Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

Remotely Sensed Data From Space:
Distribution, Pricing, and Applications
July 1992
NTIS order #PB93-176964

—————.—. .
Earth Observation Systems Advisory Panel

Rodney Nichols, Chair
New York Academy of Sciences
New York, NY
James G. Anderson John H. McElroy

Professor Dean of Engineering
Department of Chemistry The University of Texas at Arlington
Harvard University Arlington, TX
Cambridge, MA Molly McCauley
D. James Baker Fellow
Director Resources for the Future
Joint oceanographic Institutions, Inc. Washington, DC
Washington, DC Earl Merritt
William Brown Vice President, Research
President Earthsat Corporation
ERIM Corporation Rockville, MD
Ann Arbor, MI Alan Miller
.
Ronald Brunner Director
Center for Space and Geosciences Policy The Center for Global Change
University of Colorado University of Maryland
Boulder, CO College Park, MD
Joanne Gabrynowicz Raymond E. Miller
Associate Professor Professor
Department of Space Studies Department of Computer Science
University of North Dakota University of Maryland
Grand Forks, ND College Park, MD
Alexander F.H. Goetz Kenneth Pederson
Director Research Professor of International Affairs
Center for the Study of Earth from Space School of Foreign Service
University of Colorado Georgetown University
Boulder, CO Washington, DC
David Goodenough David T. Sandwell
Chief Research Scientist Geological Resources Division
Pacific Forestry Center Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Forestry Canada La Jolla, CA
Victoria, BC Dorm Walklet
Donald Latham President
Corporate Director Terramar Corporation
Loral Corporation Mountainview, CA
Reston, VA Albert Wheelon
Cecil E. Leith consultant
Physicist Los Angeles, CA
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA
?he pad does
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by tbc advisory panel members.
assumes full rcspoosibil.ity for the background paper
oOC bowever, ntxessardy approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. O’IA
and the accuracy of its conttnts.
...
ill
OTA Project Staff-Remotely Sensed Data:
Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division
Alan Shaw, International Security and Commerce Program Manager
Ray A. Williamson, Project Director
Stephen N. Wooley
Contractors
Deborah Shapley
Madeline Gross
Administrative Staff
Jacqueline R. Boykin
Louise Staley
Workshop on Remotely Sensed Data:
David Moore, Chair Molly McCauley

Principal Analyst Fellow
Natural Resources and Commerce Unit Resources for the Future
Congressional Budget Office Washington, DC
Washington, DC Richard Mroczynski
Edward H. Backus Director, External Affairs
Director EOSAT Corp.
Regional Conservation Analysis Program Lanham, Maryland
Conservation International Scott P a c e
Washington, DC
Deputy Director
William Brown Office of Space Commerce
President U.S. Department of Commerce
ERIM Corporation Washington, DC
Ann Arbor, MI Alfredo Prelat
Richard DalBello Texaco Exploration and Production Division
Director, Commercial Communications Houston, TX
and Remote Sensing Division Lisa Shaffer
NASA Office of Commercial Space Deputy Director
Washington, DC Modeling, Data and Information Systems
John E. Estes Program Office
Chairman Earth Sciences and Applications Division
Department of Geography National Aeronautics and Space Administration
University of California Washington, DC
Santa Barbara CA Stephen L. Sperry
Kass Green Marketing Manager
President ERDAS, Inc.
Pacific Meridian Resources Atlanta, GA
Emeryville, CA Peter Thacher
Kenneth D. Hadeen World Resources Institute
Director Washington, DC
NOAA, National Climatic Data Center
U.S. Department of Commerce
Asheville, NC
David Julyan
The Plimsoll Group
Great Falls, VA
NOTE: OTAappreciates the valuable assistat=e and thoughtful critique pmvidcd by the workshop participants. The views expressed in this OTA
background paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Ascssmcnt. Participation in the workshop does not imply
endorsement of the background paper.
v
Acknowledgments
This background paper has benefited from the advice of individuals from the government and the private
sector. 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
Steven Harper Allen H. Watkins

Government Affairs Analyst Chief
EOSAT National Mapping Division
Lanham, MD U.S. Geological Survey
Keith Lyon Reston, VA
SeaStar Program Manager Matthew Willard
Orbital Sciences C orporation President
Chantilly, VA Colorado Technologies
Milton C. Trichel Ouray, co
Research Scientist
ERIM Corporation
Arlington, VA
vi
Contents
Page
Part I: Introduction, Background, and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .................”.”””””””””. .“ooc””.”. 2
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PartII:Workshop Summary ““”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” ● “””””””””””*”””””-.’...”. 11
Appendix A: Proposed Policy for Handling Remotely Sensed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Boxes
Box Page
A. A Land Remote Sensing Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................”~” 2
B. A Selection of Goals Identified by the Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C. The SeaStar Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................”’ 13
Tables
Table Page
l. Summary of Landsat Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.Operational and Proposal Earth Remote Sensing Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Potential Commercial Applications for Selected and Reposed EOS Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . 9
—. . . . —.—-—
Part I: Introduction, Background, and Findings
This year Congress faces important decisions about the products to a range of users in the United States and
future course of the Landsat land remote sensing satellite abroad. Policies adopted to govern the pricing and
program and the experiment with commercialization that distribution of Landsat data will affect:
began in 1984. A consensus is emerging within the
government that Landsat 7 will be funded and managed
● how much data are available, for which applications;
by the public sector.l While giving greater assurance that ● how the ultimate costs of providing land remote
Landsat data will continue to be available for scientists sensing data are divided between the public and
and other users of the&@ returning Landsat operations private sectors;
to the public sector creates a new set of problems. ● how the public costs and benefits of remotely sensed
data mre divided among federal agencies;
Among these problems, the immediate question facing ● the extent to which private firms using Landsat data
Congress is what policies to set for distributing and benefit from the system
pricing Landsat data Existing distribution and pricing ● the competitive prospects of foreign systems, and the
policies are governed by the Land Remote Sensing term.s and conditions under which similar data
Commercialization Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-365) and produced by foreign systems are available to U.S.
a contract between the U.S. Government and the private public and private sectors;
firm EOSAT. This contract gives EOSAT the right to set ● the prospect of future U.S privatelyfinanced and op-
prices on data from Landsats 1-6, but establishes no data erated systems intended to seine “niche” markets;
rights for Landsat 7. ● the pace of technological improvement in geo-
Two bills now before Congress, H.R. 3614 and S. 2
graphic information systems and the character of
2297, would transfer responsibility for managing and new applications; and
funding the Landsat program, beginning with Landsat 7,3 ● technological development of future Landsat-type .
jointly to the Department of Defense (DoD) and the satellites.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA)
This short background paper summarizes the discus-
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA). However, the two bills differ in how they sion concerning data pricing and distribution from a
would handle pricing issues. S. 2297 would price the sale one-day workshop convened by OTA on May 20, 1992.
It does not discuss the broader policy issues regarding
of all Landsat data at the cost of fufilling the user’s order.
commercialization of land remote sensing and the bene-
H.R. 3614 allows for a two-tier pricing system in which
fits and drawbacks of the decision to assign responsibility
Federal Government users would be charged the cost of for the operation of Landsat 7 to DoD and NASA.
fulfiling an agency’s order and for-profit firms would be
charged market prices. The workshop, which included data users from govern-
How the United States chooses to address the issues of ment, universities, the private sector, and non-
pricing and distributing Landsat data will prove important governmental organizations, registered a notable degree
of consensus about the future level of prices for data
not only for land remote sensing, but also for the immense
relative to existing prices: lower data prices would
amount of data that the Federal Government intends to
gather about the atmosphere, land, and oceans using stimulate data use. At the same time, several workshop
participants noted that compared to the costs of gathering
NASA’s Earth Observing System.
the necessary data from other sources, Landsat data are a
Users of Landsat data expect the data to find increased bargain. Participants reached much less agreement on the
use among government agencies for a variety of beneficial proposed two-tier system where for-profit buyers are
applications, including environmental monitoring, sur- charged a higher price than government users, Most
face change detection and evaluation of resources. Many workshop participants, however, agreed that existing
hope the data will also be the basis for a diverse and law-which mandates that all earth imaging data gathered
profitable U.S. industry, which enhances and sells data from orbit, from any U.S. source, public or private, must
I For a detailed summary of * Cvalts ad knlcs related to the Land@ comrncrciakmion dccisio~ see U.S. Congress, OfiIce of Technology
&scssmmL Remote Sem”ng and the Private Sector, OTA-ISC-TM-20 (w@@WL m: Us. @v ammatt Printing Office, April 1984).
2 Passed by the House of Representatives, June 9, 1992.
3
Amording to Busb Admimstration plans, DoD would procure the satellite and NASA would manage its operation and data distribution. The two
congressional bills would codify this amangement.
–l–
2 ● Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications
Box A—A Land Remote Sensing Satellite System

