On February 11, 2013, NASA launched Landsat 8, a remote sensing satellite jointly operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA. Landsat 8 is the latest in a series of Earth-observing satellites that began on July 23, 1972, with the launch of Landsat 1. Landsat has been used in a wide variety of applications, including land use planning, agriculture, forestry, natural resources management, public safety, homeland security, climate research, and natural disaster management, among others. In the current partnership, NASA develops the satellite and the instruments, launches the spacecraft, and checks its performance. Then the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) takes over satellite operations, and manages and distributes the data. All Landsat data held in USGS archives are available for download with no charge and no restrictions. (See text box below for more details about the satellites and remote sensing instruments.) Landsat satellites have collected remotely sensed imagery of the Earth's surface at moderate resolution for over 40 years. ( Table 1 shows a comparison of the spatial resolution for high, moderate, and low resolution land imaging satellites.) At present two satellites, Landsat 7 (launched in 1999) and Landsat 8, are in orbit and supplying images and data for many users. Landsat 5—launched in 1984—was also operating until late 2011; however, in November 2011 USGS announced that it had stopped acquiring data from Landsat 5 because of deteriorating electronic components. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM, now called Landsat 8) was initially planned for launch in July 2011 and would have filled the data gap in Landsat coverage after USGS stopped collecting data from Landsat 5, but because of schedule delays it was not placed in orbit until February 2013, when it was renamed Landsat 8. On May 30, 2013, data from Landsat 8 became available. Users of Landsat imagery and data cover a broad spectrum. A 2011 survey and analysis determined that the predominant sector using Landsat was academia (33%), followed by private business (18%), federal government (17%), state government (16%), local government (10%), nonprofit institutions (4%), and tribes or nations (less than 1%). Within this user community as determined by the study, the majority of survey respondents used Landsat imagery to answer questions and solve problems (91%), processed the imagery for themselves or others (62%), and made decisions based on the imagery (57%). Of the respondents, 19% used Landsat imagery to develop algorithms, 12% provided or sold imagery or value-added products, and 2% developed commercial software. With the 2013 launch of Landsat 8, a question that arises for Congress is whether there should be a Landsat 9. More generally, should Congress support the development of another moderate resolution land-imaging satellite, and what are the alternatives? This report describes aspects of Landsat's history and discusses potential alternatives to a fully federally supported satellite system, such as commercialization, privatization, and other possible arrangements that would provide continuity beyond the 42-year record of Landsat remote imaging. These other arrangements could include alternative sources of multispectral and thermal imaging, such as partnerships, or procurement of data from other, foreign, moderate resolution satellite systems. A key part of any future congressional debate on Landsat is the satellite's use and value. These issues are discussed below in the context of the 2014 White House National Plan for Civil Earth Observations and an ongoing NASA/USGS Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture Study Team project. Some congressional views on a future U.S. land imaging program are also explored. Most proponents agree that Landsat 8's 30-meter resolution—its ability to capture images with its Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument at the scale of about a baseball diamond—renders it a valuable tool for characterizing human-scale processes such as urban growth, agricultural irrigation, and deforestation. They also note that the consistent and continuous collection of imagery from the succession of Landsat satellites since 1972 makes it possible to document land changes because images are comparable. This comparability is possible despite changes in the satellites and the onboard instruments over 42 years. Some also argue that the current policy of making all Landsat imagery available at no cost is a prime value of the program. The current no-cost policy, however, does not reflect the varied history of the program and earlier attempts to commercialize Landsat. During previous deliberations, Congress considered commercializing the Landsat system until passage of Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-555 ). The attributes just discussed—imagery at a 30-meter scale, continuous and comparable imagery and data of the Earth's surface for 42 years, and the no-cost policy for Landsat data—all could factor in a future discussion about whether Landsat would be amenable to commercialization now, over 20 years since Congress last debated a commercialization option. The following discussion traces earlier efforts to commercialize Landsat and may provide some context for congressional discussion about Landsat's future. Almost since the beginning of satellite launches, including both land imaging and weather satellites, privatization of satellite systems has been discussed. Efforts to privatize Landsat began during the Carter Administration and accelerated during the Reagan Administration. The Carter Administration decided that Landsat was mature enough to move from a