updated algorithms, which can have

more than a million lines of code, must be transferred from the scientists to the DAAC Product

Generation System for execution. Transporting

and integrating these complex algorithms to generate “bug-free” products is a serious technical

challenge.

Effective visualization technology will be an

important challenge for the program, requiring

significant advances in data processing technologies (e. g.. researchers can be expected to eventually use virtual reality to enter into a dynamic

model ).30

EOSDIS will generate higher level data sets b y

assimilating applicable observations into globa l

climate and other models, which then will gener -

20 I bid..

p. 38.

ate new data sets based on these models. Thes e

data sets will need to be of much higher qualit y

than those currently produced for numerica l

weather prediction, and will be much more com -

plex, since they will require assimilation of man y

more types of data (including non-EOS space -

craft; measurements from the ground, ocean, an d

air; and non-U. S. data sources). The computation -

al requirements to produce these datasets wil l

eventual] y

go

 far beyond current practice in Eart h

science. Mass storage, network bandwidth, an d

processing power of computers will need to b e

greatly expanded for use of EOS data in futur e

global climate models.31

EOSDIS will produce assimilated data sets o n

computers distributed geographically, which i n

some cases will use different system architectures .

Computer languages and other technologies to al -

low these high-level analyses on massively paral -

lel computer architectures are not yet well-devel -

oped. Standards are only just emerging i n

distributed systems management .

Computer processing power and network per -

formance are increasing rapidly, while costs ar e

decreasing. However, based on experience wit h

other spacecraft projects, scientists typically un -

derestimate the computer resources required t o

process their algorithms. This is considered th e

top risk in the entire EOSDIS Product Generatio n

System, according to a recent risk assessment .

3 2

Although EOSDIS processing requirements ap -

pear great now, they could very well become sev -

eral times greater when the system is actually im -

plemented. Box 3-5 provides a summary o f

technical challenges in EOSDIS.

EOSDIS PROGRAM CHALLENGE S

Overcoming technical obstacles will be importan t

to the success of EOSDIS, but managerial, instiw ]n lhls ~llanncr, the ~clentlst can v irlua]ly “’bect~me” a particle flowing through the model.

~ I Miilor rcan:l]lsls Progranls arenow

 beginning at several da[a centers, including G(~dard.

32 Conlputer Sciences Corp.. Earth Obser\’ing System Data and lnjimnotion System (EOSD1.7) Product Generation SYs[enr (PGS) Ris k

Ana/\\I{ and ,%!t[[~[f[[[m S[ra[ccq[cs (February 1993), p. 47 .
76 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Data Storage

Demands on storage media performance and reliability WiII be tremendous m EOSDIS, and data

storage system throughput is not keeping pace with improvements processing or communications.

Commercial data storage performance may not be successfully adaptable to EOSDIS needs Data storage currently appears to be a “weak link” m EOSDIS.

Data Communications

Demand for online access to larger amounts of data IS increasing, as is the numbers of users, user

sosphistication, interagency and inteernational cooperation, data system distribution, and scientific cooperate work through networks. EOSDIS will not succeed If bandwidth and access are limited

Data Management

Effectively searching for data in EOSDIS could be difficult as a result of the quantity and variety of

data in the systems Efficiently classifying vast amounts and varieties of data wilI be challenging, requiring new models of data management that are not yet well developed.

Data Processing, Analysis, and Assimilation

Processing demands wiII be much greater in EOSDIS than any previous system Software for use on

parallel and distributed systems IS difficult to write, and visualization technology iS not well developed

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

tutional, and cultural challenges may be even

greater.

I The Role of EOSDIS in GCDIS

The Global Change Data and Information System

(GCDIS) is meant to allow routine access to all

U.S. global change data (box 3-6). Some have

called for a stronger NASA role in GCDIS. The

National Research Council’s Panel to Review

EOSDIS Plans, in its April 1992 Interim Reporf

and its September 1992 letter report, expresses

concerns that EOSDIS may become a program

● ’oriented solely to EOS,” rather than an integral

part of the GCDIS.33 The NRC Panel believes

NASA has the responsibility for “establishing

firm and specific plans and budgets for the development and operation of the GCDIS, in conjunction with other agencies’’ 34. Thus, the panel desires a national directive to give NASA the lead

agency role in the GCDIS, thereby transforming

EOSDIS into a prototype for the GCDIS. The

House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology largely agrees:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in coordination with other agencies

that belong to the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, shall establish the requirements and architecture for, design, and develop

a Global Change Data and Information System

that shall serve as the system to process, archive,

and distribute data generated by the Global

Change Research Program.35

~~ ..N~[lt)n~] RC~e~rCh ct)Uncl] Pane] t. ReV@ EOsl>IS Plans: Interim Rep)fi,” Awl] 1992! P. I I.

‘~ [bid., p, 2.

M u s ct)nve~s, HOU~e C[)mmlttee on Science, space, and Tectm)lt)gy, Nationa/ Aeronautics and Space Adn?inislration At~~~~ori@i~n . .

Act, FMca/ }’ears /994 and /995, H.R. 2200, June 1993, %c. 109.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 77

The GCDIS, as conceived by the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global

Change (IWGDMGC), would provide a single data system for the various federal agencies involved in

global change research GCDIS would use a combination of indivdual agency data system assets and

a shared Infrastructure to become the primary mechanism for the exchange of data and information

among USGCRP participants. GCDIS would include processes for Identifying and generating key interagency global change data sets, coordination of data submission procedures for GCDIS centers, standard methods for decribing and documenting data, a common set of archive responsibilities, and uniform order validation, tracking, and billing among agencies Proponents expect GCDIS WIII make data

search and access among the various agency data sets much simpler and more effective

Interagency cooperation in GCDIS iS currently a collection of extensive, but voluntary, indivdual

agency efforts coordinated under the CEES IWGDMGC, GCDIS commonality and Interoperabilty would

be made by the agencies in concert. The GCDIS does not have a separately funded budget, but resource requirements for focused program activities are included in USGCRP planning. For GCDIS to be

successful, the effort will need to avoid becoming merely a “collector” of individual agency data and

Information system plans Ensuring interoperabillty among the data systems of the USGCRP agencies,

agreeing on standards for data among agencies so that researchers can easily exchange data, and

maintaing high levels of data service among the several agencies will be the most difficult and important issues for GCDIS to resolve

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

NASA has agreed to seek funding to develop

the techniques to allow interoperability among

agency systems, thus “enabling and not precluding” extension of EOSDIS. All agencies, however, would require substantial additional funding

for GCDIS to be implemented as envisioned.

The objectives of the EOSDIS program are already challenging, and NASA’s responsibilities

for GCDIS are an additional complexity in the

program. However, because NASA is already

performing many of the necessary tasks for

GCDIS in its EOSDIS program, giving the

agency responsibility for GCDIS would be a

more efficient use of public funds than assigning GCDIS to another agency. Attempting to

add GCDIS requirements to EOSDIS after the

latter is built would prove far more costly than

planning for them as it is developed.

| Alternative Definitions for DAACS?

NOAA data will be critical for global change research. NOAA is already responsible for collecting and distributing operational and research data

for monitoring and predicting the behavior of the

atmosphere and oceans. NOAA data centers contain the majority of U.S. Earth remote sensing and

in situ environmental data, and NOAA makes

these data continuously available for its operational data systems. The National Research Council panel convened to review EOSDIS plans recommended including NOAA data centers as full

DAACS (they are currently “Affiliated Data Cen -

ters’’).36 However, NOAA officials believe the

cost of setting up DAAC, as currently defined, is

more than NOAA can afford. Making NOAA data

centers, as well as other essential sources of Earth

science data, interoperable with EOSDIS should
78 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

be a priority, whether or not they are considered

DAACS.

37 The development of alternative definitions of DAACS that prevent disruption of quality

service, yet give good data access at minimum

added cost, seems essential.

| Socioeconomic Data in EOSDIS

For EOSDIS to be effective in meeting the longterm goals of the USGCRP NASA must transform

Earth remote sensing data into information useful

for nonspecialists (e.g., policy-makers, social scientists, resource managers, etc.). The system

should also make potential users aware of, and

able to use, available data and information. While

EOSDIS and other Earth science data systems

have been designed primarily to facilitate physical

science-based global change research, the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) was founded in 1989 to

assist a broader community of users of global

change information, with a focus on integrating

Earth remote sensing and other global change data

with social science data.

CIESIN defines itself as an “international, nonprofit consortium of academic, governmental,

public, and private organizations that share a

mutual goal of understanding global change.”38

Because CIESIN is not housed within any goverment agency, the organization can be more flexible than an agency and can maintain greater institutional neutrality.39 This flexibility enables

CIESIN to work closely with the several government agencies concerned with global environmental change, as well as academia, private companies, and other nongovernmental organizations,

encountering fewer bureaucratic impediments.

In its first few years, CIESIN activities focused

on assessing the needs and capabilities of users

and providers of global change information.

While assessment activities continue, CIESIN has

begun to design systems to meet those needs. CIESIN is providing “tools and expertise” for data

management, statistical analysis and modeling,

visualization and imaging, and communications

and collaboration.w

Although CIESIN intends to produce some

new socioeconomic data, and integrate a variety

of data from other sources, CIESIN’S strongest

role could be as an access point to data and information from diverse sources worldwide. The

organization would serve as a global “information

cooperative,” enabling interdisciplinary links between the natural and human sciences in global

environmental change research.

CIESIN’S Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) is one of the nine data centers in EOSDIS. As the data center responsible for

providing access and distribution of interdisciplinary science data sets relating to the human dimensions of global change, SEDAC will make

37 Becoming a DAAC nlay not me~ improved &ta services. Forexarnple, ofllcials of the important CDIAC archive (trace gas and climate

data), one of the three main climate change archives at Oak Ridge, do not want it to become a DAAC, and DOE does not want it to be part of the

Oak Ridge DAAC. The threat is a fundamental change in operations and possible compromise of current good service. ARM atmospheric radiation data also will not be included in the Oak Ridge DAAC.

38 me founding ~Jrgmizatlons of CIESIN were tie Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Michigan State University, Saginaw

Valley State University, and the University of Michigan. New York’s Polytechnic University, Utah State University, and the University of Maryland at College Park were later included in Cl ESIN. CIESIN also works closely with the University of California at Santa Barbara.

39 A]though C]ESIN receives a majority of its funding from NASA (6I.7 percent in fiscal year 1993), CIESIN ako reCelVeS substantial

project funding from DOD (1 7.2 percent), EPA (1 6.3 percent), USDA (3.1 percent), and OSTP ( 1.7 percent) (fiscal year 1993 figures). Robert

Coullahan, Director Washington Operations, CIESIN, personal communication, 1993.

~ CIESIN is also involved in many t)~er proficts outside the EOSDIS SEDAC, including software applications, data cataloging, data

policy studies, the Global Change Research lnforrnation Office (GCRIO) supporting international data exchange, partnerships with federal

agencies including the EPA, DOD, and USDA, and international data networks. CIESIN also serves as a training and education center for a

diverse audience of current and potential users, teaching users about its application technologies and information products through summer

institutes and scientific fellowships.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 79

The Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center will provide eight general categories of data to its

users. The National Research Council has repeatedly identified the first four categories as the highest

priorities of the U S research program in the human dimensions of global environmental change; they

also are the expicit categories of emphasis for data collection and model development in the USGCRP,

The fifth category serves the economics element defined in the FY93 USGCRP, The final three categories serve dlsclpllne-specific studies in the social and health sciences that relate to the human causes

and human effects of global environmental change.

1. Land Use and Land Cover—land cover describes the land surface in generalized categories, whale land use

describes the driving forces behind land cover

2 /ndustrla/Metabolism—the mass flows for key industrial materials, waste emissions, energy, and technical

forces that drive the evolution of industrial processes,

3 Agricultural Metabolisml—the effects of agriculture and changing agricultural practices.

4. Population Dynamucs—demographic data on population and attributes.

5. Economic Activity

6 Human Attitudes, Preferences, and behavior-the personal motivations, and thelr sources, among individuals.

7. Social and Political Structures and Institions—the organization of human groups and the Influences of such

organization on global environmental change

8 Human and Environmental Health—effects of global environmental change on the health of humans and the

broader environment

SOURCE Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network, 1993

physical science data available for use by social data centers. Unlike other data centers in EOS

scientists, and vice versa. It is the task of CIESIN

and SEDAC to make EOSDIS data easily available to the estimated 100,000 to 200,000 users

who are not physical scientists.

SEDAC will also serve as the designated Data

and Information System for the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Program

of the International Social Sciences Council. In

this role, SEDAC will provide international access for social scientists, and other international

users, to all of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth

data, as well as CIESIN’S socioeconomic data.

Data that serve the more particular research interests of social scientists are already collected

and archived by existing data centers, and SEDAC

will serve as an information network linking these

DIS, SEDAC will not be a massive data archive,

since most archiving of pertinent social science

data is already done elsewhere. SEDAC will,

however, archive some unique CIESIN-produced

data sets. Box 3-7 describes the categories of data

to be collected at SEDAC.

CIESIN ISSUES

CIESIN has been vigorously debated by policymakers. CIESIN detractors criticize the program

for high costs of facilities, too many programs

with insufficient focus, excessive spending for

lobbying efforts in Washington DC, inappropriate

allocations of funding, and a lack of peer review

for funding. 41 CIESIN supporters refute these

~1 As ~ ~ongrc.~lona]l)” inltlated Progranl, CIESIN funding was not included in NASA budgets until the FY 1994 request. ln=di funding

for CIESIN was inserted each year through c(mgressitmal “eam~arking” in the appropriations process.
80 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

claims or believe they have already been resolved,

and maintain CIESIN is necessary to redress the

lack of priority given to human dynamics research

in global change in the USGCRP and EOSDIS .42

Congress must decide whether CIESIN funding is justified in comparison to alternative uses of

the funding, whether CIESIN is indeed necessary

to the success of the USGCRP, and if CIESIN is

using resources appropriately. NASA plans to depend heavily on CIESIN for developing the use of

global change data beyond the scientific community. A USGCRP without CIESIN is possible;

yet, many of the functions now provided by

CIESIN would still need to be supplied by other organizations.43 On the other hand, some critics maintain that many of CIESIN’S activities duplicate services provided by other agencies, and

will not provide them as effectively as agencies

that have already provided such services for decades.

| Use of Outside Expertise in EOSDIS

Most observers agree EOSDIS would benefit

from increased involvement by data centers outside NASA and technologies developed outside

44 me adaptation of superi- the EOSDIS program.

or technologies or methods used successfully in

other systems could greatly enhance overall system capability. For example, recent demonstrations of Version O have elicited criticisms that the

system is too narrowly focused. Some data experts argue EOSDIS is being developed as a system for “satellite researchers,” while the needs of

in situ researchers are not met. Increased consultation with experts at other agencies presumably

would result in a more versatile system design.

For example, NOAA holds a majority of all

current data related to global change, and pursues

some applications likely to be required by EOSDIS. The National Center for Atmospheric Research, with amass storage system of over 36 terabytes (noted by the NRC for its effectiveness),

makes extensive use of supercomputers and large

data sets to model environmental phenomena such

as global warming and depletion of the ozone layer. The University of Wisconsin, with an archive

of about 130 terabytes, is the largest archive in the

atmospheric sciences. The University Corporation

for Atmospheric Research, sponsored by NSF, has

developed the nationwide, distributed, real-time

Unidata system to facilitate accessing, organizing, storing, analyzing, and displaying Earth science data on-line for educational uses. DOD and

the intelligence community have invested heavily

in software to transform remotely sensed data into

information for national security purposes. In response to criticisms, officials at NASA and

Hughes have promised to increase their efforts to

examine non-NASA data systems.45

Q A recent audit from NASA’S offIce Of the InsWctor General (lG) criticizes CIESIN funding and management. The IG recommends redUCing NASA funding [o space-based data support only. CIESIN supporters contend NASA is obstructing the will of Congress. Space News, June

20-26, 1994, p. 1.

43 See U.S. Congess, Offlce of Technology Assessment, OTA-BP-ISC- 122, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earth Obsen’ing $wem

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, November 1993) for a discussion of the need for policy-related data and assessment of the

effects of global change.

44 Natl[)nal Re=Wch Council, The US Global c~n~e Research Program: An Analysis of the FY1991 Pk?tS Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1990), p. 76. Also, the 1991 EOS Engineering Review Committee, which was mainly preoccupied with restructuring the EOS

space hardware implementation strategy, expressed concerns that “EOSDIS makes no provision for bringing non-NASA Global Change Research projeets or other investigative teams involved in global change researeh into the system.” Earlier in the program GAO reports also criticized EOSDIS planning for insut%cient use of existing database expertise at other federal agencies. “In designing and building its Version O

prototypes, NASA has not taken fill advantage of experience available at Earth science data and research centers other than the designated

DAACs...Previous expert panels, including an internal NASA committee as well as the National Research Council, have noted the value of this

experience base and urged NASA to make use of it.” U.S. Congress, General Accounting OffIce, Ear~h Observing System: NASA’s EOSDIS

Development Approach 1s Risky, IMTEC-92-24 (Gaithersburg, MD: General Accounting Office, February 1992), p. 21.

4s “EOSDIS Progress Review: Introduction,” D. Butler, J. Dalton, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-141993, Landover, MD.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 81

The NRC Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans advocated a much stronger computer science research program for EOSDIS. The U.S. computer

science community, Goddard’s own in-house

computer science experts, and experts at NASA’s

Ames research center have apparently had very

limited input into EOSDIS implementation and 46 ability of EOSDIS ‘0

operations decisions.

exploit rapid advances of technology may depend

on the consistent involvement of computer scientists both within and outside of NASA. NASA has

recently devoted some of the EOSDIS budget to

computer science and data handling technology

development (approximately $20 million over the

next few years), and is now soliciting proposals

for advanced computer technology work.47

| Version O and Pathfinder

NASA, NOAA, and USGS have initiated development of “Pathfinder” data sets in EOSDIS Version O to increase the amount of data available to

Earth science researchers in the near term. Pathfinder datasets are large data sets collected over a

number of years by NOAA environmental operational satellites, DOD DMSP satellites, and Landsat. 48 They are potentially useful to researchers

because they span enough years to allow detection

of ecological and climate trends. However, Pathfinder datasets require careful reprocessing, since

they have been collected from multiple instruments of varying calibration standards mounted

on many satellites. Pathfinder datasets include:

m

■

●

8

■

■

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

(AVHRR) data sets held by NOAA,

TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS)

data,

GOES data (figure 3-6) held under NOAA contract by the University of Wisconsin,

Special Sensor Microwave/Imagery (SSM/1)

data acquired by NOAA from the Department

of Defense,

Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) data recorded from the Nimbus-7

satellite, and

Landsat data in the USGS archive at the EROS

Data Center.49

NASA and Hughes have recently expanded the

influence to be derived from Pathfinder data sets

and Version O experience. NASA and Hughes appear to be moving toward using Version O as a

testbed for further EOSDIS development, instead

of replacing Version O with a different system for

the EOSDIS EOS Core System ECS (box 3-4).

NASA and Hughes plan to reuse the incremental

development process, small development teams,

“tirekickers,” 50 and other experience gained in

Version O development and integration in subsequent versions of EOSDIS.

The work of NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Interior in developing the Pathfinder data

sets is lauded by the scientific community. Congress may wish to encourage NASA to accelerate

the Pathfinder activity to enhance the near-term

benefits of EOSDIS. This action would also pro-

% “Likewise, the nation’s computer science community currently has very limited involvement in the Pr{J&ct, despite the fact that EOSDIS,

to be successful, must implement the latest advances in scientific data management technology and, in some cases, stimulate the development of

new technologies.” National Research Council Panel to Re\’iew EOSDISPlans Interim Report, April 1992, p. 16. The EOSDIS Advisory Panel

also noted in October, 1993, “Experts in computing technology, with credentials comparable to those of the most prominent EOS investigators,

have not had the opportunity to contribute to the architecture and design of EOSDIS.”

47 Researchers in academic computer science &partmerl[S generally work with fairly small-scale interactive systems, and thus have little

experience with large data flows—with some exceptions. Most experience with handling large data sets still resides in NASA projects, some

science teams within NASA, and other agencies.

48 See U.S. Confless, Office Of Techn{)](~gy Assessment, The Future oj’Remote Sensingfiorn Space, OTA- lSC-558 (Washingt~~n ~: U.S.

Government Printing Office, July 1993) for a discussion of these programs.

49 Roughly go to w ~rcent Of Version O data are from NOAA satellites. Pathfinder could be considered art exchange of technology for data

between NOAA and NASA.

5~ Interdepaflmentai engineering experts charged with testing overall system capability.
82 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

GOES images like this are effective in tracking severe storms in real time Hlstorical data of the storms’ changing form and

track are useful in Improving scientists' understanding of the formation and evolution of severe weather patterns

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994

vide more experience in providing Earth science

data to the broad research community before

NASA and Hughes implement later versions of

EOSDIS.

| Requirements-Driven Approach

R&D Experimental Approach

NASA is confident that an operational

to the EOS Core System, integrating

commercial hardware and software to

vs.

approach

available

EOSDIS

needs coupled with limited software development, will be sufficient to bring about dramatic

improvements in the ability to use Earth science

data. NASA and Hughes have designed the system to meet minimum standards of performance

in all areas, an approach that decreases risk and is

appropriate for the design and execution of an operational data system. However, this approach to

EOSDIS will not push the state of the art in

technology.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 83

GAO and the NRC have criticized EOSDIS

plans for insufficient attention to advanced

technology development,51 expressing concern

that the contractor’s near-term requirement to develop an operational system could detract from a

thorough prototyping program to support the

long-term needs of global change researchers.52

Efficiently working with large, complex, and heterogeneous global change data sets may require

special advanced technology. Much of this

technology will not be available commercially, if

scientific research is not considered a sufficient

market .53

NASA does not usually sponsor the development of new technologies required for a flight program through the flight program budget itself, but

rather uses other programs specifically established to sponsor flight and ground systems R&D.

NASA previously intended to sponsor EOSDISrelated computer science research and technology

through its computer/data systems R&D programs. so In response to external pressures, however, NASA has taken the unusual step of setting

aside direct EOSDIS project funds to sponsor

computer science research and advanced data systems technology development for EOSDIS.

NASA is soliciting proposals, through a Headquarters Research Announcement, for technology

development or adaptation for EOSDIS, and

funding will be used for research and development

at DAACS, Earth science organizations, and university computer science departments. Unfortunately, these steps may reduce the overall budget

available for implementation and operations.

Congress has in the past had the opportunist y to

direct NASA to strengthen the advanced technols i As early ~~ 1990 tie NRC “oted that: “Acc(~rding t. NASA’S develt)pmen[ strategy, the EOSDIS C’orc SYSt~m ~tmtra~lt~r ~ l]] ~’ r~~V}nslble for mltiating and conducting pmtotyping efforts after the contract is awarded and full-scale devclt)pmcnt begins. pr(~t(~t~ ping is intended to

bean ~mgoing aspect of the contractor’s work. However, we believe that devolving respmsibility ft~r prototyping” to the Core System ctmtract(w

may make it difficult for NASA to ensure that the full range of critical technological risk areas are addressed in a tlmel~ fashmn.” The follow mg

technology” areas were recommended for pmtotyping by the NRC:

I ) data display & user interface,

2) browsing capability,

3) da(a fomlats & media,

4) accessibility of data and information,

5) cataloging,

6) search and query capabilities,

7) model and data interaction,

8) data structures,

9) data reduction algorithms, and

10) netw(wking.

Nati(mal Research Council, The US G/oba/ Change Research Program: Arr Ana/ys/s oj’[he FY199/ P/an.! ( Washingt(m, DC Nati(mal Academy Press, I 990), p. 79.

52 me EOSDIS AdvlsoV pine] n{)ted in @t(J~r 1993: “me system is being driven by detailed requmments, ~ ith Ilttle sense of [he (~ver-

,-

archlng issues about information systems.” The Panel also noted that Hughes’ managers had “too little kmnvlcdge of the characteristics and

c(xnputing sty Ies of Earth scientists.” GAO previously stated: “it is vital that NASA not allow the near-tern] tqxrational requirements to prw ent

it from building a system that can ultimately provide a “next generation” of capabilities beytmd what current Earth science datas} stems pr(~-

vide. ” U.S. C(mgress, General Accounting Office, Ear(h Obsen’in~ S>’stetn: NASA’s EOSDIS Dc\’elopment Approach 1s Risk>, 1 MTEC-92-24

(Gaithersburg, MD General Accounting Office, February 1992), p. 33.

s~ However several (Jrganlzatlons outside NASA are pur.suing technology development that would enhance EOSDIS capabll ities. Sequoia

2000, a Digital Equipment Corp. project involving computer and Earth scientists at fi~e campuses in the Uni P ersity of Calif(~mia, is pursuing a

number of techmdogy development efforts, including working with very large data sets using advanced que~ st) Ies, searching ft)r large (~bjects, and techniques for working with diverse types of data. The Mitre Ctrp. is also expl(wing advanced que~ capabilities and (~bject-(mented

data management systems. Visualization techniques are being pursued at a number of research organlzati(ms, Including the IBM Wats{m Research Center, JPL, the Mitre Corp., and the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

~~ Rt)bc~ ~lce, Director, Mission to planet Earth office, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, personal colllnlunicati(~n. JanuaD 1994.
84 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ogy research component of the EOSDIS program.

Congress may yet wish to expand the higher

risk technology development aspects of EOSDIS within NASA. This approach would have

the potential to yield higher functionality of the

system. Such a research effort would also have

the potential to produce more generic technologies that might prove useful beyond meeting

the operational requirements of EOSDIS. Finally, an expanded technology development effort

would enhance the oversight capability of NASA

EOSDIS project staff.

On the other hand, successful and timely implementation of EOSDIS could be jeopardized if

NASA and Hughes rely on custom-designed hardware and software, or new technologies without

widespread commercial support or commitment.

Most scientists currently desire basic online functionality with a small set of critical services presented in a way that matches how they work. Advanced graphics interfaces or similar ‘*extras” may

be less important than simply having a system that

is consistent throughout, works correctly every

time, has a well-stocked archive of scientific data

sets, performs quickly, and has a simple and inexpensive procedure to acquire data rapidly.

| Long-Term Archives

NASA has limited experience with operational

Earth remote sensing data systems. Although the

EOSDIS budget has fared no worse than other

parts of the Mission to Planet Earth in recent program reductions, continuous operation and upgrading of an operational data system may prove

a challenge for an agency historically oriented toward high-profile engineering hardware development and an emphasis on human spaceflight.

Since it is not known which data will prove useful in the future, and in order for scientists to understand the genesis of environmental changes

they discover in the future, it is important to preserve all data.55 Responsibility for long-term archiving of EOS data, however, has not been decided, and planning has barely begun for data

maintenance after the 15-year life of EOS. NASA

has promised to have all EOS data preserved for

possible future use, and the pertinent Federal

agencies are conducting negotiations concerning

the means and mechanisms of long-term preservation of these data. The policy on archives will be

an essential element in the long-term value of

EOSDIS.

EOSDIS SCIENTIFIC INVOLVEMENT

NASA has sometimes conducted early mission

planning and system development phases of space

data systems without actively involving researchers and data consumers in the planning process.

Insufficient scientific participation frequently has

resulted in improperly implemented data systems

and rejection of data systems by the scientific

community. EOSDIS poses a special challenge,

because its large scope could result in the domination of “system” concerns while science and service needs are overlooked.

Officials in the EOSDIS DAACS have already

indicated that early and continuous involvement

of the science community is the most important

aspect of DAAC development. They also recognize that failure to involve scientists early in the

planning can lead to a DAAC receiving little use

by the scientific community.56 To assist scientific

input into EOSDIS development, NASA has

55 For example, when the AVI+RR instmnlent was constructed, NOAA scientists were generally unaware of how imlx~rtant AVHRR ‘ata

would be in following changes in vegetation. Now, NOAA distributes data m changes in vegetation thrmghwt [he year as a standard data

prOduct.

56 Na[lona] Aeronautics and space AdnlinlS[rat](~n, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Science Data and information Systems ~(JJect, “EOSDIS Version O (VO): Lessons Learned,” April 1993, p. 6. This document is tilled with references to the prime importance t~f a close

working involvement between system development and the scientific community at the DAACS.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 85

The EOSDIS Advisory Panel of the NASA EOS Investigators” Working Group iS the primary mechanism

for obtaining user input in EOSDIS, with its 24 members drawn from the primarily academic community of

551 EOS Investigators Panel members have been on the procurement team for the ECS contract, and Panel members also communicate to Industry independently The EOSDIS Advisory Panel examines the “integrated picture’ of EOSDIS, reviewing and assisting in planning, proposals, and system testing This group

was Important in promoting the redirection of EOSDIS development toward a more open, evolutionary, and

distributed system after the September 1993 Systems Requirements Review.

DAAC User Working Groups also provide essential guidance to EOSDIS. These groups provide “grass

roots” input on science community requirements, data set needs and priorities, required functions and services, assistance in setting DAAC priorities, review and comments on DMC and EOSDIS system efforts,

and assistance in the annual update of the EOSDIS science data plan Only half of the membership of

these groups are EOS Investigators

The DMC User Services Working Group includes User Support Off Ice staff at the DMCS and NOM

data centers, as well as members from the EOSDIS project at Goddard Space Flight Center This group is

responsible for improving access to exiting data, developing common user services at all DMCS, and

encouraging and gaining feedback from Version O use

Program scientists at NASA Headquarters take part in the MDIS Management Operations Working

Group, which provides an overall review of EOSDIS program structure and performance, Insight into the

larger outside Information systems world, and ties to the Earth Science and Applications Advvisory Subcommittee

Day-to-day scientific operational input and data product support IS provided by the DAAC project scientists on the staff of each DMC. At Goddard, the EOSDIS project has a project scientist on staff, as well

as a scientist n the role of Science Data and External Interface Manager

EOSDIS at the system level and the DMCS attempt to be receptive to science advice through lndividual comments and experiences from all users

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationmvstratoP 1993

constructed an extensive system for providing sci - ited to advisory committees, while the DAAC science advice (box 3-8).57 entists have no direct input into basic design. deIn spite of this system of science advice and velopment, and operations decisions. Also, some

assertions about the importance of close involve- assert EOSDIS planning is conducted under alment with the science community, observers have most exclusive advice from NASA-affiliated scicomplained that the role of Earth scientists is lim- entists, to the exclusion of other users .5X

$7 L.[)nc ,Jf the first ac[lt l[lcs of E{>SDIS WaS to &fine nlcth(tis for increasing participati(m by the research c(mmlunlty in the dctjnltl~~n,

tes[lng, and rc-design of the jy SICIN...7IW succcss of EOSDIS hinges on the users’ being cn~ptwered I(J shape it to their needs—needs w hich w 111

ewdvc w Ith prt)grcs~ In Earth scltmcc research and with experience gained in manipulating the data systems.” National Aeronautics and Space

Adnlm[stra[l(m, LOWII.7: ff[).S [jof[i [irrd Ig[ortna[wn S>stern (Washington, DC, 1992), pp. 7, 23.

~~ .’~e Predolll inant Llscrs of EOSDIs ;lre ~x pected to be the thousands of Earth scientists wh[) are m~t afiil iated with ~h~ EOS prc~gram.

Howe\w-, NASA’s plannlng for the ~ysteru thuf far has relied largely tm input fr(~m the relati~ ely small number (>f researchers funded direc[ly b>

NASA. NASA’$ gudcllncs and mechanisms for obtaining further user input in the future do not provide assurance that c/// segments of the user

conm~unlty W(III he adequatel} represented” LT. S. Congress, General Acc(mnlmg Office, Eard~ Ob.ser}irrg ,$~slerrl.” Broader /n\w/t’crr~err/ of Ihc

EO.\I~/S L’.~er (’ommun~l) /.$ ,$’ceded, IMTEC-92-40 (Gaithcrsburg. MD: General Accounting office, May 1992), p. 1.
86 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Having individual investigators actually perform data processing, validation, and intercomparisons in EOSDIS development would provide

important feedback on EOSDIS operations. Emphasizing this approach would be more expensive, but has proven to be crucial in past data systems such as the WETNET at MSFC.59 At the

same time, EOSDIS could be more effective if

EOSDIS officials look beyond the advice of current users and successfully anticipate the likely

modes of computer interaction of future users of

EOSDIS. Hughes has sent teams of scientists and

engineers to many science user facilities to gain

better insight into the needs of scientific users of

EOSDIS.

| Data Pricing: User Fees?

Whether data centers will actually collect money

from the research community for the use of EOSDIS remains an open question. Current pricing

policy for EOSDIS. and all U.S. global change

data, ensures that data will cost no more than the

“marginal cost of reproduction.” At present, several EOSDIS DAACS distribute their data free to

the scientific community.60

User fees have the advantage of providing the

recovery of a portion of the data system operations

costs, without seriously impeding data use if

prices are sufficiently low. User fees also provide

accountability, serving as a constraint against users ordering vast amounts of data simply because

they are free. They also encourage user involvement in the data system.

However, the costs of a billing system can

sometimes outweigh the benefits. In some cases,

especially for online data distribution, establishing a system to monitor payments, checks, purchase orders, etc., may cost more than giving data

away (especially for smaller data sets), and may

reduce overall use of the data. Many researchers

(e.g., unfunded researchers doing exploratory research, graduate students, educators, some foreign researchers) cannot raise sufficient funds to

purchase large quantities of data, even at incremental costs.

Would EOSDIS be “flooded” with requests if

data were free? EOSDIS could depend on commercial data distribution networks to limit data

demand, similar to current use of the telephone

network. Users would be required to pay for the

time they spend on the network accessing and

transferring data, but no billing system would be

required at the DAACS. Network access would

still need to be relatively inexpensive, however,

for EOSDIS data to have broad distribution. 61

Another alternative would be to institute the use of

research vouchers, allocating a limited number of

data credits per researcher. Time and storage limitations alone might serve to discourage an individual undisciplined acquisition of large data

sets.

This issue needs to be resolved relatively soon

to facilitate the appropriate design of EOSDIS. It

is essential that whatever is decided, the data

policy be consistent within the government, and

supported by appropriate funding.

| Equipment Requirements for EOSDIS

Users

Use of EOSDIS will be determined in large part by

the equipment required to access the network.

NASA will provide Science Computing Facilities

(SCFS) for use by the 551 EOS primary investigators, ranging from personal workstations to superS9 National Aeronautics ~d Space Administration, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Science Data and Inf(Jm~ation SYsten~s ‘OJect, “EOSDIS Version O (VO): Lessons Learned,” April 1993.

60 AS nc)led in chapter 2, tie EROS Dam Center, with by far the largest remote sensing data archive of the DAACS, has a user fee sYst~nl in

operation. The Alaska SAR Facility also charges fordata. Goddard Space Ftight Center expects to have a charging mechanism in place by 1994.

The other DAACS do not currently charge for data, and do not plan to unless so directed by NASA Headquarters.

61 [t 15 highly ]Ikely hat fu~re ~omnlercla] data networks costs will becharged in terms of bandwid~, not bits, making EOSD]S data transfer

economical compared to other uses.
Chapter3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 87

computers, for algorithm development. Besides

direct NASA support, many other sources of research funding, both within and external to

NASA, provide funding for computing equipment and communications to support the needs of

the broader Earth science community. For this

larger community, NASA expects the minimum

SCF required for full access to EOSDIS services

would be commensurate with what is currently affordable with a “typical research grant” (about

$10,000 fiscal year 1993 dollars).62 EOSDIS

plans to make available software toolkits for use

on these computers. 63 Furthermore, NASA and

Hughes have promised to design EOSDIS to provide user access and as many services as possible.

However, under the present product generation

system, scientists not directly involved with the

program cannot easily contribute to the development and distribution of new algorithms. Version

O is criticized by some observers for requiring

highly specific equipment and software to be usable. A need for special equipment, software, or

formats could be a major liability, considering the

many researchers expected to use the interagency

GCDIS.

Breadth of EOSDIS services, based on special

equipment requirements, could be one of the first

casualties of any future program difficulties or

budget shortfalls. If Congress desires to maintain the advantages of broad use of EOSDIS, it

will need to monitor this aspect of the program

to ensure that highly specialized and advanced

computer hardware and software does not become a requirement for use of EOSDIS.

| Cost Savings in EOSDIS?

Congress has provided EOSDIS with funding at

the level of agency requests thus far, with additional funding added for CIESIN. However, the

continued availability of such resources is likely

to be a central issue in the program in the future,

given the strained budget context in NASA, the

deficit problem in the U.S. government, and the

planned increase of over 50 percent in EOSDIS

funding for fiscal year 1995—from $188 million

to about $285 million. Also, cost overruns have

been the rule, rather than the exception, in large

data systems. Figure 3-7 illustrates changes in total EOSDIS funding between 1991 and 2000.

Some observers claim the sizing of EOSDIS is

unrealistic, since it was not rescoped to reflect the

new reality of the smaller EOS program with

smaller data flows. The EOS satellites are now

about the size of the current UARS, and the

launches are staggered. A new, reduced set of requirements for EOSDIS, some argue, could cut

the costs of the program significantly.64

The EOS Investigator Working Group sounded

a general caution concerning EOSDIS staffing

costs:

“From experience with other data systcms.

we caution that costs are only moderately sensitive directly to storage volumes and processing

operations; they are more sensitive to the work

6Z ~a[ional Aeronau[lc~ ~d Space Adnllnistmtit)n, Modeling, Data, and ]nfOrmatlOn Systenls briefing to OTA, ‘ebruary 1993”

6J It is unclear ~ hat dl fficultles nlay ~ encountered from government restrictions on distribution of software. Hardware distnbutl(m difficulties were a major problem in the MSFC WETNET program. NASA ESDIS, “EOSDIS Version O: Lessons lxamed,” April 1993, p. 79.