A land remote sensing satellite system consists of five major components, each of which is critical to producing
useful data
1. Sensors: Optical systems gather light in various spectral (color) bands from Earth’s surface and focus it on
photosensitive surfaces that convert the light to digital electrical impulses that can be transmitted to Earth
electronically. Landsats 4 and 5 collect light m seven spectral bands, ranging from the blue to the infrared.
The thematic mapper sensor is capable of distinguishing objects as small as 30 meters across. Landsat 6,
which will be launched in 1993, will also carry a higher resolution sensor, able to distinguish objects only
15 meters across.
2. Spacecraft and Transmitters: The spacecraft provides a stabilized platform and power for the sensors and
their optics, the receiving and transmitting antennas, and the associated electronics necessary to control the
spacecraft and to deliver data to Earth Some remote sensing spacecraft may also carry tape recorders to
store data until the spacecraft is within sight of a receiving station.
3. Receiving Station and Other Communication Components: A ground station may receive data in digital
form directly from the satellite as it passes overhead, or, if the satellite is not in a position to communicate
with the ground station, through a system equivalent to NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System
(TDRSS). In the latter case, data arc passed from the remote sensing satellite to a communication satellite
m geosynchronous orbit and then retransmitted to a ground facility. From the ground facility, the data arc
then passed directly to a processing laboratory.
4. Data Processing Facilities: Before the raw data can be converted into photographic images or computer
tapes capable of being analyzed by the end user, they must be processed to remove geometric and other
distortions inevitably introduced by the sensors. Data that have only had these distortions removed are
generally referred to as unenhanced data. For remote sensing applications, large amounts of data
manipulation are usually required
5. Interpretation of the Data: After the unenhanced data are processed and converted to computer tapes or
photographs, they must be interpreted to provide information for the end user. Part of the interpretation
process may involve merging or layering sets of data, usually done with computer image processing
programs. A variety of advanced techniques are available to turn remotely sensed data into new products
for different users.
SOURCE: U.S. COG Office of Technology Aaxsmc@ 1992.
be sold on a nondiscriminatory basis4--could be liberal- BACKGROUND

ized to allow private satellite system owners to set their
own price structures. They also generally agreed that The united States initiated the Landsat program in
means should be found to make Landsat data available 1969 as a research activity. NASA launched Landsat 1 in
more cheaply to the academic community, which will use 1972.5 Data from the Landsat system (box A) soon proved
the data to conduct scientific research or to train students capable of serving a wide variety of government and
in data techniques. private sector needs for spatial information about the land
surface and coastal areas (table 1). NASA designed, built,
and operated Landsats 1-3. The perceived potential
This paper is the first publication of an assessment of economic value of Landsat imagery led the Carter
Earth observation systems requested by the House Administration to consider commercial operation of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; the system During the late 1970s it began a process of
Senate Committee on Commerce, science, and Transpor- transferring control of Landsat operations and data
tation; the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommit- distribution from NASA to the private sector. The first
tees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Develop step in the transition gave operational control of the
ment, and Independent Agencies; and the House Perma- Landsat system to NOAA in 1981, because of NOAA’s
nent Select Committee on Intelligence. OTA will issue a extensive experience in operating remote sensing satel-
detailed report on data issues in 1993. lites for weather and climate observations. Landsat 4 was
4 $ ~~ ~ ‘ ‘ n o * - q tory basis” means Without prcfcrcnu, bus, or any other spccxal arrangement. . . rcgardmg dd.mry, fortna~ f~,
or tcchmcal consldcrahons wluch would favor one buyer or class of buyers over moth=. “ Public h+W 98-365, S=. 104 (3)(AH15 USC WV.
s Irutdy called the Earth Resources Technology Satellk NASA changed Its name to Landsat m 1975.
6 Landsats 4 and 5 were dcsgned and budt by NASA but operated by NOAA.
Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications ● 3
Table l-Summary of Landsat Applications
A. Agriculture D. Fish and wildlife F. Water resources

Crop inventory Wildlife habitat inventory Planning and management
Irrigated crop inventory Wetlands location, monitoring, and Surface water inventory
Noxious weeds assessment analysis Flood control and damage assessment
Crop yield prediction Vegetation classification Snow/lee cover monitoring
Grove surveys Precipitation/snow pack monitoring irrigation demand estimates
Assessment of flood damage salt exposure Monitor runoff and pollutlon
Disease/drought monitoring E. Environmental management Water circulation, turbidity, and sediment
B. Forestry and rangeland Water quality assessment and planning Lake eutrophication survey
Productivity assessment Environmental and pollution analysis Soil salinity
Identification of crops, timber and range Coastal zone management Ground water Location
Forest habitat assessment Surface mine inventory and monitoring G Geological mapping
Wildlife range assessment Wetlands mapping Lineament mapping
Fire potential/damage assessment Lake water quality Mapping/identification of rock types
c. Land resource management Shoreline delineation Mineral surveys
Land cover inventory Oil and gas iease sales Siting/surveying for public/private
Comprehensive planning Resource inventory facilities
Corridor analysis Dredge and fill permits Radioactive waste storage
Facility siting Marsh salinization H. Land use and planning
Flood plain delineation Growth trends and analysis
Solid waste management Land use planning
Lake shore management Cartography
Assess land capabilities
SOURCE: OHim of Tachrmiogy Asaesarnew 1992.
launched in 1982; Landsat 5 6 became operational in 1985.10 At present, EOSAT operates Landsats 4 and 5
1984. 7 under contract to the Department of Commerce,ll and
manages distribution and sales of data from Landsats 1-5.
In late 1983, the Reagan Administration took steps to EOSAT will operate Landsat 6 at its expense.12
transfer Landsat 4 and 5 operations to private hands
because it did not want to continue public funding for the Although EOSAT and its primary competitor, 13 SPOT
Image, S.& which markets data from the French (SPOT)
system. A few proponents of commercialization expected
that industry could soon build a sufficient data market to satellite system have developed a market for unenhanced
data 14 by the late 1980s, EOSAT'S yearly sales income
support a land remote sensing system.8 Soon thereafter, was apparently not suffficient to enable it to finance future
Congress began consideration of the Land Remote
Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984, which was satellites. Although the Federal Government has provided
intended to provide legislative authority for the transfer most of the funding for Landsat 6, and had initially agreed
to subsidize a substantial portion of Landsat 7, in the late
process. Public Law 98-365 was signed into law on July
1980s it withdrew its support for Landsat 7. The Landsat
17, 1984. During deliberations over the Landsat Act, the
Administration issued a request for proposal (RFP) for program was in danger of failing.
industry to operate Landsat and any follow-on satellite Hence, in 1991 Congress, the National Space Council,
system. After competitive bidding,9 NOAA transferred NASA, NOAA, and DoD reviewed their options for
control of operations and marketing of data to EOSAT in continuing the LandSat program. Policymakers reached
s M- 4 ~ 5 were designed ad built by NASA lmt O-d by NOM

