The creation of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) in 1996 centralized responsibility for imagery and mapping in the U.S. government. In theory, this move was to have streamlined the formidable tasks associated with collecting, managing, processing and disseminating remote sensing images. It was to have allowed more people to take advantage of more high-quality images affordably. But has NIMA achieved its initial goals?

Last year, at the request of Congress, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) formed an independent Commission to review NIMA’s strategy and performance. ¹ The Commission offered a number of conclusions and recommendations in its December 2000 Report.²

First, the Commission validated the charge that the intelligence community is "collection-centric," thinking first of developing and operating such sophisticated technical collection systems as reconnaissance satellites, and only as an afterthought preparing to task the systems properly and to process, exploit, and disseminate the collected products.

For example, the Commission found that the National Security Agency spent huge amounts of money modernizing its signals intelligence apparatus and the National Reconnaissance Office spent billions on a new generation of spy satellites. At the same time, however, the military and intelligence planners failed to allocate the billions of dollars that NIMA needed to build the vast computer networks necessary to process all of this new data.

"Woefully inadequate research and development" spending on those computer systems, the commission concluded, "holds hostage" the future success of NIMA, if not the whole goal of U.S. information superiority.

It seems that the characterizations of "collection-centric" and "woefully inadequate research and development" spending to process remote sensing data applies to the non-intelligence community as well. Civil agencies and the commercial remote sensing industry have concentrated too much on collection, giving little regard to analyzing and distributing the data itself. For example, new spaceborne hyperspectral sensors, such as the Hyperion and MightySat II.1, and high spatial resolution sensors such as Ikonos, will add to the huge amounts of data that need to be processed, exploited, disseminated in order to make the data accessible to users. But obstacles already exist in these areas. The data is difficult to get and is prohibitively costly to buy. Moreover, the processing software is expensive and is not user-friendly. And beyond that, the current data dissemination system is woefully inadequate.

Of course, prices are dropping; today a collection from SPOT of 30-foot resolution images of the entire state of Maine, for example, costs just $13,000.³  But sharper images from other satellite companies will cost more.

Today’s users are struggling with decisions related to utilizing remote sensing data because they lack the tools necessary to exploit the data. We need cheaper images, better dissemination schemes, more affordable, friendlier software, and more people who can understand, advance, and use this technology.

The Commission supports a move to 0.5-meter resolutions and to finding ways to make imagery affordable. It deplores the low level of R&D investment by NIMA, the lack of an overall strategy, and the lack of a Chief Technology Officer. IEEE-USA’s Aerospace Policy Committee is working to support action related to these findings.

The Commission questioned whether NIMA can have imagery expert scientists in-house or whether the organization must look to industry, academia, and the national labs for such expertise. The group suspects that NIMA would find it difficult to accommodate the number of diverse scientists required. It likely could not support their professional development or advancement, and it would probably have trouble attracting and keeping such experts. Because of this, the Commission believes it would be better for NIMA to rely on extant "centers of excellence," and, when they don't exist, to stimulate establishing such centers.

Some agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation, have already adopted this management philosophy.⁴ IEEE-USA’s Aerospace Policy Committee will also encourage government, industry and academia to support establishing or continuing of such centers for the remote sensing community.

Everyone will win, if the technology succeeds. Such success will translate to more jobs, and better, more cost-effective products — as well as a healthier environment, and a safer world.