64 An exalTlp]e is a recent ocean Wind scat[erome[er project at JpL, which was p]anned to cos[ $20 nlil]i(~n. A new design review reduced the

expected costs to $ I I million, apparently with little negative impact.

Some (~bscrvms argue that enough new inf(mmation has been learned about the production of data products m warrant re-evaluati(m of the

EOSDIS pr(tiuct generati(m system by DAACS and PIs to determine whether changes could bring more quality data products while sai ing

resources. The present strategy is to plan each product in great detail. Top levels of NASA prepare and update detailed plans (to a~t)id delay t)f

data products to “fine tune” the algorithms, or a focus on only a small subset of the data). As an alternative, however, m(m conm)l could be

passed back to the investigators and project groups. An agreed set of goals and delivery schedules for primary products w(wld be required, but

sec(mdary products c(mld be more creatively developed by investigators. This might give NASA many more g(wd products, although there

would be more failures as well. This approach w(mld promise de] ivenng more and better data products, lowering costs, and increasing pr(tiuctlwty and satisfaction of the scientists. NASA and Hughes moved toward this concepti(m at the EOSDIS Progress Review, December 1993.
88 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

SCFS

Pathfinder data

Version O prototyping

Other prototyping

Product generation systems development

Archive systems development

Data operations systems development

Communication systems development

Flight operation systems development

Verification and validation

Data system operations

Flight system operations

Program management

,

1- D 199 4

-2000

I“ ’’’’( ”

t

1

1 I I 1 1 I I I I

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Millions of dollars

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

force needed for system engineering, algorithm tions, and the currently proposed staffing levels

integration, etc.”65 seem high.”

The EOSDIS Advisory Panel noted in October EOSDIS plans require excellent data delivery at

1 993: all times of the day; some costs could be saved if

“By far the greatest expense in EOSDIS is the this capability were reduced.66 If researchers can

sum of the salaries for maintenance and opera- wait up to a week for most data products, the dif65 Nati(~na] Aeronautics and Space Administration, Adapting the Earth Observing System to the Projected$8Billion Budget: Recommendationsjiom (he EOS investigators, October 1992, p. 39. The EOSDIS Advisory Panel noted in Oct., 1993, that” ...the putative costs seem too

sensitive to the floating-point operations needed to create the EOS standard products, when the constraints are more likely to be the population

of users who can be served and the rate at which the system can deliver products to users,..”

66 If 8-hour shifts ~e substi~t~ for 24-hour shifts, DAAC operations costs are estimated to be reduced by 8.2% to I T.9V0 (depending on

“non prime time” operations levels, and assuming processing and electronic access/distribution of data during *’non prime time”). This is an

estimated savings of $15.7 to $34.4 million through October 2002. “Cost/Wfommnce,” Joe Guzek, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-14,

1993, Landover, MD.
Chapter 3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System | 89

ference in costs could also be expected to be substantial.

However, underestimation of required data

system personnel would also be a serious problem. User services (establishing communications

for users, training researchers and computer experts in the use of the system, solving communication and network problems for users, providing information on data product generation and

delivery, special requests for data, etc.) usually

have required more effort than initial estimates. In

EOS, with a projected 100,000 to 200,000 users,

the number of people dedicated to user services

can be expected to be large.67

While many climate problems require global

data for many years, there may be ways to acquire

samples from the data stream rather than store the

entire data set in order to reduce the volume sharply. These opportunities could make it easier to pursue the scientific search while reducing costs.

EOSDIS has ambitious plans for providing

data online. A few EOSDIS data streams will be

needed by NOAA for real-time weather forecasting, and NASA plans to deliver these data to

NOAA rapidly. Some observers claim the rest of

the EOSDIS data products do not need to be available in real-time, as currently planned. Short delays in data transmission offline might result in

significant cost savings.

Observers have noted that to achieve good service at reduced cost, some competition is usually

necessary. While this is difficult to achieve without some duplication, furthering efforts to provide

choices to researchers might result in overall higher efficiency, better service, and lower cost. Placing the entire responsibility for meeting diverse

user needs through a single, pre-planned data and

information system could be very difficult. EOSDIS could become a very “brittle” system if EOSDIS were “monolithic,” and the only means of

communication between researchers and NASA

officials. Examples of resilience - enhancing alternatives would include the use of the CIESIN network, direct broadcast of data, commercial highvolume/high-speed lines, and NREN.

As technology and economics change, the system must adapt to enable functions to migrate to

where they can most economically be performed

(e.g., the shift from centralized mainframe computers in the 1970s to today’s distributed workstations). NASA and Hughes plan to isolate functions where technology change is most likely to

occur, so these functions can easily be changed or

replaced as technology matures.68

Some observers point out that many of the

functions in EOSDIS might well be provided by

the private sector. This view posits that it is inappropriate and inefficient for government to plan

and build operational science networks in an era of

rapidly expanding technical capability. For example, special funding for networks of very high

bandwidth would be redundant if sufficient bandwidth becomes widely available and inexpensive

commercially. As noted in chapter 2, computer

processing speed, and storage capacity and access,

largely funded by the commercial sector, have

been increasing markedly in recent years.

As an alternative or supplement to EOSDIS,

NASA could rely on direct-broadcast of data from

satellites to ground stations at scientists’ research

institutions. Proponents of this approach claim

costs increase dramatically when government performs computing tasks, noting many researchers

already receive data directly over communications links. Reliance on this strategy would, however, hamper the fundamental goal of fostering

scientific interdisciplinary research. Such a plan

also might increase costs, not decrease them, since

each user would require the ability to process raw

data signals to final products, a costly process for

many types of data. Using a few well-controlled

facilities (DAACS) is advocated as a less expensive and more effective system.

67 “Members of most user communities wi]] continue to want to talk to knowledgeable user service personnel via telephone-specially as

the number of data products and their complexity increases...training is not a trivial matter, especially for a large number of data products with

frequent changes.” Pitt Theme, “Demographics”, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13- I 4, 1993, Landover, MD.

m “EOSDIS l%gress Review: 1ntroductim,” D. Butler, J. Daltm, EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-141993, Landover, MD.
90 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

There are other alternatives. As noted in chapter 2, many government data distribution programs, including remote sensing data systems,

have derived and distributed products with fairly

modest costs. While these programs do not achieve

the broader goals of EOSDIS, they do provide less

expensive models of data distribution.

| Commercial Relevance

NASA has planned and developed EOS as an operational scientific data system, relying on

USGCRP goals and scientific and technical considerations for program planning and execution.

NASA has not designed EOS to stimulate the

Earth remote sensing market, nor as a “test-bed”

for advanced Earth remote sensing technologies,

nor to contribute to the national goal of “global

competitiveness.” The two original EOS instruments with the most potential commercial relevance, HIRIS and SAR, were deleted from the

program in the 1992 restructuring. EOS data are

generally low-resolution, and land observations

have not been emphasized in the program, limiting the commercial value of EOS data.

Nonetheless, a strong potential may exist for

commercial value of some EOS data. While current EOSDIS plans to make all data available almost immediately could destroy the commercial

value of similar data from other sources, such as

from the Sea Star Satellite (ch. 4), easy access to

EOS data by the commercial sector could result in

valuable enhancements (“value-added” products)

that could satisfy various needs the government

cannot meet.69 NASA and Hughes are conducting

studies of the potential commercial relevance of

EOSDIS data.

DATA FORMATS/STANDARDS

The issue of data formats for remote sensing has

been debated for several years, especially in

NASA. Until recently, NASA and Hughes had

supported only high density format (HDF) for

EOSDIS data storage and retrieval. However, this

implied anew way to ingest data that very few scientists have used. Many scientists might desire to

continue to obtain small datasets in a simple

binary or character format, such as ASCII.

Data formats should be easy to use. Formats

also should not substantially increase data volume

or slow down the processing of large datasets. Finally, formats must be capable of allowing data

processing on primary workstations and PCs. The

appropriateness of HDF by these criteria is debated in the science and computing communities.

Designating a present format system as the standard for future EOS data would doubtless cause

problems with using the data. Instead, NASA and

Hughes plan to provide translators within EOSDIS so users can easily access data in different formats.

| Is EOSDIS “Distributed” and

“Evolutionary”?

At the first EOSDIS ECS system requirements review in September 1993, Earth scientists expressed concern that EOSDIS architecture appeared too centralized and inflexible to

evolutionary change. The EOSDIS Advisory Panel of the EOS Investigators’ Working Group, in

October 1993 concluded the system was not a distributed system:

Instead it is a system of geographically dispersed elements with tightly centralized management [a central architecture forced to reside

at several geographic locations] . . . Essential elements of a distributed system-competition

among elements, and different

tributed responsibility, power,

are missing .70

The Panel also stated EOSDIS

tionary system:

approaches, disand resources—

was not an evolu69 F[)r example, ~ltal Science COT. is Cumen[]y attempting to develop a commercial market for value-added enhancements to data that

will be collected by its SeaWiFS ocean color sensor. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Furure ofRemote Sensingjiom

Space, op. cit., footnote 2, ch. 7.

To EOSDIS Advisory panel, EOS Investigators’ Working Group Payload Panel meeting, @t. 4-6, 1993.
Chapter3 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System 191

Instead its developers focus tightly on the

near future, use tools and standards that are already obsolete, view “technology insertion” as

synonymous with evolution, and have little vision of the computing environment of this century and the early part of the next.71

The Panel noted the EOSDIS design had changed

little since 1990, despite important technological

achievements in the architecture of distributed information systems since then.

In response, Hughes is conducting studies of alternative ECS architectures, with study teams selected from top universities in computer and Earth

science. 72 NASA is also funding the development

of prototypes and discipline-specific functions,

and encouraging increased involvement in ECS

development and funding for added functions and

services to meet the needs of specific science disciplinescoc lpllnes.7~ The EOSDIS ECS system is now being

designed to accept alternative implementations at

all levels, including new developments not

created by NASA or Hughes, as well as test marketing new ideas, products, and methods.74

EOSDIS needs to maintain the flexibility to

deal with different methods of data management

among the DAACS, since different science communities will have different data management

needs. The report of the NRC Panel to Review

EOSDIS Plans Interim of September 1992 stated

DAAC managers did not have well-defined authority or accountability in building EOSDIS, that

DAACS were not sufficiently involved in EOSDIS implementation, and their primary role appeared to be simply to operate hardware and software at their sites after delivery. 75 According to

the NRC Panel, ‘The centralized management of

the design and implementation of EOSDIS functions at each DAAC is not conducive to active user

involvement and responsiveness to changing

technology.” 76

Decentralization also has its risks, however. To

build an integrated, interoperable system requires

sufficient central authority to ensure interoperable

system architecture and interfaces. As a project

serving multiple agencies, EOSDIS requires

smooth and efficient interpersonal communications, as well as computer communications, in a

highly complex environment. Parochial interests

need to be controlled to some degree. Completely

autonomous DAACS, each with its distinctive

system architecture, data formats, and so on, was

one of the primary reasons for the development of

EOSDIS. While insufficient input from DAAC

management would endanger system responsiveness to scientists, excessive DAAC autonomy

might endanger integration and interoperability of

EOSDIS.

Instead of increasing the authority of DAACS

as a means of dealing with centralization, NASA

might arrange a system having a manager for each

cluster of major products for related disciplines.

This manager would make agreements on how to

develop products that would be stored in the

DAAC. Data distribution could be separated from

product generation, with the DAACS and advisors

having most control over distribution while science experts have control over product generation. This is similar to older NASA project management philosophy in which a single manager

has control over the priorities and the level of ef7’ Ibid.

72 D. Butler, J. Dalton, “EOSDIS progress Review: lntrxduction,” EOSDIS Pn)gress Review, Dec. 13-141993, Larrdo\cr, MD.

73 Ibid.

74 Gal] McConaughY, ESDIS Prt)]ect, “The Evolving C(mtcxt t)f EOSDIS (Focus: Science Supp(mt). ” EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec.

13-14, 1993, Lan(h)ver, MD.

75 NASA ha5 ~.en crlllclLe~ for ~]]ow ing [he DAAC “1anager5 ]I([]e influ~nc~ ,)\er (he ~)~,ra[ion and main[~n~c~ of Ecs :M a ~hol~. no

financial c(mtrol over the I(mg-term strategy of the DA AC, and no resp(msibility to reallocate rcsourccs to ma~imize the prt)~ lsl(m of sen ices.

76 A re]lance on standard data pr(~ucts a]one ~ou]d ~ t(M) rlgld For exanlp]e, usCrS would have di fficu][y in au[t~nlfl[ic;l]l> c(mlbining data

from different sensors, altering products to meet new scientific needs, or revising algt~rithms to meet various purp(~ses. The DAACS curren[ly

have little control over the fomls in which they receive their data, the management and cv(~luti(m of the ECS, or budgets.
92 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

fort of each task, with less influence from NASA

headquarters and more authority from those in the

“field,” along with freedom to cut across organizational boundaries to accomplish tasks.

The level of autonomy at each DAAC could

have a significant impact on the success of EOSDOS. Congress may wish to consult with NASA

management, DAAC management, and informed

members of the global change research community, to monitor the appropriate level of centralization in EOSDIS management.

I The New Future of EOSDIS: “UserDIS”

and the “Earth Science Web”

The UserDIS is a vision of the future information

infrastructure in which there will be a multiplicity

of data sources and information integrators available to scientists and other users of Earth science

and global change data. EOSDIS would be one of

the key providers of data services in this “Earth

Science Web” of easily accessible pooled computing and data resources.77

A Hughes study of this issue found: ‘*There are

many things which ECS could provide without

leaving its mission envelope for GCDIS/UserDIS.”78 In response to ideas from the EOSDIS

Advisory Group and the NRC Panel to Review

EOSDIS plans, NASA and Hughes have recently

promised to design EOSDIS ECS as part of a larger environment from which users can freely find,

invoke, and selectively combine services.79

While focusing on Earth science data and its users,

other uses would not be excluded by the new EOS -

DIS design architecture. The distinction between

user and provider would be elmininated, effective y

using the computer resources and expertise in the

distributed user community beyond EOSDIS. Responsibility, power, and resources would be dispersed throughout the Earth Science Web, with

any provider having the ability to add a new idea

to the Web. No restrictions would be placed on the

number of providers, their locations, and the services and data they offer.80 Beyond the DAACS,

the UserDIS would accommodate autonomous

provider sites dealing with researchers and research groups as individuals rather than relying on

sponsoring “institutions’’.81

If EOSDIS is to evolve toward UserDIS, as advocated by the NRC Panel to Review EOSDIS

Plans, specific EOSDIS goals should be limited,

relying instead on the entrepreneurial spirit of

DAACS and other organizations. The Panel expects the cost of communication and switching to

drop dramatically in the 1990s, meaning a variety

of approaches to computing not previously envisioned would be made available by entrepreneurial companies and other organizations. The role of

EOSDIS would be to remain open, not excluding

the use of new developments or other users and

uses of the system.

77 Gal] McConaughy, “me Evolving c(mtext of EOSDIS (Focus: SClenCe SUPPNI),” OP cit.

78 Mark Elkingttm, “GCDIS/UserDIS-Background and Issues,” EOSDIS Progress Review, Dec. 13-14, 1993, Landover, MD.

‘g Gail MCConaughy, ‘“~~ Evolving Context of EOSDIS (F(xus: Science, SUpp(M),” (Jp Cit.

~~ Mmk E]kington, ‘+ GCDls/userDls—BiiCkground and [sSues,” OP Cit.

81 Ibid.
Government and

Private Sector Roles

in a Developing

Market for

Geospatial Data 4

A

s noted in chapter 2, all of the civilian remote sensing satellite systems the United States now operates were developed with public funds to provide data in support of

the public good for weather predictions, climate and

global change studies, and to manage U.S. renewable and nonrenewable resources. Some of these data, especially multispectral

data that provide information about Earth’s surface, have proved

to have commercial value as well. ] Such data are provided by the

Landsat system and the AVHRR instrument on the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’S POES system.3 In the future, data from synthetic aperture radar systems

will likely develop significant commercial value as well.4

Today, space technology, coupled with advanced computer

software and hardware techniques, provides expanding opportunities for viewing and analyzing the Earth, its environment, and

its resources. As entrepreneurs continue to work with remotely

sensed data, they are likely to discover new profit-making uses

1 See app. B and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Remore Sensing

and /he Pri]’ate Secfor: I.nuesfor Discussion (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984), appendices A-1, fbr a discussion of some of these uses.

2 Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

s po]w-orbiting” opemtit)na] Environmental Satellite

4 For example, researchers using data collected by the synthetic aperature radar

aboard the European Space Agency’s ERS- I satellite have shown their utility in n~onitorIng agricultural activities and in urban planning. See Commission of the European Communities, Institute for Remote Sensing Applications, Annua/ Report, 1992, for discussi(ms of appllcati(ms in agriculture, mapping, and monitoring that would have commercial value,

I 93
94 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

for data from remote sensing satellite systems.5

Although most applications of remotely sensed

data are now oriented toward supporting government programs, private firms have expressed increasing interest in 1 ) expanding value-added6 

activities using remotely sensed data, and 2)

building and operating satellite systems.

This chapter discusses how remotely sensed

data of Earth’s surface, increasingly termed geospatial data, serve public and private interests and

examines industry efforts to operate and market

data from privately developed remote sensing systems. The chapter also summarizes the characteristics of the current and potential future market for

remotely sensed land data. Finally, it discusses the

competitive position of the United State vis-a-vis

other spacefaring nations in data delivery and applications.

REMOTE SENSING AS A PUBLIC GOOD

Photography and other remote sensing technologies that use aircraft and balloons as platforms

have been an important source of data about the

Earth for over a century. In 1960, with the launch

of its experimental weather satellite, TIROS,

NASA was able to show the utility of gathering

data from space. Remote sensing satellites are particularly well suited to providing information

about weather and the environment.7 They offer

synoptic, worldwide coverage, can operate over

hostile territory, and can cover the entire Earth in

a period ranging from a day to several weeks.8

Experiments with data from TIROS and other

research satellites led to the development of the

POES and GOES9 systems, operated by NOAA,

and the DMSP10 satellite system operated by the

Department of Defense. These systems provide

important data about weather and climate, as well

as low-resolution data about the land and oceans.

The contributions of remotely sensed data to the

public good became especially apparent after the

launch of the first operational weather satellites in

the 1960s and 1970s: the GOES system (first

launched in 1975) tracks both slow moving

weather fronts and rapidly developing violent

storms. GOES images have contributed to improved early warning of violent storms, resulting

in an estimated 50-percent decrease in storm-related deaths] 1 (table 4-1), GOES-8, the most advanced GOES satellite,12 is expected to provide

increased ability to track damaging storms (figure

4-l).

5 For example, NASA IS designing the sensors for its Earth Observing System (EOS) to serve the interests of global change scientists. However, if previous experience with data from the Landsat multispectral scanner and the AVHRR sensor aboard NOAA’s polar-orbiting satellites

pnwide a guide, we may expect that entrepreneurs will find profit-making uses for data from EOS as well.

6 Value-added fim15 provi& information” semices to both private and government customers by processing and “adding value to’” renloteIY

sensed data.

7 A Publlc g(,c~ 15 a g(~ or semlce for which it is impossible or undesirable for reasons of efficiency to charge custonlcrs a Price or user fee

for services rendered. Public g(xtis are therefore frequently provided by government and paid for out of tax revenues. See U.S. Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment, Remote Sensing and the Private Secmr, Issues for Discussion, op. cit., pp. 45-47.

8 See U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, The Future of Remote Sensingfiom Space: Ci\’i/ian Satellites and Applications,

OTA-lSC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ot%ce, July 1993).

9 Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

10 ~fense Meteorological salellite ~ogram

I I For a hi5toV ~)fwea~er sate111te5, see Wealher sate//i/es: Sysrems, Data, and Environmenfa/ Applications, edited b p. Kfishna Rw! Susan J. Holmes, Ralph K Anderson, Jay S. Winston, and Paul E. Uhr, Boston, American Meteorological Society, 1990. Also see William James

Burroughs, Warching [he World’s Wea/her (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

IZ ~isis the first satellite in the GOES.Next sefies, which was successfully launched on Apr. 12, 1994 aboud ~ Atlas ‘auncher. ‘OAA

expects to make it operational by October.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

California Wildfires, fall 1993 Southern California, estimated at least $10 billlon damage/costs, 4

deaths

Severe Flood, summer 1993, Central U.S , estimated $120 billion damage/costs, estimated 48 deaths

Drought./Heat Wave, summer 1993, Southeastern U S , estimated $1,0 billion damage/costs, death toll

unknown

Storm/Blizzard, March 1993 Eastern US , over $20 billion damage/costs, estimated 270 deaths

Hurricane Iniki, September 1992 Hawaiian island of Kauail about $1,8 billion damage/costs, 6 deaths

Hurricane Andrew, August 1992 Florida and Louisiana, about $25.0 billion damage/costs, 58 deaths

Hurricane Bob, August 1991 Mainly coastal North Carolina, Long Island, and New England, $1 5 bilIion damage/costs, 18 deaths

Hurricane Hugo, September 1989 North and South Carolina, $71 billion damage/costs, 57 deaths

Drought/Heat Wave, summer 1988. Central and Eastern U S , estimated $400 billion damage/costs,

estimated 5,000 to 10,000 deaths

Hurricane Juan, October-November 1985 Louisiana and Southeastern U S , $15 billion damage/

costs, 63 deaths

Hurricane Elena, August-September 1985 Florida and Louisiana, $1 3 billion damage/costs, 4 deaths

Hurricane Alicia, August 1983 Texas, $20 billion damage/costs, 21 deaths

Drought/Heat Wave, June-September 1980 Central and Eastern U S , estimated $200 billion damage/

costs, estimated 1300 deaths

The U S has sustained some very expensive weather-related disasters over the past 14 years. These disasters have placed a great

strain on federal, state and local governments as well as the insurance industry In fact, the past SIX years (1 988-1 993) have produced

nine weather related disasters exceeding $1.0 billion with estimated costs exceeding $91 4 billion All figures reflect direct and indrect damages or deaths

SOURCE NOAA National Climactic Data Center, Research Customer Service Group, 1994

Realizing that moderate-resolution, multispectral data about the land would benefit the scientific

analysis of land processes, as well as provide data

for a wide variety of applications, NASA designed

and launched (in 1972) the world’s first land remote sensing satellite—Landsat 1. Follow-on

Landsat satellites’3 have expanded the capabilities of land remote sensing from space and have

led to a small, but growing user community.

Remotely sensed data are used by state and local governments for civil engineering, urban planning, resource management, and a host of other

applications (apps. B and C). Satellite data are

also critical to many legislatively mandated functions of federal government agencies. The Departments of Agriculture and Interior routinely

employ remotely sensed data to monitor and inventory crops and habitat. The Forest Service uses

these data to monitor the forests and to make resource decisions (app. C). One program, the National Wetlands Inventory, conducted by the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service,

is Landsats 4 and 5, ]aunched in 1982 and 1984, respectively, are still operating, though at much reduced capacit y. The replacement Landsat

6 was launched in September 1993, but failed to reach orbit.
96 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, 1994

has particular impact on land use and wildlife

management. The inventory]4 requires extensive

use of both aircraft and satell ite data to track available habitat for wildlife and extent of wetlands.

Remotely sensed data may also allow resource

managers to be more efficient in managing renewable and non-renewable resources, providing information on pollution and pollution abatement,

and ensuring the safe disposal of hazardous materials. Appendix B offers an example of the use of

Landsat and other data by the Bureau of Land

Management in categorizing and monitoring land

characteristics of the El Malpais National Conservation Area in New Mexico.

Remote sensing technologies have also contributed to military and intelligence successes.

The military services and the intelligence community use satellites to monitor international military

activities, monitor compliance with arms control

treaties, and prepare for deploying troops. U.S.

and allied troops made extensive use of Landsat

and SPOT imagery in the Persian Gulf Conflict to

make maps, determine potential transportation

routes, assess enemy fortifications, and analyze

damage to the landscape from oil well fires. Afterward, Landsat and SPOT images were used to

evaluate the environmental consequences of the

war.

15 In addition to using dedicated surveillance

satellites, the military services also rely on Landsat imagery for cartography, terrain analysis, and

change detection.16

COMMERCIAL PROVISION AND USE OF

REMOTELY SENSED DATA

Successful government projects involving remote

sensing from space sparked commercial interest

almost from the very beginning of the programs.

Until recently, virtually all private efforts have

been centered in the value-added industry, composed of a growing number of relatively small

firms who provide information services for local,

state, and federal agencies and private customers.

Value-added firms use geographic information

systems (GIS)17 and other analytical tools to combine data from the Landsat and SPOT satellites,

and from NOAA’s POES satellites, with other

data to provide a wide variety of useful information for customers. During the past 15 years, oil

and mineral extraction companies, urban planners, retail chains, resource managers, futures

traders, and cartographers (table 4-2) have recog14 Mandated by the W1/d Bird c~nserb,a[ion Acl, 1992 (PL 102-440); the Coastal Wetlands planning protection and Reswation Ac(, 1990

(Sec. 305); EmerRency Wetlands Resource Act, 1986 (See 401A, PL 99-1288); and the Clean Water Act, 1977, as Codified in U.S. Code 33,

Section 1288.

Is National @JgraphlC st~iety, Committee for Research ~d EXplmatim, “Environmental Consequences of the Gulf War: 1990-1991 ,“

Research and Exploration, vol. 7 (special issue), 1991.

lb U.S. Congress, Offjce Of Technology” Assessment, The Future ofRemote Sensing jiom Space: Civilian Sateiiites and Applications, W. C.

‘

7 See ch. 2.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 97

Industry Government

Agricultural/agribusiness State and local government

Engineering and construction Department of Agriculture

Extraction NOAWDept of Commerce

Fisheries Department of Defense

Forestry Department of Energy

Insurance Department of Interior

Investment Department of Transportation

Legal Environmental ProtectIon Agency

Mapping (Including land-use, urban planning) NASA

Marketing Agency for International Development

News Media

Real Estate Other

Simulation trainlng Foreign governments

Transportation (land and ocean) Archaeology research

Utilities Biology/botany

Waste management Global change research

Disease tracking and health management

SOURCE KPMG Peat Marwck, NASA, and the Ohio State Unwersity Center for ‘Mappingat Market Review, 1992

nized the commercial potential of remote] y sensed

data. Appendix B provides several specific examples demonstrating how firms and government

agencies turn remotely sensed land data into useful information.

Starting in the late 1970s, the government attempted to commercialize the Landsat series of

satellites, an experiment that proved only partially

successful. 18 During the Carter Administration,

officials had reached the conclusion that remote

sensing technology was sufficiently mature to

move Landsat from an R&D project to an operational system. Eventually, they believed, sufficient market for data would develop to allow a

transition to commercial development and operation. Because NASA’s charter stresses the research and development character of the agency

and does not specifically give the agency the mandate to operate on-going systems, the operational

elements of Landsat were transferred to NOAA in

the Department of Commerce, which has extensive experience in operational satellite systems.

However, NASA retained the R&D program for

remote sensing hardware. Effectively, this separated the research from the operational users who

constituted the data market and lessened the ties

between these two areas.

In 1992, after it became clear that the attempt to

commercialize Landsat was not fully successful,

Congress, the National Space Council, NASA,

NOAA, and Department of Defense (DOD)

reached the conclusion that maintaining continu18 see us. Congre55, Offlce Of Technology” Assessment, The Future ofRemole .$ensin~~kwn SPa<’e, op. cit., p. 49 for a sunmlary of those

attempts. David P. Radzarmwski, The Future oflhe Land Remote Sensing Sysfem (l,andsm), Congressional Research Service, 91-685 SPR,

1991, for a more detailed account.
98 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ity of the Landsat program was important to the 4-1 ), which established a joint DOD-NASA effort

national interest. 19 They also wished to provide in to build and operate Landsat 7.

some form for the continued commercial ization of The argument for continuing to acquire Landland remote sensing from space. Congress passed sat-type data for use by government agencies was

the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (box strengthened by the realization that these data

On October 28 1992, Congress passed the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Policy Act), f

repealing the Land-Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 (i-andsat Act) 2 The new law’s focus

is long-term remote sensing policy and its numerous facets. Specific matters addressed by the Policy

Act include program management; Landsat 7 procurement; Landsat 4 through 7 data policy; transfer of

Landsat 6 program responsibilities; regulatory authority and admimstration of public and private remote

sensing systems; federal research and development, advanced technology demonstratin; Landsat 7

successor systems, data availability and archiving; and the continued prohibition of weather satellite

commercialization As a whole the new legislation has three primary features a focus on the value of

remote sensing in conducting global change research and other public sector applications, a recashng

of the remote sensing activities, and provisions for the future evolution of remote sensing policy

The new law recognizes that Landsat data has research value to educational institutions, nonprofit

public interest entitieshtles, and federal governmental researchers and that the previously high cost of Landsat data impeded its use for scietific purposes. Availability of unenhanced Landsat data to U.S government supported researchers and agencies IS the minimum standard set by the act with full availability of Landsat 7 data to all users at the cost of fulfilling user requests its long-term objective Global

change research and the United States Global Change Research Program are both specifically cited as

activities to be supported by the acquisition of unenhanced Landsat data. Research needs contained in

the Global Change Research Act of 1990 are adopted as Policy Act mandates

The Policy Act also recognizes the commercial value of land remote sensing but acknowledges that

full commercialization of the Landsat program cannot be achieved within the foreseeable future and is,

therefore, an inappropriate near-term national goal It identifies successful commercialization of the

Landsat program as a long-term goal with a viable role for the private sector in the promotion and development of the value-added market Preference is also expressed for the private sector in operating

U S ground stations and other means for direct access to unenhanced data from government satellites,

and utilizing governmental satellites on a space available basis. Long-term private sector preference is

expressed for funding and managing a Landsat 7 follow-on system. Commercial remote sensing licenses have already been granted to three private sector corporations under the Act

1 Pubhc Law 102-555 (106 STAT 4163)

2 Publlc Law 98-365 (98 STAT 451)

(continued)

19 AS the House Conlmlttee on Science, space, and Technology Report to accompany H.R. 3614 points out (pp. 32-3), the term “continuity’”

can be used in at least three different ways: 1 ) continuity of the Landsat program, 2) continuity of the data stream from the Landsat satellites, and

3) continuity of data format, scale, and speetral response. The latter is especially important to Earth scientists attempting to study global change.

The Committee report then noted, “The Committee has decided that one of the bill’s principal goals should be to enhance the use of Landsat data

for public service applications.” p. 43.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for GeospatiaI Data | 99

could be a major contributor to understanding and The rapid growth of the GIS industry provides a

monitoring the effects of global change.20 For this third important incentive to continue the Landsat

application, continuity of the data stream is ex- program, because these systems have aided the

tremely important. value-added industry (firms that process and add

A major change from the Landsat Act IS that the new law modifies the nondiscriminatory access data

policy as applled to private system operators. They are now required to make unenhanced data available only to the governments of sensed states, thus freeing them 10 make data available to all other

customers according to market forces, Originally a foreign policy Intended to assuage nonspacefarlng

nations’ fears of economic and military espionage, nondiscriminatory access required that data from

the government funded and operated Landsat system be made available to all users at the cost of

reproduction and distribution Under the Landsat Act the policy was Interpreted to mean that private

operators had to charge the same price to all users which, at thousands of dollars per frame, put the

data beyond the reach of many researchers and developing nations.

The converse effect of requiring private operators to make data available only to sensed states iS

that the Policy Act recommits the United States to the foreign policy aspects of nondiscriminatory access and acknowledges the Interests of foreign nations in preserving nondiscriminatory distributiondlstnbutlon The

Act still places government systems under the nondiscriminatory access policy,

The Secretary of Defense and the NASA Administrators are jointly responsible for the Landsat Management Program and maintaing unclassified data continuity The management program iS to be

equally funded by NASA and DOD and had to report to Congress in October 1993, and biennially

thereafter, regarding public comments about system use, volume of use, and, recommendations for

policyy and programmatic changes. Management responsibilities include contract oversight, bringing

Landsat 7 online, operating the Landsat system, meeting the requirements of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and coordinating an advanced remote sensing technology demonstration program

DOD was responsible for satellite and sensor design and development NASA was responsible for

ground operations and data distribution The President is authorized to declassify intelligence satellite

technology for the Landsat advanced technology demonstration program, The Landsat Management

Program WiII seek Impartial advice through the Landsat Advisory Process, which will draw perspectives

from state and local government agencies, academia, and business, as well as from a broad diversity

of people of age, gender, and race

3 Now that the Department of Defense has decided not to parhclpate m procuring and Operatln9 Landsat 7 the Cllnton Admlnlstrallon and Congress have worked out new arrangements for managing Landsat NASA, NOAA and the U S Geological Survey will

pntly develop operate and distribute data from Landsat 7

SOURCE Joanne Gabrynowlcz, 1994.

20 J. Rimghgarden et al., “what Does Remote Sensing Do for Ecology’?” Ecology, vol. 72, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1918-192 l; U.S. Executi\e

office of [he president, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Committee on Earth Sciences, Our Changing P/mIet: A U.S. Srra/cgyjim

Global Change Research: A Report by the Committee on Ear~h Sciences w Accompany the U.S. President’s Fiscal Year 1990 Budxct (Washington, DC Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1989).
100 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managemen$ and Markets

interpretive information to Landsat data). The

ease of incorporating remotely sensed data with

other geospatial informational has led to a broadly

diversified market for these data and has markedly

increased their market potential.

Under the joint management agreement between DOD and NASA, DOD was to procure the

satellite and NASA would operate it. As conceived by DOD and NASA, Landsat 7 would have

carried two primary sensors—an Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) and the High Resolution

Multispectral Stereo Imager (HRMSI).22 NASA

decided in late 1993 that it could not afford to pay

for the installation and operation of the ground

station capable of receiving and processing data

from the HRMSI sensor. In response, DOD decided to drop out of the agreement and turn the development and operation of Landsat 7 over to

NASA. 23

Given the importance of Landsat data to global

change research, NASA officials have reluctantly

decided to build a Landsat 7 including only the

ETM. The spacecraft will have the capacity to

carry an additional sensor. NASA is making space

available for a “flight of opportunity” for a small

sensor developed and funded by a government or

private entity outside NASA.

The Landsat system may eventually build a

large enough market to sustain full commercial

operations. However, the recent entry of privately

financed systems will likely push commercialization of land remote sensing in another direction.

Major technological improvements, which enable industry to build smaller, less costly satellite

systems, has led to proposals from several firms or

consortia to build and operate commercial remote

sensing satellites focused on serving the market

for images of the land and coasts. Data from these

satellite systems, if deployed, would not be comparable to data from the Landsat and SPOT systems but would complement them. The following

paragraphs summarize the systems and the kinds

of data they expect to market:

●

■

Orbital Sciences Corp. (OSC) plans to launch

the company’s SeaStar satellite, which will

carry the Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-View

Sensor (SeaWiFS). SeaWiFS will collect lowresolution ( 1 to 4 km) multispectral digital data

(eight color bands in the visible and near infrared) about the surface of the ocean.24 OSC

expects to market these so-called ocean color

data to companies engaged in marine transportation, fishing, offshore oil exploration and

productions, and environmental management.

The SeaWiFS sensor is based on the Coastal

Zone Color Scanner originally developed and

flown by NASA. In an experimental arrangement, NASA agreed to purchase five years of

SeaWiFS data from OSC in return for an upfront payment of $43.5 million. With NASA as

an anchor tenant, the arrangement allowed

OSC to approach the financial market for the

balance of funding OSC needed to build and

operate the satellite. This arrangement will provide a useful test of the principle of purchasing

data rather than satellite systems from the private sector.25

WorldView Imaging Corp. is developing a

multispectral land remote sensing satellite system capable of 3 meter resolution in stereo (3

meter panchromatic; 15 meter in three color

‘1 Such as maps delineating ownership boundaries and data on soils, hydrology, and ecology.

22 The ETM would collect data of 30 m resolution in 6 visible and infrared bands and of 60 m resolution in a thermal infrared band. It would

also carry a panchromatic “sharpening” band of 15 m resolution. The HRMSI would collect stereo data of 10 m resolution in four visible and

infrared bands and 5 m resolution in a panchromatic band,

23 Letter of John Deutch, Under Secretary of Defense, to Congressman George E. Brown, Chairman of the House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology, Dec. 9, 1993.

24 Matthew R. Willard, “SeaStar to Offer Ocean Monitoring Data,” Earth Observation Magazine, January 1994, pp. 30-32.

25 see ~f~ce ~)f Technology Assessment, The Future of Remofe Sensing From $xIce, op. cit., P. 87, for a discussion of tie OSC/NASA

agreement and the role of data purchases in promoting the remote sensing industry.
Chapter4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 101

bands). It received an operating license from

the Department of Commerce in January 1993

and has begun to construct two satellites and an

online data distribution system. World View

expects to launch its first satellite in late 1995.

= Space Imaging Inc. (Lockheed) is designing a

multispectral stereo land remote sensing satellite system capable of 1 meter resolution (1 meter panchromatic; 4 meter in four color bands).

Lockheed received an operating license on

April 22, 1994,26 and expects to launch its system by late 1997.

-Eyeglass International. Orbital Sciences

Corp., Itek, Inc. and GDE Systems, Inc. have

formed a consortium to develop the Eyeglass

Earth Imaging System, which would collect 1

meter stereo panchromatic data and received an

operating license on May 9, 1994. The Eyeglass

consortium plans to begin operations in early

1997.