8H owcvcr, moat analysts wem Cxtrcmcly pcAtnistic about such prospects. see Us. congreSa, caqpeuional Budget Office, Encouraging Private
lnvesrnwu in Space ~“es (waahlgtm DC: Us. Govanmait m OfWe, Feb. 1991), ~ 3.
9 Seven firms rcapondcd to the W, from which two were selected for funk ncgotMon9-E OSAT and Kod.a4Fairchild. After a series of
ncgotiatim during which the gov ~t changed the ground rules of the RFP, Kodak - OU4 leaving EOS~ to negotiate with the Dcpamnezit
of Comtnenx.
10 EOS~ ~ CwMshed as a joint v~ by RCA (now ~ of ~) and Hu@cs Aircmft (now part of Ou3ual Motors) for this puIpOSC.
II S~W~ ~ ~~ ~k~~ ~ve f~~ ~t ~~ ~q -on w a- ~plete ~wm Systan. EOSAT M taken -t ~ to ~ -
tWO sltldh~ idOttg, in OfdCI to -tilkl COKtdXtUity Of @a delivcq Wtti Land@ 6 is OpCr$ttiOXUd.
12 ~~t 6 is scaulc.d for launch in 1993.
13 ~~ou@ for ~me appllatio~ EOSAT ~d S~T ~ge, SA., ~mpc fm cum-, tic ~ ~ KU ~ wlCICtldy difft3CIlt tbt by SCI’VC
different customer needs. For some applications, for example, where both high spatial resolution (SPOT’s strength) and high spectral resolution
(L.am!sat’s strcugth) arc needed, cu.stomezs use both to produce a find image containing much more informa tion than either alone - display.
14 Untiud && ~ve &n subj~~ oI@ to ~C sptd d gCOmCt3ic C- Ons necessary to use them.
the conclusion that maintaining continuity15 of the Landsat 2. Release an RFP requiring the provision of a
program important to the national interest. 16 They also satellite system for government operation with
wished to provide in some form for the continued specifications designed to meet specified data
commercialization of land remote sensing from space. requirements. Under this arrangement, the govern-
The argument for continuing to acquire Landsat-type data ment would reclaim responsibility for providing a
for use by government agencies was strengthened by the satellite system and operating it.
observation that these data could be a major contributor
to understanding and monitoring the effects of global 3. Release an RFP requiring the provision of a
change. 17 For this application, especially, continuity of the satellite system designed to meet the government’s
data stream is very important. The usefulness of the data requirements. Release a second RFP for a
Landsat program received further impetus from the private firm to operate the government’s system.
Persian Gulf War, when DoD made extensive use of This arrangement is similar to the current one with
Landsat and SPOT imagery to create maps of the region EOSAT.
to support operations by the U.S.-led multinational force. 18
Afterward, LandSat and SPOT images were used to Each of these arrangements has benefits and drawbacks
19
evaluate the environmental consequences of the War. Thc relating to cost, technical risks, potential for furthering the
rapid growth of the geographic information systems (GIS) commercialization of data acquired from space, and
industry supports continuation of the Landsat program amount. . of government involvement and control. The
because these systems have facilitated growth of the Administration, with the support of Congress, has chosen
value-added industry (firms that process and add interpre- the second option, in part because it seemed to promise
tive information to Landsat data). The ease with which it the least risk for maintaining continuity of the provision
is possible to incorporate other spatial information with of data compatible with previously acquired LandSat data.
remotely sensed data20 has led to a broadly diversified It is not necessarily the choice that would promise the
market for these data and has significantly increased their greatest involvement of private industry, except as
market potential providers of the satellite system under contract to the U.S.
Government Discussion and analysis of the benefits and
The government has three broad options for continuing drawbacks of these options is well beyond the scope of
to provide data compatible with data collected by this background paper, however, the choice of Option 2
Landsats 1-5, each of which has numerous possible for providing Landsat-type data necessitates a decision
variations of detail. It could: regarding data pricing and distribution policies. Option 1,
1. Release an RFP requiring the provision of data of in contrast, would not; with the exception of the contract
specified character, quality, and amount over a price for delivery to government, pricing of data would be
specified number of years, leaving the satellite determinedly the market This background paper takes as
system design, ownership, and operation to private a given that the government will proceed with a variant of
industry. Under this option, the government would Option 2 If it were to choose a different option, for
purchase data for its needs as a commodity, much example, for a future LandSat 8, other data pricing and
like the arrangement NASA has with Orbital distribution policies would likely be possible.
Sciences Corporation (OSC) for the purchase of
ocean color data from the SeaWiFS sensor aboard In addition to the large user community within the
the SeaStar satellite.21 The selected firm would then federal government, the number of existing and potential
be free to offer data to other customers on mutually users of remotely sensed data is also large: farmers
agreeable terms. planting or besting crops, cities and states monitoring “
15 As & ~ c Ommittcc on scicsE, SpacG and Technology Report to accompany H-R 3614 poiafa out (pp. 32-3), the tam ‘continu.i ty” canbc
used in m I-t three different waya: 1) continuity of the Landsat program 2) comimlityofthedata strcmmfrom thehlxisat aatcllitc$ and 3) Contimlity
of data foxrnlw scale, and spccual mspon8c. Ihelatteris eapecwyimpmtam toeartilsckuisu aumptmg “ to study globld change.
16 ~ C Ommittoc has decided that Om of b bill’s pridpal goals ahould be to “alhancc * me of LandSat data for public - applications. ”
Report of b House Committee on ~, SpacG aud Technology to accompany H..R 3614, May 28, 1992, p. 43.
17 J. Ro~ et & “what Does kxmtc Scnaing Do for Bcology?” fiOiO~, VOL z No. 6, 1991, pp. 1918-21; U.S. ExccutI‘Ve Ofncc of tk
Preaidcalt! Offkc of Scielxe and Tccbnology Policy, Committee on Earth Sciences. Our Changing Planet: A US Straiegyfor Global Change Research.
A Report by the Committee on Earth Sciences to Accompany the US. President’s Fiscal Year 1990 Budget (WashingtorL DC: Office of Science and
Technology Policy, 1989).
la ()~ dxtasaiona
“ with Defense Mapping Agency peraorma see also Ian Parka, “Spacecraft in the B*.” Spuce, April-May 1S92, pp. 35-37.
19 N~o~ &p@ic Society, Committee for Rcscamh and ~]01’tltiOIL “hvironmmti Conscquu— of the Gulf War 19901991,’ Research
and Expioran”on, Vol. 7 (special issue), 1991.
20 s~ ~ -S ~~~q ow*p ~UCS ~ * on soils, hydrology, and CCOIOgy.
21 under this arrangaIUn4 OSC agreed to provide data of spccif%xl quality, forrnaL and spatial and spccfral covcsage for a spccifkd price, whkh
allowed the fm to secure additional private f-.
—. .
water tables or planning sewage treatment, environmental interests. Under existing policy, codified in the Landsat
firms monitoring land use. Even McDonald’s Corp. uses Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-365), data from the Landsat system
Landsat data to study suburban growth to find locations are sold by the system operator (EOSAT). The system
for new franchises. Private firms have created a growing operator sets data prices, which are intended to enable an
market for information created from Landsat and other operating company to earn a profit after subtracting
data by enhancing images for specific users. system operating, marketing, and distribution costs from
gross sales. By mandating nondiscriminatory access to
Finally, land remote sensing has become an interna- Landsat data the Landsat Act of 1984 essentially
tional activity. During the lifetimes of Landsats 6 and 7, mandated a single price for the same data for all Landsat
foreign earth observing systems, including Canada’s data customers. Experts disagree on what kind of pricing
Radarsat, France’s SPOT, the European Space Agency’s policy is fair and will best nurture the industry’s growth
ERS-1, Japan’s JERS-1, and Russia’s ALMAZ are while serving the government’s needs. However, they
expected to contribute to a growing global market for generally agree that if the public sector pays for satellites
remotely sensed earth images collected from space (table and their operation, government and many not-for-profit
2). Hence, while these systems, which provide data from users should pay much lower prices than currently
different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum at charged.
different spatial resolutions, broaden the overall market
for remotely sensed data they also provide increased
international competition to the United States in an arena Some argue for a two-tier, or more generally a
it once monopolized.z multiple-tier, pricing structure that makes data available
for federal government use at the cost of fulfilling a user
FINDINGS request, and allows the data distributor to charge market
rates to all other users. H.R. 3614 permits, but does not
Finding 1: Landsat data may generate sufficient mandate, a two-tier pricing structure (appendix A).24
public benefit to justify continuation of the pro-
gram even if costs of design, construction, and A two-tier pricing structure might also make it possible
launch of the spacecraft are not recovered by the “ to reach agreement with EOSAT over changes to the
revenues generated by data sales. existing contract between the Federal Government and
EOSAT. H.R 3614 requires the Landsat Program Man-
It was clear from the workshop that23 the social value of agement (DoD and NASA) to negotiate with EOSAT to
Landsat data is potentially immense: they can be used secure modified terms for pricing, distribution, acquisi-
for a number of socially beneficial applications, from tion, archiving, and access to data from Landsats 1-6. In
management of domestic resources to plannin g for particular, it instructs the Landsat program Management
sustainable development. The pricing policy selected to seek agreement that EOSAT would provide unen-
should thus include as a goal, fostering the social benefits hanced data to “the United States and its affiliated users
provided by applications of the data while also nurturing at the cost of fulfilling user requests, on the condition that
the growth of a U.S.-based, value-added industry. such data is used solely for noncommercial purposes.
Finding 2: The prices charged for imagery collected
from space are pivotal in deciding who will have Most researchers and some value-added firms contend
access to this information source and on what that data should be sold at the cost of fulfilling the order.
terms. Therefore, data pricing policy is a key factor They argue that such a price structure would allow
in how widely remotely sensed data are applied by broader use of the data, and uphold a principle that these
the public and private sectors. data, acquired by government satellite systems and paid
for through taxes, are a public good. S. 2297, which is
The Landsat system is a publicly funded U.S. monop- under consideration by the Senate, generally adopts this
oly with benefits that seine both public and private view.~
= U.S. CO- mice of Technology ~ international Cooperation and Comperinon in Civilian Space Activities, OZA-ISC-239
(wash@’tom DC: Us. Oovenxmnt Printing Off.@, July 1985), ch 7.
~ A CO~SIOd Budget Of6= MSC=X1- in ~ PO@ options for mcmrag@ *ate inv= in remote SuAsing, suggests an
exam.mmon of the social value of IAndsat is ~~ b<- ~al- * ~le of wcrmncns in funding such satellites. See Congrcssionat Budget
office, Op. CIL. footnote 8.
~ “~c CO- finds that--to incrcas’c he value of the Ian&at prQgram to the Axnaica.rt Pubtic, Landsat data should be made available to United
states Governmc nt agencies, to global change researchers, and to other rcsearckrs who arc financially supported by the united states OoV crmncr.w at
the cost of fulfllhng w requests. ’ ‘—Sec. 2. (12) Findings.
~ “me COqTCSS f@ Uld declares @-to maximize the value of Federal satellite land remote sensing programs to the American public, data
generated from all hod remote scnsmg satellites fimdcd by the United States Govcrnmc nt should be made available to usexs at prices tit do not exceed
the margmal cost of fflhng a spccflc user request. ’ S. 2297, “Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992,” Sec. 101 (8).
●
Table 2-Operational and Proposed Earth Remote Sensing Satellites
satellite LANDSAT 5 LANDSAT 6 SPOT 3-4 MOS 1,16 JERS-1 ALMAZ-1 ERS 1-2’ RADARSAT
Owner Us. Us. France Japan
Repeat Coverage 18 days 18 days 26 days 17 days
Launch Date 1905 1993 (3) 1994, (4) 1998 1967; 1990
Blue
Spectral Coverage
(microns)
Resolution NA NA NA NA NA
Swath Width
Green
Spectral Coverage
Resolution NA NA NA
Swath Width
Red
Spectral Coverage
Resolution NA NA
Swath Width
Near-Infrared
Spectral Coverage
Resolution NA NA NA
Swath Width
Mid-lnfrared
Spectral Coverage 1.58-1.75 l.6-l.71/2.01-
NA 2.4 NA
Resolution 18 m x 24 m
Swath Width 75 km
Thermal Infrared
Spectral Coverage 10.4-12.5 6.0-7 .010.5-12.5
Resolution 120 m 2.7 km
Swath Width 185 km IWO km
Microwave
Frequency
Resolution . NA NA NA
Swath Width
Panchromatic
Resolution
Swath Width NA NA NA NA NA NA
a ERS-2 WiII m~ t~ Gb&l ozone M~itofig Experi~nt, which VW have some capabilities in the ultravblet to visible regions of the spectrum. Actual coverage is not Yet known.
SOURCE: NASA, MaPeat Maket Review, 1992; M&Id Space hddry &rwry, I&year CX#oo&, Euroconault, 1991.
.
Although the workshop reached no consensus regard- view of the continued importance of the “open
ing which policy would best serve the public interest, the skies” principle to the U.S. use of space and to
discussion did lead to the following insights: foreign policy, nondiscriminatory access to data
from publicly funded satellite systems should be
● Most workshop participants agreed that lower prices retained.
would result in wider use of data.26 A single low
price might encourage market growth, especially Existing law requires that all data from all U.S. land
among users already familiar with the applications of remote sensing systems be sold to all purchasers, U.S. or
Landsat imagery. A low price would be unlikely to foreign, on a nondiscriminatory basis, in part to allay fears
reduce costs associated with the collection, process- among some countries that other countries would seek to
ing, distribution, maintenance, and archiving of use these superior information sources to gain economic
data. 27
advantage. 28 Some U.S. data users also express concern
● Two-tier pricing would allow for smaller overall that allowing companies to follow sales policies giving
losses (some cost recovery) by charging profit- exclusive access to data might trigger retaliatory restric-
making enterprises prices that reflect the cost of tions on important data acquired from space by other
operating the system. It would thus spur the govern- countries.
ment to continue the the experiement in commercializa-
tion by supporting the development of a commercial Nevertheless, proponents of private remote sensing
market for unenhanced data. systems have complained that this policy impedes entry
● Two-tier pricing would allow for greater cost recov- of privately financed U.S. remote sensing systems into the
ery in the face of small or diminished demand. market for unenhanced data. For example, potential
However, it might depress demand compared to low, private satellite systems could, perhaps, fill a market
single-tier prices. niche for specialized products. However, if the system
● Two-tier pricing could be harder to administer and owners were prevented from charging higher prices for,
difficult to enforce because it would discriminate on say, mom timely or even exclusive access to data, they
the basis of client type rather than service or product. would lose their market advantage and their ability to
As an example of the difficulty of enforcement, some service the market niche.
researchers in universities or nonprofit organizations
who might be entitled to lower prices for data used Proponents of private systems suggest that as the
in research also consult for commercial interests. number of international sources of earth-imaging data
Similarly, some for-profit, value-added firms fre- grow, the fears of countries concerning exclusive access
quently work under contract with federal state, and and resource exploitation would likely diminish. Indeed
local governments. Firms may also conduct re- many argue that global competition in remotely sensed
rearch, the results of which are published in publicly data is already sufficient to allow the United States to
available journals. relax previous restrictions. Hence, in order to encourage
operation of private remote sensing systems, recent
Under current Administration plans, data from LandSat Administration proposals, H.R 3614, and S. 2297 would
7 will be publicly owned data the distribution of which allow pricing and access discrimination for data acquired
will be governed by OMB Circular A-130. This circular by privately funded systems. All however, would retain
sets pricing for other Federal Government data products the nondiscriminatory policy for Landsat 7 and other
such as census data, economic statistics, and government- publicly funded systems on grounds that the policy
created software (appendix B) “so as to recover costs of supports the full and open exchange of information that
disseminating the products or services through user has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for space and
charges. ” Circular A-130 is flexible enough to allow for international environmental research.29
two-tier pricing.
The opportunity to use Landsat imagery to help
Finding 3: Changing the existing policy of nondis- developing countries manage their own resources is an
criminatory access to data from privately funded important opportunity for the United States in the
satellite systems to a policy that allows owners to post-Cold War world. Continued provision of Landsat
determine their own pricing policies may encour- imagery by the U.S. government for the development of
age growth of private satellite systems. However, in local and regional economies could also help undercut
8 l Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications
criticism of any move to allow discriminatory data developed preliminary designs for small lightweight
distribution for privately funded satellite systems. satellites that show “ in eventually reducing the
costs of the system? experts nevertheless remain
Finding 4: The experiment to commercialize the doubtful that even with the likely future system cost
Landsat system has been only partially successful reductions, sufficient market for unenhanced data would
EOSAT has streamlined the operations and data develop to support a commercial satellite system within
distribution system, and achieved sufficient income the next decade.36
to support its efforts without government support.
However, revenues from data sales do not appear Finding 5: The pricing and distribution policies
sufficient to enable a system operator to finance the arrived at now for U.S. earth-sensing activity will
entire Landsat system for many years. set precedents for NASA’s planned Earth Observ-
ing System (EOS).
when the Landsat Commercialization Act of 1984 was
passed proponents argued that the best way to create a Although the-decision before this Congress concerns
strong market for remotely sensed data was to transfer the the pricing and distribution policy for Landsats 1-6 and
operation of the Landsat system and the marketing Landsat 7, the debate over LandSat data has parallels for
function to the private sector. At recent congressional other publicly funded remote seining systems that will
hearings some members of Congress have called com- generate data with economic value. EOS sensors are
mercialization a failure.30 experimental and will require considerable effort to
evaluate before the full commercial potential of the data
EOSAT has apparently lowered the costs of collecting can be assessed yet several of these sensors will collect
data from the satellite and putting scenes into usable data having economic potential (table 3). 37 The pricing
form.31 Yet EOSAT has been faced with operating and policies for EOS and Landsat should be consistent, since
marketing data from a system that was designed to meet the data will be used by many of the same institutions and
government requirements rather than the marketplace. the issues of public versus private good are the same in
Hence this experiment does not provide the most effective both cases.
test of the Commercial prospects for unenhanced remotely
sensed data What the United States has tested since Finding 6: Stability and continuity in the acquisition
EOSAT’S formation is not whether private management of data over time and enhanced customer access to
can work in general, but whether a private system data will contribute to the further development of
operator with a single pricing policy is anymore effective the data market.. Aggressive, innovative marketing
than the public system operator that predated EOSAT. will also be important.
Landsat 6 will cost the U.S. Government about $220 Commercial and other users, in order to plan for the
million data sales, even if all customers were charged the orderly development of their businesses or long-term
single price of $4,400 per digital Thematic Mapper research, need to know that the satellite system will
(TM)32 image, would not reccover these costs over 5 years provide continuous data for a specified period of time.
of operation. DoD and NASA have estimated that Researchers, particularly those interested in global
procuring, launchings and operating Landsat 7 for 5 years, change, need data sets that are consistent, can be cross
and constructing a large, new data processing facility, will referenced and reflect repeated observations of various
cost about $880 million.33 However, if the costs of a phenomena (e.g., land change) over time. Failure to
different satellite system could be reduced sufficiently, a . provide such data sets will be detrimental to our
private firm might be able to establish a viable business understanding of global change and to other environ-
selling unenhanced data.34 A few firms, for example, have mental research It will also be detrimental to the
30s Wancnta of Sumtoxs GoIe and Presak, Saiacc Cornsnittcc on commerce, SciuEe, and TmnspOmdoQ Subcornmi ace on Scimcc, Tccbnology
and Spacq Hcaringon S. 229’7, the hnd htc Sensing Policy Act of 1992, May 6,1992. Also see testimony of David Thibaui L John R. JcasaL ad
Cbarlottc Btack Elk at tk m _.
31 m- BwMJ@ OEi% op. at-, footnote 8.
3 2 = - insuumalton tk?hndsat satellite. It carxics seven spectral buts with aground rcsolutionof 30rncters (except fortbc thexmd ixhrcd
ban& which posscSSc3 a resolution of 120 !nctcrs). on ~ 6. ~ ~~ TII* _ wiu ~ co~oct data iII a p anchmmatic baud of 15
nMms.
33 a~ Plan for b LandSat PrognmL Mar. 20, 1992, Aaacbmcnt 1.
34s= -G p=t H* ~~=t ~~ Ra”ew (s- SpaCC Center, Mississippi: mlfipacc Remote knsing center, 1~), for a deti~
review of the market potential for remotely sensed data suitable for gemming maps, as well as the characteristics of foreign remote sensing systems.
35 A fi~ ~fl ~ ~s -~~t W ~~s & b~~lts ~d drawbacks of using innovative small remote sensing satellites.
36 C-=ts of ~~ rcview~ on ~ f~( ~.
37 For ~=ple, ASTER (provided by Japan), S=WFS. md MoD~.
..—..—. . ——. .—
Table 3--Potential Commercial Applications for Selected