research land remote sensing system under NASA to an operational system under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which had successfully managed geostationary and polar orbiting weather satellites. The Carter Administration also asserted that under NOAA management, the user base for Landsat data would eventually grow. Private companies would assume responsibility for their own remote sensing systems, and would provide data for government and private customers. In a policy shift to more rapid privatization of operational satellite systems, the Reagan Administration in March 1983 proposed to shift both Landsat and weather satellite system operations, as well as future ocean-observing satellite systems, from the federal government to the private sector. Congress raised concerns that the Reagan Administration was moving too quickly toward privatizing weather satellites without congressional involvement. The opposition from Congress and other stakeholders to privatizing NOAA weather satellites led to Congress enacting language prohibiting their sale in the FY1984 appropriations act funding the Department of Commerce ( P.L. 98-166 ). In deliberations leading up to that prohibition, the House Science and Technology Committee suggested that pursuing the sale of the weather satellites distracted from the more important issue—maintaining global leadership in land remote sensing (i.e., Landsat). In fact, the committee urged that the debate shift back to its original track—namely, how to best accomplish a transfer of land remote sensing capability to the U.S. private sector. Ultimately, the issues of whether and how to privatize the system, which federal agency should be responsible, and how public and private funding and operations should be combined were resolved in the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-555 ). The act transferred Landsat program management from Commerce to NASA and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Differing views of the Landsat program's nature—namely, whether the satellites served public or private interests—shaped the outcome of the privatization effort. Evolving views over the public or private nature of the program were influenced by factors other than funding. One observer identified four factors: 1. Landsat data proved important in planning U.S. military operations in the 1992 Gulf War. 2. Other countries had launched similar land remote sensing satellites, and these spacecraft—particularly the French SPOT satellite—were perceived as possible challenges to the U.S. stake in the international market for remote sensing data. 3. Growing interest in global climate change and its effects on the Earth's surface led scientists to increasingly value time-series data from a consistent platform in space for identifying environmental changes. 4. The difficulties of commercializing the Landsat system became clear, and federal agencies perceived that private companies might not be able to provide equivalent data at the scale the agencies required. These and other factors led Congress to accept the idea of Landsat as a public good and to enact P.L. 102-555 . One other factor, for example, was the cost of Landsat images. P.L. 102-555 found that "the cost of Landsat data has impeded the use of such data for scientific purposes, such as for global environmental change research, as well as for other public sector applications." Consequently, the act established, with some restrictions, that unenhanced data from Landsat should be made available "at the cost of fulfilling user requests," or COFUR. USGS extended the COFUR policy to all Landsat data products in its Landsat Data Distribution Policy, which also stated that pricing would not be based on the recovery of capital costs of satellites, ground systems, or other capital assets previously paid for by the U.S. government. The current USGS policy is to make all Landsat imagery and data freely available for downloading. The Appendix provides further details about the efforts to privatize Landsat in the 1980s and early 1990s. Other types of remote sensing imagery and data, both public and commercial, are available from satellites that provide different spatial resolutions as well as different frequencies of coverage over the same location. (See Table 1 .) High-resolution, narrow-coverage imagery might be considered more marketable than moderate-resolution Landsat imagery. Arguably, data from low-resolution weather satellite images of cloud cover that can show the same location within one or two days might also be more marketable, although Congress decided against privatizing U.S. weather satellite data in the 1980s (see discussion above). Marketability issues aside, it may be useful for policy makers to consider some views of the value of Landsat imagery and data as a context for congressional deliberation on the future of the program. The National Plan for Civil Earth Observations is intended "to provide strategic guidance for a balanced portfolio of Earth observations and observing systems." The plan was developed following enactment of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-267 , Section 702), which tasked the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with developing a mechanism to ensure greater coordination of research, operations, and activities for civilian Earth observations, including development of a strategic implementation plan. The statute requires that OSTP update the strategic implementation plan every three years. The National Plan stated that President Obama's FY2015 budget request provided support for federal agencies to "maintain a sustained, space-based, land-imaging program while ensuring the continuity of 