These developments provide convincing signs

that the remote sensing industry is changing.

Eventually, a stronger commercial presence is

likely to make additional types of data available to

consumers at a range of prices. However, for the

next decade the provision of remotely sensed data

is likely to continue to be dominated by governments, which will function both as providers and

as consumers of data.

ELEMENTS OF RISK AND THE ROLE

OF GOVERNMENT

The advent of commercial remote sensing raises

important questions for Congress regarding the

appropriate roles of government and the private

sector in this market. For instance, is it in the public interest to provide funding or tax breaks for

commercial remote sensing startups? Will government users purchase data from commercial

providers? Will government investigate new ways

of obtaining data sets in partnership with commercial firms? Answers to these and other related

questions will have a significant impact on companies about to enter the commercial remote sensing industry. The United States is at a critical

point in the development of the market for remotely sensed data and for private operation of

remote sensing systems. By its actions, the federal government could help or hinder the development of the data market.

All space exploration and most satellite development have been made possible by massive government investment. Satellites and space payloads are generally complex, expensive to build,27

and require years of development. Satellite communications remains the only well-developed

commercial space effort. Transportation to orbit

remains very expensive and relatively risky. In

other words, the technological and market risks of

space-based business endeavors are considerable.

Therefore, private financial sources have been unwilling to fund most ventures. Within the U.S.

political system, which maintains as much distance as possible between government agencies

and private enterprise, government programs designed to encourage new private commercial ventures must be structured to reward a certain level

of risk taking on the part of private industry, while

staying out of its way as much as possible.

Firms must consider several types of risks

when beginning new technologies to market. The

following briefly summarizes these risks and outlines the possible role of government in reducing

them:

1. Technoligical risk. Will the invention or innovation work as intended?

2. Market risk. Is there a market and can the company capture sufficient market share to be successful? Will the U.S. government or other

governments compete?

3. Financial risk. Will investors be rewarded with

the prospect of sufficient return to encourage

26 Ltxkheed applled for an operating license frtm~ the Department of C(mmlerce (m June 10, 199.3.

27 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Affordable .’$pacecraff: Dcsi,qn and I.(JI/n(}/ A//crnat/\c.$, OTA- BP-I SC-60 (Washlngt(m, DC U.S. Government Printing office, January 1990).
102 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

them to finance a project in comparison to other

investment opportunities?

Policy risk. Will federal government policy encourage investors to place their money at risk?

Will government policy remain stable?

Technological Risk

Government research and development (R&D) in

a vast array of technologies related to remote sensing has already helped in overcoming technological risks in the development of commercial instruments and satellites. For example, technology

developed at the national laboratories has led to

the availability of lightweight, low cost sensors

and cameras.28

The government can also assist firms to overcome technological barriers by pursuing an

aggressive R&D program oriented toward the

problems facing commercial firms in providing

remote sensing information products. NASA, for

example, has pursued several programs since

1972 to encourage the development of new applications for data from Landsat and other systems.

1 Market Risk

Through policy and legislation, government provides for the protection of intellectual property

rights. Government can contribute to new market

development in various ways, ranging from inhouse government research to cooperative research ventures. In addition, government agencies

can monitor their own operations to ensure that

projects with commercial appeal do not compete

with private alternatives.

NASA has provided training and other help to

state and local governments in applying remotely

sensed data to problems such as transportation

routing, urban planning, environmental inventory, and coastal ecosystem studies. It has also supported universities in the development of educational materials and courses to train students in the

use of remotely sensed data. In the early years of

Landsat, NASA distributed data to researchers,

universities, and other interested parties at no cost.

In the 1980s, it established two programs designed to target commercial uses of the data, the

Earth Observations Commercial Applications

Program (EOCAP), and a program to support

commercial demonstrations of space technologies, including remote sensing.

NASA’s EOCAP, which is administered by

NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi,

awarded approximately $10 million between

1988 and 1991 for 31 projects. 29 The funding was

matched by private sector financing. In late 1993,

NASA made an additional $3,000,000 in matching grants.

30 The program is oriented toward Commercial remote sensing and covers a wide variety

of applications and markets. EOCAP’S contributions to commercial interests are designed to encourage transfer of knowledge and know-how

from R&D efforts to business.

31 Revenues realized from the first round of projects is far below

that anticipated.32 Yet the program has resulted in

many process innovations that may eventually be

commercially significant.33

28 Walter S. Scott, testimony before a joint hearing of the C(mrni[tee m Science, Space, and Technology and [he Permanent Select Ct)mmittee m lntelligcnce, U.S. Ht)use of Representatives, Feb. 9, 1994.

29 See Molly K. Maculcy, “NASA’S Earth Observations Commercialization Program: A Model Government Approach,” May 1993, for

additional details.

30 William Boycr, “NASA Center Ready T(J Award More Remote-Sensing Grants,” Spa(e News, Aug. 23-29, 1993, p. 18.

31 See app. B, “Managing Pipeline Rights-of- Way,” for one example of an EOCAP partnership project.

32 Ibid., p. I I.

33 T(m~ Koger, “NASA’s EOCAP Program: The Partnership Advantage from Vision to Real ity,” Earth Obser}’arion Maga;ine, July/August

1993, pp. 36-40.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 103

A 1984 amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 directed NASA to assist the private sector in commercializing space

activitie

s.sQ Since 1985 NASA has funded the

Centers for the Commercial Development of

Space (CCDS) Program, a three-way partnership

with universities and industry in which NASA

provides start-up funds, and industry and the

universities contribute funding and expertise. In

time, NASA expects the centers to operate without government aid. NASA’s objective is to locate

centers at universities and to induce companies

outside the aerospace industry to cooperate in developing future commercial uses of space through

R&D. Remote sensing is one of several commercial opportunities that qualify for CCDS funds .35

The Center for Mapping of Ohio State University focuses on integrating GPS, GIS, and remote

sensing technologies for a variety of mapping

projects. The Space Remote Sensing Center in Mississippi has developed methods of using remotely

sensed data for agricultural and other purposes.

The government can also reduce market risk by

agreeing to purchase data rather than satellite systems from private firms,36 much as the U.S. Geological Survey or the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchase aerial photographs from engineer37 Agencies Can also work di--

ing and survey firms.

rectly with private firms in developing products

that have broad market potential as well as being

of use to the government.38

I Financial Risk

Under present conditions, the single most important risk faced by private firms is financial. Can

they convince the venture capital markets that

they have reduced risks to an acceptable level?

The government could assist in overcoming these

financial risks by working with firms to provide

creative financing arrangements, especially for

data that the government needs anyway.

Various creative commercially driven incentive programs in space activities have been or are

being implemented. If Congress wishes to stimulate greater creativity in government’s assistance

to civilian remote sensing, it could consider encouraging innovative management techniques,

coupled with adequate incentives for government

managers to explore new business arrangements

with industry. Congress might also consider options to modify existing restrictions on multiyear

funding for long-term R&D programs, and upfront payment for goods/services to be delivered

at a later date.

Several examples of cooperative mechanisms

exist. For instance, NASA joint endeavors are a

mechanism for industry and government to work

on a project together without exchanging funds

M H{)w,ever, ~~ “{}ted jn the I 992 re~)fl, U.S. congress, Ctmgressi(ma] Budget Office, Encouraging Pri}’are ln~’eslmenl in spa~’e A~./i~’ilies

( Washlngt(m, DC: C(mgressi(mal Budget Office, February 1991), few of these ventures have sufficient market to prove commercially successful.

35 In ~cenl~r 1993, NASA decjded t. C]ose down six of the 17 CCDS it had funded, on grounds that they had failed to draw matching

funds from indust~ or to establish clearly defined commercial goals, None of the closed CCDSS were pursuing the development of remote

senwng tcchm)lt~gies. Liz Tucci, “Six CCDS To Close: Industry Divided,” Space New’s, Jan. 3-10, 1994, pp. 1,20.

36 see ~>lowl for detal]~ abou[ NASA cooperation with @bita] Sciences Corp. in its SeaStar c(~mmercial satellite prwam.

37 me u s G.s n)anages a highly successfu] Progranl in p~enhip with the states to provide complete aerial coverage of the United States.

. . .

The Nati(mal Aerial Photographic” Program now reimages the entire United States once every five years.

JS Whl]e not yet ~ accepted pr(~ess in government, large companies regularly team with small c(~mpmies, providing ~em wi~ expefiise

collected by large organization (lawyers, accountants, facilities, etc.), receiving in return access to new technology and a partner that is more

flexible and can respond rapidly to new developments.
104 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The SeaStar system is a commercial/government partnership between NASA and Orbital Sciences

Corp (OSC). The following discusses the mechanics of the SeaStar program and its characteristics.

Some of these might be applied to other proposals for commercial remote sensing systems.

Orbital Sciences Corp. and the U.S. government entered into a unique agreement in which NASA

contributed $43.5 million over the 18 months of satellite construction in return for a stream of data over

a five-year period beginning after the satellite is launched and transmitting data. Then, the “price” of the

data sales to the government was calculated to equal the sum of monthly data “purchases” over the

five year period that would reimburse the government for the upfront commitment, The government was

willing to finance a major part of the construction costs, forgo the interest on the investment, and recover its investment by acquiring data at no additional cost over five years, Regardless of whether this was

a good financial investment for the government (a difficult and unreliable metric since the value of the

SeaStar data is not established and the comparative costs of obtaining the data through other mechanisms or programs is not known), this type of government/industry arrangement can stimulate the private sector into attempting commercial ventures that it otherwise would not be able to afford,

Other factors that influenced the creation of this public-private partnership include:

■

m

m

■

m

●

■

■

Relatively inexpensive satellite with focused commercial use and market (fishing industry primarily),

Data that the government is willing to purchase for its own needs and for research needs,

Sensor that is an improvement on the earlier Ocean Color Sensor, which NASA had already tested

extensively.

Data from the Ocean Color Sensor had been used extensively by ocean scientists.

Encryption techniques that permit data to be withheld, if necessary, for security reasons.

Identified commercial market,

Minimal government oversight in satellite construction and launch.

Government liens on satellite until completion of contractual requirements.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

(therefore taking the agreements out of the ac- raised about the use of this mechanism and the

quisition regulations). Many research joint en- legality of it compared to normal procurements.40

deavors have worked smoothly and well.39 How- The anchor tenant concept provides a way around

ever, when companies proposed hardware sharing the U.S. government ban on multiyear contracts

through joint endeavors, many questions were and guaranteed future purchases (box 4-2).4]

39 The first, and bst d{~umented, joint endeavor was for electrophoresis research in space. NASA agreed to prwkle flight Opwmnitles

and McDonnell-Douglas/Johnsm & Johnson provided the research equipment, supplies, and personnel. The research efforts were successful,

but the prt>~ct ended and companies developed alternative terrestrial methods of producing similar drugs. Other joint endeavors between

NASA and private companies (e.g., DuPont, John Deere, 3M) have been primarily for research on materials processing in space.

~~e Industria] Space Facility (sPce Industries, Inc.) is an example where NASA negotiated a memorandum of agreement tO proceed, but

the project was not approved. The reasons for the failure of this agreement were complicated, but one of the primary concerns was the overlap in

uses of the Industrial Space Facility and NASA’s proposed Space Station.

4] Spacehab, which is a private Comvy formed to cons~ct a module for the Space Shuttle that would include space to be sold to Private

customers for performing research, could not get a future guarantee of purchases from the government, only a nonbinding commitment. To

obtain private financing, Spacehab had to purchase an expensive private insurance policy that covered the loan if the government reneged on

the purchases. Spacehab has flow one Shuttle mission. However, relatively few commercial customers have bought space and most experiments on Spacehab have been government sponsored. Its future as a commercially profitable venture has not yet been proven.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 105

Other examples include long-term lease arrangements (often used in real estate transactions

involving government use of facilities, but also

applied to other situations), lease-purchase agreements, government-owned, company operated

laboratories (government cooperatives such as

Oak Ridge, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, etc.), and

newer joint research consortia such as Sematech.

| Policy Risk

New ventures that require a government license

must meet the licensing requirements. However,

in areas where government policy has not been

formulated, or where it is in flux, private firms

face substantial risk that they will be caught up in

the process of developing new policy. Such was

the case with Lockheed Corp. and the Eyeglass

consortium. Lockheed applied for a license to

launch and operate a private remote sensing system on June 10, 1993. Because Lockheed was

seeking permission to operate a system capable of

sensing objects as small as 1 meter, and sell the

data worldwide, officials in the Clinton Administration became concerned that the sale of data

from such a system would jeopardize national security. They delayed issuing a license until all the

agencies concerned could agree on the license

terms. Because no policy was in place for developing operational guidelines, the process took until April 22, 1994, far longer than the 120 days specified in the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of

1992.42 First the policy had to be developed43 and

then each individual license had to be considered

on its merits. While such policy deliberations are

extremely important in ensuring the maintenance

of U.S. national security, extensive policy debate

among several government agencies, or changes

of policy, can inhibit the development of new industries.

In summary, Congress could assist most effectively in the development of the remote sensing industry by providing upfront funding in

return for future data deliveries and modest

R&D support for the development of new

technologies. The federal government has invested heavily in research satellites, data receiving equipment, data processing facilities, and other technologies. Instruments and expertise are

readily available for satellite construction and

launch, and private companies are contributing to

the development of the data and information market by adding value to the unenhanced data and

selling data to consumers. Finally, researchers have

demonstrated the utility of remotely sensed data.

GROWTH OF DATA MARKETS

Over the lifetime of the Landsat program, the market for remotely sensed data has increased,44 with

new market segments added as customers have

found new applications for the data.45 If the brief

history of this industry is any indication, future

systems that offer improved resolution, stereo capability, or other features will result in still greater

expansion of the market. When Landsat was the

only operating civilian land remote sensing satellite, it generated considerable interest, but market

growth was slow. When SPOT Image. S. A., entered the market in 1987 (box 4-3), many in the

U.S. space community feared that SPOT data, because of their higher resolution, would draw

customers from EOSAT. Yet sales of SPOT data

has helped to stimulate overall market growth.

4215 USC 5621.

As ‘.u,s. policy on Foreign Access to Remote Sensing Spce Capabilities,” White House Fact Sheet, Mar. 10, 1994.

44 However, revenue from &[a sales alone is not sufllcient to support development of sensors, satellite platf~r’’ms, and the launch and ‘) Peratim of the Landsat system.

45 David L. Evans ~d ~i]i~ mu, “AVi-lRI? for Forest Mapping: National Applications and Global Implications”, David G. Wagner. ct. al.,

“Determination of Irrigated Crop Consumptive Water Use by Remote Sensing and GIS Monitoring”, and Young -Kyun Lee and Mark !vlcC(md,

“Vessel Routing Impacts of Temporal Altimeter Coverage in the Gulf Stream Region” in Proceedings of /993 Comcnfion of fhe .lmcrlcan

Congress of Sun’eyors and American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Feb. 15-18, 1993.
106 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The utility of remotely sensed data in serving public needs, plus the prestige that the operation of

sophistcated remote sensing systems confers on a space organization, have led other countries and

organizations to develop remote sensing systems.

France In 1987, the French space agency, Centre National ‘Etudes Spatial (CNES) launched the first

SPOT satellite to gather remotely sensed land data in the visible and near infrared wavelengths France

planned from the start to sell data from the SPOT system on a commercial basis and started a French

Incorporated firm, SPOT Image, S A , to market the data around the world SPOT Image has created

subsidiary corporations in several other countries to sell data in regional markets and to assist in developing new data products The SPOT satellites provide strong competition to sales of data from the

Landsat system

Japan In 1992, the Japanese government launched its Japanese Earth Resources Satelite

(JERS-1) to gather Earth resources data from both a visual and infrared instrument and a synthetic aperature radar Japan is marketing data from JERS-1 through the Remote Sensing Technology Center

(RESTEC), a foundation established in 1975 under the guidance of the Science and Technology

Agency and NASDA, the Japanese Space Agency

India The Indian government operates the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellite, which collects

multispectral data of 36 and 72 meters resolution Recently, the U S firm EOSAT signed an agreement

with the National Remote Sensing Agency of India for exclusive global marketing rights to data from the

IRS satellites

Russia Russia operates the Resurs remote sensing satellite, which collects multispectral

photographic data of relatively high resolution (2-10 m) Soyuzkarta, a Russian company, IS marketing

data of 2 m resolution Earlier, Russia operated the Almaz synthetic aperature radar satellite and attempted to market data from it, with only partial success

Canada Canada is developing Radarsat, a synthetic aperature radar satellite devoted to collecting

data for a variety of tasks, Including ice mapping, ship navigation, and resource exploration and management. Canada expects to launch Radarsat in 1995

The proliferation of non-U S systems poses a long-term competitive challenge to the United States,

particularly as users gain more experience using the data On the other hand, users’ experience can be

expected to contribute to overall global growth of the data market

SOURCE : Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

Except for 1993, the market for remotely sensed ly for GIS. Many past market surveys were overly

data from both Landsat and SPOT has increased optimistic. For example, some studies conducted

over the lifetime of the satellites (figure 4-2). in the mid 1980s forecast a demand for remotely

Market studies of land remote sensing range sensed data approaching $1 billion per year by

from studies of demand for geospatial data to eval- 1994, and between $6 and $10 billion by the end

uations of the growth of data processing, especial- of the decade.% Current studies often lump the

% me ~pannlent of Conlmrce predicted in ] 988 that data, value-added services, and associated products would be worth $6 billion by

1998. Fomwr EOSATexecutive vice-president Peter Norris predicted unprocessed data sales of $1 billion by 1994. See ‘The Selling of Remote

Sensing,” Satellife Communications, December 1988, p. 14; “Growth Stability Predicted for Commercial Space Ventures, ’’A\iarion Week and

.7pace Tiw}molo~>, Mar. 14, 1988.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 107

180

~ SPOT

’

A

6 0

_ Landsat

r

140 ‘—’

g 120

E

: 100

.—

~ 80

a)

$ 60

40

2;-

32

1985 1991 1997

Revenue generated by SPOT and Landsat Increased after the introduction of SPOT 10 meter data The trend will Iikely continue into the future

especially If systems with higher resolution are developed

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administratlon, Advanced

Research Projects Agency 1993

amount spent on data together with the amount of

data processing equipment purchased. Although

sales of remote] y sensed data may spur some commerce in data processing hardware and software,

most sales of general purpose computers and other

equipment will serve other purposes as well and

cannot be counted for remote sensing industry totals.

Table 4-3 summarizes the market for land remote sensing data, services, and associated hardware and software. Table 4-4, which provides a

breakdown of raw data sales, estimates a market

for raw (unprocessed) data in 1992 of about $150

million. The value-added industry ($300 million)

provides finished data products to users international] y. The revenues of the value-added industry

will likely increase, as additional data customers

discover the value of remotely sensed data.

—Activity Annual Revenue —

Data acquis~tlon $150

(Includes satelllte and aircraft)

Data distribution/conversion $100

(Includes GIS)

Information products/services $300

(value-added processing)

Hardware/software $300

Total $850

SOURCE National Aeronautic and Space Adrnln~strat/onEOSAT, Matra, Peat-Marwlck

Data from aircraft and from satellites are characterized by geographic coverage and by price:

satellite images tend to cover larger areas at a low’-

er price per area than images acquired by aircraft. 47 Satellite systems have high capital costs,

but produce data of low marginal cost. Aircraft

systems are the reverse. Satellites do not require a

dedicated flight each time new data tire needed.

and are more likely to provide digital multispec -

tral data than aircraft systems. On the other hand,

aircraft remote sensing systems can provide higher resolution than existing civilian satellite systems over well-defined geographic areas. In addition, aircraft can fly below high-level clouds that

would make satellite data unusable. Increasingly.

aircraft and satellite data are combined and

merged with other data to create valuable information products.

The revenues of individual data providers continue to increase. EOSAT’S total revenues have

grown consistently since 1979 (figure 4-3).48 EOSAT’S international sales revenue has increased by

12 to 16 percent annually between 1989 and 1991;

over the same period, U.S. sales increased by 10 to

24 percent per year. Spot Image’s revenue has increased at similar rates. Data sales from the European Space Agency’s first Environmental Research Satellite (ERS - 1 ) are increasing as well, By

47 ~c ~OStS ~)f ~r(}duclng Sate]]lte &ta are ~enera]]y higher [h~ aerial ph{)tc)graphy. The dc?welopment and launch C(KIS of Ck ~n a sll~;lll

remote sensing sate] I ite are substantial. A commercial venture must recoup up fr(mt Investment frt)m data sales OY cr a peri(d of 2-5 > ears.

48 EOSATss Lan~sat data sales ~xwrlenced a ~l(~es[ dow,ntum in ] 9$)3 as a resu](, in pan, (}f the ]OSS of L:~~s:l[ 6. SPOT IIII:i~C :I]\(I ek~>rk

end a downturn in its 1993 rewrrue.
108 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Provider Product Annual Revenue

SPOT Image

EOSAT

ESA

USGS

USDA

U S Commercial aerial photography firms

Non-U S commercial aerial photography

Indian, Chinese, Russian satellite data

Estimated total

* Estimate

SOURCE OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1993

Multispectral

Multispectral

ERS-1 Radar

Orthophotoquads; 1 meter

Landsat, AVHRR data

USGS orthophotoquads, 1

Aerial photography

Multispectral digital

$40,000,000

$25,000,000

$1,000,000

aerial photos; $7,300,000

meter aerial photos $3,500,000

$40,000,000’

$25,000,000’

and film $1 0,000,000’

$151,000,000

30

20

mc

.-o

=.-

2

10

Worldwide Landsat sales revenue

+ -

Total U.S. Landsat sales revenue

01 r I I I I I I I

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

SOURCE EOSAT, Wor/dwde LandsatflafaSa/es, 1991 See also Arturo Sllvestrml testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology spring 1992
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data I 109

the end of May, 1993, the total 1993 sales of Europe’s ERS- 1 satellite ($480.000) had already surpassed the total sales amount for 1992.49

As noted in chapter 2, the primary repository

for Earth resources data is the U.S. Geological

Survey’s Earth Resources Observation Systems

(EROS) Data Center, located in Sioux Falls, SD.

EROS Data Center annually sells about $6 to 8

million worth of remotely sensed products,

derived from both aircraft and satellite based sensors. Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 detail the 1992 sales

activity of the EROS Data Center

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

also sells remotely sensed data, most of it acquired

by aircraft. In 1992, the USDA sold $3.5 million

worth of data, or nearly 1.3 million photographic

units. Seventy-five percent of the sales were government purchases.

Appendix B provides examples of several applications of remote sensing. As the resolution

and other aspects50 of commercially available remotely sensed data improve, and as customer access to data expands, it is likely that these applications will create a greater market for data, and

other new applications will be added. The data

market will also likely increase as software developers improve the user-friendliness of their software for processing and analyzing data.

Current market demand for remotely sensed

data is concentrated in five segments (figure 4-4).

As the remote sensing industry matures, it will

likely experience increased diversification in the

application of data, and the development of niche

markets. For example, the data needs of a timber

company are quite different from the needs of a

vineyard, both of which are included in the agriculture/forestry segment. In particular, the vineyard will have far more stringent time requirements for delivery of data than the timber

company; the two products have varying value per

acre, and grapes require annual harvesting and

more careful monitoring during certain seasons.

Photographic products 2,916,346 73,658

Dlgltal products/processing 1,497,596 1,738,810

Reference aids 9,020 8,641

Miscellaneous 79,685 1,026,233

Total 4,502,647 2,847,042 —

● Products produced at EOSAT but sold through EROS Data

Center

SOURCE U.S Geological Survey, EROS Data Center FY 1992

Annual Report, p 16

Aerial photography products Market

National aerial photography program $1-

,777,533

Side Iooklng airborne radar 17,123

Other 13,566

Satellite

AVHRR 50,309

Other 449,781

Digital film recorder products 174,705

USGS Landsat MSS data 122>700

Other photographic 310,630

Total S2,916,347

SOURCE EROS Data Center 1992

Digital data products — —

Data processing

Side Looking Airborne Radar

AVHRR

National Digital Cartographic Data

Base

USGS Landsat MSS Data

National Uranium Data

Other digital products

Total

. ——

Market

$815,014

4,384

404936

62,092

164,200

1,840

55,669

$1,508,135

SOURCE EROS Data Center Annual Report of Dala Services,

Fiscal Year 1992

49 Space Newfs, May 24-30, 1993, p. 12.

so For ~~~n]p]~, the aVaikibl]lty of stereo data.
110 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Other

80/0 Environment

22940

NOTE Demand for remotely sensed data in these markets IS likely to

grow GIS/Mapptng IS perhaps the fastest growth area for remotely

sensed data but in some ways IS an artificial distinction since the data

used in GIS often support applications classed in one of the other categories above

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration Advanced

Research Projects Agency 1993

Remotely sensed data provide tools for improving productivity in many industries. Data

providers consider a combination of factors (including price, required resolution, swath width,

and the availability of data in a timely fashion)

characterizing groups of consumers that cross-cut

traditional “applications.”5’ For example, cartographers generally have different resolution, scene

size requirements and price thresholds than do

agricultural users. Yet in many instances, customers in both markets would purchase similar data.

Data providers are also challenged to find ways to

sell data multiple times, lower the cost of data to

users, and meet other requirements of customers.

Table 4-8 offers a general depiction of some factors that influence the consumers of remotely

sensed data products,

Growth of the market for geospatial data will

depend primarily on:

1. the ability of the marketplace to find additional

applications for data from existing systems;

Bands Resolution Minimum scene size* Revisit Price tolerance Application

Visble near-lR, 5-15 m40km x 40km Weekly-monthly $150-1,500 - ‘

-

Land-use planning

radar

Visble, near-lR, 1-5 m 40km x 40km Monthly $500-1,500 Mapping

radar

Visible, near-lR, 4-3cI m

40km x 40km Weekly $1,000-4,000 Resource manage-

(hyperspectral) ment

Visible, IR 2-10 m 40km x 40km Weekly $1,000-4,000 Environmental assessment

IR, radar 20-1000 m 80km x 80km 2 days $500-1,000 Marine

Visble, IR 4-30 m 40km x 40km 2 days $500-2,000 Agricultural/

forestry

* Varies by specific application

SOURCE National Aeronauticshcs and Space Administration Advanced Research Projects Agency, Off Ice of Technology Assessment

s I Sonle ~t)tcntlal “Iarkets have s~clfic IInle]lness demands--the data will only be useful (and, therefore, will only ~ purchased) if theY can

be reliably delivered within certain time constraints. If these constraints cannot be met, the market will not materialize. Likewise, historical data

will have appeal to t~ther markm. Reliable access tc) well-archived data sets will be required for many research applicati(ms.
Chapter 4 Government and Private Sector Roles in a Developing Market for Geospatial Data | 111

2.

-.‘3

4.

5.

the distribution of data with higher spectral,

spatial, and temporal resolution than now collected;

the development of user friendly software that

will enable a wider set of users to apply raw

data to new problems;

the ability of data providers to reach the customer quickly and efficiently; and

reductions in the costs of providing raw data.

The availability of data having better features

(e.g., stereo) than currently offered by either

EOSAT (the Landsat system) or by SPOT

Image, could also stimulate the market, especially if these data can reach the customer in a

timely and cost-efficient manner.

An $850 million remote sensing market itself is

not enough to support a commercial venture with

high costs. The costs to develop, launch, and operate a remote sensing satell ite have ranged between

$100 and $800 million, depending on the satellite’s capability and weight. Since the sales of raw

satellite data will capture only a small part of that

$850 million market, commercial viability of the

market will depend on reducing system costs significantly, and/or tapping a new market niche. Regardless, the financial risks involved in this market are substantial.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION IN DATA

SERVICES

As noted earlier, the United States faces increasing competition from sales of data generated by

foreign satellite systems (box 4-3). During the

1970s and the 1980s, the United States had a monopoly on satellite systems, and gained considerable experience in working with the data for scientific and operational purposes. U.S. agencies and

companies developed powerful software to process and analyze large quantities of data efficient] y.

Over the last decade, however, data users around

the world have acquired similar experience. Recently, software developers, especially in Europe,

SOURCE European Space Agency, 1993

have begun to develop powerful GIS and other

software for processing remotely sensed data and

turning them into useful information .52

The Europeans and the Japanese are gaining

valuable experience in working with multispectral and SAR data. The lack of a U.S. operational

synthetic aperture radar system (box 4-4) may,

in time, present a considerable competitive

challenge to the United States, both in terms of

experience with building and operating a SAR

satellite system and in terms of using the data

for operational purposes. Although U.S. scientists have access to ERS-1 data for research purposes, relatively few U.S. resources have been devoted to experimenting with the data for operational purposes. Data from the SAR instrument on

ERS-1 (figure 4-5) have potential for use in a wide

variety of applications. European scientists have

devoted considerable time and effort into learning

5Z me ~{)untrle~ ,)f Ea~tcm Europ. ha~lc d~nltlnstra[~d their in[~rest and capabilities in software development, paflicul~ly in ‘alYzing ‘ata

for operati(ma] purpwes. See Robin .Armanl, tcstimtmy before the !Wnatc Select Committee (m Intelligence, Nov. 17, 1993.
112 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Instead of developing a free-flying synthetic aperature radar instrument to continue the experiments

begun with NASA’s Seasat in the late 1970s, NASA decided to build SAR instruments capable of being

operated from the Space Shuttle. It has flown Shuttle Imaging Radar-A (SIR-A) and SIR-B on several

Shuttle flights, gathering data that would allow NASA scientists to experiment with SAR data.

NASA’S-C (SIR-C), has recently flown on the Shuttle. Although the flight was highly successful, it

returned several days worth of data along the orbital path of the Space Shuttle. Although these data

will contribute to greater scientific understanding of spaceborne radar systems and their capabilities,

the system will not return data that can be used for operational purposes. If SIR-C proves successful

in operations from the Shuttle, NASA could convert the instrument to a free-flying, polar-orbitingl

spacecraft for $150 to $250 million,2 giving U.S. scientists and remote sensing specialists important

experience in using SAR data for both scientific and operational uses.

1 The use of the polar orbit would make it possible for the satellite to gather data about the land, ocean, and ice Over the entire

Earth. The shuttle is limited to covering only mid latitudes

2 Jet Propulsion Laboratory internal study, 1993.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1994

how to make the data useful for ocean shipping,

agriculture, and other applications.

The U.S. private sector has been a world leader

in the development of GIS and other data processing software. It is likely to continue to lead the

world for some time. However, the development

and operation by other nations of multispectral

and SAR satellite systems will give the private

sectors of those countries considerable incentive

to improve their own software and market it world

wide. The operation of satellite systems and the

market for data systems is closely linked. If Congress wants to maintain U.S. competitiveness

in remote sensing data handling and processing, it may wish to ensure that the United States

continues to operate one or more multispectral

satellite systems that would provide moderate

resolution data about the land and oceans on

an operational basis. Congress has several options to assist U.S. competitiveness. It could continue to fund the development and operation of

Landsat 7, funded by the federal government. Alternatively, it could assist the development of privately operated land remote sensing satellites by

directing agencies to purchase data rather than

systems from industry. Because the data from

Landsat 7, and the data from proposed privately

operated satellites would complement each other,

rather than compete, Congress may want to pursue

both courses of action.
International

Issues in

Data Management

and Cooperation 5

A

s noted in earlier chapters, remote sensing of Earth was in

the 1960s and early 1970s nearly the sole province of the

United States and the Soviet Union. During the late 1970s

and early 1980s, Europe, India, Japan, China and other

countries began ambitious remote sensing programs. Since the

breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has begun to open its remote

sensing programs to cooperative efforts with other countries and

with non-Russian private industry.

Until recently, U.S. technology and policy dominated the international scene in remote sensing, and U.S. practices established de facto international standards for remote sensing data

policy and management. Now the expanding array of national and

regional agencies involved in remote sensing has changed the

ground rules for cooperation. 1 International cooperation has

long been the norm in civilian remote sensing, but the changing international environment demands a changing approach to cooperation. The United States remains the leading

player in remote sensing but is increasingly the first among

equals. Because the United States is no longer in a position to dictate the terms of international space activities, it can exercise its

leadership most effectively through negotiation, persuasion,

cooperation, and possibly compromise.2

I ~ls chapter Uses [he (errn agency to refer to any of the nationai government agencies

involved in remote sensing, such as NASA and NOAA, as well as regional mganiza[ims

such as the European Space Agency (ESA).

‘John M. Logsdon, “Charting a Course for Cmperatim in Space,” Issues in Science

and Technology, vol. 10, No. 1, fall 1993, pp. 65-72.

I 113
114 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

This chapter examines international issues in

remote sensing data policy and management. It focuses on cooperative activities in the public sector, primarily in environmental research and

weather forecasting, as well as related commercial

issues.3

REASONS FOR COOPERATION

Nations seek to cooperate in space activities for

scientific, economic, and political reasons (box

5-l). Economic motivations stem from the increasingly tight budgets for space activities

worldwide. International cooperation offers the

promise of reducing costs by reducing unnecessary redundancies between the remote sensing

programs of different agencies, either by allowing

greater specialization and division of labor between agencies or by permitting the development

of joint satellite systems that meet the combined

needs of several agencies. International coordination can also improve the effectiveness of remote

sensing programs by bringing together the complementary strengths of different agencies and enabling them to identify and eliminate the gaps

among their programs. These incentives for cooperation are reflected in increasing efforts to resolve disagreements over the international exchange of data and to coordinate programs of data

management, both of which aim to increase the

ability of various agencies to use each other data.

Remote sensing from space is an increasingly international activity. Increasing numbers of

countries support remote sensing satellites, which

are capable of providing data from around the

world, and collecting those data often requires

cooperation with receiving stations in many different countries. Furthermore, many applications

of remotely sensed data are by their nature regional or global in scope. Modem weather forecasting

requires global data to support increasingly capable computer forecasting models, and understanding changes in the global environment requires accurate information on the state of the atmosphere,

oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems. There is a

long history of productive international exchanges of Earth data, including remotely

sensed data, for these and other purposes.

CHALLENGES OF COOPERATION

As more countries have become active in remote

sensing they have taken a variety of approaches to

data policy and management, which pose increasing challenges for established mechanisms of data

exchanges. Some agencies have adopted policies

that restrict who may have access to data or have

decided to charge others for the use of their data.

The international community has developed

mechanisms that hold substantial promise of dealing with these conflicts, but their ultimate resolution remains uncertain.

As described in chapter 3, the prodigious quantities of Earth data produced by current and

planned remote sensing systems poses a substantial challenge for data management. Recognizing

this challenge, NASA has begun a concerted effort

to develop the Earth Observing System Data and

Information System (EOSDIS).4 Other countries

have taken different approaches to data management, and none have yet made a comparable commitment of resources.

International data management will require the

development of systems for data transmission,

processing, and storage that support international

data exchanges. The requirements may vary widely depending on the applications. Operational activities such as weather forecasting require reliable networks for the prompt transmission of

critical data worldwide, as provided by the World

Weather Watch. Scientific research and monitoring require the maintenance of accessible highquality archives that operate effectively together

across national boundaries. Efficient international

data management will require international coorJSee cho 4 for a discussion of intematitmal competition in the private sector.

4

See ch. 3.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation I 115

L

The political symbolism of cooperation can promote two closely related sets of goals First, cooperation in space can provide a highly visble symbol that reinforces broader political ties between the countries involved Second, cooperation on space projects can build support for those projects failure to

Iive up to an International commitment could undermine the political relationships Involved 1

At the 1972 Moscow summit, President Nixon and Soviet Premier Alexel Kosygln signed an agreement on peaceful cooperation in space 2 that culminated in the Apollo-Soyuz Test project of

1974-19753 Although both the United States and the Soviet Union maintained active military space programs, the 1975 rendezvous provided a highly visible symbol of the detente that characterized the

U S -Soviet relationship at that time The ApoHo-Soyuz mlsslon didnot lead to further, highly wslble

cooperative missions, however, as the U S -Soviet relationship grew more strained

In 1984 President Reagan announced the U S commitment to building a permanently Inhabited

space station and began to seek International partners to share the costs of this project, which came to

be known as Space Station Freedom In 1988, the international partners in the space station—Canada,

Japan, and the members of the European Space Agency—signed an Intergovernmental agreement 4

laying out their contributions to the International space station project, Despite several redesigns to reduce its cost, the space station became a symbol of U.S leadership of a unified western alliance during the Cold War, and the International commitment also became one of the Ieading arguments in Congress for continued funding of the space station

In 1993, President Clinton called for another redesign to reduce the cost of the space station This

redesign left open the possibility of Russ Ian participation, which was eventually agreed to in November

1993 In addition to providing some needed components of the space station at relatively low cost, this

agreement serves to dramatize the end of the Cold War and provides a symbol of Russias reintegration

into the International community. Cooperation for political purposes carries the risk that the political considerations within either country could undermine cooperate agreements Indeed, the possibilty of

political and economic instabiltyty in Russia makes this reintegration as much a hope as a fact, and

poses risks to the space station if Russia IS not able to meet its commitments

‘ See app C of U S Congress Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Civilian Space Station and the U S Future in Space OTASTI-241 (Washington DC U S Government Printing Office November 1984)

2 The 1972 Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in Exploration and Use Of Outer Space for peaceful puporses

3 U S Congress Off Ice of Technology Assessment U S -Sowe( Coopera(/on In Space OTA-TM-STI-27 (Washngton DC U S

Government Prntlng Off ce July 1985) pp 27-31

4 The Agreement Among the Government of the United States of America Governments of Member States of the European

Space Agency the Government of Japan and the Government of Canada on Cooperation n the Detaled Desgn Deve opment

Operation and Utlllzatlon of the Permanently Manned CIVII Space StatIon ‘

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1994.

dination that addresses worldwide data manage- of cooperation. Second, international cooperation

ment needs in a systematic way. can reduce U.S. autonomy in x-emote sensing,

International cooperation in remote sensing making the United States vulnerable to changes in

cm also carrys ign ificant drawbacks. First of al 1, it policies or programs by foreign governments and

can complicate management and decision-mak- limiting the ability of the United States to modify

ing processes. leading to delays, inefficiencies, its programs in response to its own changing

and a loss of flexibility that reduce the advantages needs and circumstances. Finally, the open ex-
116 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

change of data internationally can undermine the

ability of U.S. companies to compete in commercial data sales.