and Proposed EOS Instruments
Potential Commercial use
continued development of the U.S. value-added industry. unique advantage of being able to handle data in many
Previous, inconsistent support for Landsat has hurt different formats and integrate them into usable files.
market development. Products include maps, inventories of crops, forests, and
other renewable resources, and assessments of urban
Those entrusted with marketing unenhanced remotely growth, cultural resources and nonren ewable resources.
sensed data have an important role in defining new The growth of the GIS industry will be aided by the
applications and products. SPOT Image corporation, for extensive archives of unenhanced Landsat data, which
example, has developed an entire series of image maps now includes some 210,000 multispectral TM scenes
and ‘theme” maps that have proved popular with certain (maintained at the U.S.G.S. EROS Data Center, Sioux
customers .38 The entry of SPOT Image into the market- Falls, SD).
place has helped to stimulate the overall market for
remotely sensed data. EOSAT now offers TM digital data It is important to differentiate between sales of
on small 8 mm ‘‘Exabyte’ cartridges, which promise to value-added information and unenhanced data. Because
make the storage and handling of Landsat data more value-added firms can add so much extra value to
efficient. imagery, the former will always outstrip the latter in terms
of gross sales and tax revenues returned to the U.S.
Finding 7: A worldwide, “value-added” industry, treasury, just as the return from applications of commer-
closely tied to the application of geographic infor- cial communications satellites far outstrips the market for
mation systems (GIS), is now evolving, offering the satellites themselves. 40 Hence, if the value-added
enhanced imagery and other information products industry grows sufficiently strong, the return of indirect
for specific users and applications. revenues in the form of taxes could outsweigh the direct
return of income from unenhanced data sales.
The value-added, geographic information services
39
industry may top $2 billion in yearly sales by 1993. A key factor driving the evolution of the market is the
Unlike 1985, when EOSAT was formed the United States importance of timely data to many different users, such as
appears to be on the verge of having a U.S.-based, farmers making weekly decisions on when to plant crops.
internationally competitive GIS industry, supported in Another key factor is the evolution of technology, in
part by remotely sensed data aquired from space. This is which the price of hardware and software for manipulat-
a result of the simultaneous growth of GIS sales and ing earth-sensing data has dropped dramatically so that
computing technologies. These technologies have the small groups and even private individuals can use it. The
38 KPMG peat Manvi& op. cit., footnote ~, p. 11.