42 years of multispectral information and 36 years of thermal-infrared land-surface information from space, which are unique sources of terrestrial data for understanding land coverage." Although the Landsat system was not specified by name, this seemed to refer to the Landsat observational record. The National Plan classified federal programs based on the duration of the federal commitment to making Earth observations. Programs could involve "sustained observations"—generally those measurements requiring a federal commitment of seven years or more—or "experimental observations"—measurements that are time-limited. The report placed a priority on sustained observations, and further subdivided and ranked the supporting action required by the federal government as (1) continuity of sustained observations for public services, and (2) continuity of sustained observations for Earth system research. The National Plan provided specific direction to the federal agencies to carry out sustained observations. It stated that NASA, together with the Secretary of the Interior, will implement a 25-year program of sustained land imaging for routine monitoring of land-cover characteristics, naturally occurring and human-induced land-cover change, and water resources, among other uses. The National Plan further directed the agencies to "ensure that future land-imaging data will be fully compatible with the 42-year record of Landsat observations." Moreover, the National Plan listed agency responsibilities, which match the currently described shared responsibilities between NASA and USGS. NASA would be responsible for satellite development, launch, and commissioning, and USGS would be responsible for user requirements, development and operation of ground systems, operational control once in orbit, and processing, archiving, and distributing data and products. It appears that the National Plan ranked the value of Landsat-type observations relatively high, and called for the continuation of similar types of space-based observations. The National Plan included a ranking of high-impact observation systems—based on a study called the Earth-Observation Assessment (EOA)—which placed Landsat as the third-highest-ranked observing system out of 145 ranked systems, behind only global positioning satellites (GPS) and Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD). In a footnote to its stated requirement for the NASA and USGS to implement a 25-year program of sustained land imaging, the National Plan noted that a robust land-imaging program would also include other types of data to supplement the optical imagery that is collected by Landsat. The other types of data (not collected by Landsat) would include radar, LIDAR, and gravity measurements, as well as others that would be needed to measure changes in topography, biomass, ecosystem flux, soil moisture, land subsidence, water resources, and glaciers. The footnote suggests that the envisioned 25-year program might include a broader array of observations, from different instruments and platforms both space- and airborne, than the types of instruments currently aboard Landsats 7 and 8. The Administration is examining a future land imaging program that may depart from the current Landsat "model"—namely a dedicated satellite pair each with a moderate-resolution multispectral scanner and a thermal imager. NASA and USGS are crafting a post Landsat-8 strategy via the Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture Study Team (AST), which appears to be following the broad guidelines laid out in the National Plan, discussed above. Continuity of the data record is a key theme in the AST, but according to NASA "this does not necessarily mean the imagery per se, but the usable products that define the utility of the data record." Sustainability is another key theme, and according to NASA a sustainable program would provide data products for the "long haul, without extraordinary infusions of funds, within the budget guidance provided." NASA identifies reliability as a third key theme, and specifies that sustainable land imaging data sets "should be able to draw on equivalent or near equivalent deliverables from data sources to provide the data for the highest priority land imaging data products." Notably, NASA adds that reliability also means that loss of a single satellite or instrument should not "cripple the program or significantly impact users, and the program will exhibit graceful degradation." In previous discussions about pending gaps in Landsat coverage (when Landsat 5 was anticipated to fail before Landsat 8 could be placed in orbit), some Landsat product users suggested that moderate resolution optical imaging satellites of other nations might supply data to fill the Landsat gap. A 2007 report indicated that the global coverage of the Landsat orbiters and their ground-based receivers could not be duplicated by foreign moderate resolution satellites, but they could provide a partial, short-term fix to limit losses of some Landsat data and imagery. In 2005, a Landsat Data Gap Study team formed by USGS and NASA found that no international satellite program, current or planned, has the onboard recording capacity, the direct receiving station network, and the data production systems to routinely perform the full Landsat mission. The Data Gap Study team did conclude, however, that capturing and archiving data from comparable systems could reduce the impact of a data gap. The AST will likely revisit this option and reassess the foreign satellite alternative, given that nearly 10 years has passed and the availability of moderate resolution satellite data from non-U.S. sources has changed. In the current Landsat