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ACTIVITIES

As the number of agencies involved in remote

sensing has grown (figure 5-1; app. A),5 so has the

variety of approaches to data distribution and

management policies. These policies vary not just

from country to country but from agency to

agency and even from program to program within

a single agency. In distributing remotely sensed

data, NASA and NOAA follow the guidelines set

out in Office of Management and Budget Circular

A-130, making data available to users at or below

the cost of reproduction. Non-U.S. agencies often

view their data as valuable property, restricting access through licenses and charging substantially

higher fees for access. Some agencies engage in

value-added services for private customers while

others, including U.S. agencies, leave this mostly

to the private sector. In designing their data management systems, some agencies concentrate on

managing data for their own internal purposes,

while others invest in systems that provide access

for a broader group of users.6

These variations in data policy and management have important implications for international data exchange. Agencies with restrictive access

policies are often reluctant to exchange data with

agencies that allow more open access, and sometimes provide data subject to restrictions on thirdparty access that add to the recepient’s data management costs. Furthermore, the exchange of large

amounts of data requires data access and transmission systems that are both compatible and have

sufficient capacity to operate together effectively.

 United States

The United States has the longest history in civilian remote sensing and its applications. With its

early weather satellites and the first Landsats, the

United States decided to make the data available

to domestic and foreign users as cheaply as possible.7 The marginal cost of open access was low,

and it reinforced the ideal of free and open exchange of information as an element of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. During the late

1970s and 1980s the United States adopted a

much more commercial approach to data access,g

and this had a major impact on the emerging policies of other countries that were becoming active

in remote sensing.

U.S. efforts at remote sensing now include

NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), which is

the largest single component of the broader U.S.

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

The emergence of these programs prompted a review of data policy and management, with two

important consequences. First, the Committee on

Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES) elaborated the Global Change Research Data Princ iples,9 which reaffirmed policies of open data access and exchange10 and the commitment to

Ssee ~pp, D of U.S. Congress, Offlce Of Technology” Assessment, The Future ofRemote Semingfiom Space: Cil’iiian satellite SYslen~s and

Applications, OTA-lSC-558 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993) for a description of these activities.

bRay Harris and Ron~an Kmwec, ‘mSonle Current Intemationa] and National Earth Observation Data policies,’” Spa(”e pdic’y, vol. 9, N(). 4,

November 1993, pp. 273-285.

7@,nem11y at no Cos( or at the cost of repr(ducti(~n.

gsee ch. 4 ~d David Rad~anowski, The Future of the Lund Remote Sensing Satellite System(Lundsal)91 -685 SPR (washingtm, DC: C(~ngressimal Research Service, September 1991).

gconlnlittee on Eafih and Environmental Sciences, The U.S. Global Change Data and Information ManaRemenr Prqrarn plan (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, September 1992). These principles were made public by OSTP Director D. Al Ian Bmmley and became

known as the Brornley Principles.

l~ls ~)sitlon was strongly influenced by data exchange principles of the ICSU World Data centers. see BOX 5-10.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 117

...——

METEOR-2 Series

LANDSAT 4, 5

METEOR-3 Series

RESURS-O Series

OKEAN-O Series

SPOT 1

GOES 7

IRS-1 a

METEOSAT 3, 4, 5

NOAA 11-12

GMS-4

SPOT 2

MOS lb

ERS-1

IRS-lb

UARS

JERS-1

INSAT Series

TOPEX/POSEIDON

NOAA 1

STELA

SPOT 3

METEOSAT 6, 7 (8)

GOMS Series

IRS-1 C

IRS-P2

GMS-5

NOAA J

SeaStar

GOES I-M

PRIRODA

TOMS Earth Probe

ERS-2

IRS-P3

RADARSAT

ALMAZ-1 B

SPOT 4

ADEOS

NOAA K-N

CBERS-1

IRS 1 d

TRMM

TOMS Earth Probe

ENVISAT-1

CBERS-2

EOS-AM 1, 2, 3

EOS COLOR

LANDSAT 7

ALMAZ-2

ADEOS II

MSG Series

SPOT 5

EOS-AERO 1-5

BEST

HIROS

METOP Series

EOS-PM 1, 2, 3

SPOT RADAR

EOS-CHEM 1, 2, 3

EOS-ALT 1, 2, 3

—93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 I

—

,,. I

I * I

+ 1

IT

i

I I

\ I

1’

I

I

I

.

1

I

I

I

/

i

I

I

I

I 1

11

1 I

1

i

II

II

[

I

II

1

1

1

1

I

I

I

I ——— In sewce

Firm/approved, proposed

=ZZZZA Extension beyond planned Ilfetlme

L

1

1111I

SOURCE Commitee on Earth Observations Satelites 1993
118 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

adequate data management systems (box 5-2). Europe

Second, NASA made a major commitment to de- Western Europe has emerged as an increasingly

veloping the EOS Data and Information System important player in satellite remote sensing. The

(EOSDIS) in order to manage effectively the huge European Space Agency (ESA), the European Orquantities of data expected from EOS. 1 ] ganisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological

In July 1991, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released the Policy Statement on

Data Management for G/oba/ Change Research, which was elaborated on in a report by the Committee

on Earth and Environmental Sciences. I This report forms the basis for U.S. policy on data access, exchange, and management The statement reads

“The overall purpose of these policy statements is to facilitate full and open access to quallty data

for global change research They were prepared in consonance with the goal of the U S Global

Change Research Program and represent the U S Government’s position on the access to global

change research data

■

■

■

■

m

■

■

—

The U S Global Change Research Program requires an early and continuing commitment to the estabIlshment, maintenance, validation, description, accessibility, and distribuhon of high-quality long-term

data sets

Full and open sharing of the full suite of global data sets for all global change researchers IS a fundamental

objective

Preservation of all data needed for long-term global change research is required For each and every

global change data parameter, there should be at least one explicitly designated archive Procedures

and criteria for setting priorities for data acquisition, retention, and purging should be developed by partlclpahng agencies, both nahonally and internationally. A clearinghouse process should be established

to prevent the purging and loss of Important data sets

Data archives must Include easily accessible Information about the data holdings, Includlng quallty assessments, supporting ancillary information, and guidance and aids for locating and obtaining the data

National and International standards should be used to the greatest extent possible for media and for

processing and dlstrlbutlng global data sets

Data should be provided at the lowest possible cost to global change researchers in the Interest of full

and open access to data This cost should, as a first principle, be no more than the marginal cost of fllllng

a speclflc user request Agencies should act to streamline administrative arrangements for exchanging

data among researchers

For those programs in which selected prlnclpal investigators have initial periods of excluswe data use,

data should be made openly available as soon as they become w[dely useful In each case the funding

agency should explicitly define the duration of any excluwve use period “

1 CEES, The u S Global Change Data and Information Management Program Plan, National Science Foundation, September

1992

SOURCE National .%lence Foundation, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences, 1992

I I See Ch. ~ f[~r a discussi{m of EOSDIS.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation I 119

Satellites (Eumetsat), ’2 and the French space

agency CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) all have major remote sensing satellite programs with corresponding data receiving and distribution systems. Germany, Italy, and the United

Kingdom maintain strong data analysis and applications programs. The European Space Research Institute (ESRIN) near Rome has principal

responsibility for ESA’S Earthnet program, which

manages ESA’S data archives, catalogs, and networks. The European Community (EC) has also

taken an active interest in remote sensing, particularly in data management and in research on the

application of remotely sensed data, ’s and has

joined ESA in developing the Centre for Earth

Observation, but the management of data in Europe generally has been left to individual research

institutes.

European data policies arose as the United

States was attempting to commercialize the Landsat system. Europe’s first land remote sensing satellite program, the French Satellite Pour Observation de la Terre (SPOT) 14 system, is operated as a

commercial enterprise by the private company

SPOT Image. Though more successful in data

sales than EOSAT, SPOT Image still requires a

substantial subsidy from the French government. 15 ESA has also arranged for the commercial

sale of data from its research and operational satellites, beginning with ERS- 16 After initial problems caused by an incomplete data management

system and by severe limitations on the quantity

of data made available to researchers, ERS- 1 data

are now available to users in the United States. Eumetsat is moving toward more restrictive policies

for access to data from its Meteosat meteorological satellite system.

 Russia

Russia is the main heir to the long Soviet tradition

in civil remote sensing, but aside from imagery

from its meteorological satellites, Russia did not

begin making satellite data available outside the

Soviet Union until the late 1980s. Several firms

now market Russian remotely sensed data, Multispectral images are available in photographic

form with resolutions as fine as 2 meters. 17 At_

tempts to sell photographic images and data from

its Almaz synthetic aperture radar (SAR) commercially have met with only limited success because of difficulties in providing timely access to

data, and inexperience with commercial markets.

A shortage of funds is also inhibiting Russian efforts and has delayed the launch of the Geostationary Operational Meteorological Satellite

(GOMS). 18 The United States and Russia signed

an agreement on cooperation in civilian space activities in 199219 and have begun to develop plans

for cooperation in Earth observations, including

joint projects on data exchange and interoperabilI Znc ~k ~)lk,lng ~e]a[l[)nshlp ~.twcen ESA and Eun~Ctsat is similar to that hetween NASA and NOAA. ESA ~~v~lf)ps and lalln~h~~ ‘hC ~;*tC1-

lites, and Eumetsat processes and (hstributes the data.

I ~~e Jt)ln[ Research Cen[re at ISpra near Milan, Italy, is the main center for this research.

14spoq- was ~)rlgina]]y nanled sate]] i[e Probat(llre d’ohsem ati(m de la Terre, indicating its experimental natUre, bill tk nanlc was la[Cr

changed to reflect Its current, (ywratitmal status.

i fCNES pa~,s nlost Capital costs, including satellite development, and holds a 34 percent interest in s~~t [nlafl~, S.A

] s~e prl~ ate corllpmYEurln)ag~ ~as established to market remote sensing images by publicly owned ground statl~)ns w lthln ELJrlw> Jn-

.

cludlng data fr(~n~ Landsat, AVHRR, ERS - 1, and future systems. ERS - 1 data have not experienced s[rong sales to date. The C,ana(Jum Rackirsat

lntemati{ma] has the North American marketing rights for ERS- 1, and SPOT Image has marketing rights in other parts {~f the world.

17See U.S. (’[)ngrcss, office of TCchnolog}” Assessment, The /--/////re {)1 ~cnl(jlc .$~fl$I~<: ~-rO~l .\/Ja~’c: ~l\’1/1~~ .$fltelll~~ .$~’$~c~?~ $ (~~~d~~/~/J/~~”~~-

fIwr,Y, OTA- ISC-558 (Washlngt(m, DC, U.S. G(~vemn~ent Printing Office, July 1994), app. D, pp. 179-180.

ltlGOMS has ~,en listed as ready for launch since 1992.

1 ~AgrPcn)Pn! R(,fi$ ~cn ~)le R14% ~lon ~“cdcr[lll{)n and I)lP ~’nltpd ,~mtps o/’Amerl[a on COOpPrallOn In peat’efit] .Spa[”Q Re~~>~r~)l ‘Jrl[i ~/)ll)r[lmm, June 17, 1992.
120 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ity of data systems.

20 The future of Russian involvement in cooperative remote sensing activities remains uncertain.

1 Japan

Four Japanese agencies play important roles in remote sensing: the National Space Development

Agency (NASDA); its parent organization, the

Science and Technology Agency (STA); the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI);

and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).

Both NASDA and MITI have undertaken joint

programs with NASA.2] Japan makes data available on a nondiscriminatory basis for nonmilitary

applications, distinguishing only between research and nonresearch applications. NASDA

distributes data to scientific users at or below the

cost of reproduction through the Earth Observations Center (EOC) and receives royalties for data

sold commercially through the Remote Sensing

Technology Center (RESTEC). However, it has

had serious problems in distributing data from its

MOS and JERS-1 satellites and plans major improvements in data management for future satellite missions. Japan has also made proposals for

greater international coordination of remote sensing data networks.

Canada

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) plans to enter

the remote sensing business with Radarsat, which

promises to carry the first SAR to be used on an

operational basis. Canada hopes to recover most

of the operating costs of Radarsat through commercial data sales by Radarsat International, although most of the intended customers are foreign

governments seeking data on sea ice cover. The

Canadian government will receive free access to

data, as will the U.S. government in exchange for

NASA’s launch of Radarsat.

 India

India has developed an active remote sensing program, aimed mainly at domestic applications, but

has refused to make satellite data regarding India

available to other countries and, until recently, has

not attempted to distribute satellite data for other

countries. In October 1993, India’s National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) and EOSAT announced an agreement under which EOSAT

would market data from India’s IRS satellites.22

Othe r

China has developed experimental weather satellites and has joined with Brazil to develop the China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS).

South Africa is developing a land remote sensing

satellite called Greensat, capable of gathering

multispectral data of 16.25 meters resolution and

panchromatic data of 2.5 meters resolution. A number of other countries have programs in remote sensing and operate ground stations that receive and

process data from other countries’ satellites.

These agency programs have substantial overlap and duplication, often because countries have

pursued independent national space programs for

reasons of national prestige and technological autonomy.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND LEGAL

PRINCIPLES

National, international, and commercial Earth observations from space take place in the context of

an evolving system of international principles and

legal regimes. The main forum for international

agreements under the United Nations umbrella is

‘“Plon ji)r Russian-American Cooperative Programs in Earth Science and Environmental Monitorin~fiom Space, (let. 27, 1993.

‘

l These include the ASTER instrument, which MIT1 will supply for EOS AM-1, the joint NASA/NASDA Tropical Rainfall Moni[mirtg

Missit~n (TRMM) satellite, and NASA/NASDA instrument exchanges m ADEOS and EOS-Chem.

2zBen Iannotta, “Landsat 6 Loss Opens Door to Other Imagery Suppliers,” Space News, Nov. 1-7, 1994, p. 18.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 121

the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer

Space (COPOUS), which negotiated four international agreements on space activities. The 1967

Outer Space Treaty establishes abroad framework

for outer space law, encouraging scientific cooperation and prohibiting claims of sovereignty in

outer space. Along with the 1972 Liability Convention and the 1975 Registration Convention,

the Outer Space Treaty establishes the principle of

national jurisdiction over satellites, including

commercial remote sensing satellites, and includes the requirement that private companies obtain licenses for their satellites from their national

government and that those satellites be listed in

the U.N. Registry by that national government.

The 1987 U.N. principles on remote sensing

express international ideals for the use of remote

sensing, although observers disagree about how

these principles should be interpreted. These principles embody the view that outer space is a resource for all humanity and should be used for the

general benefit of all nations (box 5-3). The 1992

Landsat Act incorporated some of these principles

into U.S. law (box 5-4).

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The earliest efforts to promote international cooperation in remote sensing dealt with meteorological satellites. The World Weather Watch (WWW)

is a cooperative program for collecting, processThe United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space (Principles) are

contained in a 1987 resolution adopted by the General Assembly. As a resolution, the Principlesnnclples are not

currently legally blinding but do provide the basis for a multilateral treaty. Much of the language and

intent of the principles stems from the four major space treaties promulgated by the U N Committee on

the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) from 1967 through 1975 Of particular importance is the

Treaty on Principles Governing the Actiities of States in the Exploration and use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty) This treaty, which has been in force

for 26 years and to which the United States is a party, provides that outer space and celestial bodies

are governed by international law and are not subject to national appropriation

The Princilples cite provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and the Convention on the RegistrationReglstratlon of

Objects launched into Outer Space (Registration Convention) as applying to remote sensing actvities

The Outer Space Treaty provisions cited mandate that outer space and celestial bodies are the “province of all mankind” and require that the exploration and use of space be for the benefit of all nations

regardless of their degree of economic or scientific development

The provions cited also encourage international cooperation, require individual nations to oversee

the space activitles of nongovernmental entities, and allow claims for damages to be presented in the

courts of either the claimant or the launching state The Registration Convention provision cited in the

Principles requires a state to provide information about space objects launched by it to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations The information includes the name of the Iaunching state(s), a registra

tion number, orbital parameters, date and location of launch, and the general function of each object.

The Principles augment the legal role of the United Nations in remote sensing by making it and its

relevant agencies responsible for providing technical assistance and coordination The Secretary-General’s role includes being informed of national remote sensing activities and making relevant Information

available to other states upon request

(contiued)
122 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The Principles address access and distribution of data and information generated by national civilian remote sensing systems, Primary data are defined as the raw data delivered in the form of electromagnetic signals, photographic film, magnetic tape, or any other means. Processed data are the products resulting from processing primary data, and analyzed information means information resulting from

interpreting processed data. Remote sensing activities addressed by the Principles include operations,

data collection, storage, processing, interpretation, and dissemination.

As a whole, the Principles set a standard of international cooperation among states operating remote

sensing systems (sensing states) and states whose territory is being observed (sensed states) while

attempting to achieve a balance between the rights and interests of both groups. The needs of the developing nations are to be given special regard. Sensing states are encouraged to provide cooperative

opportunities in a wide array of activities ranging from data collection to establishing and operating

storage stations and processing facilities. If requested, a sensing state must consult with a sensed state

to make participation opportunities available. Regional agreements are preferred wherever feasible.

Protection of the Earth’s environment and of humanity from natural disasters are specific purposes

promoted by the Principles, States participating in remote sensing activities that possess information

useful for averting harmful phenomena are required to disclose the information to concerned states. If

the potential harm threatens people, the obligation to disclose requires promptness and extends to

processed data and analyzed information.

The relationship between sensed and sensing states—and the rights and responsibilities that issue

from that relationship-are particularly addressed by Articles IV and X11 of the Principles, In political

terms, the challenge of the relationship between sensed and sensing states is to reconcile the interests

of economically and technologically advantaged and disadvantaged states, In legal terms, the challenge of the relationship is to provide governing standards for a whole activity with integral components

occurring in legal regimes framed by different organizing principles. Sovereignty-the primary organizing principle on Earth—is prohibited in space. Articles IV and X11 stress both the nonexclusive right to

use and explore space as well as respect for sovereignty of states over their own wealth and natural

resources.

Article IV sets a legal standard for behavior among sensed and sensing states and Article Xll is a

dissemination statute. Together, they provide a fluid legal regime for national remote sensing systems

and activities that obliges sensing states to avoid harm to sensed states and to provide them with access to primary data and processed data concerning their own territory on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Analyzed information available to sensing states is also to be available to the sensed states on the

same basis and terms. In turn, sensed states are to meet reasonable cost terms and do not have access to analyzed information legally unavailable to the sensed states, for example, proprietary information.

The legal literature contains an ongoing debate as to whether the Principles add substantive value to

the body of remote sensing law. One view points to the reiteration of Outer Space Treaty and Registration Convention provisions to demonstrate that the Principles are ambiguous and repetitious. From

another view, it is pointed out that the Principles do contain new general principles, such as using remote sensing data for the protection of humankind and the Earth environment, thus expanding the law.

From either perspective, the fact remains that the United Nations Principles Relating to Remote Sensing

of the Earth from Space was the first major resolution to emerge from COPOUS in over a decade and

represents persuasive authority that provides a foundation for the continued evolution of international

remote sensing law.

SOURCE Joanne Gabrynowlcz, 1994
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 123

The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Policy Act) has implications for international remote

sensing activties because it sets regulations that can clarify the 1987 U.N. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space (Principles), As a major remote sensing nation, the domestic

Iegislation of the United States has persuasive authority for the development of international remote

sensing law, similar to the way that practices of strong maritime nations influenced the development of

International Maritime law The Policy Act addresses some issues left ambiguous by the Principles

Among them are protecting the Earth’s environment through remote sensing, the role of the private sector in carrying out the Principles, and providing remote sensing assistance to developing nations

Protecting the Earth’s environment through remote sensing

A driving force behind the repeal of the Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 (Landsat Act) was its lack of attention to the environmental value of remote sensing Replacing the Landsat

Act with a law that focuses on the environmental value of remote sensing conforms with the Principles’

positive duty that sensing states avoid harm to the Earth’s natural environment.

Private sector obligations and the U.N. Principles

Prior to the Policy Act, U.S. officials took the position that Principle Xll, the dissemination statute,

applied only to data from states, leaving open the obligation of a private entity under national jursdiction to make data available Now, timely access by an sensed state to at least one Principle Xll data

category produced by the private sector—primary data—is required by the Policy Act Whereas the

Landsat Act did not impose a time constraint on the operator as did the Principles, the Policy Act’s

licensing conditions do correspond to the Princple's time constraints by requiring that access occur as

soon as data are available

The Policy Act also may require private operators, on a case-by-case basis, to make unenhanced

data available on terms similar to that applied to the Landsat system or other government systems the

value placed by the Policy Act on promoting widespread access to U.S. and foreign remote sensing

data This, in turn, would allow the application of equitable principles to situations like protecting the

Earth’ environment, protecting humanity from natural disasters, and meeting the needs of the developing nations—all of which are contained in the Principles.

The Policy Act and developing nations

Landsat management responsibilities Include ensuring system operation IS responsive to the broad

Interests of foreign users Landsat 7 data policy requires timely and dependable delivery of unenhanced data to foreign users. Federal agencies, particularly NASA, DOD, and the Departments of Agriculture and Interior have mandates to continue remote sensing research and development, which can

extend to cooperation with foreign governments and International organizations. This authority can be

exercised to develop the nature and extent of the obligations contained in the Principles, which include

promoting International cooperation, creating opportunities for inteternational participation establishing

and operating facilities for data collection, storage, and processing. promoting regional agreements,

and providing technical assistance to states and the U N

Particular consideration of the needs of the developing nations, as required by Principle Xll, IS specifically authorized for U S government agencies, which the Policy Act encourages to provide remote

sensing data, technology, and training to developing nations Agencies are also authorized to utilize

excess government civilian remote sensing capabilities to carry out their missions which gives them

access to technology that could provivide necessary infrastructure for Internationnal ald programs

SOURCE Joanne Gabrynowlcz 1994
124 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managementj and Markets

ing, and disseminating meteorological data from

satellites and other sources. WWW is the principal

activity of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which also hosts satellite activities

that involve both satellite operators and data users

and aim to maximize the utilization of meteorological data from satellites. The Coordination

Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS)23

was established to coordinate technical standards

among satellite operators.

A broader forum for international cooperation

in remote sensing emerged in 1984, with the

formation of the Committee on Earth Observation

Satellites (CEOS). CEOS (figure 5-2) provides an

informal and voluntary forum for discussing international issues remote sensing (box 5-5). The

Earth Observation International Coordination

Working Group (EO-ICWG) grew out of the international space station program and aims to

coordinate selected remote sensing programs of

the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan into

an International Earth Observing System (IEOS)

(box 5-6).

Each of these organizations has important

strengths. The WMO involves both users and suppliers of data who share a common interest in improving the effectiveness of operational meteorology. CEOS benefits from its informal, voluntary

nature: participants share a commitment to cooperation and CEOS allows a substantial degree of

flexibility. In dealing directly with operational

matters, EO-ICWG provides a natural forum for

coordinating ground data systems among the

main remote sensing agencies.

These organizations have made substantial

progress in promoting international exchanges of

remotely sensed data through the harmonization

of data policies and data systems. They have provided a forum that U.S. agencies have used to

press for more open data access policies, but important obstacles remain. Some countries have

been reluctant to accept the U.S. position. Whether these international organizations can reach

a working consensus on data exchange policies

will have a major bearing on the ability of international cooperation to improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of remote sensing

programs.

OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

APPLICATIONS

Weather forecasting is by far the largest operational application of remote sensing, both in terms of

the scale of public investment and the level of international cooperation. Earth observing satellites

also have begun to play a significant role in ocean

monitoring, but apart from ocean meteorology

most of these applications are experimental in nature. A number of operational uses exist or have

been proposed for terrestrial data, including crop

forecasting, forestry, and land use monitoring (appendix B).

As discussed below, operational applications

have much in common with scientific monitoring

of the environment,24 but there are also substantial differences, as illustrated by the difference between weather forecasting and climate monitoring. What distinguishes operational applications

of remote sensing is the use of the data to support

timely decision-making, either in response to environmental changes or for the management of

natural resources.

The exchange of data for operational purposes

requires international data systems for timely data

collection, transmission, processing, and dissemination. These systems necessarily involve sharing the burden of data collection and communication, and they also benefit from a division of labor

in data processing; current limits on data communications and processing capabilities dictate that

much of the raw data must be processed into a

23CGMS was founded in 1972 as the Coordination of Geosynchronous Meteorological Sate] llteS grOUp.

24See box 5-9 and U.S. Congress Off’ce of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s .Earlh Obser\ing System, OTABP-lSC-122 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1993), pp. 34-36.
Chapter5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 125

SOURCE Committee on Earth Observations Satellites 1994

more usable form before it can be shared on an international network.

The establishment of operational data networks

involves some technical issues of compatibility

and capability, but these issues are less important

than the establishment of an institutional commitment to data exchange. Of the three primary operational domains, meteorology, ocean monitoring, and terrestrial monitoring, meteorology has

by far the most extensive activities and the most

established mechanisms for international data exchange. Although many of the issues apply generally, this section focuses on weather forecasting,

which has both the strongest need and the best established mechanisms for international data exchange. The final report in this assessment discusses operational activities in ocean and

terrestrial monitoring.

WEATHER FORECASTING

Modem computer models for weather forecasting

require high-quality data from a variety of

sources. Instruments based on land, at sea, and in

the atmosphere provide the most detailed information, but often have limited scope. Satellite

data and images are essential in providing broad

coverage to fill in the gaps between in situ measurements. 25 Furthermore, weather is a global

25 For a description of current weather satellite programs, see ch. 3 of The Future of Remote Sensing from Space.
126 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites was established in 1984 as an outgrowth of a summit

of the Group of Seven, ’ and provides a forum for voluntary cooperation among its 19 members, five

observers, and nine affiliates. The members and observers are national and regional agencies involved

in remote sensing, and the affiliates are international organizations of data users (table 5-1 ). CEOS has

come to play a critical role in developing an international consensus on policy related to remote sensing,

Most CEOS activities take place through established working groups and their subgroups, with major decisions ratified in regular and ad hoc Plenary Meetings. All CEOS working groups have responsibility for data issues. The Working Group on Calibration and Validation deals with the calibration of sensors to insure a consistent relationship between sensor readings and the physical quantities being

measured, The Working Group on Data deals with ground networks, data catalogs, data formats, and

coordination of specific cooperative projects. At its seventh Plenary Meeting in November 1993, CEOS

agreed to establish an ad hoc Working Group on Networks to facilitate the coordination and integration

of data networks. CEOS has held several ad hoc plenary-level meetings on data policy.

CEOS distinguishes among four types of data use:

● scientific research on global environmental change;

● operational uses for the public benefit, including environmental monitoring,

● other research; and

■ other uses, including commercial use,

Of these, CEOS has focused mainly on global change research. The Sixth CEOS Plenary Meeting in

December 1992 adopted a revised Resolution on Satellite Data Exchange Principles in Support of

Global Change Research,2 Although these principles call for data to be made available to global

change researchers at the cost of filling the request, they reflect a clear tension between this goal and

the desire to recover costs through the sale of data. An ad hoc CEOS data policy meeting in April 1994

developed tentative data principles in support of the operational use of satellite data for the public

benefit,

CEOS also provides a forum for CEOS affiliates-international organizations of users of remotely

sensed data—to discuss their needs with the agencies that collect those data. These affiliates include

organizations devoted to global change research and to operational environmental monitoring Discussions between CEOS members and affiliates have influenced the implementation of CEOS data policies

for global change research and led to the preparation of an Affiliates Dossier describing the data needs

of the affiliates, the counterpart to the CEOS Dossier, which describes the remote sensing systems of

CEOS members.

(continued)

1 The Group of Seven consists of the United States, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom

2 See the Minutes of the Sixth CEOS Plenary Meeting, available from the CEOS secretariat through ESA, NASA, and NASDA

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994,
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation I 127

TABLE 5-1: Participants in CEOS

Members

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Canadian Space Agency (CSA)

European Space Agency (ESA)

European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat)

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)/France

British National Space Centre (BNSC)

Deutsche Agentur fur Raumfahrtangelegenhelt (DARA)/Germany

Agenzia Spaziale Italiano (ASl)/ltaly

Swedish National Space Board (SNSB)

Science and Technology Agency (STA)/Japan

Russian Space Agency (RSA)

Russian Committee for Hydro- meteorology and Environment Monitoring (Roskomgidromet)

National Space Agency of Ukraine

Chinese Academy of Space Technology (CAST)

National Remote Sensing Centre of China (NRSCC)

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)/ Australia

Instituto Nacional de Pesequias Espaciais (lNPE)/Brazil

Observers

Norwegian Space Centre (NSC)

Belgian Office of Science and Technology (BOST)

Commision of the European Community (CEC)

Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS)

Crown Research Institute (CRl)/New Zealand

Affiliates

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)

World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)

Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)

Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)

World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)

Food and Agriculture Organisahon (FAO)

SOURCE Committee on Earth Observations Satellites, 1994
128 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The Earth Observation International Coordination Working Group was established to coordinate the

remote sensing activities associated with the international space station program. Now independent of

the space station program, EO-ICWG aims to coordinate a selected set (table 5-2) of programs of the

United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan into an International Earth Observing System (IEOS). The

current focus of EO-ICWG is to develop an IEOS Implementation Plan to make the IEOS missions as

effective as possible, Including coordination of payloads, interoperability of ground systems, and harmonization of operations.

TABLE 5-2: Members of EO-ICWG and IEOS

Country/ region Agencies Satellites

United States NASA EOS-AM, EOS-PM, EOS-Chem,

EOS-Alt, EOS-Aero

NOAA POES

Europe ESA Envisat-1

Eumetsat

Japan NASDA ADEOS

JEA, JMA, MITI

Canada CSA Contributor to Envisat-1

Japan/US NASA/NASDA TRMM

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1994.

EO-ICWG is developing a set of IEOS Data Exchange Principles. Like CEOS, these principles distinguish between four types of data use, although the categories are slightly different

■ scientific research, including global change research,

■ noncommercial operational uses for the public benefit, including environmental monitoring and

meteorology,

■ applied research and development of new applications of remote sensing; and

■ other uses, including commercial uses.

The current draft of the IEOS Data Exchange Principles states that “all IEOS data will be available for

peaceful purposes to all users on a non-discriminatory basis and in a timely manner,” and that data will

be available for non-commercial uses at no more than the cost of reproduction, So far, however, Europe

has committed to include only one of its planned polar platforms—Envisat-l —in IEOS to be subject to

these rules, although other platforms may be incorporated later.

Unlike CEOS, EO-ICWG deals directly with operational matters. The IEOS Implementation Plan is

expected to address a wide range of data issues, including access, formats and standards, archives,

networks, catalogs, and user services. Current plans do not yet amount to an IEOS Data and information System comparable to NASA’s EOSDIS, although they represent a major step in that direction.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 129

phenomenon —the weather in one location is influenced by conditions around the globe, Longrange forecasting, in particular, requires systematic monitoring of weather in distant locations with

both space-based and in situ measurements.

Therefore, effective weather forecasting requires

international cooperation in data collection and

benefits greatly from a formalized division of labor in data processing and dissemination. International data exchanges are essential to

maintain and improve the quality of weather

forecasts.

A number of international organizations have

arisen to meet the need for international cooperation in weather forecasting and meteorological

data exchange. Foremost among these is the

World Meteorological Organization and its operational program, the World Weather Watch. The

WMO has limited resources of its own, and relies

on the voluntary cooperation through the national

weather services of member countries to carry out

its agreed programs.

The WMO provides a forum for both satellite

operators and users of satellite data to coordinate

operational weather satellite programs. These activities have the principal objectives of improv ing

the standardization of satellite instruments and

measurements, ensuring continuity of satellite

measurements, and promoting the more effective

use of these data by WMO members. WMO formalized these actions in 1993 by forming the

Working Group on Satellites within the WMO

Commission on Basic Systems.

For the most part, the operational World Weather Watch program (box 5-7) has been effective at

making meteorological data available for weather

forecasting around the world, but the program also

manifests some weaknesses, especially in collecting in situ data. High-quality surface data are

scarce for the oceans, deserts, and tropical regions. With current computer models for weather

forecasting, the ability to make long-range forecasts is limited by the quality and coverage of

available data, not computing power. WWW

long-term plans have consistently called for an expansion of these surface-based observations, but

these plans frequently go unrealized because they

rely on voluntary commitments from countries.

Some developing countries have reduced their

provision of weather station data, which they see

as providing the greatest benefit to developed

countries, and developed countries generally do

not provide the financial support necessary to operate these stations.26 To improve the quality of

data for long-range weather forecasting as well

as climate monitoring, Congress may wish to

boost the priority of technical assistance on

weather monitoring and forecasting in bilateral and multilateral foreign aid programs. Even

with improved satellite instruments, in situ observations will still be necessary both to complement and to calibrate and validate satellite data.27

Several other international coordinating

groups deal specifically with meteorological satellites, The Coordination of Geosynchronous Meteorological Satellites (CGMS) group was

founded in 1972 as a forum for technical discussions to promote common operating procedures

and standards among the operators of meteorological satellites, in part for the joint WMO/ICSU

Global Atmospheric Research Programme, complementing the activities of the WMO.

The International Polar Orbiting Meteorological Satellite group (IPOMS) was established in

1984 primarily to promote a more equitable sharing of the burden of maintaining polar orbiting

meteorological satellites. NOAA’s polar satellites

have long been the principal source of Automated

Picture Transmission (APT) imagery for users

around the world,28 and the sole source of higher

quality High Resolution Picture Transmission

(HRPT) data. Both types of data are broadcast and

26’IIw section below on Remote Sensing and International Development discusses several related issues.

27For example, of atmospheric chemistry, temperature, pressure, and wind speed.

28The Russian Meteor satellites also broadcast images in APT format.
130 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The World Weather Watch (WWW) was established in 1963 as the operational weather information

system of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), affiliated with the United Nations. WMO itself

grew out of the data exchanges of the International Meteorological Organisation, founded in the late

19th century The purpose of W is to provide national and regional weather services with timely access to meteorological data and forecasts. W has since become the principal activity of WMO, and

remains the only worldwide program for international cooperation on operational meteorological data

and information.

W has three main functional elements: the Global Observing System (GOS), the Global Data-Processing System (GDPS), and the Global Telecommunications System (GTS). The Global Observing System consists of weather satellites and their associated ground stations, aircraft, and surface-based observing stations on land and at sea. This collection of meteorological instruments provides fairly

complete weather data across the temperate latitudes, but has significant gaps over the oceans and in

the tropics. The quality of surface-based observations also varies substantially from region to region.

The Global Data Processing System includes an array of global, regional, and specialized forecast

centers. Three World Meteorological Centres—in Washington, Moscow, and Melbourne-provide worldwide weather forecasts on a global scale. An additional 29 Regional and Specialized Meteorological

Centres provide more detailed forecasts for specialized purposes; three of these centers are devoted to

forecasting tropical cyclones as part of the Tropical Cyclone Programme. These centers use meteorological data and models to develop weather forecasts, which they provide to participating National Meteorological Centres. The forecasts vary from regional to global in scope, and cover a range of time

scales from a few days to over a week, with increasing emphasis on short-term warning of severe

storms and long-term projections.

The Global Telecommunication System is a communications network for transmitting meteorological

data collected by the Global Observation System and forecast information produced by the Global

Data Processing System. The Main Telecommunication Network links the three World Meteorological

Centres and 15 Regional Telecommunication Hubs on six continents, which then provide links to regional and national telecommunication networks. The maximum GTS data rate is currently 64 kbps, which is

inadequate for the routine transfer of satellite imagery, but satellite data within any region are available

directly from the satellites.1 GTS is used mostly for transmitting ground station data, atmospheric soundings, and weather forecast data products. The NOAA polar orbiters provide more limited global coverage by collecting sounding data2 and storing them for later transmission to the ground. On the socalled “blind” orbits, these satellites do not pass over the United States, and the data are transmitted to

the ground station in Lannion, France, which relays them to the United States. Current limitations on

connectivity and data rates restrict the availability of surface weather data and access to useful forecast

reformation in certain regions, particularly the tropics.

1 There some exceptions to this rule India does not make cloud cover data available directly from Insat, but does provide derwed

cloud-motlonwmd vector data to W Eumetsat IS developing plans to encrypt Meteosat data, but will continue to make basic data

available on GTS.