3 9 ~x fiw ~l~d~ ~] GIS app~~tjo~, not o~y ~SC tit usc “GIS Markets Sal.scd
IUDO@y and @pOrtUDitiCS,
imagCS 1991, ”
hXD SpllCC.
Daratcck Cambndgc, IvL% 1991.
40 Note, however, tit cOmZDIUdGltiOZl$ ~e~~s tie commcrciallyviable rathcrquickly because they were introduced into a vibrant international
telccommummhons market.
.
small user, whether a New England coastal environmental that the value-added sector was the most important
institute 41 or a southwestern Indian tribe concerned with Commercial area to protect.
forest management,42 represents an enormous potential
market, which is now largely untapped Value-added Finally, a few workshop participants questioned the
firms are well positioned to reach this market. fundamental concept of turning over publicly funded
assets to a single private operator and giving it exclusive
Finding 8: Congress may wish to consider alternative rights to distribute publicly funded data. One participant
means of commercializing the space remote sensing suggested that the government might consider allowing
industry. several private firms to collect unenhanced data and sell
a variety of products from them in much the same way that
Some workshop participants suggested alternative the weather satellites now distribute unenhanced data to
means of commercialization to the present operating a variety of firms that add value to the data
structure, which, they said, could build on the lessons of
the EOSAT experiment. They argue that while EOS~
has thus far not succeeded in commercialization as Finding 9: Academic institutions can play an impor-
envisioned in the mid-1980s, other approaches to com- tant role in broadening the market for remotely
mercialization may work such as offering incentives to sensed data by developing new applications and by
cut costs and finding ways to be more responsive to users. training graduates who will make careers using the
Pricing policy will nevertheless be a key determinant of data in government private industry, nonprofit
failure or success. groups, and international institutions.
In the future, for a Landsat 8, for example, the Participants agreed that the U.S. academic research
government may wish to promote the commercialization community has the potential to uncover new uses for
of land remote sensing by adopting Option 1 of the remotely sensed data43 Some suggested that to facilitate
previous section in which the government issues an RFP academic use of LandSat images, the gov ernment could
asking for the provision of specified quantities of set prices of present and/or archived data at the cost of
remotely sensed land data Some participants worried that fulfilling a user’s order, or subsidize purchases by giving
the present plan to put NASA back in charge of managing researchers data grants to support purchases at the
data distribution from Landsat 7 may halt the trend “market price.”44 For many academic users, archived
towards commercialization and hinder the growth of this data could be sufficient for research and to train graduate
new industry. Others felt that any emphasis on the students, because these uses generally do not require
commercialization of unenhanced data was misplaced time-critical data45
41 ~~~~ ~~ c- “satellite Imagay Aids Analysis of Rare Coastal h)systuns, “ Geo Info Sysmns, VOL 2, No. 8, June 1992,
pp. 56-59.
42 R@ we ~ s~~ Btiw, “wfl~ ~ for New hkXiCO’S Native Amaican Lands,” Geo @fO Sysfems, VOL 2, No. 8, J- 1992,
pp. 3443.
43 ~v~e ~ ~ -t fi d~elqing n- apph~ons. ID dditioQ SOIIE ~blkh mscarch results in the open literature. one reviewer suggested
Ihat pIiVatC fiIIIIS skwld ahO fCCCiVC diSCOUIltS fOr COIKhlCt.@ bOnS fkk ttSGMCh.
u ~=~y, Eos~ off- t. ~~ -Id rcs~&rs *Ut $1 million in data grants to facilitate purchases of thematic mapper data.
4s ~ ~~m su=est~ ho~v~, -t &UUISC & univ~itia do a lot of vahn?-added work on La.ndsat dam they should not be allowed to acquire
current da@ wkh would gwe them a competitive advantage over private f-.
Part II: Workshop Summary
WORKSHOP SUMMARY A wide variety of users have complained since data

prices were raised arguing that higher prices inhibit use
Participant’s comments revolved around five major of the data for research and other activities supporting the
topics affecting data pricing and distribution: public good.48 The government’s case for low prices for
data from Landsats 6 and 7 is strengthened by increasing
(1) Federal government needs and low, cost-of-service evidence of global change. Scientists will need a large
pricing; number of Landsat scenes to track the various elements of
(2) The relationship between LandSat commercializa- global change; the existing price structure would make
tion and two-tier, or multiple-tier, pricing; assembling those data sets extremely expensive, over and
above paying for the satellite system in orbit. Use of data
(3) The chances for developing an internationally from both Landsat 6 and 7 would be a key element of any
competitive U.S.-based industry in space-based U.S. government plan to assert international leadership on
earth imaging; and global environmental issues. Currently “we have no
(4) Foreign policy, and price and distribution policies institution taking its global change responsibilities seri-
to support “open-skies” policy. ously” said one participant. However, if the “federal
establishment steps up to its responsibilities, ” Landsat
(5) Academic research and instructional needs. d a t a--distributed to international organizations and Coop-
1. Federal Government Needs and Low, Cost-of- erating foreign government~would be a major part of
Service Pricing the effort.
The Federal Government considers the provision of DoD shares an interest with NASA and other federal
earth imagery an important public service. Since NASA agencies in the lowest-possible data prices. Its experience
launched the first Landsat satellite in 1972, users have in using Landsat (and SPOT) data in the Persian Gulf War
applied its data to a wide variety of problems, including convinced DoD that Landsat
49
was an important unclassi-
natural and cultural resource management, agriculture, fied military resource. As Defense Intelligence Agency
land use planning, mapping, and resource exploitation official Brian Gordon noted in a 1991 Congressional
(table 1). In the 1970s and early 1980s, U.S. users Hearing:
received data either directly from the satellite at no cost or Certainly DoD would be using Landsat and Spot
at very low cost from NASA or the USGS EROS Data [imagery]. We recognize that it’s very important to
Center.46 NASA charged foreign ground stations an get a wide area of coverage over our areas of interest,
access fee of $200,000 per year to collect data directly and we’ll use everything we can get our hands
from the satellite as it passed over. 47 on--any and all imagery data-because of the very,
In 1982, because of the commercialization process, very strong technical tradeoffs50 between resolution
NOAA began to raise prices of Landsat data in anticipa- and a broad area of Coverage.
tion of a transfer to the private sector. By 1985, it was Landsat's usefulness for national security purposes seems
charging users $4,400 (in 1985 dollars) per digital to argue for distribution of Landsat data to the military at
Thematic Mapper (TM) scene (up from $2,000 in 1982); a low price as a public good.
this was NOAA’s estimate of the market price of the data.
When EOSAT assumed control of data sales in 1985, it Entities other than federal agencies also argue for low
initially lowered the price for a TM scene to $3,300, but data prices. Since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone
over time has raised the price again to $4,400 (in 1992 hole in 1987, there has been a marked growth in demand
dollars) to keep up with its costs of operations. for remotely sensed data that bear on aspects of global
~ prior to 1982, wti ~4 ~ ~~ * O@ * avmle - mnlwtx’al sensor (MSS) irnagca, which have a rcaohtion of go
IrEters.
47 EOSM now _ a fCC Of ~,~ ~ ~
* see us. congress, Ho= of ~ “ ~ ThcLandsarProgram: Management, Funding, and Policy Deci.rion.r, Hearing before the Committu
on Sci~ Space, ad Technology, Nov. 26, 1991, Sect. IV: “Solicited Cornmcn ts on H.IL 3614; U.S. congress, Senate, Hearing before the Senate
Cornmittce on Cornmerc e, Scicnm, and Transportation May 6, 1992.
49 ~D -t $5.$6 fion on LandSat and SPOT imagciy for W firsi~ G~ Wa.
SO B~ ~rdo~ s~~ent ~ ‘‘Sci~~lc, ~~, ~ comtn~l~ Apph~tiotls Of the Lmdsat Pm-” a Joint Hearing before the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Permanent Select Cornmmce on Intelligence of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 26, 1991
(Washmgtom DC: U.S. Government Priming Ofllce, 1991), p. 28.
–11-
12 l Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications
change. These include requests from foreign government

agencies and public interest nonprofit groups, both of Box B-A Selection of Goals Identified
which contend they should have the data at a low, by the Workshop
cost-of-service price. Representatives of conservation and l Maximizing access to data by all users, as a
internati onal groups at the workshop pointed at that pure public good;
Landsat data are an important tool for managing and l Ensuring.
maximum data access by govern-
monitoring development. They endorsed a single-tier ment users;
pricing policy in which data are priced at the marginal cost l Spurring research:
of fulfilling a user request. Alternatively, they favored a l Partial or full cost recovery for Landsat system
two-tier policy in which groups such as theirs can obtain investment;
data at the lower (i.e., first-tier) price. l Meeting foreign policy goals, including ‘open
skies; ‘‘
The issue of data pricing is at the intersection of several l Maintaining data control for national security
competing and unresolved national goals (box B). If the
Congress were to resolve that a single price, set as low as purposes;
l Fostering U.S. industrial competitiveness;
possible, be charged to all users, it would uphold a l Fostering development of the value-added
longstanding commitment to a principle of broad access industrial and
to data it acquires at public expense for the public good l Fostering development of greater private in-
Examples include weather, census, and economic data vestment in supply of unenhanced data.
Proponents of low data prices argue that such prices SOURCE: (Mix of Tcchwlogy Awewmu& 1992.
would assist governments, private groups, and individu-
als in the study of global change.
The Administration’s present management plan for
Landsat 7, and both House and Senate bills, recognize within a larger context, in which government-created data
commercialization of unenhanced data as a policy goal. and information can affect the marketplace.
However, some workshop participants, especially those
from private industry, contended that the NASA manage- 2. The Relationship Between Commercialization
ment plan for Landsat 7 goes beyond the appropriate role and Two-Tier, or Multiple-Tier, Pricing
of the public sector and is “a gigantic step in the wrong The United States is m a period of transition, par-
direction in terms of the future of this technology.” They ticipants agreed between the second phase—attempted
argued that leaving the distribution of unenhanced data in commertialization --of the Landsat program and an
government hands would in effect stifle the evolution of undefined future. In the first stage of Landsat’s history in
a viable commercial industry. Several of them suggested the 1970s and early 1980s, the system and its data were
that commercialization could work if the system were a U.S. government monopoly. In those early days, NASA
designed as a commercial system from the start Pricing viewed development and testing of the sensors and
would then be an integral part of the system design. operation of the system more as an exploratory research
Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Seastar satellite, which and development. (R&D) activity than as a routine
carries the Seawifs sensor, provides one example of how operational service. Data were used primarily by federal
this could work (box. C). agencies and a small group of researchers. A value-added
industry gradually developed to support government
Other participants disagreed with the entire thrust applications and to assist extractive industries such as oil
toward commercialization, contending that a single-tier, gas, and minerals. Under these circumstances, most
low price would most effectively stimulate the value- policymakers agreed that a federal agency (first NASA
-added industry. One participant noted that the govern- and then NOAA) should operate the system archive and
ment had successfully developed new products that are distribute data, and encourage research and federal agency
finding new markets, citing as an example the U.S. use through uniform, cost-of-service pricing.
“Census Bureau’s TIGER files.
As use of these data by private industry grew, some
OMB Circular A-130 (appendix B) governs the pricing analysts suggested that the Landsat system could eventu-
of publicly owned data, such as that acquired from ally become self-supporting by marketing unenhanced
Landsat 7. The general debate over A-130 has revealed data to a wider range of users. As a result, beginning with
conflicts between users of inexpensive government data passage of the LandSat Commercialization Act of 1984 51
and those who would supply competing data products. the United States began an experiment designed to
Thus, the debate over the pricing of Landsat data exists encourage the growth of a private earth-sensing industry
51 The Reagan Mxmxus

tration had initiated the process of transfer by issuing an Executive order in late 1983.
in the United States that would eventually enable the