partnership, NASA develops the satellite and the instruments, launches the spacecraft, and checks its performance. Then USGS takes over satellite operations, and manages and distributes the data. In its FY2015 congressional budget justification, USGS states that Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus rely on Landsat as a data source on wildfires, consumptive water use, land cover change, rangeland status, and wildlife habitat, as well as other departmental responsibilities. USGS proposes to increase funding for Landsat-related activities under its Climate and Land Use Change organizational division, and would allocate $1 million for land remote sensing and $500,000 for land change science. In addition to creating a set of Landsat-based products that would assist natural resource managers at DOI, the budget request states that funding for Landsat-related activities would help develop essential climate variables (ECVs) and climate data records (CDRs). CDRs are long-term time-series measurements that support a variety of ECVs such as surface temperatures, fire disturbance, snow cover, glaciers, ice caps, permafrost, surface water extent, land cover, and biomass. In the budget justification, USGS describes its participation in the NASA/USGS Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture Study Team, examining long-term operational alternatives to meet "Congressional and Administration directives to devise an aerospace architecture designed to ensure 20 years of sustained land imaging that will provide data compatible with the past 41 years of Landsat data." The AST architecture plan for agency responsibilities matches that described in the National Plan, namely that NASA would develop Landsat-compatible land-imaging capabilities, and USGS would continue to fund ground system development, post-launch operations, data processing, archiving, and distribution. USGS adds that the AST will consider new instruments and satellites, as well as international partnerships. Neither the Senate nor the House had acted upon the DOI appropriations legislation for USGS prior to September 30, 2014, the end of the fiscal year. The House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5171 , the DOI appropriations bill, on July 23 together with an accompanying report. In the report, the committee supported the requested increases for USGS Landsat science products for climate and natural resources assessments, under the Climate and Land Use Change line item, as described above. In its FY2015 congressional budget justification, NASA states that Landsat is "the only satellite system that is designed and operated to observe repeatedly the global land surface at moderate resolution. Landsat data are available at no cost to those who work in agriculture, geology, forestry, regional planning, education, mapping, and global climate change research." As with USGS, NASA describes its participation in the AST, and states that its "near-term activities will focus on studies to define the scope, measurement approaches, cost, and risk of a viable long-term land imaging system that will achieve national objectives." According to both NASA and USGS budget justifications, the Administration would use the results of the AST study to craft a proposal for a system to follow Landsat 8. However, NASA is already committing funding for a satellite system to succeed Landsat 8. For FY2015, NASA proposed $64.1 million for Land Imaging, an increase from the FY2014 enacted amount of $30 million. If enacted, these funds would total nearly $100 million for NASA's first steps toward the successor to Landsat 8. Some of the complexity and challenges to a Landsat 8 follow-on mission were revealed in remarks by the NASA Earth Science Division director at a May 28, 2014, meeting, according to one report. One challenge for policy makers includes providing observational continuity with Landsat 8 and its predecessors, yet keeping costs low—lower than costs for Landsat 8. At the meeting, the NASA Earth Science Division director noted that the Administration wants NASA to explore all options to achieve this goal, including options like a hosted payload and international partnerships, as opposed to a stand-alone payload and launch vehicle and an entirely U.S.-based project. Another challenge is to reconcile the Administration directive with congressional perspectives, one of which is skeptical of both the hosted payload strategy and an international partnership. Congress's perspective is likely in agreement with the Administration about the need to keep costs low (discussed in the next section). Senate appropriators have been critical of the Administration's current approach to continuing a Landsat-type moderate-resolution Earth observing system. In its report accompanying S. 2437 , the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for FY2015, appropriators stated that "the Committee does not concur with various administration efforts to develop alternative 'out of the box' approaches to this data collection—whether they are dependent on commercial or independent partners." In the report, the committee emphasized its concerns over a potential data gap should Landsat 7 fail before a successor satellite was launched: such a failure would mean that instead of 8 days for continuous terrestrial coverage with two satellites, it would take 16 days with just Landsat 8. With these concerns, the committee stated that NASA "should proceed with an acquisition in fiscal year 2015 for a mission to launch a follow on to Landsat 8 by not later than 2020." However, the committee also stressed the need to keep costs low, specifically below $650 million, while at the same time noting that NASA was $100 million below what was needed—in a notional FY2016 budget—for a 2020 launch. In the report, appropriators noted that they expected NASA to present a FY2016 budget "to reflect resources necessary to meet that [2020] launch date." For FY2015, Senate appropriators recommended $68.1 million for Landsat Data Continuity, $4 million above the President's request. The committee's views in its FY2015 report echo remarks a year earlier in the report accompanying the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for FY2014. In that report, appropriators stated that they were "highly skeptical of either a hosted payload or international partner concept for Landsat 9." The committee noted that these alternate approaches have already been considered on multiple occasions over the past 40 years, and "have only distracted and delayed the inherently governmental role in preserving the continuity of Landsat data." In the FY2014 report language, appropriators chided NASA for unrealistic expectations that a Landsat 9 would cost $1 billion, and capped spending at $650 million, noting that the lower figure was substantially below that required for Landsat 8. Senate appropriators recommended $30 million for Land Imaging activities, matching the Administration's request for FY2014. In their FY2014 report accompanying H.R. 2787 , the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2014, House appropriators (majority) objected to NASA's budget request for new projects "that solely or primarily support the requirements of other agencies, including the United States Geological Survey." The report stated that such projects would have significant and undefined outyear costs and "crowd out long term investments in NASA's own scientific priorities." Accordingly, report language instructed that "no funds should be spent in pursuit of a new land imaging system for USGS." In the "Minority Views" section of the report, appropriators expressed disappointment in the elimination of "funding for several upcoming climate satellite programs, including: (1) NASA's Landsat, which provides valuable data in support of agriculture, forestry, and regional planning." In the FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill, enacted as P.L. 113-76 , the Senate view was adopted, and $30 million was provided for Land Imaging at NASA for the next Landsat-like mission after Landsat 8. House appropriators made no mention of Landsat or Land Imaging spending in the FY2015 appropriations bill ( H.R. 4660 ) that passed the House or in the accompanying report ( H.Rept. 113-448 ). Earlier objections—expressed in the FY2014 House appropriations bill report—to a Landsat-like land imaging satellite as not aligning with the NASA mission were not voiced in the FY2015 appropriations bill. That earlier objection was likely part of a debate regarding the mission focus of NASA, and whether it should be responsible for funding satellites that are turned over to other federal agencies to operate, such as Landsat (operated by USGS) and the nation's civilian weather satellites (operated by NOAA). Senate appropriators had also raised concerns about a joint satellite program—civilian weather satellites—between NASA and NOAA in the FY2013 budget process, but with the opposite recommendation from that of the House. As with the joint-agency Landsat program, NASA acquires the weather satellites and their instruments, launches them into orbit, and then hands over operations to another agency, in this case NOAA. In contrast with Landsat, however, Congress appropriates funds directly to NOAA for procuring the weather satellites; NOAA then transfers funds to NASA for satellite and instrument acquisition. In the report accompanying the FY2013 appropriations bill for Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Senate appropriators chose to transfer funding and responsibility for procuring NOAA's operational satellites to NASA. Their decision was not based on a debate over respective agency missions, which seemed to be the case for House majority appropriators in the FY2014 appropriations process, but was based on the view by Senate appropriators that NOAA was mismanaging the satellite procurement process and NASA could do a better job. The weather satellite procurement issue illustrates the different views held by House versus Senate appropriators over the role of NASA in satellite procurement for joint-agency satellite programs. These different views may be a subject of congressional debate when Administration budget requests for the next Landsat ramp up in the next few years. Although a congressional debate over the next phase of the Landsat legacy is in its early stages, the discussion above notes potentially divergent opinions among the Administration and Congress. Congress is likely to discuss a range of views regarding the future of satellite-based land imaging. Some in Congress may wish to revisit options of privatization or commercialization, which has a long and well-documented history (see discussion above). Others, such as some members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, have consistently expressed the view that preserving data continuity from the Landsat satellites is an inherently governmental role. Some members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies have recently questioned if the multiagency Landsat program aligns within the fundamental mission of NASA, since NASA acquires and launches Landsat, but a different agency, USGS, assumes operational responsibility, and manages and distributes Landsat data. A common theme likely to be expressed by both the House and Senate majorities and minorities will be the need to keep costs under control and at least