2 These infrared and microwave soundmgsare converted mtotemperature and moisture profiles m thearcolumn along the satelI!te ground track

(continued)
Chapter 5 International Issues Data Management and Cooperation | 131

W also encompasses a number of planning, support, and other specialized functions, The Committee on Data Management works to improve the integration and utilization of the elements of the

W system GOS, GDPS, and GTS The Instruments and Methods of Observation Programme attempts to improve the quality and standardization primarily of surface-based meteorological observations System Support Activities provide technical support, advice, and training especially to developing countries

W’s Tropical Cyclone Programme provides information about hurricanes, typhoons, and other

tropical storms in order to minimize loss of life from these severe storms. Because they are large and

slow-moving, tropical storms are particularly amenable to a coordinated international response. The

Tropical Cyclone Programme integrates the forecasting of tropical storms with flood prediction as well

as disaster prevention and preparedness measures

Weather iS a global phenomenon, and W provides an essential service in planning and coordinating the collection, processing, and transmission of meteorological data and Information The World

Meteorological Congress meets every four years to develop and revise its long-term plans, To a lesser

extent, W also provides a vehicle for assisting developing countries in establishing modern weather

forecast services, However, the Implementation of W plans occurs through the Voluntary Cooperation Programme and depends on the willingness of WMO members and international development organizations to provide technical and financial assistance.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994

freely available to anyone with the appropriate receiving equipment. IPOMS was disbanded in

1993, its principal mission accomplished with the

commitment by Eumetsat to deploy its own polar

platform, Metop, which would take over the mission currently filled by NOAA’s POES-AM platform. 29

CEOS and EO-ICWG also deal with operational meteorological satellites in a broader context

that includes their capacity to provide meteorological data for nonmeteorological purposes such

as global change research, as well as the ability of

other satellites to provide data that are useful for

meteorology.

The European organization Eumetsat represents a significant step beyond voluntary cooperation and coordination to a regional intergovernmental consortium with shared budgetary responsibility based on a fixed percentage of gross domestic product. Eumetsat was established through

a formal intergovernmental convention in 1986 to

provide an institutional mechanism for aggregating national resources within Europe to support a

weather satellite program, and specifically to support the operation of the geostationary Meteosat

satellites and their data systems (box 5-8). Eumetsat and the European Space Agency have a relationship similar to that between NASA and

NOAA in the United States—ESA develops, procures, and launches satellites and Eumetsat has

overall operational responsibility—although Eumetsat has a narrower charter than NOAA. The

national weather services of Eumetsat member

countries share the responsibility for collecting

data from surface stations and other instruments,

and for weather forecasting.

29 Metop is a c(xyxrative effort involving NOAA, ESA, and the national space agencies of France, Italy, and Canada as well as Eurmxsat.
132 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat) grew out of

satellite programs of ESA and its predecessor, the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO).

ESA launched the first two experimental satellites in the Meteosat series in 1977 and 1981. The national

weather services of Europe established Eumetsat in 1986 in order to continue this program, and Eumetsat now serves as the responsible agency for the Meteosat Operational Programme (MOP). Eumetsat

has since grown to 17 members and taken on an increasingly important role in data transmission, data

processing, and nonsatellite observations, i Eumetsat is also developing the polar platform Metop for

launch in the year 2000, and is negotiating with ESA and NOAA over the provision of instruments for

this satellite.

Eumetsat headquarters are located in Darmstadt, Germany, which also hosts ESA’S European Space

Operations Centre (ESOC). Many of the ground segment functions of Eumetsat are currently performed

at ESOC, including satellite operations and control, data downlinks, data processing, and data archiving, but Eumetsat is building its own operations center in Darmstadt and plans to take over satellite and

data operations in 1995. Raw Meteosat data are preprocessed for radiometric calibration, geographic

referencing, and quality control before being distributed by satellite relay through Meteosat. These data

are available in full digital form to Primary Data User Stations (PDUS) and in reduced analog form to

Secondary Data User Systems (SDUS). As of 1990, there were 119 PDUS in 25 countries and 1,127

SDUS in more than 75 countries, mostly in Europe and Africa.

Eumetsat also collects data from other sources, including satellite data from the U.S. GOES-East2

and polar NOAA satellites, and in situ data from Eumetsat’s Data Collection System. This system consists of an array of automated data collection platforms on land, at sea, and onboard commercial aircraft, which relay data to ground stations through Meteosat transponders.

Eumetsat maintains a complete digital archive of Meteosat images at ESOC, dating back to the first

Meteosat data collected in 1979. Currently, responsibility for these archives is transferred to ESA after

five months, but Eumetsat intends to take over permanent responsibility for these archives when it assumes responsibility for Meteosat operations.

1 Seethe Eumetsat brochure EUMETSAT The European Organisation for Metwm/~ica/ Ute//ltes (Darmstadt, Germany: Eumetsat, 1992) As of May 1994, the members of Eumetsat are Austria, Belglum, Bntam, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey

P When a launch fal[ure and delays m the GOES-Next program left the United States with a Single Operallonal geosynchronous

meteorological satellite, Eumetsatreactwated Meteosat 3 m 1991 and made It available to the United States m place of GOES-East

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994.

OPERATIONAL DATA EXCHANGE ISSUES and what price should they pay. These questions

Operational monitoring poses two principal is- apply both to commercial users and to the use of

sues regarding access to data and information: data by other government agencies. The United

who should receive the data on an operational ba- States has followed the tradition of placing operasis—soon enough to support operational use— tional data into the public domain, allowing unre-
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 133

stricted access for all users.so This policy is based

on the theory that the government must provide

these data for its own use, and serving additional

users does not add significantly to overall system

costs. The United States receives essential foreign

data in return. To the extent that data exchanges

can reduce costs for each participating agency,

such exchanges provide one mechanism for sharing costs internationally.

Others agencies, particularly in Europe, argue

that an equitable sharing of costs requires that the

agencies using the data bear some of those costs.

For example, Britain’s Meteorological Office

charges the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of the Environment for the use of weather and climate data, and Canada plans to recoup

some of the costs of operating Radarsat through

commercial data sales to foreign agencies. Such

policies on data pricing can provide a formal

mechanism for sharing the burden of remote sensing systems. This approach might lead to a fairer

distribution of costs in the long run, but it could

also make data exchanges more difficult and undermine established exchange mechanisms that

rely on less formal notions of reciprocity.

European agencies argue that requiring data users to pay a substantial share of system costs results in a more rational allocation of costs. They

also argue that it gives data users—most of whom

are value-added service providers—greater influence over the evolution of remote sensing programs and moves closer to the goal of user-operated remote sensing programs. This argument

raises the question of how mature these remote

sensing applications are and what price to charge

to give users leverage without stifling development of new applications.

A second concern in data exchange policy

stems from differences over the proper boundaries

between public and private sector activities:

which services provide a broad enough public

benefit that they should be undertaken in the public sector, and which provide such narrow benefits

that the costs should fall more narrowly on those

who use them. The U.S. government makes raw

data and general forecast information freely available but leaves it to others to provide more specialized services. Many weather services in Europe

are under pressure to generate revenues and recover operating costs through value-added services.

For example, the British Meteorological Office

charges oil companies for forecasts essential to the

operation of drilling platforms in the North Sea. 31

Eumetsat has announced its plans to use encryption to restrict the availability of Meteosat

data beginning in 1994. This move serves at least

two purposes: encouraging nonmember countries

in Europe to join Eumetsat and contribute to paying its system costs 32 and protecting European national weather services from potential commercial

competitors. These restrictions should increase

the ability of Europe national weather services to

recover some of their operating costs. 33 Initially,

Eumetsat will make all data available to NOAA

and weather services outside western Europe that

now receive them, but will impose some restrictions on access by third parties. For example,

NOAA would not redistribute Meteosat data to

3~1 S ~)]lcy does not apply tO data fr(ml the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), which are broadcast in encrypted ft~rm.

Low-resolution data and up to 30 percent of high-resolution data are stored and transmitted to DMSP ground stations, from which they are

avai lablc to iNOAA and the Department of Defense. A limited set of DMSP data—the temperature and moisture soundings-are made available

operationally through the WWW, but with delays and potential restrictions that may make them unsuitable for operational use. All DMSP data

arc unclassified and are being archived at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorad{).

~ I With these and other ac[lvl[les, the Brj[i~h Metef)rfl]ogica] Office was able t{) recover 36 percent of its operating costs in 1992 through

interagency transfers and commercial sales. C(mm~crcial sales ahme acctwnted for 11 percent of ~~perating costs.