Box C—The SeaStar Satellite System
marketplace to pay for the satellite system, including
launch, and the marketing of Landsat data The implicit The commercial market for remotely sensed data
goal of commercialization was to create a new industry has not grown as fast as early predictions once
that would offset the costs of Landsat launch and heralded The data remain too expensive for many
operation to the Federal Government, and pay for future of the smaller users such as farmers and the fishing
satellites in the Landsat series. industry. In the future, the Federal Government may
Some workshop participants commended the progress purchase quantities of data from private systems,
EOSAT has made towards the goal of commercialization. allowing these firms to earn a profit marketing data
Several noted that EOSAT had created “a worldwide to other users. The Federal Government and the
marketing system” for LandSat imagery, which, although Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) have recently
underutilized is a prerequisite for market growth. How- entered into an experimental data purchase agree-
ever, EOSAT had not been aggressive enough in market- ment that may provide valuable lessons for possible
ing, some said. Opinions differed on whether EOSAT’s future agreements of a similar character.
distribution and pricing policy had hindered EOSAT's The Sea Wide Field of view Sensor (SeaWiFS)
growth. One participant pointed out that the prerequisite is a multi-band (8) imager that operates in the very
for market growth is identifying existingproducts or near infrared portion of the spectrum SeaWiFS will
services that can be improved by using Landsat imagery, be used to observe chlorophyll, dissolved organic
which leads to lower data prices and an increase in matter, and pigment concentrations in the ocean.
demand for imagery. An aggressive marketing system The sensor will contribute to monitoring and
would then help in identifying new products.52 understanding the health of the ocean and concen-
tration of life forms in the ocean. Data will have
Most participants agreed that the circumstances of significant commercial potential for fishing, ship
1992 are very different from those of 1986, when EOSAT routing, and aquaculture, and will be important for
assumed control of data distribution. Today a growing understan ding the effects of changing ocean content
value-added industry is developing new products and and temperatures on the health of aquatic plants and
markets and cheaper, user-friendly technology. In addi- animals.
tion, other countries (table 2) are providing remotely
sensed data Under the arrangement with NASA, the com-
pany’s SeaStar satellite will collect ocean color data
The idea of moving to a two-tier or multiple-tier pricing for primary users (including NASA), who then have
structure arose in order to preserve part of the commer- the option to sell both unenhanced and enhanced
cialization process begun in 1984 and to avoid outright data to other users. NASA has agreed to purchase
termination of the existing contract with EOSAT, which $43.5 million of data from Orbital Sciences. This
would likely be required in order to implement other arrangement allowed OSC to seek private financing
proposed pricing structures. 53 In theory it could allow a for design and construction of the satellite. OSC has
private operator to earn a profit by selling higher-priced developed a virtually identical sensor for the
data while also supplying data to government users at EOS-Color satellite, one of the Earth Probes
cost-of-service prices. Alternatively, it would allow a included under the vast umbrella of EOS. EOS-
government-operated system to offset some of the costs Color, to be launched in 1998, will measure oceanic
of building, launching, and operating a satellite system. biomass and productivity.
Some workshop participants expressed concern about
the workability of a two-tier arrangement, others insisted
that a multi-tier pricing system would be practical. There said that offering different prices is “not a problem. It is
appeared to be differences in perspective between those
participants for whom charging prices according to in the noise” of running a business. He noted that many
market demand is the key to profitability and a viable businesses charge different prices for different types of
business, and participants who are managers in the federal service. However, another participant noted that discrimi-
sector. One federal manager at the workshop contended nating according to product or service is very different
that dual-tier pricing would be “an administrative night- from discriminating according to type of client, adding,
mare. ” In rebuttal, a participant from the private sector “Only a monopoly can afford to discriminate according
S2 ~ ~ct for telm-~mtion ~-c= ~m ~u~t~ ~vid~ ~ iIISUUCUVC exxople of ~ pOCCSS. men z~k CO121111U12iClUiOIl SUVkt3
were umoduccd m the 1 %0s, they entered a telecommunications market that was already wckstablishcd. Commnnkimons by satellite soon became
much cheaper than by copper undcrsa cable. HencR satellite communications quickly gained market share and forced the cost of international
CQmm unications scmiccs down See HICC of Technology Asscssmcxx op. cit., foomote 22, ch 6.
‘ 3 T’C~ the contract with EOSAT could cost the govcrnm cnt millions of dollars and jeopardize data distribution from LandSat 6.
14 ● Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Application
to client type.” H.R. 3614 proposes to distinguish prices One participant offered an alternative to a single-tier
on the basis of client type, rather than service delivered pricing policy, m the form of a hypothetical private firm
that would contract to distribute Landsat data using
The heart of the issue is whether any entity--a private two-tier pricing. Users entitled to data at the lowest, ‘Tier
group like EOSAT or NASA for Landsat 7--can help One,” prices would be “all Federal Government users,
bring a new industry (for unenhanced data) into being plus “authorized” academic, nonprofit research users.”
with a single-tier pricing policy. Several participants “Tier Two” users would be “everyone who is not a
argued that a larger market for Landsat data would member of Tier One. The firm would be free to establish
materialize only with a two-or multi-tier pricing system internal use and commercial resale fees, in the form of up
and an organization devoted to building a market for front payments or those made “downstream” for later or
Unenhanced data According to this argument, low, repeated use. This was one of several suggestions for
single-tier pricing will inhibit the ability of the system meeting the needs for low-cost pricing for public service
operator (whether the government or the private sector) to uses of Landsat da@ and giving the managing entity
offset investment and operating costs. In addition, when enough freedom with all other prices to develop the
data are provided only at prices that reflect only the costs industry.
of reproduction and distribution, no feedback is possible
between users of the data and suppliers regarding the Most participants agreed that the role of the Federal
intrinsic value of the data compared to the system costs. Government during this period of transition is not well
Such feedback is needed to guide future investment, such defined and that different pricing policies can lead to
as choice of spacecraft operating parameters, or the choice different outcomes in shaping the future of U.S. remote
of new sensors. In other words, users of data provided on sensing in the early 21st century.
a single-tier, low-cost basis may undervalue the data. In The workshop discussed another suggestion for resolv-
addition, there is the danger of encouraging the develop ing the question of data pricing and retaining a private
ment of a larger bureaucracy for data distribution sector supplier of unenhanced data If EOSAT or any
purposes. other commercial seller of unenhanced data were free to
improve its unenhanced data--i.e., allowed into the
In sum, during this period of transition, when a major “value added’ business--the seller would have an
U.S. market for Landsat imagery is still forming, propo- additional market from which to recoup investment and
nents of two-tier or multi-tier pricing argued that this operating expenses. Several participants countered that
policy may be the only way providers of uncaha.need earth although existing law does not prohibit EOSAT from
imagery can earn sufficient revenues to grow. In addition, entering the value-added business, such a step would give
it was argued the perception of an unreliable federal or it an unfair competitive advantage because of EOSAT’s
private monopoly would discourage the growth of the inside knowledge of demand based on requests for raw
industry. Shifts in federal Landsat policy may have data55 (this information is not available to value-added
already inhibited the growth of a U.S.-based industry. firms). Yet if other firms were also given the right to
collect and distribute unenhanced data from the satellite,
Government-gathered meteorological data are-in some EOSAT would lose this competitive advantage. To date,
sense analogous to LandSat data.54 Weather data are EOSAT has chosen not to enter the value-added business.
essential to two federal government functions: civil
aviation safety and the armed forces. But satellite weather
data is now also down-linked at “spigots” around the 3. Chances for Developing an Internationally
country, from which commercial users, such as television Competitive, U.S.-Based Industry
news stations, can draw. These commercial users then Most workshop Participants agreed that the goal of
‘‘enhance” the weather da@ for example, to display it on commercialization is not presently being met through the
news broadcasts. Given the large number of commercial existing arrangement with EOSAT While participants
users who can enhance and resell such public goods--i.e., noted that the value-added markct is moving toward a
weather or Landsat data-for profit, should not the wider variety of products, and growing fast because of
Federal Government charge a royalty for such commer- smaller, cheaper, user-friendly technology, they differed
cial use, asked one workshop participant He suggested over which pricing policy would stimulate the market and
that some of the value of unenhanced data could be improve the chances of fully commercializing the provi-
captured charging royalties and licenses on the use of sion of unenhanced data.
data. Under this approach, a value-added firm would pay
a royalty on its profit when it buys unenhanced data, adds As mentioned some participants felt that continuing a
value to them, and resells them. single-tier pricing policy at existing prices and service
Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications . 15
would fail to encourage commercialization of the sale of greatest return to the Nation’s tax base, because the value
unenhanced data. ‘There is a bigger market so long as we added to the data will generally far exceed the original
get better performance’ from suppliers, said one partici- cost of the data. A strong value-added industry would also
pant, apparently referring to more timely service and indirectly assist governmental uses for the data by
better quality of data. continuing its development of innovative ways of manip-
ulating, displaying, and analyzing them and creating
However, the private sector representatives at the low-cost computer hardware and software.
workshop did not agree regarding two-tier pricing. At
least one representative of a private firm argued that the 4. Foreign Policy and Data Price and
revenues would increase if prices were lowered more, or Distribution Policies
kept at a relatively low rate. This participant noted that
when EOSAT offered special “sales” of data, the firm For the balance of the century, several participants
had gone out and bought more data. For value-added argued, Landsat could be an increasingly important
firms, data costs can be a key business expense; being able component of U.S. foreign policy. The United States, as
to buy popular scenes (at lower cost) that can be utilized a good global citizen and leader, could exploit its past
in many projects gives them a price advantage over investment m Landsat by offering imagery to foreign
value-added firms that cannot afford to maintain a library gov ernments and international entities, such as the World
of scenes. But this has a greater impact on which Bank, that need information about desertification, water
value-added firms receive a contract and not whether a supply, patterns of settlement, wildlife habitat, forest
client will undertake a project in the first place. Ulti- cover, and coastal issues. In the 1970s, through U.S. AID
mately, it is the number of projects purchased that and NASA, the United States mounted a major effort to
influence data sales. make Landsat imagery available to developing nations.
Thosc efforts often resulted in a beneficial transfer of
Private sector representatives differed in their outlook know-how and technology to these countries. However,
for the future of the industry. Some were gloomy that the because they were not continued in the 1980s, the growth
F e d e r a l Government would not understand how to nurture in use of Landsat imagery has slowed considerably. Many
a viable new segment of the U.S. economy. Participants developing countries still lack supportive institutions and
agreed however, that taken together, the Landsat system, appropriate training to make effective use of land remote
research community, and innovative private firms repre- sensing data. Others are highly capable but often lack
sent a potentially large national economic resource. One funding to support extensive use of Landsat data.
participant offered the following view:
To the extent the United States has an interest in
Remote sensing is part of the country’s strategy for helping other nations learn more about their resources and
recovering world economic leadership, to make the processes of change, it may have a strong interest in
country more important and successful. How well providing data to some foreign governments at cost-of-
industry and government work together will deter- service prices. On the other hand, two participants
mine whether a major U.S. industry comes into proposed that the U.S. foreign aid program be empowered
being, and how successful it is internationally while to subsidize friendly countries’ purchase of Landsat data
helping U.S. public and foreign-policy goals. at whatever price is charged. U.S. foreign aid could also
be directed to help other nations build or maintain
The health of the value-added industry is key both to downlink stations on their territory and assist indigenous
enhancing a new and potentially large element of the research using the data and value-added enhancement of
economy and to building up a market for unenhanced imagery.56 A fundamental problem with such ‘‘aid’ to
data. Spokesmen for the maturing-and growing— many developing countries, however, is the difficulty of
industry of firms who “add value’ to unenhanced making such resources available through the foreign aid
Landsat data from EOSAT argue that the data and budget, which has many other demands placed on it.
techniques to enhance it amount to a “strategic technol-
ogy” akin to the Nation’s former leadership m TVs and Foreign countries also use earth imagery to find out
VCRs. The vast majority of potential buyers of remotely information about their neighbors and adversaries. Some
sensed data cannot use the unenhanced data that EOSAT participants noted that some governments would be
(and after 1997, NASA) offer. In this they are like the willing to pay extremely hi@ prices for scenes of
average citizen who cannot use the raw data from a adjoining areas for purposes of national security. Such
weather satellite, but regularly watches the television uses of Landsat data may not qualify as a “public good”
weather reports that display and interpret these raw data. by the standards of the U.S. foreign aid program. This
Even if a self-sustaining market for unenhanced data were leads to the awkward conclusion that in a free market for
to develop, the value-added industry will still provide the earth imaging information, some governments-perhaps
% Off& of T@uMio~ ASSCSSXIICng op. cit., foomOte 2.2, d. 7.