below the amount appropriated for Landsat 8. In addition to a unified admonition to keep the cost of a Landsat successor low, Congress may also exert pressure on the Administration to move forward on the next land imaging mission and reduce the chances of a data gap if Landsat 7 or 8 fails before the next satellite is placed in orbit. However, what a data gap actually means may be in question depending on the results of the AST study, and the resulting implementation strategy. If, for example, the Administration determines that data from non-U.S. satellites suffice to offset some or most of the data loss from a Landsat 7 or 8 failure, then Congress would likely revisit the needs, capabilities, and timeline for developing the next U.S. land-imaging satellite. The broad themes outlined by the AST of continuity , reliability , and sustainability will likely not face congressional opposition. However, Congress may debate what those themes actually mean in terms of more detailed program requirements, and particularly how much funding should be appropriated to meet those requirements. In contrast to its opposition to the privatization of NOAA weather satellites, Congress in 1983 did not oppose Reagan Administration efforts to transition Landsat to the private sector. The Carter Administration initiated the move toward privatization when it released Presidential Directive 54 in 1979, which recommended transfer of Landsat operations from NASA to NOAA to convert Landsat from a research to an operational program. The directive also recommended development of a plan for eventual transition of Landsat to a private-sector operation. It was recognized at the time that the market for Landsat products was small, and the customer base grew smaller each time the price of Landsat data rose. The price of a Landsat image rose 300% in 1981, when the Office of Management and Budget directed that operating costs would be recovered by data sales. Sales shrank again when NOAA took over full responsibility for the program in 1983, and raised prices for Landsat data to cover its costs and to prepare customers for commercial prices. Despite these indicators that the commercial market for Landsat data was not robust, Congress gave its support to privatization by passing the Land Remote Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984 ( P.L. 98-365 ). The law established the broad policy and financial requirements for the transfer, and authorized the Department of Commerce to license private remote sensing space systems that complied with provisions of the act. The law required that operators make unenhanced Landsat data available to all users on a nondiscriminatory basis; no preference could be given to one class of data buyers over another. Landsat proponents supported the move to privatization, in part because of fears that the Reagan Administration would cancel the program altogether. Proponents were also concerned that uncertainty over the program's future would forestall investment in hardware and software necessary to process Landsat data. Landsat supporters also argued that privatization would ensure continuity of the data—an important feature of time-series observational data from satellites generally, allowing data users to analyze changes over time. Supporters argued that privatization would eventually result in a lower price for Landsat data. The larger context for the future of Landsat was, in part, a dispute over whether the satellite served primarily public or private interests. Landsat provided the government with data for scientific research, managing federal lands, and carrying out other responsibilities. It also provided data with direct economic value for managing private lands, or for exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. The argument over Landsat's future concerned which use was more important. Government Subsidies and Problems on the Path to Privatization Because the market for remote sensing data was considered underdeveloped in 1984, the federal government decided to provide a $250 million subsidy to the Earth Observation Satellite Company (EOSAT), which was selected by NOAA to operate the Landsat system. The subsidy would be used by EOSAT in addition to its capital to develop two new spacecraft, Landsat 6 and Landsat 7, that would replace the then-operating Landsat 4 and Landsat 5. In addition to the $250 million subsidy, the federal government would also pay launch costs for the two new satellites, and would continue to cover operational costs for the Landsat program through the expected lifetimes of Landsats 4 and 5. The Reagan Administration decided not to fulfill the original funding obligation to EOSAT, and several years of dispute ensued between the Administration and Congress over Landsat funding. Ultimately, the contract was revised to require the development of only Landsat 6, despite earlier agreement that two satellites would be needed to ensure data continuity. The funding dispute led to further debates over the future of the Landsat program. Complicating the debate were different views about which launch vehicle should carry the next Landsats into orbit. EOSAT proposed that the satellite be designed for the space shuttle. However, the Reagan Administration disagreed, and NOAA instructed EOSAT to prepare the spacecraft for launch on an expendable rocket. Outcome The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 ( P.L. 102-555 ) transferred Landsat program management from Commerce to NASA and the Department of the Interior (DOI), which effectively ended nearly a decade of debate over privatizing Landsat. Whereas weather satellites were quickly identified as a public good during the 1983 debate, Landsat