3~Austrla jt~ined Eumetsat in December 1993 for this reason.

~~~ere has ~en \onle debate in Europe ~tween tht)se who worry that g(wemrnents will use their contmt over nleteOri)l(~gical data to gain

an unfair advantage over private companies and those who worry that free access to data will give private c(m~panies-which do nt~t have t{)

bear the ct~sts of data c(dlection systems-an unfair advantage over government agencies.
134 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

companies that provide aviation weather forecasts

in Europe.

34 Eumetsat plans to continue to make

basic meteorological data and products available

through direct broadcast and the World Weather

Watch,35 and will continue its bilateral relationship with NOAA for the full exchange of more detailed operational data.

The United States is likely to retain free access

to data from foreign weather satellites, in part because it will remain a leading provider of satellite

weather data, and in part because meteorological

data exchange is essential to all countries. Other

countries would probably continue to provide data

on the basis of reciprocal exchanges, although

possible restrictions on data access by third parties

could complicate U.S. data management. NOAA

is also negotiating with Eumetsat over the possible provision of instruments for Europe’s Metop

polar satellite, insisting that data from U.S. instruments be broadcast unencrypted for all users.

These negotiations provide added leverage for influencing Eumetsat data policies.

Other countries have chosen to restrict data for

a variety of reasons. Most notably, India does not

make available any images of its territory, including cloud imagery from Insat, although it does

provide the WWW with wind vector data derived

from these images.

In the future, governments may choose to purchase data for operational purposes from commercial satellite operators. The relationship between

NASA and Orbital Sciences in developing the

SeaWiFS system provides an example of how this

might occur (box 4-2). However, commercial data

access policies can conflict with the need for international data exchanges, and government agencies will have to exercise care if they are to ensure

that commercial data purchases do not undermine

international cooperation in the operational use of

those data. A related issue arose in the early 1980s

when the Reagan Administration attempted to privatize U.S. weather satellites. Congress decided

that the provision of weather data should remain a

government activity, and included provisions in

the Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act

of 198436 and again in the Land Remote Sensing

PolicyAct of 1992, forbidding the transfer of these

functions to the private sector.

The proposed convergence of U.S. civilian and

military weather satellite programs raises several

issues relevant to the international exchange of

weather satellite data. The National Performance

Review led by Vice President Gore proposed consolidating the DMSP and NOAA weather satellite

systems, 37 and President Clinton recently directed NOAA, DoD, and NASA to implement the

convergence of NOAA, DMSP, and relevant

NASA satellite programs.

38 These proposals rais e

the issues of access to data currently supplied by

DMSP satellites and the reliance of the Department of Defense on foreign meteorological data

sources. These issues and convergence in general

are treated in the final report in this assessment.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON

GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH

Space agencies around the world have made major

commitments to remote sensing systems to improve understanding of changes in the global en34Any ~ompay ~rovlding C[)mmerclal semlces in Europe would have to pay for the use of this key or purchase decrypted data from nati(Jnal weather services in Europe.

JSThe VJMO ch~er calls f~~r tie exchange of “basic meteorological data and products.”

J6~b11c Law 98.365 (98 STAT. 45]), ] 5USC 429] : “Neither the president nor any other official Of the Government shall make any effort to

lease, sell, or transfer t[l the priva[e sector, cwnmercial]ze, or in any way dismantle any pmim of the weather satellite systems operated by the

Department Of COmmerce or any successor agency.”

JTReconlnlenda( ion” ~]z in Office of tie Vice president, From Red Tape to Results.. Creafing a Government that works Berter ad COSls

Less, Report of the National Per@mance Re\’iew’, September 1993.

38~e White H(luse presidential Decislt)n Directive/NSTC-2, convergence of us. polar-orbiting operational” Environmental Satellites,

May 5, 1994.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 135

vironment. Individually, these agencies are taking

part in national and international programs of environmental research. Collectively, through

CEOS and EO-ICWG, they are coordinating their

remote sensing programs and implementing data

policies to support that research.39

I Scientific Programs

Established in 1990, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)40 plays a leading role

in environmental research worldwide, with other

countries also making important contributions.

Because they can provide consistent measurements with global scope, remote sensing satellites

are critical to obtaining the data needed for these

research programs. NASA’s Mission to Planet

Earth made up over 70 percent of the $1.446 billion appropriated for the USGCRP for fiscal year

1994.

These national research efforts are largely organized around the agendas of three major international research programs (box 5-9): the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), which

studies physical aspects of climate change; the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

(IGBP), which studies biogeochemical aspects of

global change and their relationship with climate

change; and the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Programme (HDP), which

studies socioeconomic processes and their interaction with the global environment.

Although national governments take part in

these programs, the programs are planned and organized by international organizations—intergovernmental agencies affiliated with the United

Nations and international organizations of scientists. The International Council of Scientific

Unions (ICSU) is an organization of national

scientific academies around the world, with the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as the U.S.

member. Similarly, the Social Science Research

Council (SSRC) is the U.S. member of the International Social Science Council (ISSC), which

is an organization of social science academies.

NAS, SSRC, and their international counterparts

have varying degrees of independence from and

influence over their respective national governments. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization, and World Meteorological Organization also help in planning these

international research efforts. Existing international programs of global change research depend almost entirely on informal mechanisms

to persuade national governments to support

research agendas developed by the international scientific community. These mechanisms

include personal contacts with national government agencies and participation in informal intergovernmental coordinating bodies like CEOS and

the International Group of Funding Agencies for

Global Change Research (IGFA).

Data from various countries’ satellites and

from in situ measurements contribute to both process-oriented research and long-term environmental monitoring. Process-oriented research

aims to improve the understanding of the key environmental processes and develop improved

models of global change. Scientific monitoring of

the environment aims to develop systematic records of critical environmental variables in order to

document the state and rate of change to compare

observations of the environment and with global

39 Con1nlittee on Eaflh observatifm satellites, “The relevance of satellite missions to the study of the global environment,’” presented at the

United Nations C(mference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992. Chapter 3 discusses the more general aspects of data

management for global change research.

resee C{)nlnllttee on ~~ ~d Environmental Sciences, Our Chan,ging Planet: The FY 1993 U.S. Globai chan~e Refear~’h Pro8ram*

(Washingt(m, DC: National Science Foundation, 1993) and U.S. C(mgress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, Global Change Research and

NASA’s Earth Obser\’lng Syslem, OTA-B P- ISC- 122 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, November 1993).
136 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

A number of international research programs (table 5-3) have been established to improve our understanding of various aspects of change in the global environment. Despite their diverse agendas,

these programs share one remarkable feature: instead of national governments and their research programs, they involve an independent organization of natural and social scientists and international bodies in the United Nations system. As such, these programs do not have the financial authority to sponsor research projects, but rely on their authority within the scientific community to convince national

governments to take part.

The oldest of these programs iS the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), established by the

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) in 1979. WCRP has since grown into a joint program

with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation

(WMO), which hosts the WCRP Secretariat, With its focus on understanding the physical aspects of

climate change, WCRP began with three main research projects. Tropical Ocean and Global Atmos-

(continued)

TABLE 5-3: International Global Change Research Programs

Acronym Name Description

UNEP

WMO

Ioc

Icsu

Issc

IGBP

WCRP

HDP

START

GCOS

GOOS

GTOS

GEMS

GRID

IGFA

United Nations Environment Programme

World Meteorological Organisation

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

International Council of Scientific Unions

International Social Science Council

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

World Climate Research Programme

Human Dimensions of Environmental Change

Program me

System for Research and Training

Global Climate Observing System

Global Ocean Observing System

Global Terrestrial Observing System

Global Environmental Monitoring System

Global Resource Information Database

International Group of Funding Agencies for

Global Change Research

The U.N. meteorological organization,

The U.N. oceanographic organization,

affiliated with UNESCO.

An international association of scientific

academies, The National Academy of

Sciences is the U.S. representative,

An international association of social science organizations. The Social Science

Research Council is the U.S. representative.

The international global change research

program of ICSU.

A joint climate research program of IGBP

and WMO.

The global change research program of

ISSC.

A project of IGBP, WCRP, and HDP to promote global change research in the developing world.

A joint program of WMO, ICSU, IOC,

UNEP,

A joint program of IOC, ICSU, UNEP.

A proposed program of ISSU, IGBP, UNEP,

A program of UNEP,

A program of UNEP.

A forum for coordinating national and international research programs,

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1994
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 137

phere (TOGA), aimed at understanding the El Nino/Southern Oscillation phenomenon,1 the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX), and the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) The

U S Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) explicitly supports U.S. participation in these international projects 2 WCRP has since added three new projects, Climate Variability and Predictability

(CLIVAR), Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC), and the Arctic Climate Systems

Study (ACSYS), and is planning a fellow-on to TOGA

Recognizing that global change, including climate change, also depends on complex blologlcal,

geological, and chemical processes, ICSU established the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in 1986 IGBP has five core projects now underway: International Global Atmospheric

Chemistry (lGAC), Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE), Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle (BAHC), the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS), and Past Global Changes

(PAGES) Two additional projects are currently under development Land-Ocean Interactions in the

Coastal Zone (LOICZ), and the Global Ocean Euphotic Zone Study (GOEZS), In addition to these empirical research projects, IGBP supports three major cross-cutting activities the task force on Global

Analysis, Interpretation, and Modeling (GAIM), the System for Analysis, Research, and Training (START)

to promote global change research in developing countries, and the IGBP Data and Information System

(IGBP-DIS) 3

IGBP-DIS has three main foci The first of these iS the development of critical data sets. An example

is the global 1 -km resolution AVHRR data set proposed by IGBP-DIS to meet the need for systematic

records of land cover and land use This comprehensive proposal included a survey of existing archives of high-resoluhon AVHRR data, proposals for filling the gaps with additional ground stations (fig

5-1) and data exchange agreements, and for several additional data sets derived from the AVHRR

data,4 and was adopted as one of the Pathfinder data sets for EOSDIS.5

The second focus of IGBP-DIS iS to ensure the establishment of effective systems to manage the

data needed for IGBP’s core research projects This Involves defining the data management needs of

IGBP projects, developing data and operating standards that facilitate interoperability, and convincing

government agencies or research Institutes to act as hosts and commit themselves to maintaining the

needed data systems and standards

The third focus of IGBP-DIS iS to act as an International liaison with other organizations This includes coordination with other organizations revolved in global change research, as well as with organizations that collect the necessary data As part of this acstivity, IGBP-DIS represents IGBP as an affiliate to CEOS

(continued)

1 The El NIrio Southern Osclllallon IS a pertochc change m atmospheric clrculahonandocean temperatures m the tropical southern

Paclflc Ocean and IS correlated with widespread changes m rainfall m other regions

2 National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources Research, Our Changing P/ane[ the fiscal year 1995 U S Global Change Research Program 1994

3 See IGBP report No 12, The Mernahonal Geosphere-B/osphere Progfamme A Study of G/oba/ Change The /n/t/a/ Core Pro/-

eels (Stockholm IGBP 1990) and Reducing UncerLwN/es (Stockholm IGBP, 1992)

4 See IGBP report No 20

5 See ch 3
138 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Managementj and Markets

The International Social Science Council (ISSC) established the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Programme (HDP) in 1990 to improve understanding of the human environment and

the mutual influences between human activities and the natural environment. HDP involves a number of

research projects, including a joint project with IGBP on land use and land cover One major emphasis

of HDP is improving the quality and management of data, which often involves combining socio-economic and environmental data, much of it obtained through remote sensing, using Geographic information Systems (GIS). The HDP Data and Information System (HDP-DIS) is currently involved in a joint

project with the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) and its Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) to develop an international data network for social

science workers.

WCRP, IGBP, and HDP are aimed at understanding the basic processes that underlie global environmental change, like cloud formation, ocean circulation, and evapo-transpiration in plants, In addition to

research on these basic processes, it is also important to monitor the state of processes and related

environmental variables, both to develop a baseline understanding of the state of the global environment but also to detect and measure the scope of changes in that environment and to support the development of more accurate and comprehensive theoretical models of Earth systems This need is the

main motivation behind the formation of a number of Global Observing Systems (table 5-3): the Global

Ocean Observing System (GOOS),6 the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS),7 and the proposed

Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) 8 As with WCRP, IGBP, and HDP, these Global Observing

Systems rely on the voluntary cooperation of national governments. In one likely scenario they would

build on the operational monitoring programs of those governments For example, GCOS could collect

data from operational weather satellites and surface-based meteorological stations, with the relatively

modest additional investment required for Improving the quality of the data for scientific applications

and the maintenance of systematic archives, GTOS would probably have to be a significant exception

to this, in that few operational programs exist for monitoring terrestrial processes, In part, the GTOS

proposal aims to stimulate the establishment of such programs,

There is one intergovernmental organization that deals with the funding of global change research,

On the initiative of the FCCSET Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES), the international Group of Funding Agencies for global change research (IGFA) was established in 1990 as an

informal forum to exchange information on national research programs. IGFA has no formal intergovernmental mandate and no authority to determine overall budgets, but it offers the opportunity for coordinating environmental research programs internationally and provides an intergovernmental base of support for national and international programs.

6 National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdmm@ration, Firsf Steps Toward a U S GOOS. Rewrt o~a workshop On U.S. co~W~uOons fo a Global Ocean Obserwg System, October 1992 (available from Joint Oceanographic Insfltutions, Inc , Washington, DC)

7 GCOS Joint Planning Off Ice, c/o WMO, Case Postale 2300, ch- 1211, Geneva, Swkzerland

0 Towards a &OtM Terres[r’idobswvmg System (G TOS) Detectmgandhlorvtoring Changem Terrestrial Ecosystems, O Wllllafn

Heal et a/, eds (Paris UNESCO, June 1993)

9 Generally, science quahtydata must be systematic and well -cahbrated, attributes that are not as important for operational use

Temperature measurements with an accuracy of one degree may be adequate foroperatlonal purposes, but not for detecting climate

changes of a few tenths of a degree

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1994
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 139

change models. An effective international research program on global environmental

change requires a balance between processoriented research and long-term monitoring.41

Concerned over the need for a greater commitment to long-term monitoring, the scientific community is developing plans for the Global Climate

Observing System (GCOS), the Global Ocean

Observing System (GOOS), and the proposed

Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS)

(box 5-9). Scientific monitoring has much in common with operational applications of remote sensing; both require reliable and consistent data

streams. While operational applications place

heavy demands on the timely distribution of data,

scientific monitoring emphasizes high-quality

and consistent y calibrated data. As currently conceived, GOOS and GTOS would combine operational and scientific monitoring functions.

Climate monitoring presents more complicated

choices. Marginal improvements in instrument

performance and data management for weather

satellites would meet many of the requirements of

climate monitoring.

42 But other variables, such as

atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and radiation

balance, are less important for weather forecasting. These could be measured with additional

instruments on weather satellites, or by developing separate, dedicated satellite systems. Furthermore, both operational and scientific monitoring

programs require high-quality in situ data from

around the world, with effective mechanisms for

international data exchange.

A central purpose of these research programs is

to inform and influence national policies and international agreements on environmental management. The effective use of this knowledge requires an institutional mechanism to assess the

state of understanding of environmental problems

and inform policy makers .43 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a

model for this process at the international level.

IPCC completed its first full assessment of the

state of the global climate in 1990, with an update

in 1992 and a full reassessment planned for 1995,

and has played a critical part in motivating and informing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in developing the Framework Convention

on Climate Change, which entered into force in

March 1994. The IPCC provides a model for the

scientific assessment of international environmental problems that could be applied to other

issues currently under international discussion, such as biodiversity, forest conservation,

and desertification.

As discussed in chapter 3, environmental research and monitoring places heavy demands on

data management systems. These include the

large quantity of raw and processed data, the high

quality control standards in data processing, and

the need to maintain long-term records of environmental change. Making the best use of improved

scientific models or data processing algorithms

could require the reprocessing of large quantities

of archived data.

Many countries have substantial archives of

Earth data, some of them from satell ites. These archives are of uneven quality.44 Some of these archives belong to the ICSU system of World Data

Centres (WDCS), established in 1957 to preserve

and exchange data from the joint research pro-

~~ See ~GBp ReP)~ 20 ]nllJr(j\,ed G]oba]Da:afor~~A ppii(,ations: A Proposa]for a Ne\~ High Resolution <;lob~] D(ll~ .S~I, Rrptu-1 1~~ Iht’

land (’oi cr Workln,~ (;roup of IGBP-DIS (Stockholm: IGBP, 1992) ft)r a discussion t~f these [W(J Iypes of data use. See also, U.S. Ct~ngrcs\,

Ofiicc (lfTcchn{A)gy Assessment, Global Change Research and NASA’s Earlh Obser~ing S}srem, OTA-BP-lSC-1 22 (Washingt(m. DC: U.S.

Gt~\emnwnt Printing Office, N(wenlber 1993) for a discussion of the need for greater attenti(m to n~(mitoring within the USGC’RP.

4ZAS an cxan p] IC of thts synergy, Eurnetsat is moving toward incorporating scientific climate rmmit(wing as part of its miss t(m.

4JsCC office ~)f Techno]{)gy Assessment, Global change Respar[.h and NASA’S Ear[}l obsfr~,ln,q .S?.$(enl, pp. 6-7 and 43-45.

+!~c data “lay ~ stored on ~x)r[y maintained media, nlay be recorded using obsolete formats and technoh~gies, and n~a~ ~’ caj lbratCd In

und(wnwnttxl ways, if at all. See ch, 2.
140 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

grams of the International Geophysical Year. The

WDC system now consists of 44 centers in 11

countries (box 5-10), repositories of a wide variety of Earth science data that are made available

without restrictions at the lowest possible cost to

users. The WDC commitment to the free exchange of scientific data, which persisted through

many international crises, set an important precedent that is reflected in U.S. policies (box 5-2) and

in those of the international remote sensing organizations such as CEOS and EO-ICWG.

The international scientific community has become concerned over restrictions on access to

Earth data. In response to these concerns, ICSU

established an Ad Hoc Working Group on Data

Policy Issues. Its greatest concern is that commercial and other restrictive policies for data access

could effectively put much essential data beyond

the reach of working scientists. For example, because of national cost recovery programs, several

countries have reduced their voluntary data submissions to the WDC system.45 In order to obtain

data, scientists often have to agree not to redistribute it, which forces them to choose between their

contractual obligations and the normal scientific

process of data sharing. Second, scientists need

meteorological and other data sets of higher quality than now available from many sources. Finally,

scientists believe that countries need to make

greater investments in data management systems.

As noted in chapter 2, the technology is available

and growing cheaper, but the demands of data

management are also growing rapidly.

INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION OF

DATA POLICIES

The international organizations for cooperation in

remote sensing have made the coordination of

data policy for global change research a top priority. Both CEOS and EO-ICWG have agreed that

Earth science data should be made cheaply and

readily available for global change research (box

5-5 and box 5-6), and are taking actions to implement these agreements.

CEOS plays a unique role in providing a forum

for data users to discuss their requirements directly with the operators of Earth observing satellite

systems. This includes international scientific organizations, who are active as CEOS affiliates. As

part of a pilot project coordinated through CEOS

to make multispectral land imagery available for

IGBP projects, NASA, CNES, and NASDA have

agreed to make data from Landsat, SPOT, and

MOS available at reduced cost to IGBP researchers. Many scientists who use remotely sensed

Earth data are hopeful that CEOS will be effective

as a forum for discussing the needs of scientists

and improving their access to remotely sensed

Earth data.

Data access depends as much on effective data

management systems as it does on formal policies. The U.S. government has recognized the

need for such systems and is attempting to meet

that need through the EOSDIS and GCDIS programs. ~ Other countries have also recognized

this need, but are in earlier stages of developing

plans for data management systems.

Superilcial]y, Europe’s Earthnet data management system resembles NASA’s EOSDIS, with

Processing and Archive Facilities (PAFs) corresponding to the U.S. Distributed Active Archive

Centers (DAACS), and the European Space Research Institute (ESRIN) in the role of the EOSDIS Core System. In fact there are significant differences. In Europe, research programs are

generally managed through research institutes

rather than through grants to individual investigators, and European data management plans reflect

this. The PAFs are located in research centers and

serve primarily to meet the needs of those centers.

45M< Chinnev and S. Rutten~rg, persona] communications. Canada has stopped providing get)magnetic ~ta, for example.

~Ch. ~ descri~s existing U.S. data archives and discusses pl~s for EOSDIS ~d GCDIS.
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 141

The International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), whose members are scientific academies in

countries around the world, established the World Data Centre (WDC) system as a way to preserve data

collected as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957, and to enhance the sharing of

Earth science data more generally WDCS serve as international archives for the preservation and exchange of a variety of Earth science data

As of May 1994, there are 44 WDCs in 11 countries, grouped into five geographic areas. 1 Most

WDCS are located in National Data Centres (NDCs) established by host countries for their own purposes The United States hosts 13 WDCS, operated by NOAA, NASA, USGS, DOE, and DOD (table

5-4) 2

TABLE 5-4: ICSU World Data Centres in the United States

U.S. National Data Center World Data Centre(s)

National Geophysical Data Center (Boulder, Colorado) Glaciology

Marine Geology and Geophysics

Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Solid Earth Geophysics

Paleoclimatology

National Climate Data Center (Asheville, North Carolina) Meteorology

National Oceanographic Data Center (Washington, DC) Oceanography

National Earth Information Center (Golden, Colorado) Seismology

U.S. Naval Observatory (Washington, DC) Rotation of the Earth

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee) Trace Gases

EROS Data Center (SiOUX Falls, South Dakota) Remotely Sensed Land Data

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1994.

(continued)

1 These regional groups are designated A, B, Cl, C2, and D WDC-A Includes 13 centers in the United States, WDC-B includes

four in Russia WDC-C1 includes in Europe, WDC-C2 includes eight in Japan and in India, and WDC-D, established in 1988,

includes nine in China

2 See S Ruttenberg, ‘The ICSU World Data Centers, ” EOS Transactions, VOI 73, No 46, Nov. 17, 1992, pp 494-495

They are not well equipped to meet the needs of unclear what level of support these planned data

outside users or the demands of other data applications.

The main focus of ESA’S Earthnet data management system is managing SAR data from

ERS-1. This system overcame severe inadequacies at its beginning, and still suffers from a lack of

standardization and interoperability among the

PAFs. Because of different data processing techniques, data from different PAFs are dificult to

compare. ESA is in the preliminary stages of developing management plans for data from its

global change system, Envisat-1, and it remains

systems will receive and how effective y they w ill

serve outside users.

Japan’s principal data management center for

scientific users is NASDA’S Earth Observations

Center (EOC) in Tokyo. This center has principal

responsibility for managing SAR data from

JERS-1, but has experienced serious problems in

meeting the data requests of scientific users. Recognizing the need for improved data systems, Japan is planning an Earth Observation Information

System (EOIS), built around the EOC. This system would include three main components, a Data
142 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management and Markets

The WDCS operate under a set of agreed international principles. These principles call for a WDC to

make data avaible to scientists in any country. A WDC should charge no more than the cost of filling

the data request, and WDCS generally share data among themselves on a reciprocal basis at no

charge. A country or institution hosting a WDC agrees to provide the resources needed to operate the

center on a long-term basis Most WDCS are now located in national data centers and serve as a liaison

to the international scientific community. In return, taking part in the WDC system makes it easier for

these national centers to gain access to international data. Very few NDCS existed when the WDC system was established and the WDC system played an important role in catalyzing the formation of those

national centers Most scientists believe that the open exchange of data provides benefits that far outweigh the costs of maintaining a WDC,

From the beginning, WDCS have attempted to adopt the most modern practical data and information

technologies. WDC data are becomming increasingly available on electronic networks at high data rates

and on emerging media standards such as CD-ROM. In the past, the WDC system has devoted a major

effort to developing standardized data formats, but the development of more flexible software capable

of using data in a variety of formats has greatly reduced the need The challenge of providing efficient

methods for searching and browsing data may also be eased by increasing network capacity and the

emergence of network search software 3 These capabilities are only available to those with sufficient

computing and communications capabilities, which are not available in many parts of the world, especially in developing countries.

WDCS generally have limited resources and depend on their host institutions for these resources and

for the services they provide to data users This limits their ability to undertake initiatives of their own

They also depend for their data holdings on voluntary submissions, which are becoming less frequent

as a result of pressures to reduce costs by selling data commercially. The future of the WDC system

may depend on the reemergence of more open exchange of scientific data through such international

bodies as CEOS and IEOS

3 See ch 2

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1994.

Acquisition and Processing System, a Data Ana- ment systems. Discussions await the commitment

lyzing System, and a Data Managing and Distribution System, but the plans are still under development and funding remains uncertain.

International efforts are under way to coordinate these data management plans. At its seventh

Plenary meeting in November 1993, CEOS

created a working group on international data networks. EO-ICWG has begun to address the issue

of forming and coordinating IEOS data manageof resources and the development of a planning

process in other agencies participating in IEOS,

with a view toward forming an IEOS Data and Information System, or IEOSDIS.

Some elements of an international data system

are essential for effective data exchange mechanisms. First of all, the individual national data systems must have archives that provide adequate

quality control and standardization of data47 and

dTSee US. congress, office Of Technology” Assessment, Da[a Format Srandardsfor Civilian Remote Sensing satellites, ~T’A-BP-lSC- 114

(Washington, DC: OfTice of Technology Assessment, May 1993).
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation | 143

readily usable systems for searching metadata

sets. Second, the various data management systems must be sufficiently compatible to operate

effectively together, allowing users of one system

to access data held by another in a relatively trans48 In practice, this could involve parent manner.

the routine exchange of metadata among designated archive centers. The CEOS International

Directory Network has links between Europe, Japan, and the U.S. Global Change Master Directory 

49 at its core (fig. 5-3). Finally, the international

data system must have the capability to provide

data to users, either through electronic transmission or through the exchange of physical storage

media like magnetic tapes or CD-ROM.50

The simplest approach to international data

management is to build on national and regional data systems and plans by establishing

basic requirements for compatibility and interoperability. This approach has the advantage

of flexibility, allowing different agencies to meet

their various needs in the manner they deem appropriate. In an era when information technology

is rapidly evolving, such flexibility is particularly

important. The principal disadvantage of this approach is that it makes it easier for some agencies

to give inadequate attention to data management

and create “weak links” in the international network, with corresponding gaps in data availability.

An alternative approach is for the international community to collaborate on the definition and implementation of data management

requirements. EO-ICWG in particular could

consider this approach in developing plans for

IEOSDIS. This would allow for a greater degree

of harmonization and interoperability of systems,

but it could prove cumbersome and inflexible.

A complementary option would be to share

the burdens of data management systems and

pursue a division of labor and specialization in

data management as in satellite systems. The

European ground segment plans, for example,

rely heavily on indigenous European resources to

acquire data from Envisat- 1. This includes the use

of onboard data storage on satellites and data relay

satellites to transmit data directly to ground stations in Europe. An alternative would be to rely on

ground stations located in other countries to acquire the data and use other communications links

to transmit the data to Europe if that is desired. So

far, the various national and regional agencies do

not appear to have given great attention to managing data from other agencies’ satellites or relying

on other countries for data acquisition.

REMOTE SENSING AND INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

Social and economic conditions in many parts of

the world are poor and often stagnant or even deteriorating. Over the years concern has grown that

the mismanagement of natural resources and the

environment is contributing to these poor conditions and vice versa. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, in the summer of

1992, solidified international support for the concept of sustainable development-economic development that improves human conditions in the

short run while preserving environmental resources to make those gains sustainable in the

long runs The United States and other industrialized countries have established national and international programs of financial and technical assistance to developing countries, and have

@NASA and ESA are testing the intemperabili[y of NASA’s Information Management System (IMS) and ESA’S User Interface Terminal

(UIT), and NASA and NASDA are undertaking similar tests.

49 See ch. ~.

Sosee Ch. 3 for a discussion of these requirements in the context of EOSDIS.

s I K. Dahle, “Envir(~nment, develt~pment, and belief Systems,” Fumres, December 1993, pp. 1070-1074.
144 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

 Coordinating nod e

 Cooperating nod e

T

Germany

 Future cooperating node

-- ,-9

T

Canada

\

\

I t

P

JICST

European Coordinating Node

\ I

Global Change Master Directory Asian Coordinating Node

American Coordinating Node

\ I ‘~ ,’

(Japan)

<,5X.’\ \ ‘ I \ I

( A;gentina,

-— , \ ‘ I ‘Qrazil>, \ I / }

\ , I , I /– \ I

1 / 1 I \ \ J

SOURCE Committee on Earth Observations Satellites, 1994

committed themselves to the principle of sustain- on the natural and human environments. The reaable development, although the degree of support sons for this include inefficent economic strucfor its implementation remains to be seen. tures, rapid population growth, and a lack of

The concept of sustainable development is knowledge and capacity to implement more susbased on the view that current patterns of develop- tainable practices. Satellite remote sensing can

ment in many cases pose unsustainable burdens contribute to more sustainable development by
Chapter 5 International Issues in Data Management and Cooperation I 145

providing some of the knowledge necessary for

a more efficient management of natural resources. For example, satellites can: observe the

burning of forests and other biomass and the resulting deforestation,52 can help monitor the

condition and vegetative cover of vulnerable arid

lands,53 and can support the monitoring of land

use, and of air and water quality.54

Developing countries often lack the capability to make use of data from Earth observing

satellites for these or other purposes.ss This

shortage has many related aspects, and presents a

complicated challenge to those who seek to develop this type of capability. First, many countries

lack the technical resources+ computers and

communications equipment—for data collection,

transmission, processing, and analysis. Second,

they face shortages of trained personnel who

know how to use such systems or even have the

necessary background to learn how to use them,

Finally, they often lack the public and private

institutions to make use of the information provided through remote sensing.

Financial and technical assistance from developed countries can help overcome these obstacles, but the effective use of remotely sensed

data requires a comprehensive approach and a

long-term commitment from both donor and

recipient. This comprehensive approach would

have to include startup funding to develop the required data and information systems, as well as

sustained support for the supply of data and longterm training in the use of these systems and

data. 56 Geographic Information Systems can

make these tasks much easier, but they cannot

eliminate the need for long-term follow up to support the initial investment. Another way to promote the development of related capacities is to

support the development of indigenous scientific

expertise in developing countries through programs like the START initiative (box 5-9). This

would allow those countries to develop an independent understanding of their particular needs in

environmental research, monitoring, and resource

management, A variety of international principles, including the U.N. Principles on remote

sensing (box 5-2) and the UNCED agreements,

call for this type of technical assistance.

Decisions on foreign assistance are based on

the level of public interest, both on humanitarian

grounds and national self-interest. For example,

the United States has long supported weather services in the Caribbean region as a way to improve

the ability to track hurricanes and tropical storms.

A broader vision of national interest might include

a national commitment to global environmental

monitoring, which might require support for programs of in situ monitoring in developing countries. A decision on whether or not to support the

use of satellite data for international development

would also depend on an assessment of the effectiveness of that type of assistance in comparison

with other forms of assistance.57

‘

2 See app. C, D. Skole and C. Tucker, “’Tropical Deforestation and Habitat Fragmentati(m in the Amazon; Satelllte Data fr(ml 1978 to 1988,”

Scfence, vol. 260, June 25, 1993, pp. 1905-1910. Direct observation of biomass burning requires a highly sensitive instrument such as the Optical Linescan Sensor (OLS) on the Defense Meteorological Support Program (DMSP) satellites.

~~c J Tucker et al,, “E~pansion and contraction” of the Sahara Desert From 1980 to 1990,” Science, v[~l. 253, N(). 5017, JUIY 19, 1991,

. .

pp. 299-301.

54see NC}{ Te(.}ln[)/oglc~: R?nlote Sensing and Geographic /nf(mm(ion Systems, Envir(mrnent and Deveh~pnlenl Brief No, ~ (Paris:

UNESCO, 1992).

551ndla ,s a notable excep[lon t. [his ~le, with an active remote sensing progran] that includes bc~th =lellites and progranls tO anal Y7e and

use the data they produce.

‘GU.S. Congress, Office t)f Technology Assessment, Working Group tm Approaching Sustainable Development, meeting held Dec. 7,

1993, in Washington, DC.

57~e office of Technol{)gy. Assessnlen( is Cumen[]y engaged in an assessment of science and technology,” renewab]e resources, and lnlemational development, which will address this issue in a broader c~mtext.
Satellite platform Country

Landsat 4

Landsat 5

NOAA 11

NOAA 12

GOES-7

GOES-8

Upper AtmospheriC Research Satellite (UARS)

SPOT 1

SPOT 2

SPOT 3

Meteosat 3

Meteosat 4

Meteosat 5

Meteosat 6

ERS- 1

Topex/Poseldon

GMS-4

MOS-1 b

JERS-1

IRS 1 a

IRS 1 b

IN SAT Ila

Meteor 2

u s

u s

u s

u s

u s

u s

u s

France

France

France

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

U S /France

Japan

Japan

Japan

India

India

India

Russia

Appendix A:

Operational

and Planned Earth

Observing A

Satellite Systems A

Agency

NOAA

NOMl

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NASA

CNES

CNES

CNES

Eumetsat

Eumetsat

Eumetsat

Eumetsat

ESA

NASAJ

CNES

JMA

NASDA

NASDA

ISRO

ISRO

ISRO

Hydromet

. . . . Year of launch

1982

1984

1988

1991

1987

1994

1991

1986

1990

1993

1988

1989

1991

1993

1991

1992

1989

1990

1992

1988

1991

1992

1975 (series)

Description

Land remote sensing

Land remote sensing

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Atmospheric chemistry

Land remote sensing

Land remote sensing

Land remote sensing

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Ocean dynamics, Ice

Ocean dynamics

Meteorology (geosynchronous)

Land and ocean color

Ocean/Ice and land remote sensing

Land remote sensing

Land remote sensing

Meteorology (GEO) and telecommunications

Meteorology (polar)

(continued)

I 147
148 I Remotely Sensed Data Technology, Management, and Markets

Satellite platform Country Agency Year of launch Description

Meteor 3

Okeun-O

Resurs-O

Russia

Russia

Russia

Hydromet

Hydromet

Hydromet

1984 (series)

1986 (series)

1985 (series)

Meteorology (polar)

Ocean

Land

<2000

1994

1996

1997

1999

2000

Planned

NOM-J

NOAA-K

NOAA-L

NOAA-M

NOAA-N

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (polar)

Meteorology (polar)

us.

us.

us

us

u s

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NOLU4

NOAA

NOAA

NOAA

NASA

NASA

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Atmospheric chemistry

Climate, atmospheric chemistry,

ocean color, land remote sensing

Climate and meteorology

Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols

Ocean color

Land remote sensing

GOES-J

GOES-K

GOES-L

TOMS Earth Probe

EOS AM-1

u s.

Us.

us.

us.

u s

1995

1999

2000

1995

1998

EOS PM-1

EOS Aero-1

EOS Color

Landsat 7

u s

u s

u s

u s

NASA

NASA

NASA

NASA/

NOAA

Orbital

Sciences Corp.

WorldView

Imaging Corp

Lockheed

Corp

Orbital

Sciences Corp.

Itek Corp

GDE Systems

Crop

NASA/NASDA

Eumetsat

Eumetsat

Eumetsat

CNES

ESA

2000

2000

1998

1998

U. S./ Commercial

U. S./ Commercial

U S / Commercial

U. S./ Commercial

Ocean color

High-resoluhon land remote sensing

High-resolution land remote sensing

High-resolution land remote sensing

SeaStar 1995

WorldView 1995

Space Imaging 1997

Eyeglass 1997

Climate and tropical precipitation

Meteorology (GEO)

Meteorology (GEO)

Polar meteorological satellite

Land remote sensing

Ocean dynamics, Ice, atmospheric

chemistry

Atmospheric chemistry, ocean dynamics and color

Ocean surface, ice

TRMM

Meteosat 7

Meteosat 8

METOP

SPOT 4

ERS-2

US/Japan

Europe

Europe

Europe

France

Europe

1997

1995

2000

2000

1996

1 994/95

Envisat-1 Europe ESA 1998

Radarsat Canada CS/VRadarsat,

Int

NASDA

NASDA

1995

Meteorology (GEO)

Climate, atmospheric chemistry,

ocean dynamics, ocean color, land

remote sensing

Meteorology (GEO)

Ocean surface, ice

Ocean surface, ice

GMS-5

ADEOS

Japan

Japan

1994

1996

GOMS

Almaz-1 B

Almaz-2

Russia

Russia

Russia

Hydromet 1994

1996

1999

(continued)
Appendix A: Operational and Planned Earth Observing Satellite Systems | 149

Satellite platform Country Agency Year of launch Description —

IRS- 1 C India iSRO 1994 Land remote sensing

IRA- 1 d India iSRO 1996 Land remote sensing

IRS-P2 India ISRO 1994 Land remote sensing and ocean color

W - 2 China NRSC 1994 Meteorology (GEO)

MECB SSR-1 Brazil INPE 1996 Land/vegetation

MECB SSR-2 Brazil INPE 1997 Land/vegetation
Appendix B:

Selected

Remote Sensing

B Applications

D

ata produced by remote sensing have intrinsic value because they carry information that can be displayed pictorial y for the worlds of sc ience, resource management and

commerce. When properly interpreted, “pictures” produced by remote sensing, whether from satellites, aerial photography, ground-based radar, or other sources, can show the location of a hidden bunker, a caravan route used a thousand years

ago, ancient stream beds, or the relative health of agriculturally

significant crops. Remote sensing can also be combined with other techniques to produce additional kinds of information for decisionmakers. Geographic information systems (GIS) and the global positioning system (GPS) are two technologies often used to

add value to remotely sensed data.

Remotely sensed data are increasingly accessible to users. Potential data users can also purchase a wide array of geographic information systems of varying levels of sophistication that run on

inexpensive desktop computer platforms to process and interpret

those data. Similar advances in GPS technologies have assisted in

making remotely sensed data much easier to use and more affordable.

As noted in chapter 2, GIS are computer-based analytical programs that can run on the full range of computer platforms, from

main frames to laptops. Their output are maps that portray any

data that can be spatially arrayed. The power of a GIS lies in its

ability to combine different kinds of spatial information and display them on a single map in combined or overlapping layers.

150 I
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications 1151

Imagine, for example, that you are a Red Cross

administrator concerned with planning relief efforts following a major hurricane. You start with a

map of the southeastern United States. Remotely

sensed data provides you with the path of the hurricane and updates this information regularly. But

you need other data, which may not depend on remote sensing, and you especially need to know the

relationship of this information to the storm path

and to the level of destruction along its path. What

areas are likely to suffer the greatest damage?

Where are your existing service centers? What are

their human and materiel resource levels and how

do these relate to the anticipated destruction of the

storm? What is the strength of other services in the

area? These are the kinds of overlapping information that can be portrayed with a GIS. Remotely

sensed data are just one source of information for

such a system, and they are easily combined with

other sources, such as the manning levels of Red

Cross relief centers.

GPS provides latitude, longitude, and elevation information-for example, for ships lost at

sea or hikers lost in a forest (box 2-6). Depending

on the system, such information may be provided

to the subject (the lost ship or hiker) or transmitted

to someone searching for them. Thus, GPS is of

value in its own right. GPS also helps provide verification on the ground, or “ground truth” for analyses with geographic information systems. GPS

anchors remotely sensed data with map coordinates.

Examples of the value of remotely sensed data,

GIS, and GPS for a variety of applications follow.

These examples provide a sense of the diversity of

applications of these new technologies. People using these methods provided the material that is the

basis of what follows; the names of the organizations that employ them appear in the summaries. 1

MONITORING AGRICULTURE AND

VEGETATION

Environmental satellites provide day-to-day

monitoring of agricultural crops, changing weather patterns that affect agriculture, and the condition of noncrop vegetation, such as forests and

rangelands. Information from satellite monitoring

is valuable to national economies, private organizations, and individuals whose success or 1ivelihoods are determined by agricultural and other

types of renewable resources.

Within-season and post-season agricultural information is especially important to subsistence

economies, such as those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Information derived from satellites

can be used to anticipate regional food grain shortages or surpluses and to help with real-time planning for labor and marketing. Since environmental satellite data are directly available to all

nations, information derived from such data can

help promote more efficient agricultural commodity markets.

Agricultural and vegetation monitoring can be

carried out with low-resolution environmental

satellite data obtained from Russian, Japanese,

European, and especially U.S. satellites.4 While

somewhat lacking in spatial detail and geometric

accuracy, they provide daily coverage, immediate

availability, and comprehensiveness. Environmental satellite images cover north-south swaths

3,000 kilometers wide or whole continents at spatial resolutions of 1 to 8 kilometers. Dozens of

new images are obtained for every location each

day and night. These data are broadcast directly to

1 Other authors might have been used. These descriptions should not be construed as an endorsement by the Office of Tcchmlh)gy Assessment of the technology used or the expertise found in any particular firm.

2 Tom Wagner, Envir(mmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Artx)r, Ml.

3 Such satellites are often temled weather satellites hccause they were originally designed to gather and transmit weather data. lncreasmgly,

the data collected by these satellites find use in a much broader array of envir(mmental tasks.

4 See U.S. C(mgress, OffIce of Technology” Assessment, OTA-I SC-588, The Future of Remo/e .’$en.rin~ji-(mn .\/wI(e: Cl\J/lan SIICIII?C S).$-

[ems (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).
152 | Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

low-cost ground receiving stations established in

most countries around the world. By international

convention, in most cases no licenses, fees, or special permissions are required to receive and use

these data.5

For agricultural purposes, data from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

(AVHRR) aboard three U.S. polar orbiting NOAA

(TIROS) satellites are of particular interest. The

AVHRR data are routinely processed by private

and public agencies (including the National

Weather Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey) to produce

multi-date, composite vegetation index (VI)

images. These composite VI images are produced

using multiple NOAA satellite passes obtained

over periods of several days to several weeks and

show large areas with little or no cloud cover.

Vegetation index images provide direct evidence of the greenness of terrain, a good indicator

of vegetation health and density during the growing season. To knowledgeable interpreters, such

quantitative measurements of greenness provide

objective, up-to-date evidence of crop or rangeland conditions. From such data, image analysts

can deduce planting and harvesting times, areas

affected by drought, disease, or flood, and the

stages of crop development.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture routinely obtains

AVHRR VI data from the National Weather Service. These data, in turn, are reformatted and processed to provide pictures of vegetation conditions

in major agricultural regions outside the United

States. To the FAS analysts these pictures, when

combined with their knowledge of local crop calendars, growing conditions, and the weather, prov ide direct evidence of current crop status and early warning of possible problems that even local

agricultural officials may not suspect.

For the past six years, with the help of such

images, within-season small grain estimates in

South Asia have been within 5 percent of final

production figures. Analysts have accomplished

this despite the general lack of crop progress reports from these countries during the growing season. Such information contributes to world crop

forecasts and influences USDA policies and strategies.

In fiscal year 1994, FAS will spend $3 million

to upgrade its satellite image monitoring system

and develop strategies to integrate it with GIS and

statistical data anal ysis methods. FAS sees emerging GIS technologies as key to integrating soil and

rainfall data and historical production information.

The crop damage assessment conducted after

the flood in Bangladesh in 1988 provides an example of the use of environmental satellite data for

agriculture. In late August and early September of

that year, the Ganges and Bhramaputra rivers

flooded to record levels and inundated large areas

of the country, including much of the emerging

fall rice crop. Figure B-1 shows an AVHRR Vegetation Index image obtained with a United

States Agency for International Development

(USAID) supplied ground station in Bangladesh.

This image was made about a month after the

flood waters had receded. Damaged rice crop

areas are light gray. They are primarily adjacent to

the two major rivers, which appear dark. The areas

affected and the level of damage can be estimated

from images such as this one. Combining such information with local data enabled forecasts of the

production for each administrative district and estimates of shortfalls. The total production estimate came within 5 percent of the official total estimate that was published six months after the

harvest. (While some areas of Bangladesh were

heavily damaged by the flooding, other areas had

record harvests, and the total shortfall was not as

great as originally feared.)

Historically, donor countries provide emergency food grain assistance based on rough estimates

of anticipated needs. With communications and

transportation disrupted and available govem5 See, however, ch. 5,
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications 1153

This image was made about a month after the 1988 flood Damaged rice crop areas are Iight gray

SOURCE Foreign Agricultural Service, 1988

ment resources directed at emergency relief operations, such estimates are often guesses based on

hearsay and anecdotal evidence. If too little emergency food is received, people starve, while if too

much is received, the local markets become saturated and prices for local farmers fall. Satellite

data provide objective information that complements traditional means of forecasting crop production.

MANAGING CROPS6

Since 1984, Cropix, Inc. has used satellite imagery to estimate potato production in the Columbia

River Basin of Oregon and Washington.7 Unfortunately, two to four weeks typically pass from the

time of satellite overpass to the time image data

were delivered. The delay means stress patterns

were detected too late in crops to aid the farmer,

which frustrated both farmers and researchers.

This situation will soon improve. With funds from

NASA’s Earth Observation Commercializtition

Applications Program (EOCAP), Cropix is investigating the utility and economic feasibility of

providing a crop monitoring and management service based on rapid delivery of satellite data.

Potatoes are the region’s main cash crop, and