16 ● Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Application
ones at war with their neighbors--would be in the same debate in Congress, several private entities, who wished
price category as farmers or state governments, Le., to launch and operate their own satellites, contended that
“commercial” users paying the market or tier two, they should have the right to market data on whatever
prices.57 Foreign companies would be expected to pay terms would result m a profitable business. In their view,
market prices; they could be very large customers for the right to discriminate among services and, for exampie,
Landsat data m the future, as they already account for to offer exclusive rights to data to those who would pay
about 25 percent of EOSAT sales. substantially more than the standard price for the privi-
lege, was key to establishing a viable commercial
The workshop did not resolve how a two-tier pricing business. Others argued on the contrary, that the nature
arrangement, if it were instituted would apply to foreign of Landsat as a government-owned system required that
users. Participants contended that the application of data sales adhere to the “open skies” principle originally
mm-tier pricing to foreign users warrented careful study. enunciated by Resident Eisenhower, and that data should
A related issue, barely discussed was the extent to which be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis to al potential
the U.S. government should open its “black” systems in buyers. 61 These experts reasoned that a nondiscriminatory
remote sensing for public access and international use. policy would allay fears among the poor nations that the
The Russian release of data from its synthetic aperture United States or some other rich country would gain
radar system Almaz, could be an important precedent~ important economic information about a poorer country,
since the system offers an important new source of data itself without access to similar data. A nondiscriminatory
about the oceans, ice pack and land Surface.s8 Some asked data policy would also underscore U.S. adherence to the
whether-with the Cold War over and the Russians principle of the free flow of public information across
opening up formerly closed systems to public, interna- national boundaries.
tional use--the United States should make some of its
now-classified systems publicly available as well? One The Administration has proposed changing the law
participant noted that the U.S. national security commu- regarding nondiscriminatory
62
data policy in order to
nity is closely following the fate of EOSAT, the overall encourage private entry. H.R. 3614 as passed by the
commercialization process, and NASA’s Landsat 7 and House of Representatives and S. 2297 also include a
EOS programs, with an eye to what role its own classified provision that would void the nondiscriminatory provi-
systems might play in the public market.59 sion for privately funded satellite systems. However, even
if changing this policy enhanced the chances of a private
Most legitimate foreign policy uses-such as helping firm launching its own satellite, the firm would still have
friendly governments or monitoring global change- to compete with Landsat in marketing data. Therefore, the
might deserve a low, cost-of-service price for data. data a private system supplied would have to hold
However, the international market for Landsat imagery considerable additional or distinct value over Landsat
offers the same problems as the domestic one: the smaller data in order to earn a Profit.63
value of unenhanced data versus a potentially large
market for value-added information.60 These problems Most workshop participants felt that, on the whole, the
underscore the vital role of private value-added firms in nondiscriminatory policy has served this country and
enhancing data and making it more useful. The workshop users of remotely sensed data well, as it has not only made
did not resolve these issues, except to note that the French, data readily available (for a price) to all U.S. users, but has
the European, Japanese, Russian, and Indian systems will helped stimulate the overseas market as well. U.S. policy
no doubt be joined by other earth-imaging systems. In has set the standard for the world community. It was a
short, an international industry will grow, no matter what major factor in the French decision to establish the same
the United States does with Landsat. policy for data from SPOT However, with the entry of
SPOT and other satellite systems offering remotely
The workshop also explored the U.S. nondiscrimina- sensed data, some workshop participants felt that the
tory data distribution policy, which is codified in the supply of data was sufficiently diverse and the market
Landsat Act of 1984. When the Landsat Act was under sufficiently competitive that systems financed entirely
fl ontb
Otk ha@ W united states govanmmf intenfema m export markets forotkrcmnmoditiea ofstmtegic value during ~ of war or vastly
he@emxl tmaions. It could do so for remotely sensed data as WCit.
~ The Eurqxan Spaa Agency’s ERS-1 satellite system and J~’S JERS-1 also carry synthetic qcrture radar systems.
59 ~ ~~~gm cOmmmity has a - of this ~“ ~y, @*y With rCSpCCt to the USC of previously classified data for global
change rcaearch.
60 -e it ~ tie, f~ -k, tit p~to~p~ ‘e ‘m hndsat data are used dimctiy for some applications, electronically processed digital data
pokntially carry much greater value.
61 ~= of T-logy ~msm~g op. & footnote 1, for a discussion of b nondhdmim tory policy and its relationship to the open skies policy.
62 Spce B~”nesS News, Apr. 13, 19~v P“ 5“
63 KpMG pa r6nvic~ op. cit., footnote 34, p. 11.
with private investment capital could soon begin to offer decreased as did support for new technology exploration
data that discriminated according to price or timing and demonstration. The problem the academic commu-
without undercutting the foreign policy benefits of the nity is encountering, according to this argument, is not
nondiscrimin atory policy for the Landsat system. Most that EOSAT’S prices are “too” high or unfair, but that
participants agreed that publicly funded systems should support for university research and teaching has declined.
retain the nondiscriminatory policy consistent with the Adherents of this view argue that a proper remedy, in this ,
open skies principle.64
case, may not be to force data prices lower, but for the
5. Academic Research and Instructional Needs Federal Government to offset whatever price is charged--
Many participants agreed that the U.S. academic and any price increases-by appropriate grant and con-
research community can contribute to the development of tract research support.
public and private applications of earth sensing technol-
ogy. Published research broadens remote sensing technol- Most academic researchers do not require data immedi-
ogy and applications. Students trained in college and ately after it is acquired so that charging of premiums for
university programs form a cadre of experts needed by rapidly filling orders is not an issue for them.66 A key
gov ernment, private industry, nongovernmental organi- issue for academics, however, is the need for government
zations, and international institutions.
to maintain the quality of archived images,67 so that
Several participants suggested strongly that academic historical data they need will remain useful in later years.
researchers should be able to purchase Landsat data on the
same terms as government users.65 Even participants who
While university users were considered as legitimate
advocated multiple-tier pricing agreed that university
researchers were performing a public service and there- candidates for low prices, some of the workshop partici-
fore should be charged cheaper prices or proffered pants did not place state and local governments in this
subsidies to support purchases at higher prices. Partici- category. They said state and local governments form a
pants from nonprofit conservation groups stated that the major market for specialized value-added services, which
costs of earth imagery for evaluating major environmental can be provided most efficiently by private firms.
problems such as African desertification or depletion of However, participants recognized that cases might arise in
Amazonian rain forests were a major part of their annual which state or local governments need Landsat or EOS
budgets. They argued in favor of low data prices data to serve national purposes. In such cases the Federal
During the 1980s when EOSAT came into operation, Government could award grants or offer other preferential
federal support for applied research in the earth sciences treatment to provide these data at a lower price.
@ H~ 3 6 1 4 , WMC dJowing a privatdy ftuldd SyStCfti tO Sd 1L5 OWII @CCSwitb Administration policy, wodd retain a
h XCOdMCC
nondiscrlmmat Ory policy with respect to publicly funded systems.
ti Now tit ~ 3614 would ~o~ s~~h low &~ ~~ for glow -e m-~@ hox w~ ~ WV crxtment gmnt or contract.
6 As global change mscarch grows in unportance, many more academic users may require timely access to data in order to evaluate the utility of data
for studying cnvmxuncntal changes and for comdinating field campaigns for collcctmg in SIfU ti
s? Afc~vd photograptuc and dig~ Ixdsat unagcs arc maintamed at the EROS Data Cente.r in Sioux Falls. which is operated by the U.S. Geological
S1l.mcy.
Appendix A
Proposed Policy for Handling Remotely Sensed Data
S.2297 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, for historical, scientific, and technical purposes, including
Section 202 Dissemination of Unenhanced Data. long-term global environmental monitoring;
(2) to control the content and scope of the archive; and
(a) DISSEMINATION POLICY-The Administrator (3) to assure the quality, integrity, and continuity of the
and the Secretary of Defense shall implement a Landsat archive.
data dissemination policy, defined in the plan required by
section 201(b)(3), that— H.3614 National Landsat Policy Act of 1992.
(1) ensures that existing Landsat data and future Section 203. Data Policy for Landsat 1
unenhanced data acquired by the Landsat system are through 6.
routinely available to Earth and global change research
scientists at costs that do not exceed the marginal cost of (a) CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS-Within 30 days
filling a specific user request; after the date of enactment of the National Landsat Policy
(2) considers the reasonable and legitimate require- Act of 1992, the Landsat Program Management shall
ments of all segments of the satellite land remote sensing enter into negotiations with the Landsat 6 contractor, with
user community for access to unenhanced Landsat data; respect to pricing, distribution, acquisition, archiving, and
and access of Landsat 1 through 6 unenhanced data.
(3) ensures that copies of all unenhanced data acquired (b) CONSIDERATIONS-In carrying out negotia-
by the Landsat system are provided to the Secretary of the tions under this section, the Landsat Program Manage-
Interior for permanent preservation. ment shaU-
(b) AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED—The provisions (1) seek to ensure that such unenhanced data shall be
of this section shall not affect the authority of the provided to the United States Government and its
Administrator and the Secretary of Defense to contract for affiliated users at the cost of fulfilling user requests, on the
the dissemination of data acquired by the Landsat system, condition that such unenhanced data is used solely for
so long as- noncommercial purposes;
(1) the Federal Government retains ownership of all (2) seek to ensure that instructional data sets, selected
unenhanced data acquired by the Landsat system; from the Landsat data archives, will be made available to
(2) no exclusive marketing rights are extended to any educational institutions exclusively for noncommercial,
contractor. educational purposes at the cost of fulfilling user requests;
(3) the Federal Government retains the right to set (3) seek to ensure that Landsat data users are able to
pricing policy for unenhanced data; and acquire unenhanced data contained in the collective
(4) all other requirements of this section are met. archives of foreign ground stations as easily and afforda-
bly as practicable;
Section 501. Nondiscriminatory Data (4) seek to ensure that the United States Government
and its affiliated users shall not be prohibited from
Availability. reproduction or dissemination of unenhanced data to
(a) MAKING DATA AVAILABLE---Any Unenhanced other agencies of the United States Government and other
data generated by the Landsat system, or by any system affiliated users, as long as the unenhanced data will be
operator under the provisions of this Act, shall be made solely for noncommercial purposes;
available to all users on a nondiscrimin atory basis in (5) explore options, including the provision of vouch-
accordance with the requirements of this Act. ers and data grants, for providing unenhanced data to
nonprofit, public interest entities engaged in environ-
(b) INFORMATION-The Administrator and the Sec- mental research at the cost of fulfilling user requests, as
retary of Defense and any other system operator shall long as the unenhanced data will be used solely for
make publicly available the prices, policies, procedures, noncommercial purposes; and
and other terms and conditions (but not necessarily the (6) seek to ensure a viable role for the private sector in
names of buyers or their purchases) upon which the the promotion and development of the commercial market
operator will sell such data. for unenhanced data from the Landsat system.
(c) FAILURE TO REACH AGREEMENT—If nego-
Section 502. Archiving of Data. tiations under subsection (a) have not, within 120 days
(a) PUBLIC INTEREST-It is in the public interest for after the date of the enactment of the National Landsat
the Federal Government— Policy Act of 1992, resulted in an agreement that
(1) to maintain an archive of land remote sensing data the Landsat Program Management determines generally
–18-
—..——
achieves the goals stated in subsection (b)(1) through (4), (3) seek to ensure that unenhanced data shall be
the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense shall, provided to the United States Gov ernment and its
within 30 days after the date of such determination, jointly affiliated users at the cost of fulfilling user requests, on the
certify and report such determination to the Congress. The condition that such uunenhanced data is used solely for
report shall include a review of options for achieving, and noncommercial purposes;
recommendations with respect to, such goals. The options (4) ensure that instructional data sets, selected from the
reviewed shall include-- Landsat data archives, shall be made available to educa-
(1) retaining the existing or modified contract with the tional institutions exclusively for noncommercial, educa-
Landsat 6 contractor. tional purposes at the cost of fulfilling user requests;
(2) the termination of existing contracts for the (5) ensure that the United States Government and its
exclusive marketing rights of Landsat unenhanced data; affiliated users shall not be prohibited from reproduction
and or dissemination of unenhanced data to other agencies of
(3) the establishment of an alternative private sector the United States Government and other affiliated users,
mechanism for the marketing and commercial distribu- as long as such unenhanced data is used solely for
tion of such data. noncommercial purposes;
Section 204. Transfer of Landsat 6 (6) ensure that the proposed data distribution system
Program Responsibilities. contributes to the commercialization goal for land remote-
sensing; and
The responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce with
respect to Landsat 6 shall be transferred to the Landsat (7) to the extent possible, ensure that the data distribu-
Program Management, as agreed to between the Secretary tion system for Landsat 7 is compatible with the Earth
of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, and the Adminis- Observing System Data and Information System.
trator pursuant to section 201.
(b) PRELIMINARY PLAN AND REPORT-Not later
Section 205. Data Policy for Landsat 7. than December 31, 1993, the Landsat Program Manage-
ment shall develop and submit to the Congress a report
(a) LANDSAT 7 DATA POLICY PLANS-The that contains a Preliminary Landsat 7 Data Policy Plan
Landsat Program Management, in consultation with the and that addresses each of the issues identified in
Secretary and appropriate officers of other appropriate subsection (a).
United States GOV ernment agencies, shall develop a
preliminary and a Final Landsat 7 Data Policy Plan in (C) FINAL PLAN AND REPORT-Not later than July
accordance with subsections (b) and (c). The Preliminary 15, 1996, the Landsat Program Management shall de-
and Final Landsat 7 Data Policy Plans shall- velop and submit to the Congress a report that contains a
(1) define the roles and responsibilities of the various Final Landsat 7 Data Policy Plain In developing the report
public and private sector entities that would be involved and plan, the Landsat Program Management shall assess
in the acquisition, processing, distribution, and archiving the operational effectiveness of the data distribution
of Landsat 7 data and in the operations of the Landsat 7 system and policies for Landsat 1 through 6, established
spacecraft; pursuant to section 203, in order to assist the Landsat
(2) ensure timely and dependable delivery of unen- Program Management in determining what, if any,
hanced data to the full spectrum of civilian, national modifications should be made in the preliminary Landsat
security, commercial, and foreign users, and the National 7 Data Policy Plan. The report shall address any such
Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive; modifications.
Appendix B
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130
The Office of Management and Budget published Landsat are two policy statements included in the circular.
OMB circular A-130 in 1985 to establish a national policy
for the reproduction and distribution of information
collected or paid for by the federal government. A-130
can be applied to any federally collectcd data and
information, including those as diverse as census data and
images collected from space. In particular, distribution of
Landsat data and data from future Earth Observation
System satellites are governed by A-130.
Information is defined by A-130 as “any communica-
a) in a manner that ensures that members of the public
. . . have a reasonable ability to acquire the informa-
tion or reception of knowledge such as facts in various tion.
forms and on any medium.” Information technology is b) in a manner most cost effective for the government,
similarly defined as any hardware or software used in including placing maximum feasible reliance on the
connection with this information. private sector for the dissemination of the products
The circular establishes several ground rules for the or services . . . and
collection of information, two of which are important for c) so as to recover costs of disseminating the products
Landsat data. Firs&in an effort to “minimize the cost and or services through user charges, where appropriate
....
maximize the usefulness” of information collected by the
government, the anticipated public and private benefits
that can be derived from the information, insofar as they OMB Circular A-130 also stresses long-term strategic
can be calculated should “exceed the public and private planning by agencies for acquiring data and operating
costs of the information." Second, “the open and information technology programs. It also encougages
efficient exchange of information. . . fosters excellence in timely acquisition of information and information tech-
scientific research and the effective use of Federal nologies, and also dictates some specific agency require-
research and development funds. ” ments. Any data distribution plan must conform with the
A-130 also sets policies for information management requirements set forth by A-130, which will be revised in
Foremost for managing information similar to that from 1992.
-2&
OTA Publications Containing Significant Analysis
of Remote Sensing from Space
. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Civilian Space Policy and Applications,
~-s~~l (Washington, DC: U.S. @V ernment Printing Office, August 1982).
. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Newsgathen”ng from Space,