proved more difficult to categorize. One distinction is that NOAA has had a clear mandate to provide satellite data for weather services. In contrast, NOAA was selected to manage the Landsat program because of the agency's success with operating the weather satellites, and as an interim step en route to privatizing Landsat. The relatively unclear mandate for collecting land surface remote sensing data at NOAA may also have eroded customer confidence in the Landsat system, and in the agency's commitment to developing infrastructure, training personnel, and making other investments that would have bolstered the market for Landsat products. Although the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 reversed the privatization track for Landsat and returned the satellite system to the federal government, the act also authorized the Secretary of Commerce to license operators of private remote sensing space systems. It allowed the operators to use their data as they wish, including choosing their customers and offering their data at prices that vary by customer. Some analysts regard this licensing provision under Subtitle VI of the act as perhaps the most important provision for fostering commercial remote sensing prospects in the United States. Further, the development of technology to download, store, and distribute remotely sensed data contributed to the ability of commercial interests to add value to satellite data. The advent and rapid growth of geospatial information systems (GIS) has spurred an explosion of interest in the use of geospatial information, which typically includes land remote sensing data from space (e.g., Google Earth).

Summary: On February 11, 2013, NASA launched Landsat 8, a remote sensing satellite jointly operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA. Landsat 8 is the latest in a series of Earth-observing satellites that began on July 23, 1972, with the launch of Landsat 1. Landsat has been used in a wide variety of applications, including land use planning, agriculture, forestry, natural resources management, public safety, homeland security, climate research, and natural disaster management, among others. A question for Congress is, should there be a Landsat 9? More generally, should Congress support the development of another moderate resolution land-imaging satellite, and what are the alternatives? Landsat 8's 30-meter resolution—its ability to capture images at the scale of about a baseball diamond—renders it a valuable tool for characterizing human-scale processes such as urban growth, agricultural irrigation, and deforestation. Landsat supporters also would contend that the consistent and continuous collection of imagery from the succession of Landsat satellites since 1972 makes it possible to document land changes, because images are comparable over that 42-year time period. In congressional deliberations about the future of Landsat, it is likely that the topics of privatization and commercialization will be revisited as one alternative to the current arrangement. Landsat's 30-meter resolution, the continuous and comparable 42-year record of data, and the current policy of making all Landsat data available for no cost would factor into a discussion about commercialization. Efforts to commercialize Landsat in the 1980s and early 1990s culminated with passage of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, which reversed the privatization track for Landsat and restored management of the satellite system back to the federal government. Although a congressional debate over the next phase of the Landsat legacy is in its early stages, there are potentially divergent opinions among the Administration and Congress. The Administration is examining a future land imaging program that may depart from what might be considered the current Landsat "model"—namely, a dedicated satellite pair, each with the same or similar instruments as those aboard Landsats 7 and 8, the two currently orbiting satellites. For example, the Administration is directing NASA to explore options like a hosted payload and international partnerships, as opposed to a stand-alone payload and launch vehicle and an entirely U.S. project. The Administration, through NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey, is crafting a post-Landsat 8 strategy via the Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture Study Team, which broadly follows guidelines laid out in the White House National Plan for Civil Earth Observations. Senate appropriators have been critical of the Administration's current approach to continuing a Landsat-type moderate-resolution Earth-observing system, namely one that may depart from the current Landsat model. In addition, the committee has emphasized its concerns over a potential data gap should Landsat 7 fail before a successor satellite was launched, leaving just one satellite—Landsat 8—operational. Some members of the House Appropriations Committee have recently questioned if the multiagency Landsat program aligns within the fundamental mission of NASA. A common theme likely to be expressed by both the House and Senate will be the need to keep costs under control and at least below the amount appropriated for Landsat 8. In addition, Congress will also likely exert pressure on the Administration to move forward on the next land imaging mission and reduce the chances of a data gap if Landsat 7 or 8 fails before the next satellite is placed in orbit. What a data gap actually means, however, may be in question, depending on the results of the Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture Study Team study and the resulting implementation strategy for the next land remote sensing satellite.