consequently are the primary crop being monitored. Image data from SPOT, Landsat, and Marine Observation Satellite (MOS). a Japanese

Space Agency satellite, are delivered within 24 to

48 hours after satellite overpass, enabling detection of field problems in time for farm managers to

take corrective action.

The project is in its second of three years. With

four customers who operate large farms, a prototype operation is underway for a region of rough] y

250,000 acres of irrigated farmland, an area that is

covered by a single SPOT scene. Plans for the

1994 crop season include expansion of the service

to monitor more than 300 fields, which will create

a customer base large enough to demonstrate economic viability on a commercial basis. Once

proven with the prototype, expansion of the service area to the entire Columbia Basin, southern

Idaho, and California would be pursued.

Project success depends on the ability to receive satellite data within 24 to 48 hours. Through

6 George R. Wa&iington, Cropix, Inc., Hemliston, OR.

7 Lamb, F. G., “Agricultural Uses of Low-altitude Aerial Ph(~tt~graphy”, Remofe Scnsfn(q,fi)r Resource Mana<qcrnenr, C.J, Johannscn and J.L.

San~ers, E~ltOrs. S011 Conscrvatim Society of America, An~eny, 1A ( 19’i12).Waddin@on, G. R., Jr., C.F. Chen, and L.J. Mann, “Estimating Potato Acreage and Yield in the Columbia River Basin of Oregtm and Washington Using Landsat: A Commercial Application,” Ad\wwe.$ In /rnage

Arm/).~1.$, Y. Mahdavieh and R.C. Gonzalez, Edit(ws. SPIE, Bellingham, WA ( 1992). Waddingt(m, G. R., Jr., and F.G. Lamb, “’Using Remote

Sensing Images in Commercial Agriculture”, Ad\wwed lnqln<q, vol. 5, pp. 46-49 (Sept. 1990).
154 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

the combined efforts of Cropix, Oregon State University, SPOT Image Corp., EOSAT, and the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, most image data

turnaround times are just under 48 hours, using

commercial courier services. However, limited

courier services out of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, the ground receiving station location, result

in Friday and weekend satellite acquisitions being

delivered in three to four days. To alleviate this

problem and secure 24-hour turnaround, Cropix is

investigating alternate data delivery methods, including the Internet, and ANIK, a Canadian-based

satellite communications link. A full SPOT scene

has been successfully transferred from SPOT

Image Corp. ’s Reston, Virginia, office to Oregon

State University via Internet in 133 minutes.

Sub-images covering each customer’s farm are

extracted from the full scene image data. Commercial products include an “Early Warning Report,” issued by 5:00 pm on the second day after

each satellite image acquisition, and a “Temporal

Analysis Report, “ issued monthly during the crop

season. The Earl y Warning Report provides satellite views of each customer’s field with subtle

variations in the crop canopy enhanced and comments on possible causes for the apparent anomaly. This report is being upgraded in 1994 to include a statistical comparison of field performance versus the average for fields in the survey area, displayed below the imagery. The Temporal Analysis Report provides a visual record of a

customer’s field as it appeared on each image acquisition date during the crop season, and a detailed graphic showing field performance plotted

against average performance for all surveyed

fields. An example of this report is shown in

figure B-2.

During the 1993 crop season, the four test customers received both Early Warning and Temporal Analysis reports on a regular basis. The experience of Glenn Chowning, president of Terra Poma

Farms, provides an example of the power of this

technology. Chowning pointed out an interesting

occurrence within his field No. P2. As shown in

the figure a dark patch appeared in the July 12

SPOT image at the right edge of the circle, and

spread to engulf the entire right half of the circle

by July 28. The dark patch was the result of late

blight, a disease common to potatoes (the same

disease that caused the Irish potato famine last

century). The July 7 SPOT image shows a possible inoculation point, a small dark spot below

and slightly to the right of the field center. Glenn

said that harvest on the left half of the circle produced above average yields, whereas when the

right half of the field was harvested, the potatoes

showed signs of rot and yields were lower. Had the

field been harvested a few days later, the rot would

have progressed to the point that the balance of the

potatoes would have been lost, at a cost of

$200,000. Glenn did not base his decision on

when to harvest on the imagery. However, in retrospect, he realized he could have prevented any loss

if he had verified that late blight was infesting the

field at the earliest signs of the dark patch in the

imagery and sprayed at that time.

The cost of the service for the entire crop growing season is $7 per acre. The farming cost for potatoes is approximately $1,800 per acre with an

additional cost of $400 per acre to store and deliver the crop to market. Average returns for a good

crop can be anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000 per

acre depending on market conditions, resulting in

profit margins of $800 to $1,800 per acre. With

such a large investment at stake, the service is an

inexpensive insurance policy. Timely information

regarding potential crop problems can help the

customer take corrective action and adjust farming plans as needed.

MANAGING PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY8

Pipeline companies are faced with ever-increasing

regulatory and operating pressures. New regulations are proposed or enacted each year that require mapping, facility inventories, pipe inspec8 Mark A. Jadkowski, James W. Sewall Co., Old Town, ME
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications 1155

,JIIN 2x, Q’1’N1

.J[TN 16, SPOT june 26 soit’

.Jlll. 12, S1)()’l’ .JIIJ, 2%, S1)()’l’

,t[’{; 7, SPOT A UG 3 1

SPOT: SPOT Image Corporation Data IC CNES 199320m pixel (O 1 acre) TM: Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper Data suppled by EOSAT, 30m pixel

(O 2acre) MOS:Japanese MOS Datavia Canadian Center for Remote Sensing 50m pixel (O 6acre) QTM:Quick Delivery Raw TM Data corrected

by CROPIX, 30m pixel (O 2 acre)

SOURCE CropIx, Inc 1993
156 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

SOURCE James W Sewall Co , 1993

(ions, rehabilitation, and environmental reporting

(figure B-3). These pressures are compounded by

the need to stay competitive in today’s rapidly

changing marketplace.

Automation has long been an answer to the

problem of having to do more work with less

people, and Automated Mapping/Facilities Management Geographic Information Systems (AM/

FM/GIS) solutions are being proposed and implemented at a number of pipeline companies. The

U.S. pipeline industry, which operates over

453,000 miles of gas, crude, and refined products

lines, is expected to be a significant growth segment of the AM/FM/GIS market.

Pipeline companies index and track the location of their facilities using a system of survey stations that can at times baffle even the most seasoned professional. A small pipeline system can

cross three or four state boundaries and map coordinate systems. A medium-sized company can

have as many as 50 district offices that may require online AM/FM/GIS accessibility. A large

company might operate over 30,000 miles of

pipeline and manage 15,000 miles of rights-ofway and associated parcel easement records.

These and other technical issues suggest the need

for new and innovative mapping techniques, database design and management strategies, and approaches to providing system accessibility.

Until development of digital aerial photographic imagery, the ability to acquire and incorporate up-to-date land information cost-effectively into an AM/FM/GIS was out of reach for most

pipeline companies. Alignment sheets, the most

common pipeline facility maps, are almost always

out of date. New photogrammetric mapping is

cost-prohibitive in most cases. County maps and

U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle

maps are not detailed enough. Resolution of satellite imagery is at present too coarse. The two commercial Earth observation satellite systems operating today, SPOT and EOSAT, offer 33-foot and

100-foot spatial resolutions, respectively, whereas optimal image resolutions for most pipeline applications range between one and three feet.

Manual handling of hundreds or thousands of

hardcopy aerial photographs is unmanageable.

Digital aerial photography provides an economic and versatile alternative. Photographic

images can be scanned at resolutions of 1 to 3 feet,

providing important land detail. The images provide the location of roads, hydrography, wetlands,

cleared rights-of-way, structures, and other cultural features. Image processing is a mature technology that has been made affordable through competition in the desktop publishing industry. Disk

storage capacity and laser printers capable of producing sharp images are relatively inexpensive.

Today, major vendors of AM/FM/GIS systems

provide the capability to integrate computerized

aerial images with a facilities database (figure

B-4). With these developments, it is possible to

perform rapid online query and display of aerial

photography for day-to-day operations of pipeline

emergency management.

Many monitoring applications of digital aerial

photography exist for pipeline rights-of-way, including general map updating, marketing, pipeline planning, and wetland delineation. Pipeline

companies that handle crude and refined products

are concerned with environmental damage from

pipe rupture. They can use the imagery for locat-
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications | 157

SOURCE James W Sewall Co 1993

ing sensitive areas and for planning access and

placement of cleanup equipment in case of emergencies.

Gas pipeline companies are required to perform

annual dwelling surveys, mandated by the U.S.

Department of Transportation, which has jurisdiction over pipeline safety issues. In the surveys,

dwelling densities within 660 feet of each pipeline

are assessed. Four density classifications are used

to set the operating stress level for the pipeline.

The higher the dwelling or population density, the

lower the allowable stress level in the pipeline. It

is common for a company to decrease the movement of gas or replace pipeline at a cost of mil1ions

of dollars because of the construction of a few

dwellings. Digital aerial photography in an AM/

FM/GIS can greatly add to the efficiency with

which pipel ines are monitored and the accurac y of

these regular safety-related surveys. However, the

cost of flying, processing, and then scanning conventional aerial photography can still be cost-prohibitive for a large pipeline company. The technical solution to this economic problem is to cut

costs drastically through the use of low-cost and

easily operated digital camera systems for monitoring pipeline rights-of-way.
158 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

In 1992, Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. and

James W. Sewall Co. initiated a project with the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

to develop an aerial photography-based system

that can be used commercially for pipeline management. A third partner in this development effort is NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center.

Stennis Space Center’s role in the project is to provide access to NASA technological resources, Sewall is the prime contractor, and Algonquin and its

parent, Panhandle Eastern Corp., are responsible

for defining all operational parameters. The project was funded by NASA’s EOCAP, which commercializes remote sensing technology originally

developed to support scientific and space exploration missions.

The technical objectives of this EOCAP project

are threefold. First, the Project Team has developed a computerized system for storing and retrieving digital aerial photography of pipeline

rights-of-way. The computerized system provides

an accurate inventory of rights-of-way locations

and pipeline surroundings for engineering, maintenance, and regulatory purposes. The system also

provides very rapid access to much-needed information in case of emergencies. The second

technical objective is to adapt a digital camera system for more routine aerial pipel ine rights-of-way

monitoring. The Digital Aerial Rights-of-Way

Monitoring System (DARMS) was designed and

assembled for this purpose from commercially

available components and specialized software.

The third objective of the EOCAP project is to

unite the digital aerial images described above

with a working pipeline AM/FM/GIS system.

This involves development of a series of specialized computer programs that facilitate pipelinespecific applications.

The project, now in its final stage, has succeeded in bringing to the pipeline industry a set of new

and innovative remote-sensing tools for pipeline

monitoring and management.

THREE ENVIRONMENTAL

APPLICATIONS

The use of remote sensing for environmental applications has grown continuously since digital

satellite imagery became available. Its growth is

driven by the increasing number of environmental

concerns and new knowledge and technology developed by the scientific community. The field includes such diverse topics as identification and

mapping of endangered vegetation communities,

monitoring and modeling animal habitats, and

monitoring the effects of natural disasters. Purposes of the work include pure scientific exploration, environmental preservation, resource management, and regulatory activities. The following

describes three specific application projects, including their purposes, methods, and results.

 Protecting Endangered Animals

Wildlife biologists use satellite data to study animal populations that are at risk. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, habitat destruction and over-

(rapping exterminated the fisher and marten

populations. The U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Natural Resources of Michigan reintroduced both species, but little was known about

the status of the new populations. Thomas maetal.

used satellite imagery in conjunction with radio

location data to evaluate the preferred winter habitat characteristics of fishers and martens. 10

Animals trapped in the fall were fitted with radio callers and tracked from an airplane through

the winter. Researchers recorded the geographic

location of the animals on board the plane. They

then referenced Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data of the study area to precise geographic

‘) Janice L. Thomson, The Wilderness Society - Washington State Region, Seattle, WA.

lo L. E. ~ollla~nln, R. O, p~ters(~n, and T. D. Drunmer, 1991. ‘“An Ecological Study of Fishers and Martens in the Upper peninsula of

Michigan.” Annual Reporf - Year 2 ( /99/ -/992) to the Michigan Department {>f Natural Res(mrces (H(mght(m, Ml., Michigan Technol(~gical

IIniversity), 24 pp.
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications I 159

coordinates. The satellite data were classified using digital image processing software to generate

a forest cover map delineating the different forest

types available to the fisher and marten. The animal location data were overlaid on the forest cover

type map using computer algorithms. The resulting data showed that fisher and marten both prefer

conifer forest for their winter habitat. However,

monoculture pine plantations, a less desirable

habitat to the animals, have begun to replace the

natural coniferous groves in the region. The same

authors are now using Landsat satellite imagery to

assess varying conifer patch size and shape on

habitat preference.

11 Studies such as these provide

important information that can guide forest management policy to preserve animal habitats. Similar studies are ongoing with other species around

the country.

 Locating Ancient Forests

Endangered ecosystems are being

remotely sensed data. The ancient

tem of the Pacific Northwest is a

mapped using

forest ecosysdwindling resource that both the timber industry and a host of

plant and animal species depend on. Morrison et

al. demonstrated how Landsat Mutispectral

Scanner data and aerial photographs can be used

to locate groves of ancient forest across 12 national forests of the western Cascade Mountains of

Washington, Oregon, and California. ] 2 Basic satellitc image classification techniques generated

maps of both ancient forest and old-growth forest.

Twelve national forest maps highlighted the

stands of ancient forest and old growth. The results were input into a GIS to calculate the acreage

of ancient forest in each national forest. The data

set became a valuable source of information for

subsequent studies, including a critique of President Clinton’s Forest Plan for the Pacific NorthWest 13 Because these data were in GIS format.

. .

they were ideally suited for analyzing the forest

plan, which also was generated and distributed as

GIS data. The ancient forest data allowed rapid

analysis of 3.8 million acres of forest to determine

how much of the ancient forest ecosystem would

be preserved under the different options in the forest plan. The combination of vegetation maps

generated from remotely sensed data, plus the

geographic data processing capabilities of GIS,

make possible rapid review of government land

management policy and give nongovernrnent organizat ions a means to check and r-nonitor the government’s use of public resources.

 Enforcing Fishing Limits

Monitoring and enforcing fisheries harvest limits

are important to maintaining marine fish populations. Yet enforcement agencies are taxed beyond

their resources trying to monitor violators of fishing harvest limits and harvest in off-limit waters.

Between 1983 and 1989, the number of over-exploited fish stocks more than doubled.

Freeberg et al. 14 developed a method to monitor ship tracks in the North Pacific and Bering Sea

using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometry (AVHRR) satellite data. The researchers found

that moisture condenses around particulate material from stack emissions of ships. The resulting

cloud lines can be detected in processed satellite

data. Multiple data sets over a short time period allow the determination of ship direction and speed.

Currently, Freeberg and his coworkers ( 1992) are

designing a system complete with satellite ground

receiving station, computing hardware, and soft-

] 1 L E ~orl~asrlla, ~,rst)nal comnwnicatmn, I 993.

.

‘ 2 P. H. M(wrwm, D. Kl[k’pfu-, D. A. Lo crsce, C. M. Socha, and D. L. Fdxr, 1991. “Ancient F(wcsts in the Pacific N(~rthwcst Analysis d

M:ip\ of T~~l\ ~ Niil]otliil F(wcsts, ” The Wlldcmcss !kict), W’ilshlngton DC, 14pp.

11 ~e ~’ll~cmcsi S(~clc[Y, 1993, “A Cr]t]quc {~f the CI]nton F(mxt Plan,-’ The Wilderness Soclcty, Washingt(m, DC, 47pp.

14 ~1 H, Frce~.rg, ~, A. Brown, and R. wri~l~}, “VCSSCI L{~callzat]on Using AVHRR md SAR Tcchnol(~gj,’” Marine Twhn(~logj S(xiety

Annual hlect]ng, Wa\hlngton DC. (kt. 19, 1992, I llpp.
160 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ware for data processing that w ill support the rapid

turnaround time necessary for fisheries enforcement agencies.

MAPPING BIODIVERSITY IN PAPUA NEW

GUINEA15

The island of New Guinea is considered one of

only three major tropical wilderness areas left on

Earth (the other two are the Amazon Basin and a

large rain forest in Africa’s Congo Basin). Papua

New Guinea (PNG), the eastern half of the island,

has large expanses of relatively undisturbed coral

reefs, mangroves, and tropical forests. Within the

forests, PNG highly varied geography and the island’s isolation have led to the evolution of many

species found nowhere else in the world. Nearly

a quarter of the nation’s mammalian species are

endemic, as are 77 species of birds, and half of the

amphibians. Species unique to PNG include such

unusual animals as the world’s largest pigeon, butterfly, and grasshopper and 34 species of birds of

paradise.

Over 80 percent of the country is covered by

forest. Today these forests are seriously threatened by high population growth, which adds some

100,000 new inhabitants every year, and by rapid

economic development. Foreign companies, attracted to PNG’s large reserves of timber, oil, and

minerals, are a particular threat to the forests and

their many species of plants and animals. Landowners, who once relied exclusively on subsistence farming, are increasingly tempted to sell

rights to their land for cash from these companies.

However, conservationists are also taking an

interest in PNG, and the government has decided

to intensify efforts to protect the nation’s biodiversity, an important future economic resource. In

choosing where to focus its resources, the government of PNG will consider a variety of factors including social, cultural and economic conditions

throughout the country. Because both time and

funds for conservation are limited, deciding precisely and quickly where to work is the first logical step in any sensible conservation plan.

In April 1992, at the invitation of the PNG government, Conservation International organized

and led a workshop in Madang, PNG, in which

biologists and government representatives

reached consensus on areas that are most important for protecting PNG’s vast biological

wealth. 16 The approach used was first applied at a

workshop held in Manaus, Brazil, in January

1990, where experts on Amazonian ecosystems

came to a consensus on biological priorities for

conservation within the vast Amazon Basin. 17 So 

far, results of that workshop have led to the establishment of six new forest reserves in the Brazilian

state of Arnazonas, as well as new protected areas

in Colombia. The methodology used in Manaus

was refined during the workshop in PNG.

The methodology relies on biological information. Field biologists who are the world’s leading

experts on a region’s species and ecosystems are

assembled. Each of these scientists may be an expert on only a few species or geographic areas, but

together their knowledge and experience provide

the best possible understanding of the region as a

whole, GIS technology plays a key role in the

process, for it provides the means to synthesize the

scientists’ knowledge.

Before the workshop, Conservation International prepared a set of base maps for the entire

country using a GIS. These base maps brought together on one piece of paper for the first time a variety of basic geographic data needed to set conservation priorities: political boundaries, coast15 LaL1ra Timg]cy and An~~ Mitch~], Conwwa[ion” [ntt?ma[lonai, Washington, DC.

16 A]com Jmls, ~d. 1 g~~ “Papua N~w Guinea C(mservati(m Nds Assessment.” The Bi(xiiversity Suppm program, Washingtim, DC.

Ctmservati(m International, BSPand PNG Dec. 1993. “Biod]vmsity Pri(wities for Papua New Guinea.”’ Map, C(mservati(m lntemati(mal, Washington, DC.

17 ConserYatlon” In[cma[lonal, IBAMA ~d INpA. 1991. “Worksh(~p ’90, Biological” priorities for C(mservali(m in Amazonia.” Map, COnstm ati(m lntema[i(mal, Washington, DC.
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications | 161

lines, rivers, lakes, roads, topography, vegetation

type, population centers, protected areas, and

Timber Rights Purchases. 18 The maps would have

been even more useful if they had included such

important data as land use and forest cover, but

this information was not available for PNG at the

country-wide level. In most cases such information must be derived from remotely sensed data,

often from satellite imagery. The expense of acquiring and processing these data was beyond the

means of the PNG workshop. Nonetheless, the

base maps enabled by GIS technology were of

great value.

To help them prepare for the workshop, the

base maps were sent to key scientists in each of

several disciplines: mammalogy, botany, ornithology, and others. These “’team leaders” used the

maps to plot biological information they had collected from other scientists in their field. When the

scientists arrived in PNG, they had a set of maps

that not only captured the experience of dozens of

experts, but also were compatible with one another. They could then immediately begin working to

achieve group consensus on the areas most important for conserving PNG’s biodiversity.

At the workshop in Madang, the researchers began a long, give-and-take process that led to a consensus within the group several days later. Working on large transparent Mylar sheets that COUld be

overlaid on the base maps, group members focused on priority areas one by one, filling out a detailed data sheet for each of them and arguing over

what the area’s size, shape, and exact borders

should be. During this stage the maps were critical

to making tiny progress. By focusing on maps, the

biologists bypassed disagreements over definitions and theory and focused on practical questions about the location of biologically important

areas.

The borders the biologists drew on the Mylar

overlays were digitized into the GIS and output as

new maps, providing instant feedback to the scientists. This GIS analysis was critical to identifying the final set of biologically significant areas.

During the deliberations, for example, the GIS

was used to combine the initial borders the biologists had drawn with data sets of elevation and vegetation type. The result showed that only 8 percent of the country remaining lowland rain forest

had been included within the borders of the biologically important areas; most of the low-lying

lands that had been included were either mangrove forest or savanna. The botanists had grossly

under-represented lowland rain forest, by far the

most endangered ecosystem in PNG. They went

back to the Mylar overlays and further discussions.

After several days of correcting such errors, arguing over the relative importance of certain

areas, and agreeing on precise borders of priority

areas, the biologists finally agreed on a map (figure B-5) identifying PNG most biologically significant areas. The final boundaries were then digitized into the GIS. A few months after the

workshop ended, a final report and wall-size map

of the biodiversity priority tireas were published

tind distributed to scientists and government officials in PNG and throughout the world. 19

The PNG Department of Conservation (DEC)

is using the biodiversity map in a variety of land

planning activities, including selecting new sites

for protected areas, targeting environmental

education programs, financing sustainable development projects, and negotiating with logging

and mining companies over the select ion of sites

for new resource extraction schemes. The map has

also helped DEC convince international aid agen-
162 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

.

.

L;. -. ›~ A %. BISMARCK SEA

\i”) -a

,yRilitiy

h

k

‘-l ARAWA

Very High Priority

High Priority

Priority Wetland

CORAL SEA

-- ,.

SOURCE Conservation International, 1992

cies to fund conservation projects in PNG. Early

in 1993, south New Ireland province, one of the

areas identified as highest priority during the

workshop, was chosen as the site of the first Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded project

for PNG.

In addition to building consensus among local

and international scientists and government officials, a key element of the workshop approach is

in building local capacity within the country to

continue conservation efforts. In PNG, Conservation International left behind the entire GIS database generated by the workshop as well as the

hardware and software needed to use it. In addition, Cl provided GIS training to both government

and university technicians. Thus, PNG scientists

can add new information to the database as it becomes available, including land cover data

derived from satellite images. and can conduct

more detailed analyses. The workshop left PNG

better prepared scientifically to study and protect

its own biodiversity in the future.
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications I 163

HELP FOR VICTIMS OF HURRICANE

ANDREW20

Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida in late

August 1992, wreaking enormous damage and

leaving many without homes. As the rain and

wind subsided, federal, state, and local agencies,

corporations, and individuals gathered resources

to support those who were in the storm’s path.

Two questions needed to be answered quickly.

● Where should relief centers be established and

how can people be notified of their locations?

■ How much destruction occurred and where?

Science Applications International Corp.

(SAIC) donated its geographic information system (G IS) services and computers to help find the

answers. The GIS technology was immediately

useful for keeping track of a variety of relief efforts, and later, as data became available. for evaluating the extent of destruction.

A digital database of the area was created and

continually updated as reports came in from individuals in various sectors of the hurricane area.

The location and status of Red Cross Service Centers, U.S. Army kitchens, bum sites, FEMA Disaster Application Centers, HRS Centers, tent cities, portable toilets, hazardous waste sites, and

other facilities were maintained as digital information. When users needed updated maps, the

digital data were printed in the form of a large

hardcopy color map. Relief workers could use the

maps to direct people to the proper facility to handle their needs.

After a few days, aerial photographs were taken. The hardcopy aerial pictures were converted to

digital form and combined with the previously

created digital line map database to provide an upto-date pictorial view of the area, which was then

used to begin evaluating the extent of the damage.

The value of high-technology digital map information in a crisis situation quickly became

clear. The database became a depository for field

reports. As the information received was validated

and integrated, it was redistributed in a graphic

format easily interpreted by the user.

An important question that was difficult to answer during the Hurricane Andrew crisis support

effort was, “HOW did the area look before Andrew?”’ In some cases, only scattered debris remained of what had been trailer parks or subdivisions a few hours earlier. A reliable up-to-date

record of what occupied land parcels prior to the

hurricane did not exist. but such information is, of

course, essential in assessing damage, in determining what aid is needed, and in establishing

who is eligible for aid.

SAIC is currently developing technology

called orthorectification to help satisfy this need.

The technology creates digital image maps, precisely positioned to a worldwide coordinate system, from aerial photography and satellite imagery. The maps are stored on small cassette tapes or

CD-ROM disks that are easily input to a computer

and viewed. Image maps being produced for a national program have single elements (pixels) that

cm-respond to one square meter on the Earth. Although higher resolution images could be used,

maps with one-meter resolution offer an attractive

cost compromise. These digital image maps are

rapidly becoming popular with users, since they

offer data that are more precise, more current, and

less costly than the conventional line map paper

products. Such digital image maps would have

been very valuable in support of the Hurricane

Andrew relief effort, as well as in estimating damage from the Mississippi floods.

I Other Mapping Activities

The U.S. Geological Service in Menlo Park,

California, is currently creating a national image

map database. The effort is supported by a multitude of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as private utilities, architectural and

engineering firms, and individual property own-

~“ Jerry A. Maupin, Assistant Vice Prcsi(tent, Science Applications Intematlonal Ctwp., Melbtmmc, FL.
164 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

ers. Keying information to a precisely positioned

image map is essential to being able to manage

and digest the massive amounts of data generated

today.

New remote sensing technology is making the

collection of image map information even more

practical and less costly. Airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems with onboard GPS now

return digital SAR images that have been processed in real time onboard the aircraft. These

images can be acquired under almost any weather

conditions, and thus are ideal for supporting crises

where poor weather conditions and atmospheric

haze are likely. Satellite images from systems

such as Landsat and SPOT offer data that cover

broad areas and are easily processed. New commercial satellites will soon be launched that promise resolutions an order of magnitude finer than

those offered by Landsat and SPOT.

It appears a major thrust over the next few years

will be improving U.S. infrastructure. Much of the

cost will be in planning and coordinating the projects and documenting the results. Remotely

sensed photographic information can contribute

to the success of these projects. Image maps will

be useful in planning and controlling urban

sprawl, transportation routes, utility routes, land

use, watershed analysis, public land inventory,

wetlands documentation, and many other applications. GIS/image maps can save millions of dollars compared with conventional land survey

techniques. In addition, results will be consistent

and well documented.

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT USING

BIOPHYSICAL LAND UNITS (BLU)21

Management of natural resources and the ecosystems they comprise is becoming increasingly

complex. In particular, the resources and systems

contained in public lands are subject to escalating

competition and conflict over their use. For example, the public has expressed heightened concerns

for conservation and preservation of lands historical] y considered only for “disposal .“ Because ecological change is continuous and inevitable it is

crucial to understand and predict natural processes, as well as the interplay of cultural (humaninduced) uses and impacts. Quantifying, monitoring, predicting, and subsequently protecting

“natural” change, or directing “desired” change,

must be scientifically evaluated to help resolve

conflicts of ecosystem management and use.

The Albuquerque District of the Bureau of

Land Management is responding to these needs by

using geographic technologies, including GIS and

satellite remote sensing. The Albuquerque District has developed a management tool using these

technologies called Biophysical Land Units

(BLU), which are spatial (geographic) representations of the location, extent, and dynamics of multiple ecological components. These components

are the biological and physical (biophysical) attributes of an ecosystem or ecot ype. The attributes

may include: soils grouped by texture or erodability, geological type, terrain features such as a limited elevation range or degrees of aspect or slope,

vegetation/landcover types, surface water—in

short, whatever characteristic is pertinent to the

geographic location. For example, in New Mexico, some of the ecosystem attributes may consist

of stands of conifers on steep slopes of volcanic

cinders, or shrubs and forbs on low-slope, highly

erodible soils, which are subject to violent storm

runoff. In comparison, a coastal ecosystem may

include attributes such as geological type, vegetation, water depth in an estuary, or tidal flow dynamics. In simple terms, BLUS are a graphic representation of ecological responses (condition) in

a single map layer.

Historically, land managers have described the

existing environment of regions or administrative

units (wilderness areas, range allotments, etc.) by

extrapolating from field surveys that cover only

small percentages of the ecological components.

By contrast, GIS technology allows a manager to

develop BLUS from a matrix or cross-reference of

21 Christa Carroll, Albuquerque District, Bureau of Land Managment, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications | 165

ecological attributes, without regard to administrative or ownership boundaries-or personal

hunches. The GIS sets no limitations on the number of ecological component layers that can comprise the BLU model matrix, and is intentionally

exploited to represent hierarchical ecological

structure. Further, if the programmed matrix combination of ecological components doesn’t exist,

it simply leaves a blank space in the model. Beyond minimizing human preferences, BLU model

“drop out” is beneficial because it can define a previously unknown ecological response, or draw

attention to an area that is a unique or potential

“hot spot.”

For example, when the BLU model was first

developed for the El Malpais National Conservation Area in New Mexico, parts of the project area

had been subject to extensive previous study. This

known information was combined with intensive

field verification of the BLU model, resulting in a

high degree of confidence in the use of BLUS. Furthermore, through BLU modeling, parts of the

project area that were previously little known

were found to be different and more complex ecologically than expected. Once these “surprise”

areas were identified, they were the focus of additional field verification.

Satellite remote sensing data, (specifically

Landsat Thematic Mapper data) are being used in

the BLU model for vegetation/landcover and surface geology/soils. It is well known that satellite

data provide total spatial coverage of a large area

in a “snapshot in time.” But satellite data alone are

not sufficient for resource analysis and modeling.

Vegetation/landcover is only the surficial expression of ecological systems. The BLU model incorporates ecological components to understand the

dynamics of systems. Using satellite images from

different times, changes in the system can be detected and analyzed.

An initial iteration of “core” BLUS is usually a

matrix combination of vegetation/landcover, soils,

surface hydrology, and terrain characteristics.

This initial iteration of BLUS is sufficiently flexible to provide “common ground” resource information to a wide spectrum of resource specialists.

More detailed BLUS can be tailored for specific

questions or conflict analyses by adding layers of

biophysical or cultural information and/or sitespecific data. Data collected from a particular site

might include observed assemblages of flora and

fauna, rain gauge or other climatic data, or a particular localized use or management practice.

So why go to all this trouble to model ecosystem dynamics? Ecosystem management requires

understanding of energy exchanges and processes, which are constantly moving targets. GIS

technologies can measure, track, and repeat ecosystem anal yses through time. The GIS never tires

of repeating the processes at different points in

time, or trying a different scenario. For instance,

to track the rehabilitation of a riparian zone,

changes in vegetation/landcover or availability of

surface water can be measured and compared to

changes in pasture rotation, weather variations, or

the relationship of an additional stock and wildlife

watering site. Further, a management alternative

of improving an access road or establishing a trailhead can be analyzed for predicting the potential

amount and direction of visitor use patterns and

impacts.

Additionally, BLUS are designed to be hierarchical in structure, representing three dimensional

surfaces. They are thus flexible in scale, or resolution. When the element of time (satellite data

snapshots-in-time, and/or other historic information) is added, they also become four-dimensional. This facet of the BLU concept provides a method to link past and present datasets with

predictions of future landscape behavior. Improving methods of relating historic and current environmental data is crucial to identifying past patterns and developing analytic models for predicting change.

Spatial change detection and analysis of ecological responses in BLUS are key to ecosystem

monitoring. BLUS can be used to track and evaluate the amount, direction, and rate of responses.

The spatial distribution and location of BLUS has

been shown to document trends from a patchy to

more homogeneous landscape—a measure of bio -

diversity. Detailed site data within BLUS help to

identify the reasons for change, and to show if they

are related to dramatic impacts or slow trends.
166 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

The BLU approach is providing land/ecosys- fice of the BLM expects to expand the four-ditem managers with practical information for day- mensional concept of BLUs to a global scale to acto-day decisions. There are many data sources complish “global change monitoring” spatially.

now going unused, simply for lack of a frame of Figure B-6 illustrates how BLU monitoring

reference. GIS and satellite remote sensing can can assist in understanding the relationship beprovide such a framework. The Albuquerque of- tween “potential plant communities” and use of

—

SOURCE Albuquerque Off Ice of the Bureau of Land Management, 1993
Appendix B: Selected Remote Sensing Applications | 167

the landscape. A potential plant community is the

biotic community that an undisturbed site is capable of supporting, based on the site’s physical

characteristics. The GIS plots in figure B-6 show

outlines of potential plant communities derived in

GIS from soils and terrain data. The hatched areas

depict a comparable BLU. The left plot displays

the BLU in a “snapshot in time” in June 1984. The

right plot displays the same BLU in June 1988.

There has been a change in the location and size of

the BLU indicating a change in ecological response or condition. A larger portion of the site’s

potential for supporting plant life has been

achieved in 1988, the result of less vehicular travel, good vegetation growth in a wet year, and subsequent reduced grazing pressure. With BLUS in

GIS we can quickly compare the actual condition

of acres of vegetation to their theoretical potential,

and determine what may be the “desired” state under various conditions of use. Additionally, proposed land uses can be compared with each other

for potential conflicts. The causes of change can

then be analyzed in GIS by overlaying specific

“natural” layers and “cultural” layers such as

roads, oil and gas wells, or range allotments. This

simple example shows the power of GIS and satellite remote sensing as a framework and “common

ground” for resource analysis.

GIS provides extensive modeling capabilities.

All that is required is the desire to think and model

spatially—not just in two dimensions, but in three

or four dimensions. Dealing with these basic concepts of “space” (geography) includes taking full

advantage of Earth-observing space platforms.
Appendix C:

Applications of

Remotely Sensed

Data for

N

early one-third of the land area of the United States,

some 737 million acres, is forested. The world’s forests

account for nearly two-thirds of global photosynthesis.

Indeed, forests are complex, long-lived ecosystems that

are critical to Earth’s ecological well-being. Forests replenish the

air, conserve the soil, and maintain its fertility, store water, and

serve as a habitat for wildlife. Forest assets provide the necessary

wood and fiber products that contribute to a nation’s development. Moreover, the world’s forests play a critical role in regulating the climate. Forests, therefore, are consequential to the economic, social, and environmental health of all nations.

The need to conserve the planet’s forests, balanced against

proper use of these resources for development, has increasingly

raised concerns about their vitality. Threats to the forests do not

rest within the boundaries of any one country; forest problems in

one nation can impact the forest resources in another.2 Today’s industrial world has placed varying degrees of stress on both temperate and tropical forests. Be it the ravages of air pollution in the

form of acid rain, the unconstrained cutting down of trees for timber, or the clearing of forests for agricultural pursuits—forests are

1 Prepared by honard David, Space Data Resources & Infornlation.

2 H. Gyde Lund How to Watc}l the Forest+lUFRO Guides jbr World ~“orest Monororing, USDA Forest Service, Washingt(m, DC, 1992 ;see also l’}~ofogran]n]efri( Engineering & Remote Serrsinx, Vol. LV1ll, N(1. S, August 1992. The entire issue is devoted to a

national repro on photograrnnwtry, remote sensing, and gugraphic infomlation systems

in the United States.

168 I
Appendix C: Applications of Remotely Sensed Data for Forestry | 169

considered by many to be under siege. Many believe the ecological consequences of forest 10SS

wil1 have global repercussions.

Satellite remote sensing provides one important technique for monitoring the status of trees

and determining the role they play, not only on a

local, regional and national level, but also on a

global scale. Since the early 1970s civilian spacecraft have provided, in ever-increasing detail,

knowledge about the world’s vegetation cover—

including forests.

The following two sections detail programs

that focus on the monitoring of forest reserves.

These programs are discussed in broad terms, but

should provide the reader an appreciation of the

utility of spaceborne remote sensing tools for

overseeing the status of the world’s forests.

FOREST INVENTORY

 Forests on Maine’s Remote lslands3

Thousands of islands dot the coastline of Maine,

creating a challenging problem in inventorying

and managing the state’s coastal forests. Many of

the over 3,000 islands are remote, reducing the

number of onsitc inventories that can be conducted economically. As a result, past inventories

could only approximate the size of Maine’s coastal forests. For 100 percent coverage, aerial photography of the islands was considered too expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, many of

the islands could not be reached year round by surveying aircraft.

State forestry managers purchased seven SPOT

Imagc scenes to create up-to-date maps of the rich

spruce forests and other forest lands along

Maine entire coastline. The area covered by the

images totaled 5,000,000 acres of marine and terrestrial habitaits.Making use of software developed by The Island Institute of Rockland, Maine,

planners classified the 20-meter multispectral

data gathered by SPOT into 11 land cover types.

This information included old growth and younger spruce, hardwoods like maples and oak, other

vegetative covers, wetlands, and waterways. The

resolution gleaned from the SPOT satellite (onetenth acre pixels) improved classification accuracy over previous surveys, particularly for smaller

islands. Ground truth in accessible locations gave

planners assurances they were able to distinguish

tree species reliably using the satellite data, allowing them to estimate species acreages by tallying

pixels in the computer.

 Vegetation Covering in Bighorn

National Forest, Wyoming and

Montana4

The U.S. Forest Service has used Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data for mapping vegetation covering some 1.2 million acres of the Bighorn National Forest. Using July 1988 TM data purchased

from EOSAT, Forest Service personnel mapped

specific vegetation types. They merged digitized

data from their inventory with the classification

and computed acreage summaries of each vegetation class per area. The Landsat data and services

cost about $100,000. The Forest Service estimates

that an equivalent survey using traditional manual

survey methods would have cost at least

$500,000.

 Vegetation Classification of Old Growth

Forests in New Mexico5

The U.S. Forest Service’s Nationwide Forestry

Applications Program used Landsat TM data to

produce a geographic information system (GIS)

database containing vegetation characteristics of

a portion of the Jemez Mountains in northern New

3 SPt)T Fx+$hcws, 198°- 1991, ‘bForc rf lntcrrkv?-SPOT Helps Moirre Marra,qc lts Forested Islonds.” SPOT lmagc Corp., Rcstlm, hrA.

4 ~’~)rcil .$rr~ I{ c Remote .$errr~rrg .Wnvnflr+l 991, c{mpiled by Stan Bain. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Engineering Staff, EM

7 14(-33, Wr;i\hln:tt)n, DC.

i J~\sl~ii Gtm/ales ct. :11.. \i>qefafi(m C/a.~~(jca[ion and O/d Gro\\th Modellrrg in fhe.lcme: Mot{nfairr,f-San(a Fe National F(mcst New Mex -

IC(). Prcpmxl tor The Remote Smslng Steering Committee of the USDA Forest Service. Final Repro, May 1992.
170 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Mexico. The study demonstrated that Landsat TM

data can provide useful vegetation data for GIS,

even when used in the widely varying vegetation

conditions in New Mexico. The Forest Service

produced relatively accurate crown cover and tree

size classifications from Landsat TM data over

large areas, although some vegetation characteristics were found to be easier to derive than others.

For example, developing accurate estimates of

tree size proved to be difficult because of the spatial resolution limitations of Landsat data and the

variability of average tree size over the study area.

The study showed Landsat TM data have several desirable qualities as a data source for GIS.

Each Landsat TM scene covers a large area (170

kilometers by 188 kilometers); therefore, information derived from Landsat data fills the gaps that

may exist in other data bases. For instance, areas

with little or no vegetation data, such as large tracts

of private land or wilderness areas, may contain

information that can significantly affect estimates

of distribution and abundance of old growth trees.

Furthermore, the study reported that collection

of Landsat TM data is repeatable and consistent

through time, which provides for both current and

future data needs. Not only can current old growth

conditions be assessed, but changes in these

conditions can also be detected using Landsat

imagery acquired at a later date. Because the data

are already in digital form, they provide accessible

and flexible data sources for GIS.

I Conifer Forest Regeneration in the

Western Cascade Mountains of

Oregon6

The Environmental Remote Sensing Applications

Laboratory at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon has completed an analysis of conifer

forest regeneration using Landsat TM data. Standard forestry practices call for harvested timber

areas to be reforested. Once replanted, the reforested areas need continual monitoring to determine their progress.

The laboratory study compared spectral data

from well-regenerated Douglas-fir stands with

those from poorly regenerated conifer stands. Using the satellite data, poorly-regenerated stands

were found to be spectrally distinct from well regenerated Douglas-fir stands after they reached an

age of approximately 15 years. The researchers

concluded that although TM satellite data were incapable of assessing regeneration in Douglas-fir

plantations younger than 15 years, the success in

identifying poorly regenerated stands should be

high after this initial period.

TM satell ite data were also found to be useful in

identifying stages of succession as a forest regenerates and useful for analyzing the condition of

wildlife habitat. Herb and shrub stages provide

important habitat and forage areas for some wildlife species. Identifying poorly regenerated stands

can thus help in estimating wildlife and plant biodiversity.

 Old Growth Forest Monitoring in the

Pacific Northwest7

The U.S. Forest service has been working with Pacific Meridian Resources of Emery vine, California, to assess a region of forest resources in the Pacific Northwest that has been the site of disputes

over environmental, economic, and recreational

uses of the forest.

Fourteen layers of GIS data derived from satellite imagery and other sources covering more than

20 million acres of forestland in Washington and

Oregon, have been entered into a GIS database.

This permits forest managers quick and accurate

access to information that should prove useful in

resolving management and policy disputes in the

area. The GIS layers include: slope of areas, eleva6 Maria Fitmlla, and William Ripple. “Analysis of Conifer Forest Regeneration Using Landsat Thematic Mapper Data,” Pho(ogrammerric

E’nglneerin,g & Remote Sensinr, September 1993, pp. 1383-1388.

7 Russell G. Conga lton, Kass Green, and John Teply. *’Mapping Old Growth Forests on National Forest and Park Lands in the Pacific Northwest fr[)m Remtnely Sensed Data,” Photogrmnmetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, April 1993, pp. 529-535.
Appendix C: Applications of Remotely Sensed Data for Forestry | 171

(ions, hydrology, current vegetation type, suitable

spotted owl habitat, suitable lands for timber production, habitat conservation areas, forest boundaries, and historical distribution of vegetation and

old growth.

The study relied primarily on 12 Landsat TM

data that had been geocoded8 and corrected for the

effects of terrain. Study managers also purchased

SPOT panchromatic imagery (l O-meter resolution) for use on the Olympic Peninsula. The study

demonstrated that a powerful marriage of satellite

imagery, GIS, and statistical software is now possible. Fully integrating these disparate capabilities allows researchers to analyze relationships between spectral variation on the image and landcover variation on the ground.

Because today computers are far more powerful than in prior years, image classifications can be

completed in mere hours rather than weeks. This

merging of technologies into an integrated whole

permits their use by numerous disciplines,—foresters, geographers, and ecologists, among others.

Finally, the Oregon work illustrates that the spatial resolution of SPOT imagery and the spectral

and spatial resolution of Landsat TM data are

high] y desirable compared to earlier multispectral

scanner ( MSS) data, and far more useful than the

single layer of data that results from traditional aerial mapping.

The Forest Service has concluded it can use the

resulting information to address many issues such

as:

= fragmentation of old growth and its implications for wildlife habitats;

D developing initial estimates of the biological diversity of forest vegetation;

■ and detailing

presently in

areas.

how much old growth acreage is

National Parks and wilderness

Perhaps the most important benefit of packaging satellite imagery, GIS, and appropriate software together lies in the ability to model the implications of varying management decisions

regarding forests before they are put into effect.

 AVHRR Sensors in Forestry Studies9

Dedicated Earth remote sensing satellite systems

are not the only spacecraft that can provide useful

data for forest mapping procedures. A forest cover

map for the United States has been created using

Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

(AVHRR) data collected from the sensor aboard

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NOAA- 11, an afternoon crossing satellite in the Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite program.

AVHRR data have the advantage that they are

collected daily. The satellite passes over the continental United States in early afternoon, collecting

five channels of data, ranging from the visible and

reflected infrared to the emitted (thermal) infrared

portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. They

have the disadvantage that AVHRR imagery

yields a maximum of only 1.1 kilometer geospatial resolution.

The AVHRR data used in this study were compiled by the Earth Resources Observation Satellite

(EROS) Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which developed the “normalized difference

vegetation index” (NDVI). The NDVI is effective

for vegetation classification because it is highly

correlated to the amount of vegetation (chlorophyll and leaf reflectance) present and it is relativel y independent of solar and sensor scan angles.

The first phase of the mapping project produced data sets from different seasons: two spring,

one summer, and two fall. Each composite covers

the lower 48 states of the continental United

s 1.c., rcglskred to ground c(~ntr(jl points in such a way that each pixel (m the image cfw-rcspmds to a kn~)w n geographic Iocati(m.

‘) Zhiliang Shu, and Day Id L. E\ans. “Large Scale Forest Land Mapping with AVHRR Di~ta—A Suppwt Pr(~ject for the 1993 RPA Update,”

presented at the F(~urth Btcnn]al USDA Forest Ser\Icc Remote Sensing Application Ct~nfcrcncc, Orl,and(~, Ff(}rlda, April 6- I(J, 1992. Also,

‘“Sumn~ar) t~f F(wcs[ T> pc !vfapplng procedures For RPA purp~ses at SO-FIA. ” prwkic~ by Roy Belt/ of US. Forest Ser\w, Southern F(wcst

E\perlnwntal Statltm, S[:irkvlllc, MS.
172 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

States. A second phase of the mapping project began in 1993 to support the U.S. Forest Service’s

Resources Planning Act (RPA) update.

Use of AVHRR data---combined with Landsat

TM data—is expected to augment continental and

global resource surveys and climatological models. The AVHRR images have already been used

to derive forest-density values and forest types,

particularly in the Midsouth. The AVHRR maps

are expected to provide unprecedented detail on

forest cover distributions of the United States.

| Utility of GIS and GPS for Forest

Management 10

Geographic information system (GIS) technologies and Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites have enhanced the utility of satellite remote

sensing for forestry management. For instance,

GPS and SPOT digital imagery was used in a GIS

database to classify 16 vegetation types within the

69,000 acre Everglades National Park, near

Homestead, Florida. National Park Service managers wanted to understand how plant cover in the

slash pine forests of the Everglades affects tire

management practices. 11

GPS was used to geocode the SPOT imagery,