UIA-ISC-TNWM) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OHice, May 1987).
. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment International Cooperation and Competition

in Civa”Zian Space MMies, 0’M-ISC-239 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
July 1985).
. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology ~sessmen~ “Remote Sensing and the Private Sector,
OTA-ISC-TM-239 (’Washington, DC: Us. Gov ernment Printing Office, April 1984).
-21-

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remotely Sensed Data From Space:

Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

NTIS order #PB93-176964

Earth Observation Systems Advisory Panel

James G. Anderson John H. McElroy

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Alan Shaw, International Security and Commerce Program Manager

Ray A. Williamson, Project Director

David Moore, Chair Molly McCauley

Steven Harper Allen H. Watkins

Part I: Introduction, Background, and Findings

Box A—A Land Remote Sensing Satellite System

be sold on a nondiscriminatory basis4--could be liberal- BACKGROUND

Table l-Summary of Landsat Applications

A. Agriculture D. Fish and wildlife F. Water resources

s M- 4 ~ 5 were designed ad built by NASA lmt O-d by NOM

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications ● 5

Table 2-Operational and Proposed Earth Remote Sensing Satellites

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications ● 7

Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications ● 9

Table 3--Potential Commercial Applications for Selected

Potential Commercial use

38 KPMG peat Manvi& op. cit., footnote ~, p. 11.

10 ● Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

WORKSHOP SUMMARY A wide variety of users have complained since data

change. These include requests from foreign government

51 The Reagan Mxmxus

in the United States that would eventually enable the

% Off& of T@uMio~ ASSCSSXIICng op. cit., foomOte 2.2, d. 7.

19 ● Remotely Sensed Data From Space: Distribution, Pricing, and Applications

. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Newsgathen”ng from Space,

. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment International Cooperation and Competition

You might also like