Landsats Aff

Landsats 1AC

Observation 2 is Solvency -
Commitment to having multiple operational Landsats is key to maintaining continuous data and improves the quality of Landsat data
Wulder et al 11 (Michael A. Wulder a,⁎, Joanne C. White a, Jeffrey G. Masek b, John Dwyer c, David P. Roy d a Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Natural Resources Canada b Biospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, c United States Geological Survey, Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science d Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence, South Dakota State University, Remote Sensing of Environment 115 p. 747–751, http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/faculty/roy/Wulder_2011_RSE_Landsat-update_115.pdf, accessed 7-3-11, JMB)

In the future, Landsat systems should be launched at shorter intervals to ensure data continuity. Consideration should be given to having multiple Landsat systems in orbit at a given time, or to having a system built and ready for launch should such need arise. The ideal solution would be to launch new missions at 5-year intervals with a 10-15 year design life, thus increasing the frequency of repeat coverage and minimizing data gaps due to component failures. Further, options to integrate observations from lower-cost sensors with the Landsat data could be explored, with Landsat serving as a reference standard (for geometry, radiometry, etcetera) and the lower cost systems providing denser coverage as well as a continuity of observations. Additional “reference” missions would also bolster data continuity. The European Space Agency is planning to launch a pair of Sentinel-2 missions that deploy a sensor with imaging characteristics similar to that of LDCM, with the first mission scheduled for launch in 2013. With a larger image extent than Landsat (with a 290 km swath) and plans for two satellites to be launched for concurrent operation the capacity for landscape-scale terrestrial characterizations globally is enhanced. The potential for NASA and the USGS to work with the ESA to harmonize across programs to ensure long-term overlap in observations (continuity) and to aid in enabling global coverage is also present. Development of a long term acquisition plan (LTAP) that incorporates observations across sensors would aid in ensuring global and seasonal coverage while also enabling an increase in acquisitions over persistently cloudy regions. The ESA has announced intentions of an open data policy analogous to that of Landsat, although details have yet to be determined (deSelding, 2010). Through this communication we do not wish to understate the tenuous state of the current Landsat missions; our intent is to indicate the current mission status and to be open of the mission status and to communicate possible opportunities. Further, the on-going intention for singular Landsat missions does not sufficiently mitigate the risk to acquisitions that have borne out over the life of the Landsat missions. As evidenced by Landsat-6, failure at launch can occur. Multiple Landsat class satellites will increase the effective temporal resolution of observations, and as the satellites have different overpass time will increase the opportunity for cloud free observations, and so increased data for compositing, and a reduction of risk to data gap through a critical Landsat failure. A goal of multiple concurrently operating Landsat satellites, or complementary satellites that may be lower cost but that buttress against the high standards of Landsat geometric and radiometric characteristics should be seriously considered.

Landsats 1AC

The USGS branch of the Department of the Interior is the best place to manage Landsat data and operations
Future of Land Imaging Interagency Working Group 7 (National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, headed by John H. Marburger III, Science Advisor to the President, August, http://www.landimaging.gov/fli_iwg_report_print_ready_low_res.pdf, accessed 7-3-11, JMB)

Selection and Justification of the U.S. Department of Interior as Lead Agency In the judgment of the FLI IWG and the stakeholder agencies it represents, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is the most appropriate U.S. agency to fulfill this Single Agency role. This recommendation is based on: • the extensive history of the DOI in proposing early U.S. efforts to design, build, and deploy a U.S. land imaging satellite system (the Earth Resources Technology Satellite in 1972, later called Landsat 1), more recently operating the Landsat series of satellites, and maintaining the current U.S. National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive, which contains the Nation’s historic satellite imagery of the Earth’s land surface; • the responsibilities assigned to the DOI under the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act and the subsequent National Science and Technology Council (NSTC-3) memorandum designating the DOI as the Program Manager of Landsat alongside the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); • the 2006 National Space Policy, which assigns to DOI the responsibility to “…collect, archive, process, and distribute land surface data to the United States Government and other users and determine operational requirements for land surface data;” this is supplemented by the 2003 U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy under which DOI gathers near-term civil government requirements for U.S. commercial remote sensing data; • the responsibilities assigned to the DOI for managing the territorial interests of the U.S., overseeing U.S. land management and land use planning, and managing the civil geospatial programs and interests of the U.S., including aerial and satellite land imaging systems and technology, as derived from the DOI and USGS Organic Acts of 1849 and 1879, respectively; • the DOI’s extensive history of conducting Earth science, land management, imagery data distribution, and remote sensing applications development and providing intra- and intergovernmental services to users who have responsibility for conducting science related to geology, morphology, and ecology of the Earth’s land surface; and • the commitment expressed in a memorandum from the DOI to the Office of Science and Technology Policy on May 2, 2006, stating that the DOI is “…ready to accept the challenge of this new century and assume leadership for the Nation’s civilian operational land imaging program.” The message contained in this memorandum was accepted and endorsed by all the FLI IWG participating agencies and conforms with the views of the national and international Landsat user community.

Landsat imaging is still managed haphazardly, this prevents effective use of the data. United the Landsat program under a single agency solves.
Wigbels et al 8 (Lyn, Senior Fellow/Assistant Professor at the Center for Aerospace Policy Research at George Mason University, a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Space Initiatives Program, G. Ryan Faith, adjunct fellow at CSIS, Vincent Sabathier, senior associate with the CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program, CSIS, July, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080725_wigbels_earthobservation_web.pdf, accessed 7-6-11, JMB)

There are also many questions and concerns surrounding the agency-level management of Earth observation systems, particularly space-based capabilities. NASA has traditionally procured space-based Earth observation systems, such as the weather and land imaging satellites, even when other agencies have been responsible for their operation. Under the new National Land Imaging Program, NASA will continue to procure Landsat satellites, although USGS for the first time is acquiring the ground segment under the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) program. A tri-agency approach was adopted for the NPOESS system. NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense are jointly responsible for developing, acquiring, managing, and operating NPOESS. The involvement of three federal agency bureaucracies in the acquisition phase has proven to be challenging. No clear answers have emerged suggesting the most effective and efficient division of roles and responsibilities for Earth observations programs during the research, transition, and operational phases. This planning shortfall becomes a critical issue with the potential implementation of the so-called cap and trade agreements for carbon emission management. Cap and trade agreements will both need strong verification mechanisms and as an understanding of how royalties from cap and trade programs will be managed. The management experiences associated with NPOESS and other programs will be important lessons when making decisions on the management of the next generation Earth observation system.