as well as navigate to sites within the study area

for ground-truthing the vegetation classifications.

The availability of GPS signals made groundtruthing 30 randomly chosen locations hundreds

of meters apart much easier, as many of the sites

were kilometers from the nearest road and hidden

by thick underbrush.

Using a GPS data receiver, researchers verified

the accuracy of both the standard U.S. Geological

Survey quad map of selected areas and the SPOT

Image geocoded image. They used GPS readings

of 16 identifiable features within the Everglades,

such as surveying benchmarks, roads, and plant

community boundaries. At the selected sites, field

analysts recorded pertinent plant community information for comparison with the computerized

vegetation classification yielded by satellite

imagery. The merger of satellite imagery and GPS

proved invaluable in creating and updating GIS

databases quickly and accurately. Doing so saved

time and money compared to the use of traditional

methods such as field surveying and aerial photography.

In the GIS arena, the U.S. Forest service has

made use of SPOT 10-meter panchromatic imagery coupled to a GIS database to update forest vegetation maps. The Forest Service requires these

updates to show harvest activities and areas affected by fires, as well as the location of conifer

plantations. One area in need of updating was primarily confined to Six Rivers National Forest and

the western portions of Klamath and Trinity National Forests. 12 SpOT imagery in the form of

SPOT QuadMaps was selected to meet the

1 :24,000 scale requirement and was chosen over

aerial photography because the necessary imagery

could be obtained in a timely manner and within

budget for these large forested areas.

The images were incorporated into a database

derived primarily from 1980 aerial photography.

The newer data were used to create a “change layer” GIS database indicating areas harvested, those

touched by fire, locations of new plantings

compared to old growth forests, and roads accessing new clearcut locales.

This updated GIS database assisted the U.S.

Forest Service in managing forest lands, planning

timber sales, inventorying forests, and selecting

suitable habitats for wildlife. Furthermore, this

10 paul V. Bols[ad, “GPS Basks: Forestry Applications,” 7-he Comp//er, A Forest Resources Systems Institute Publicati(m, vol. 11, No. 3,

Fall 1993, pp. 4-8.

I I ‘LspoT and GPs—sPaCe TeChnt)lt)gi~S for Down-to-Earth Applications, ” SPOT Image Cm-p., Reston, VA, 1991.

12 .. Map ~d GIS U@ating for the U.S. Forest Scmlce–.SpoT shows a New View of O]d Growth in California’s D(mglas Fir Regi(m,”

SPOT Image Cm-p., Reston, VA, 1990
Appendix C: Applications of Remotely Sensed Data for Forestry I 173

GIS database can now be updated more cost-effectively.

The Forest Service has provided yet another

demonstration of remote sensing and GIS use in

the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Beginning in 1984, the Forest Service created GIS databases by digitizing field maps and aerial

photographs taken in the early 1980s to help establish a forest management plan. Later. to update

and enhance the accuracy of the maps, it used geocoded, ortho-corrected SPOT imagery in 15 minute x 20 minute quadrangles. Using the satellite

and GIS data, the Forest Service found almost 30

percent of the land, covering over 2.5 million

acres of forest, had been previously miscoded in

terms of clearcut size, unmapped clearcuts, and

forests mapped as clearcuts. The errors had little

effect on the overall statistics, because they tended

to cancel each other, but these data flaws were not

known prior to use of the satellite data.

Combining satellite imagery and a GIS database delivered ready-to-use information for oneseventh the cost and in about one-tenth the time required for aerial photo prints. Previously. the U.S.

Forest Service updated the Tongass National Forest site every 10 years, due to the expense involved and necessary time needed for the update.

using satellite and GIS data sets, The forest Service now plans to update their databases of the

area every three years, to better manage this forest

asset.

FOREST PROTECTION

 Gypsy Moth Damage in the

Shenandoah

SPOT imagery of Shenandoah, Virginia was acquired by the U.S. Forest Service for four consecutive years, starting in 1987. The images were collected as part of the Forest Service’s 13.5 million

acre pest management project. The focus of the

project was to monitor defoliation by gypsy moths

and assess the effectiveness of eradication techniques in the national forests of Virginia and West

Virginia. The project defined a procedure that delineates forest susceptible to gypsy moth attack.

The approach taken in the project also involved

the “masking out” of nonsusceptible forests and

areas with clouds or cloud shadows for a given

year. A vegetation index was calculated for the

susceptible forests with a range of index values

describing each defoliation class. Spatially processing and “clumping” the pixel data allowed restoration of the data, facilitating GIS coverage.

Use of satellite imagery for the project replaced

field and aerial photographic surveys. These techniques were considered too inefficient, inaccurate, and time consuming to be effective in tracking the gypsy moth—a fast-acting pest. A single

SPOT scene allowed investigators to identify and

map defoliation up to 25 times more quickly than

aerial photography, according to SPOT officials.

On the other hand, the U.S. Forest Service

notes that the cost of geocoded terrain-corrected

SPOT imagery at $2.60 per square mile is somewhat higher than the average project cost for

NASA photography at $2.00 per square mile, although still less than the cost of conventional photography. Using SPOT is now considered a viable

technique for gathering relatively detailed defoliation information for areas of up to 10,000 square

miles. By comparing year-to-year SPOT images,

the effects of a topographical y controlled appl ication of pesticide to control the gypsy moth population could be assessed.

1 Deforestation Monitoring

Portions of Brazil tropical forests are being eradicated due to population growth. The Amazon Basin, in particular, has been under stress due to the

encroachment of people. To monitor the growth of

deforestation patterns in the area, a combination

of satellite data sets have proven useful.

As an example, the coarse resolution of

AVHRR from NOAA polar-orbiting meteorological satellites can spot fires and smoke in the rain

1 ] “Tflngass Natt{mal F,lrest—SPOT FIIIs the lnft~rnuiti~ln \iJid, ” SPOT Image Ctmp,, Rest(m. VA., 1991.
174 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

forest. AVHRR images cover a land area of

approximately 260,000 square kilometers. In

1993, NASA and the seven Central American nations began a program to preserve and protect that

region’s rain forest by expanding use of AVHRR

satellite data by Central American scientists.

For a more exacting view of deforestation patterns, Landsat and SPOT satellites are used. In the

case of SPOT, the spacecraft’s 20-meter resolution multispectral imagery can assess exact levels

of deforestation. A typical SPOT image of a deforested area is 60 x 60 kilometers. SPOT data is of

such clarity as to delineate vegetated and nonvegetated parcels of land--data useful in the existing AVHRR classification scheme. Use of SPOT

can denote individual clearings that rarely approach the size of a single AVHRR 1 -kilometer

pixel. Typical clearings range only from 10 to 20

percent of this size.

The use of Landsat imagery has proven effective in the Pan Amazonia Project. Institutions of

several Amazon countries, including Bolivia,

Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and the

Guianas have coordinated efforts to gather near

wall-to-wall coverage of the countries participating.

U.S. Landsat imagery was used in the survey

taken in two time periods: from 1984 to 1987 and

from 1988 to 1991. The project was directed by

the National Institute for Space Research (NIPE),

of the Secretariat of Science and Technology of

the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil.

The focus of the project was to determine the

extent of gross deforestation in the sequence of

Landsat surveys. This data was then used to estimate the annual rate of gross deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia between consecutive surveys.

A survey of the entire Legal Amazonia—which

covers 5 million square kilometers-consisted of

hundreds of black-and-white images and color

composites taken by Landsat multispectral scanner and thematic mapper sensors. Both dense tropical forest and thick savannah were surveyed.

Data presented in 1992 showed that the peak of

deforestation in the region in the second half of the

1980s was much less severe than higher estimates

projected by some groups, such as the United Nations Forest Resource Assessment, which indicated more than 80,000 square kilometers per year

were lost to deforestation. Using the Landsat satell ite survey, estimates of the mean rate of deforestation were lowered to 21,500 square kilometers.

The results of the Brazilian Amazonia work

was corroborated by independent analysis completed at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. That assessment also made use of Landsat

thematic mapper data and was presented in May

1992 to the World Forest Watch, a conference held

in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil.

| Integrating Forest Monitoring Surveys

The Tropical Ecosystem Environment Observations by Satellites (TREES) project is considered

by many to offer the best evaluation of satellite remote sensing of forestry assets. TREES is jointly

carried out by the European Communities’ Joint

Research Centre in Ispra, Italy and the European

Space Agency (ESA). A first phase of TREES was

concluded in 1993.

The objectives of the TREES project are twofold:

1. to provide quantitative space data sets and

information on the spatial distribution and

temporal evolution of the tropical ecosystems (e.g., rate of change in forest cover, forest cover, biomass burning) for an improved

scientific assessment of their impact on

global climate change issues, such as the

greenhouse effect; and

2. to establish an integrated satellite observational program for a long-term, continuous

and operational monitoring of forest cover

and rate of deforestation in the tropical regions to provide for the implementation of

various European Communities policies.

Under assessment in the TREES endeavor is

the value of ESA’s ERS- 1 Synthetic Aperture Radar to provide data useful in monitoring tropical

forest vegetation. A test image was displayed for

the first time at the May 1992 World Forest Watch,

making use of ERS- 1‘s radar to show deforestation in the Amazonian rain forest. The test image

clearly shows rectangular patches of destroyed
Appendix C: Applications of Remotely Sensed Data for Forestry I 175

forest extending over areas as large as 20 square

kilometers.

TREES research has concentrated on the use of

low resolution AVHRR data generated by the polar-orbiting NOAA satellites of the Tires series.

This AVHRR data provides 1 -kilometer resolution, as well as 4-kilometer resolution for global

area coverage, to assess changes in tropical forest

canopy.

The first phase of the TREES project involved

use of NOAA AVHRR data at 1-kilometer resolution to assemble “wall-to-wall” coverage of

Southeast Asia. This tests the feasibility of analyzing the low resolution multi spectral data set for

forested areas where both evergreen and seasonal

formations are to be found. A similar assessment

of West Africa was completed in 1990. The results

of these studies are to be integrated into a Tropical

Forest Information System.

AVHRR image analysis for the TREES effort is

grouped into several categories that permit a spectral study of differences and contrasts between forest features; a spatial assessment of textural forest

features, such as patterns; temporal discriminators, such as seasonality: and indicators of deforestation, such as fires and roads.

The analysis of 1 -kilometer resolution multispectral AVHRR data will be later compared with

4-kilometer resolution AVHRR data, as well as

high resolution images produced by Landsat and

SPOT spacecraft. This work will be undertaken by

scientists at the European Communities Joint Research Centre in Ispra.

For Further Information

Deforstation in Brazilian Amazonia, INPE

Publication, May 1992.

NASA News. “NASA and Central America

Will Expand Rain Forest Studies,’- NASA Release: 93-47, Mar. 16, 1993.

Recommendations in Satellite Based Forest

Monitoring: A Review of Current Issues in World

Forest Watch—Conference Proceedings, Joint

Research Centre, Italy, 1992, pp. 3-5.

Philip J. Riggan, James Brass, and Robert

Lockwood. "Assessing Fire Emissions from

Tropical Savanna and Forests of Central Brazil,”

Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, vol. 59, No. 6, June 1993, pp. 1009-1015.

SPOT Fact Sheet. “Deforestation MonitoringSPOT Supplies Up-to-Date information on Tropical Forest Losses in Brazil’s Amazon Basin,”

SPOT Image Corp., Reston. VA, 1990.

TREES—Tropical Ecosystem Environment

Observations by Satellites, a Joint Project of the

Commission of the European Communities

(CEC) and ESA, October 1990.

World Forest Watch Conference on Global Forest Monitoring (Abstracts), Stio Jose dos Campos, Brazil, May 27-29, 1992.
Appendix D:

Quantitative Products D from Satellite Observational

I

nterpreting clouds from satellite pictures was the first application of remotely sensed data from environmental satellites in the early 1960s. Satellite image interpretation is still

critical today for monitoring weather patterns, severe

storms, snow and ice fields, flood coverage, biomass burning,

volcanic ash dispersion, and numerous other applications. High

and low resolution satellite imagery are received by users worldwide in real time through local ground receivers and by central

processing facilities where the image data are further processed

into quantitative products.

Three operational satellite systems provide continuous views

of the Earth-the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and the polar-orbiting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites, both operated by

NOAA; and the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program

(DMSP), operated by the Department of Defense (DOD). NOAA

and DOD work closel y together in exchanging data from their respective programs. The two most common modes of receiving

real time NOAA polar imagery are through the Automatic Picture

Transmission (AFT) and High-Resolution Picture Transmission

(HRPT) direct broadcast systems.

APT and HRPT require receiving antennae that acquire imagery at ground resolutions of 4 kilometers and 1.1 kilometers, respectively. Geostationary satellites provide similar direct broad

I A~hur L. Bt~olh, Natit~nal oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Env ir(mmental Satellite, Data, and Information Systems.

176 I
Appendix D: Quantitative Products from Satellite Observations |177

Image of cloud cover and derived wind speeds from GOES-7, 19 May 1994

cast services through Weather Facsimile (WEFAX) and regularly scheduled (normally every

half-hour) direct transmissions.

In addition to collecting cloud and surface

imagery, environmental satellites also provide

global data used in generating quantitative products for numerical weathcr prediction models, assessments, and analyses of the oceans, atmosphere,

coastal zone and land areas. NOAA currently produces about 80 quantitative satellite products on

an operational basis. Many products are generated

in special formats, grids, and projections to meet

operational and research requirements for global,

regional, and local applications. Moreover, many

quantitative products have been produced on a

routine operational basis from NOAA satellites

since the late 1970s. resulting in one of the largest

and longest continuing time series of satellitederived global measurements in the world. These

products provide important sources of global data

in climate and global change studies.

Although the majority of products currently

produced are derived from NOAA polar-orbiting

operational data, important quantitative products

are also developed from research satellites (e.g.,

NIMBUS and Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Quantitative products have been made possible

over time by improvements in sensor resolution,

spectral coverage (e.g., infrared and microwave),

and ground coverage in successive generations of

satellite programs. Routine production of quantitative products from operational satellite observations started in the early 1970s with the Improved

TIROS Operational System (ITOS) and improved

considerable y with the launch of the current NOAA

series in 1978.
178 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

30N

I

2

2

2

2

25N z

2

2

2

80W 75W

12 14 I 21

21

14-

+ +, 8+CJ+ +

2

2 L

V&? <27 ) /

‘1 I . / .

, + ,y~ y+

n

27 27 27 27 20 20 27

30N

2’5N

20N

80W 75W

Sea surface temperature (SST) contours around Florida, the Bahamas, and Cuba, derived from the AVHRR sensor aboard a

NOAA POES satellite on Feb. 2, 1993. Increasing numbers indicate increasing temperatures (degrees centigrade).

Satellite products are typically generated at

central automated processing facilities where the

full-resolution data are received from satellite

readout stations and processed through a series of

steps commonly designated as Levels 1, 2, and 3.

Each level results in the creation of a digital data

set, or product, with data volumes decreasing with

each higher level of processing. Level 1 is a preprocessing step in which the raw satellite data are

ingested and formatted into sensor-specific data

sets with calibration, Earth-location, and quality

control information appended to the data set. A

global, 24-hour, Level 1 data set contains on the

order of hundreds of millions of bytes of data. The

next step, Level 2, uses statistical or physically

based retrieval algorithms to transform the raw

satellite data into geophysical products at satellite

observation locations. For example, NOAA pro-
Appendix D: Quantitative Products from Satellite Observations 1179

duces global sea surface temperatures on an 8-kilometer grid and global ozone measurements on a

200-kilometer grid. A typical global Level 2 product contains on the order of tens of millions of bytes of data. Level 3 products usually involve interpolation and analysis and are generally mapped to

standard global or regional map projections and

grids. For example, NOAA maps some products

depicting aerosol concentrations into 10-degree

latitude and longitude grids. A typical Level 3

product contains approximately several hundred

thousand bytes of data and is in a format most accessible to the user community. NOAA performs

its validation of satellite measurements in most

Level 2 and 3 processing steps. Validation involves merging and intercomparing satellite measurements with conventional meteorological and

geophysical data (e.g., surface-based radar, radiosonde ascents, ocean buoys, and rain gauges).

All quantitative products require special processing to correct for clouds, the atmosphere, seasonal changes, the sun-Earth-satellite geometry,

and sensor calibrat ion degradation and anomalies.

Two important automated processing functions

(usually done in Level 2 processing) are “cloud

clearing” and atmospheric attenuation. A “cloud

clearing” step is necessary to identify an observation as either clear, partly cloudy, or cloudy. The

information is critical for surface variables that

require cloud-free, or clear-view, satellite observations, such as sea surface temperature and

vegetation measurements, However, atmospheric

variables such as temperature profiles and outgoing longwave radiation also require accurate cloud

detection and estimates. NOAA averages some

surface products, such as vegetation and sea ice

measurements, over a 7- to 10-day period to insure

removal of all cloud effects. Also, satellitederived measurements must be corrected for the

effects of the intervening atmosphere (attenuation) resulting from atmospheric gases (e.g., water

vapor) and aerosols (e.g., dust and volcanic ash).

NOAA transmits satellite data and derived

products in real time to operational users through

dedicated networks. Many of the products are

transmitted to customers over worldwide networks, such as the Global Telecommunications

System (GTS). For researchers and the general

user community, all satellite data and products are

available through NOAA’s three National Data

Centers—the National Climatic Data Center, the

National Geophysical Data Center, and the National Oceanographic Data Center. NOAA is currently improving access to its satellite data holdings by providing users with online access and

services to data browse and inventory information, and data set downloading on the Internet.
Appendix E:

E Acknowledgments

This report has bene@tedfiom the advice of many individuals. In addition to members of the Advisory

Panel and the workshops, OTA especially would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and support. The views expressed in this paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of

Technology Assessment.

Glenn Bethel

Foreign Agricultural Service

Arthur Booth

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Dixon Butler

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Alan Buzacott

Office of Technology Assessment

Michael Chinnery

National Geophysical Data Center

Larry Enomoto

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Kenneth Hadeen

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Elaine Hansen

Colorado Space Grant College

University of Colorado

Richard Hart

National Academy of Sciences

Thomas Helm

EROS Data Center

W. John Hussey

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

David Irvine

Hughes STX

Mark A. Jadkowski

James W. Sewall Co.

180 |
Appendix E: Acknowledgements 1181

Marilyn Kaminski

Huges Applied Information

Systems, inc.

Don Light

U.S. Geoloical Survey

Robert Masters

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

John MacDonald

MacDonald Dettwilcr

Robert L. Money

National Climatic Data Center

John Morgan

EUMETSAT

Richard Mroczynski

EOSAT

James Nielon

National Weather Service

Scott Pace

Rand Corp.

Robert Price

Mission to Plant Earth

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Stanley Ruttenberg

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Lisa Shaffer

Mission to Planet Earth

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Brent Smith

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Department of Commerce

Thomas W. Spence

Global Climate Observing System

Terry Taylor

Foreign Agricultural Service

John Townshend

Department of Geography

University of Maryland

Milton C. Trichel

ERIM

Hassan Virji

START Secretariat

Allen H. Watkins

U.S. Geological Survey

Ronald Weaver

National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Fred Wood

Office of Technology Assessment

Helen Wood

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Charles Wooldridge

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration
Acronyms and m

I! Abbreviations

ADEOS

AID

AIRS

ALEXIS

ALT

AMS

AMSR

AMSU

AMTS

APT

ARGOS

ARM

ARPA

ASCAT

ASF

ASTER

ATLAS

Advanced Earth Observing

Satellite

Agency for International

Development

Atmospheric Infrared Sounder

Array of Low Energy X-Ray

Imaging Sensors

Altimeter

American Meteorological Society

Advanced Microwave Scanning

Radiometer

Advanced Microwave Sounding

Unit

Advanced Moisture and

Temperature Sounder

Automatic Picture Transmission

Argos Data Collection and

Position Location System

Atmospheric Radiation Monitor

Advanced Research Projects

Agency

Advanced Scatterometer

Alaska SAR Facility

Advanced Spaceborne Thermal

Emission and Reflection

Radiometer

Atmospheric Laboratory for

Applications and Science

ATMOS

ATN

AVHRR

AVIRIS

AVNIR

CCDS

CCRS

CEES

CENR

CEOS

CERES

CES

CFC

CGC

CGMS

CIESIN

Atmospheric Trace Molecules

Observed by Spectroscopy

Advanced TIROS-N

Advanced Very High Resolution

Radiometer

Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging

Spectrometer

Advanced Visible and NearInfrared Radiometer

Center for Commercial

Development of Space

Canada Centre for Remote

Sensing

Committee on Earth and

Environmental Science

Committee on Environment and

Natural Resource Research

Committee on Earth Observations

Satellites

Clouds and Earth’s Radiant

Energy System

Committee on Earth Studies

Chlorofluorocarbon

Committee on Global Change

Coordination of Geostationary

Meteorological Satellites

Consortium for International Earth

Science Information Network

182 I
Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations 1183

CNES

CNRS

COSPAR

CSA

Czcs

DAAC

DARA

DCS

DMA

DMSP

DOC

DOD

DOE

DOI

DORIS

DOS

DRSS

EC

EDC

EDOS

EDRTS

ELGA

ENSO

EOC

EO-IG-WG

EOS

EOS-AERO

EOS-ALT

EOS-AM

EOSAT

Centre National d’fitudes

Spatiales

Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique

Congress for Space Research

Canadian Space Agency

Coastal Zone Color Scanner

Distributed Active Archive Center

Deutsche Agentur fur

Raumfahrt-Angelegenheiten

Data Collection System

Defense Mapping Agency

Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of the Interior

Doppler Orbitography and

Radiopositioning Integrated by

Satellite

Department of State

Data Relay Satellite System

European Community

EROS Data Center

EOS Data and Operations System

Experimental Data Relay and

Tracking Satellite

Emergency Locust Grasshopper

Assistance

El Nine/Southern Oscillation

EOS Operations Center

Earth Observation International

Coordination Working Group

Earth Observing System

EOS Aerosal Mission

EOS Altimetry Mission

EOS Morning Crossing

(Ascending) Mission

Earth Observation Satellite

company

EOS-CHEM EOS Chemistry Mission

EOSDIS EOS Data and Information System

EOSP Earth Observing Scanning

Polarimeter

EOS-PM

EPA

ERBE

ERBS

EROS

ERS

ERTS-1

ESA

ESDIS

ESOC

ESRIN

Eumestat

FAA

FAO

FCCSET

FEMA

FEws

FOV

FST

FY

GCDIS

GCOS

GDP

GDPS

Geosat

GEWEX

GFO

GGI

GIS

GLAS

EOS Afternoon Crossing

(Descending) Mission

Environmental Protection Agency

Earth Radiation Budget

Experiment

Earth Radiation Budget Satellite

Earth Resources Observation

System

European Remote-Sensing

Satellite

Earth Resources Technology

Satellite-1

European Space Agency

Earth Science Data and

Information System

European Space Operations Center

European Scientific Research

Institute

European Organisation for the

Exploitation of Meteorological

Satellites

Federal Aviation Administration

Food and Agriculture Organization

Federal Coordinating Council for

Science, Engineering, and

Technology

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

Famine Early Warning System

Field-of-View

Field Support Terminal

Feng Yun

Global Change Data and

Information System

Global Climate Observing System

gross domestic product

Global Data-Processing System

Navy Geodetic Satellite

Global Energy and Water Cycle

Experiment

Geosat Follow-On

GPS Geoscience Instrument

geographic information system(s)

Geoscience Laser Altimeter

System
104 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

GLI

GLRS

GMS

GOES

GOMI

GOMOS

GOMR

GOMS

GOOS

GOS

GPS

GTS

HIRIS

HIRS

HIS

HRMSI

HRPT

HSST

HRV

IAF

IELV

IEOS

Icsu

IGBP

ILAS

IMG

INSAT

Global Imager

Geoscience Laser Ranging System

Geostationary Meteorological

Satellite

Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite

Global Ozone Monitoring

Instrument

Global Ozone Monitoring by

Occultation of Stars

Global Ozone Monitoring

Radiometer

Geostationary Operational

Meteorological Satellite

Global Ocean Observing System

Global Observing System

Global Positioning System

Global Telecommunications System

High-Resolution Imaging

Spectrometer

High-Resolution Infrared Sounder

High-Resolution Interferometer

Sounder

High-Resolution Multispectral

Imager

High-Resolution Picture

Transmission

House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology

High-Resolution Visible

International Astronautical

Federation

intermediate-class expendable

launch vehicle

International Earth Observing

System

International Council of Scientific

Unions

International Geosphere-Biosphere

Program

Improved Limb Atmospheric

Spectrometer

Interferornetric Monitor for

Greenhouse Gases

Indian Satellite

IOC

IPCC

IPO

IPOMS

IRS

IRTS

ISAMS

ISY

ITS

JOES

JERS

JPL

JPOP

LAGEOS

Landsat

Lidar

LIMS

LIS

LISS

LITE

MELV

MERIS

MESSR

METOP

MHS

MIMR

MIPAS

MISR

Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission

Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

Integrated Program Office

International Polar Operational

Meteorological Satellite

organization

Indian Remote Sensing Satellite

Infrared Temperature Sounder

Improved Stratospheric and

Mesospheric Sounder

International Space Year

Interferometric Temperature

Sounder

Japanese Earth Observing System

Japan Earth Resources Satellite

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Japanese Polar Orbiting Platform

Laser Geodynamics Satellite

Land Remote-Sensing Satellite

Light Detection and Ranging

Limb Infrared Monitor of the

Stratosphere

Lightning Imaging Sensor

Linear Imaging Self-scanning

Sensors

Lidar In-Space Technology

Experiment

medium-class expendable launch

vehicle

Medium-Resolution Imaging

Spectrometer

Multispectrum Electronic

Self-Scanning Radiometer

Meteorological Operational

Satellite

Microwave Humidity Sounder

Multifrequency Imaging

Microwave Radiometer

Michelson Interferometer for

Passive Atmospheric Sounding

Multi-Angle Imaging

Spectroradiometer
Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations | 185

MITI

MLS

MODIS

MODIS-N

MOP

MOPITT

MOS

MSR

MSS

MSU

MTPE

MTS

NASA

NASDA

NESDIS

NEXRAD

NIST

NOAA

NOSS

NREN

NROSS

NRSA

NSCAT

NSPD

NSTC

OCTS

OMB

OPS

OSB

O s c

OSIP

Ministry of International Trade

and Industry

Microwave Limb Sounder

Moderate-Resolution Imaging

Spectroradiometer

Moderate-Resolution Imaging

Spectrometer-Nadir

Meteosat Operational Programme

Measurements of Pollution in the

Troposphere

Marine Observation Satellite

Microwave Scanning Radiometer

Multispectral Scanner

Microwave Sounding Unit

Mission to Planet Earth

Microwave Temperature Sounder

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Space Development

Agency (Japan)

National Environmental Satellite,

Data and Information Service

Next Generation Weather Radar

National Institute for Standards

and Technology

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Oceanic Satellite System

National Research and Education

Network

Navy Remote Ocean Sensing

Satellite

National Remote Sensing Agency

NASA Scatterometer

National Space Policy Directive

National Science and Technology

Council

Ocean Color and Temperature

Scanner

Office of Management and Budget

Optical Sensors

Ocean Studies Board

Orbital Sciences Corporation

Operational Satellite Improvement

Program

POEM

POES

POLDER

RA

Radarsat

RESTEC

RF

SAFIRE

SAFISY

SAGE

SAMS

SAR

SARSAT

or S&R

SBUV

SCARAB

SCST

SeaWiFS

SEDAC

SEM

S-GCOS

SIR

SLR

SMMR

Polar-Orbit Earth Observation

Mission

Polar-orbiting Operational

Environmental Satellite

Polarization and Directionality of

Earth’s Reflectance

Radar Altimeter

Radar Satellite

Remote Sensing Technology

Center

Radio Frequency

Spectroscopy of the Atmosphere

using Far Infrared Emission

Space Agency Forum on ISY

Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas

Experiment

Stratospheric and Mesospheric

Sounder

synthetic aperture radar

Search and Rescue Satellite Aided

Tracking

Search and Rescue Satellite Aided

Tracking System

Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet

Radiometer

Scanner for the Radiation Budget

Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

Sea-Viewing Wide Field Sensor

Socio-Economic Data Archive

Center

Space Environment Monitor

Space-based Global Change

Observation System

Shuttle Imaging Radar

Satellite Laser Ranging

Scanning Multispectral

Microwave Radiometer

SMS/GEOS GEOS synchronous

meteorological satellite

SNR signal-to-noise ratio

SOLSTICE Solar Stellar h-radiance

Comparison Experiment

SPOT Systeme pour l’Observation de la

Terre
186 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

SSM/I

SSTI

Ssu

STIKSCT

SWIR

TDRSS

TIROS

TM

TOGA

TOMS

TOPEX

TOVS

TRMM

TUSK

UARS

UAVS

UNEP

Special Sensor Microwave/Imager

Small Satellite Technology

Initiative

Stratospheric Sounding Unit

Stick Scatterometer

Short Wave Infrared

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite

System

Television Infrared Observing

Satellites

Thematic Mapper

Tropical Ocean Global

Atmosphere

Total Ozone Mapping

Spectrometer

Ocean Topography Experiment

TIROS Operational Vertical

Sounder

Tropical Rainfall Measuring

Mission

Tethered Upper Stage Knob

Upper Atmosphere Research

Satellite

Unpiloted aerospace vehicles

United Nations Environment

Program

UNESCO

USAID

USDA

USGCRP

USGS

VAS

VHRR

VISSR

VTIR

WCRP

WDC

WEu

WMO

WOCE

Www

X-SAR

United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural

Organization

U.S. Agency for International

Development

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Global Change Research

Program

U.S. Geological Survey

VISSR Atmospheric Sounder

Very High Resolution Radiometer

Visible and Infrared Spin Scan

Radiometer

Visible and Thermal Infrared

Radiometer

World Climate Research Program

World Data Center

Western European Union

The U.N. World Meteorological

Organization

World Ocean Circulation

Experiment

World Weather Watch

X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar
I ndex

A

ACSYS. See Arctic Climate Systems Study

Ad Hoc Working Group on Data Policy Issues, 140

ADEOS. See Advanced Earth Observation Satellite

Advanced Earth Observation Satellite, 27

Advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer, 44

Advanced very high resolution radiometer, 42, 137,

152, 171-172

Aerial imagery industry, 23

Agricultural monitoring, 151-153

Aircraft remote sensing, 107

AM/FM/GIS. See Automated Mapping/Facilities

Management/Geographic Information Systems

America On-1ine, 37-38

Analog data transmission, 39

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project of 1974- 19’75, 115

APT. See Automated Picture Transmission

Archiving data. See Data archives

Arctic Climate Systems Study, 137

ASTER. See Advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer

Automated Mapping/Facilities Management/Geographic Information Systems, 156-158

Automated Picture Transmission, 129, 131

AVHRR. See Advanced very high resolution radiometer

B

BAHC. See Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle

Biodiversity mapping, 160-162

Biophysical land units, 164-167

Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle, 137

BLUS. See Biophysics] land units

Brazil, 120

British Meteorological Office, 133

c

Canada

private sector remote sensing,

remote sensing activities, 120

Canadian Space Agency, 120

106

CBERS. See China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite

CCDS. See Centers for the Commercial Development of Space Program

CD-ROM readers, 36

CEES. See Committee on Earth and Environmental

Sciences

Cellular telecommunications, 36

Centers for the Commercial Development of Space

Program, 103

Central Intelligence Agency, 25

Centre for Earth Observation, 119

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, 106, 119

CEOS. See Committee on Earth Observation Satellites

CEOS International Directory Network, 143, 144

CGMS. See Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites;

Coordination of Geosynchronous Meteorological

Satellites

China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite, 120

CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency

CIESIN. See Consortium for International Earth

Science and Infomation Network

Civilian satellite remote sensing systems, 9

Clean Water Act, 96

Climate data, 44-46,47-49

Climate monitoring, 139

Climate Variability and Predictability, 137

CLIVAR. See Climate Variability and Predictability

CNES. See Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales

Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act, 96

Coaxial cable transmission, 39

Commercial remote sensing

elements of risk and the role of government,

101-105

growth of data markets, 105-111

international competition, 111-112

overview, 93-94

remote sensing as a public good, 94-96

use of Landsat satellites, 96-101

 187
188 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Commercialization risks, 101-105

Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences,

116

Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, 27,

124-127, 140

Communications networks, 39

Compression techniques, 41-42

CompuServe, 37-38

Computer hardware and software, 34-35

Computer science research and technology, 82-84

Conservation International, 160

Consortium for International Earth Science and Information Network, 78, 79-84, 138. See also

Earth Observing System Data and Information

System

Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites,

124

Coordination of Geosynchronous Meteorological

Satellites, 129

COPO US. See U.N. Committee on the Peaceful

Uses of Outer Space

Crop management, 153-154

CSA. See Canadian Space Agency

D

DAAC. See Distributed active archive centers

DAAC User Working Groups, 85

DADS. See Data Archival and Distribution System

DARMS. See Digital Aerial Rights-of-Way Monitoring System

Data and information management

accessing and using data, 35-38

collecting and processing remotely sensed data,

38-42

data archives, 42-46

future of, 8-13

geographic infomuition systems, 53-57

international issues. 114-115

navigating the archives, 50, 52-53

new ways of visualizing data, 57-59

processing data and information, 34-35

summary, 1-2, 5-8

technology for archiving data, 46,50,51

underutilization of remotely sensed data, 29-30

Data Archival and Distribution System, 69

Data archives

EROS Data Center, 42-44

government centers, 13-14

land data, 15-18

long-term EOS data archives, 84

National Climatic Data Center, 44-46,47-49

navigating the archives, 50, 52-53

NOAA operational satellite data, 14-15

technology for, 46,50,51

Data compression, 41-42

Data exchange policies

coordination of, 140-143

operational monitoring, 132-134

Data Exchange Principles, 128

Data storage costs, 35

Data transmission, 39

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, 94, 133

Department of Defense, 100

Developing countries, 145

Digital Aerial Rights-of-Way Monitoring System,

158

Digital data transmission, 39

Digital Equipment Corp., 83

Distributed Active Archive Centers, 44,67-69,77,

91-92

DMSP, See Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program

DOD. See Department of Defense

E

Earth monitoring satellites, 8

Earth Observation Information System, 141-142

Earth Observation International Coordination Working Group, 124, 128

Earth Observation Satellite Corp., 15-16, 107-108

Earth Observations Center, 120, 141

Earth Observations Commercial Applications Program, 102

Earth Observing System

operational and planned satellite systems,

147-149

overview, 62-66, 116, 118

Earth Observing System Data and Information

System

commercial relevance, 90

cost savings, 87-90

data communication, 73-74

data fomlats, 90-92

data management technology, 74-75

data storage and access technology, 72-73

distributed architecture, 67-68

equipment requirements, 86-87

funding, 62,65-66

impact of EOS restructuring, 71

incremental and evolutionary design, 66-67

network system, 10, 73

NOAA data centers, 77-78

overview, 2-3, 18-22, 61-66

role in GCDIS, 76-77

scientific involvement, 84-90

socio-economic data, 78-79

status of, 68-70

success criteria, 67
Index | 189

summary, 2-3

technology challenges, 71-72,76

technology R&D, 82-84

use of outside expertise, 80-81

Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center,

15-18, 42-44, 109

Earth Science Web, 92

Earthnct program, 119, 140-141

EC. See European Community

Ecom, 73

ECS. See EOSDIS Core Systmn

ECS Internal Network, 73

EDOS. See EOS Data and Operations System

Emergency Wetlands Resource Act, 96

Encrypted data, 133-134

Endangered animal protection, 158-159

Enhanced Thematic Mapper, 23, 100”

Environmental applications

agricultural monitoring, 151 -153

crop management, 153- I 54

enforcing fishing limits, 159-160

environmental monitoring, 30

forestry studies, 168-175

internationally, 124-125

locating ancient forests, 159

protecting endangered animals, 158-159

quantitative products, 176-179

Environmental research programs, 136-138

Environmental Research Satellite

revenues, 107-109

SAR data, 1 I 1- I I 2

EO-ICWG. See Earth Observation International

Coordination Working Group

EOC. See Earth Observations Center

EOCAP. See Earth Observations Commercial Applications Program

EOIS. See Earth Observation Information System

EOS. See Earth Observing System

EOS Data and Operations System, 69

EOS Investigator Working Group, 87-88

EOSAT. See Earth Observation Satellite Corp.

EOSDIS. See Earth Observing System Data and

Information System

EOSDIS Advisory Panel, 85,90-91

EOSDIS Core Systcm, 68-69,90-91

EROS Data Center. See Earth Resources Observation Systcms Data Center

ERS- 1. See Environmental Research Satellite

ESA. See European Space Agency

ESOC. See European Space Operations Ccntre

ESRIN. See European Space Research Institute

ESRO. See European Space Research Organisation

ETM. See Enhanced Thematic Mapper

Eumetsat. See European Organisation for the

Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

Europe. See also specific countries by name

data management system, 140-141

remote sensing activities, 118-119

European Community, 119

European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

data exchange, 133-134

purpose of, 27, 118-119, 131-132

European Space Agency

cooperative activities, 27, 118-119

data management system, 140-141

Eumetsat, 132

European Space Operations Centre, 132

European Space Research Institute, 119, 140

European Space Research Organisation, 132

Extcrnal Network, 73

Eyeglass Earth Imaging System, 24, 101, 105

Eyeglass lntcrnational, 24, 101, 105

F

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Federal Geographic Data Committee, 52,56-57

Federal Information Processing Standard, 57

FGDC. See Federal Geographic Data Committee

Fiber optic cable transmission, 39

File transfer protocol, 15

FIPS. See Federal Information Processing Standard

Fishing liming enforcement, 159-160

Foreign Agricultural Service, 152

Forestry studies

forest inventory, 169-173

forest protection, 173-175

overview, 168-169

Framework Convention on Climate Change, 139

France, 106

FTP. See File transfer protocol

G

GAIM. See Global Analysis, Interpretation, and

Modeling

GCDIS. See Global Change Data and Information

Systcm

GCOS. See Global Climate Observing System

GCTE. See Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems

GDE Systems, Inc., 101

GDPS. See Global Data Processing System

Gcocoding data, 40

Geographic information systems, 53-57, 150-151,

172-173

Geospatial data, 37,52. See also Commercial remote sensing

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite,

94,96
190 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

Geostationary Operational Meteorological Satellite,

119

GEWEX. See Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment

GIS. See Geographic information systems

GLIS. See Global Land Information System

Global Analysis, Interpretation, and Modeling, 137

Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems, 137

Global Change Data and Information System, 21,

76-77

Global change research, 134-140

Global Change Research Act of 1990,98

Global Change Research Data Principles, 116, 118

Global Climate Observing System, 138, 139

Global Data Processing System, 130

Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment, 137

Global Land Information System, 16-17,44

Global Observing System, 130, 138

Global Ocean Euphotic Zone Study, 137

Global Ocean Observing System, 138, 139

Global Positioning System, 57, 150-151, 172

Global Telecommunications System, 130

Global Terrestrial Observing System, 138, 139

Goddard Space Flight Center, 85

GOES. See Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

GOEZS. See Global Ocean Euphotic Zone Study

GOMS. See Geostationary Operational Meteorological Satellite

GOOS. See Global Ocean Observing System

GOS. See Global Observing System

Governmental role in market development, 101-105

GPS. See Global Positioning System

Greensat, 120

Group of Seven, 126

GTOS. See Global Terrestrial Observing System

GTS. See Global Telecommunications System

H

HDP. See Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Programme

HDP Data and Information System, 138

HDP-DIS. See HDP Data and Information System

High capability lines, 40-41

High Resolution Multispectral Stereo Imager, 100

High Resolution Picture Transmission, 19, 129, 131

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 76

HRMSI. See High Resolution Multispectral Stereo

Imager

HRPT. See High Resolution Picture Transmission

Hughes Applied Information Systems, 68-69,70

Human Dimensions of Global Environmental

Change Programme, 135, 138

Hurricane Andrew, 163

ICSUS. See International Council of Scientific

Unions

IEOS. See International Earth Observing System

IGAC. See International Global Atmospheric

Chemistry

IGBP. See International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

IGBP Data and Information System, 137

IGBP-DIS. See IGBP Data and Information System

IGFA. See International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research

IGY. See International Geophysical Year

IMS. See Information Management System

Independent Validation & Verification, 69

India

private sector remote sensing, 106

remote sensing activities, 120

Indian Remote Sensing satellite, 106

Industrial Space Facility, 104

Information industry. See also Data and information management

accessing and using data, 35-38

processing data and information, 34-35

Information Management System, 69

Integrated signal digital network, 38

Interagency Working Group on Data Management

for Global Change, 21,77

Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in

Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful

Purposes, 115

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 139

Intermetric Corp., 69

International Council of Scientific Unions, 135-137,

139-140, 141-142

International Earth Observing System, 124, 128

International Geophysical Year, 141

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme,

135, 137-138

International Global Atmospheric Chemistry, 137

International Group of Funding Agencies for Global

Change Research, 138

International issues

challenges of cooperation, 114-116

cooperation on global change research, 134-140

cooperative efforts overview, 26-29, 12], 124

coordination of data policies, 140-143

operational data exchange, 132-134

operational environmental applications, 124-125

overview, 113-114

reasons for cooperation, 114, 115

remote sensing and international development,

143-145

socioeconomic development, 30-31
Index | 191

summary, 3

surface remote sensing, 106

treaties and legal principles, 120-123

U.S. activities, 116-117

weather forecasting, 125, 129-132

International Polar Orbiting Meteorological Satellite

group, 129, 131

International Social Science Council, 135, 138

International weather data, 44-45

Internet, 17-18,37-38

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change

IPOMS. See International Polar Orbiting Meteorological Satellite group

IRS. See Indian Remote Sensing satellite

ISDN. See Integrated signal digital network

ISSC. See International Social Science Council

ITD Remote Sensing Center, 12

IV&V. See Independent Validation & Verification

IWGDMGC. See Interagency Working Group on

Data Management for Global Change

J

Japan

data management system, 141-142

private sector remote sensing, 106

remote sensing activities, 120

Japan Meteorological Agency, 120

Japanese Earth Resources Satellite, 106

JERS- 1. See Japanese Earth Resources Satellite

JGOFS. See Joint Global Ocean Flux Study

JMA. See Japan Meteorological Agency

Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, 137

L

Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, 137

Land remote sensing

applications, 9

data management, 42-44

foreign satellite systems, 106

market for data, 108

revenues, 107

Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of

1984, 15,42,98-99, 123, 134

Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992,24-25,

42,98-99, 105, 123, 134

Land remote sensing satellites, 95, 100-101

Landsat

commercialization of, 97-101

data, 17,50

data sales, 108

satellites, 95

Landsat Act. See Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984

LANs. See Local area networks

Legal principles, 120-123

Liability Convention, 121

Litton Itek, 101

Local area networks, 35

Lockheed Corp., 101, 105

LOICZ. See Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone

Long-term environmental monitoring, 135, 139

Lossless data compression, 41-42

Lossy data compression, 41-42

M

Magnetic tape storage, 46,50,51

Mapping biodivcrsity, 160-162

Market demand, 110

Market development

commercial provision and use of remotely sensed

data, 96-101

elements of risk and the role of government,

101-105

growth of data markets, 105-111

international competition, 111-112

overview, 22-26, 93-94

remote sensing as a public good, 94-96

summary, 3

MDIS Management Operations Working Group, 85

Metadata system, 44,52-53

Meteosat Operational Programrne, 132

Meteosat satellites, 131-132

METOP, 131

Military uses, 96

Ministry of International Trade and Industry, 120

MISR. See Multiangle imaging spectroradiometer

Mission to Planet Earth, 61-67

MITI. See Ministry of International Trade and

Industry

The Mitre Corp., 83

MOP. See Meteosat Operational Programme

Moscow summit, 115

MSS. See Multispectral Scanner

MTPE. See Mission to Planet Earth

Multiangle imaging spectroradiometer, 44

Multimedia CD-ROM readers, 36

Multispectral satellite systems, 100-101, 111-112

Multispectral Scanner, 15-16

N

NAS. See National Academy of Sciences

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASDA. See National Space Development Agency

National Academy of Sciences, 135

National Aerial Photography Program, 23,42

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, 103
192 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. See

also Earth Observing System Data and Information System

Earth Observing System, 116, 118

EOCAP, 102

Landsat, 97-100

Mission to Planet Earth, 61-67

SAR instruments, 112

SeaStar program, 104

National Center for Atmospheric Research, 80

National Climatic Data Center, 14-15,44-46,47-49

National Data Centres, 141

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Affiliated Data Centers, 77-78

Landsat, 97-100

National Climatic Data Center, 44-46,47-49

operational satellite data, 14-15

National Performance Review, 134

National Remote Sensing Agency, 120

National Research and Education Network, 38,74

National Research Council, 76

National Science Foundation, 37-38

National Space Development Agency, 120

National spatial data infrastructure, 52

National Technical Means, 25

National Wetlands Inventory, 95-96

NCDC. See National Climatic Data Center

NDC. See National Data Centres

NDVI. See Normalized difference vegetation index

NESDIS. See NOAA Environmental Satellite Data

and Information Service

Network data transmission, 39

NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NOAA Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, 14

Normalized difference vegetation index, 171

NRC. See National Research Council

NREN. See National Research and Education Network

NRSA. See National Remote Sensing Agency

NSDI. See National spatial data infrastructure

o

OASIS. See Online Access and Service Information System

Office of Science and Technology Policy, 118

Online Access and Service Information System, 15,

46

Online information industry, 36-38

Operational data exchange, 132-134

Optical disk storage, 46,50,51

Orbital Sciences Corp., 24, 100, 101, 104

OSC. See Orbital Sciences Corp.

OSTP. See Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Outer Space Treaty, 121

P

PAF. See Processing and Archive Facilities

PAGES. See Past Global Changes

Papua New Guinea, 160-162

Past Global Changes, 137

Pathfinder datasets, 19,81-82

PDUS. See Primary Data User Stations

Personal computers, 34-35

PGS. See Product Generation System

Pipeline rights-of-way management, 154-158

PNG. See Papua New Guinea

POES. See Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite,

19,94

Policy Act. See Land Remote Sensing Policy Act

of 1992

Primary Data User Stations, 132

Principle XII, 123

Principles on Remote Sensing. See U.N. Principles

Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from

Space

Process-oriented research, 135, 139

Processing and Archive Facilities, 140-141

Prodigy, 37-38

Product Generation System, 69

Public Law 98-365, 134

Q

Quantitative products, 176-179

R

Radarsat, 28, 106, 120

Raster data sets, 54

Registration Convention, 121

Remote Sensing Technology Center, 106, 120

Resolution on Satellite Data Exchange Principles in

Support of Global Change Research, 126

Resources Planning Act, 172

RESTEC. See Remote Sensing Technology Center

Resurs remote sensing satellite, 106

RPA. See Resources Planning Act

Russia

private sector remote sensing, 106

remote sensing activities, 119-120

s

SAIC. See Science Applications International

Corp.
Index | 193

Sales data, 36

SAR. See Synthetic aperture radar system

Satellite Pour Observation de la Terre, 119

SCFs. See Science Computing Facilities

Science and Technology Agency, 120

Science Applications International Corp., 163

Science Computing Facilities, 86-87

Scientific programs, 135-140

SDUS. See Secondary Data User Systems

Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor, 100

SeaStar program, 100, 104

SeaWiFS. See Sea Viewing Wide Field-of-View

Sensor

Secondary Data User Systems, 132

SEDAC. See Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center

Sensor resolution, 38-39

Sequoia 2000, 83

Shuttle Imaging Radar, 112

SIR. See Shuttle imaging Radar

Social Science Research Council, 135

Socioeconomic Data :ind Applications Center,

78-79, 138

South Africa, 120

Space Imaging Inc., 24, 101

Space Industries, Inc., 104

Space Shuttle, 104, 112

Space Station Freedom, 115

Spacehab, 104

SPARC. See Stratospheric Processes and their Role

in Cl irnute

Spatial data sets, 54

SPOT. Sec Satellite Pour Observation de la Terre

SPOT Image Corp., 40, 105-107, 119

SPOT Image, S. A., 105

SSRC. See Social Scicncc Research Council

STA. See Science and Technology Agency

Staffing costs, 87-89

START. .See System for Analysis, Research, and

Training

Stennis Space Center, 12

Stereo land remote sensing satellite system, 101

Sticky tape syndrome, 50

Storage media, 46,50,51

Stratospheric Proccssc$ and their Role in Climate,

137

Surface remote sensing. See Land remote sensing

Synthetic aperture rxkir system, 111-112

System for Analysis, Research, and Training, 137

T

TDRSS. See Tracking Data and Relay Satellite

system

Technology development, 82-84

Thematic Mapper instrument, 15-16

Three-dimensional imaging, 57-59

TM instrument. See Thematic Mapper instrument

TOGA. See Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere

Tracking Data and Relay Satellite System, 38

Transmission media, 39

Transmission times, 40

Treaties, 120-123

TREES. See Tropical Ecosystem Environment Observations by Satellites

Tropical Cyclone Programme, 131

Tropical Ecosystem Environment Observations by

Satellites, 174-175

Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere, 136-137

TRW, 69

Twisted pair transmission, 39

u

U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer

Space, 121

U.N. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the

Earth from Space, 121-123

UNCED. See United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNEP. See United Nations Environment Programme

Unidata system, 80

United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development, 143

United Nations Environment Programme, 136

United States Agency for International Development, 31, 152

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 109, 152

U.S. Geological Survey, 42-44, 109

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 61-67,98,

135, 137

U.S. remote sensing activities, 116-117

USAID. See United States Agency for International Development

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture

User fees, 86

UserDIS, 92

USGCRP. See U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey

v

Value-added industry, 22-23,96

Vector data sets, 54

Vegetation monitoring, 151-153

Version O, 70,81-82

Version O Network, 73

Video imaging, 57-59
194 I Remotely Sensed Data: Technology, Management, and Markets

w

WANS. See Wide-area networks

WCRP. See World Climate Research Programme

WDC. See World Data Centres

Weather monitoring

data, 44-49

disasters, 17,95, 163-164

forecasting, 125, 129-132

Wide-area networks, 35-36

Wild Bird Conservation Act, 96

WMO. See World Meteorological Organization

WOCE. See World Ocean Circulation Experiment

World Climate Research Programme, 135, 136-138

World Data Centres, 139-140, 141-142

World Meteorological Congress, 131

World Meteorological Organization, 124, 129-131,

136

World Ocean Circulation Experiment, 137

WorldView Imaging Corp., 24, 100-101

World Weather Watch, 121, 124, 129-131

WWW. See World Weather Watch

* us. GoVI?~~ printing OFFICE: 1994 - 301-804 - 81.4/27402