1

Landsat Data Gap Study TeamBriefing

to USGEO

Study Team Chairs:

Ed Grigsby, NASA Garik Gutman, NASA Ray Byrnes, USGS

Team Lead:Vicki Zanoni, NASA

26 May 05

2

Outline

• Introduction• Key Findings• Background• Data Gap Study Team• Assumptions• Requirements• Capabilities• Comparison of Capabilities with Requirements• Conclusions• Recommendations

3

Introduction

• The Landsat Program provides for and updates a national archive of land remote sensing data for distribution to the U.S. Government, international community, and the general public– Public Law 102-555, the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of

1992– Presidential Decision Directive/NSTC-3 (5/5/94; amended

10/16/00)– Management Plan for the Landsat Program

4

Introduction

• The Earth observation community is facing a probable and pending gap in Landsat data continuity before OLI data arrive– Landsat 5 limited lifetime/coverage– Degraded Landsat 7 operations; potential failure in 2007– Either or both satellites could fail at any time: both beyond design life

• Urgently need strategy to reduce the impact of a Landsat data gap– Landsat data are used extensively by a broad and diverse community– A data gap will interrupt a 33-yr time series of land observations during

a critical time period

• Landsat Program Management must determine utility of alternate data sources to lessen the impact of the gap and feasibility of acquiring data from those sources in the event of a gap

• A Landsat Data Gap Study Team, chaired by NASA and the USGS, has been formed to analyze potential solutions

5

Key Findings

• The Landsat Program is unique– Single source of systematic, global land observations– Alternate sources may reduce the impact of a Landsat data gap

• Data quality of potential candidate systems is unverified; however, based on preliminary analysis– India’s ResourceSat and China/Brazil’s Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS)

are the leading candidates for reducing the impact of a Landsat data gap • Potentially acceptable global acquisition capability, availability, spatial and spectral

coverage• Landsat data gap mitigation efforts could serve as GEOSS prototype

– Implementation plan correlates with the GEOSS Global Land Observing System – Land Use/Land Cover Change Initiative

• Several systems could meet special regional acquisition needs during some or all of the data gap period

– ASTER (U.S. and Japan)– U.S. Commercial Satellites– SPOT (France)– EO-1/ALI (U.S.)

6

Landsat Importance to Science • Change is occurring at rates Change is occurring at rates

unprecedented in human historyunprecedented in human history

• The Landsat program provides The Landsat program provides the the onlyonly inventory of the global inventory of the global land surface over time land surface over time – at a scale where human vs. natural at a scale where human vs. natural

causes of change can be causes of change can be differentiateddifferentiated

– on a on a seasonalseasonal basis basis

• No other satellite system is No other satellite system is capable/committed to even capable/committed to even annualannual global coverage at this global coverage at this scalescale

1986

1997

Amazonian Deforestation

100 km Courtesy TRFIC–MSU, Houghton et al, 2000.

7

Landsat Impacts all GEOSS Societal Benefit Areas

Natural & Human Induced

Disasters

Human Health & Well-Being

Energy Resources

Climate Variability & Change

Water Resources

Weather Information, Forecasting & Warning

Terrestrial, Coastal

& Marine Ecosystems

Sustainable Agriculture &

Desertification

Biodiversity

8

Landsat 7 ETMLandsat 7 ETM++ U.S. Global Archive and Distribution U.S. Global Archive and Distribution

Interest in Landsat data is truly global

Landsat 7 International Ground Station Network - November 2004

Number of Scenes Distributed

9

Landsat Data Gap Study Team

Objective• Recommend options, using existing and near-term capabilities, to store,

maintain, and upgrade science-quality data in the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive

– Consistent with the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992

Approach• Identify data “sufficiently consistent in terms of acquisition geometry, spatial

resolution, calibration, coverage characteristics, and spatial characteristics with previous Landsat data…”

– Consistent with Management Plan for the Landsat Program

Process• Identify acceptable gap-mitigation specifications• Identify existing and near-term capabilities• Compare capabilities to acceptable specifications• Synthesize findings and make recommendations

10

Team Membership

Edward Grigsby, NASA HQ, Co- ChairRay Byrnes, USGS HQ, Co- ChairGarik Gutman, NASA HQ, Co- ChairJim Irons, NASA GSFC, Community Needs Working Group LeadBruce Quirk, USGS EDC, System Capabilities Working Group LeadBill Stoney, Mitretek Systems, Needs-to-Capabilities Working Group LeadVicki Zanoni, NASA HQ Detail, Team Coordinator and Synthesis Working Group

Lead

Mike Abrams, JPLBruce Davis, DHS (NASA detailee)Brad Doorn, USDA FASFernando Echavarria, Dept. of StateStuart Frye, Mitretek SystemsMike Goldberg, Mitretek Systems Sam Goward, U. of MarylandTed Hammer, NASA HQChris Justice, U. of MarylandJim Lacasse, USGS EDC

Martha Maiden, NASA HQDan Mandl, NASA GSFC Jeff Masek, NASA GSFCGran Paules, NASA HQJohn Pereira, NOAA/NESDISEd Sheffner, NASA HQTom Stanley, NASA SSCWoody Turner, NASA HQSandra Webster, NGADiane Wickland, NASA HQDarrel Williams, NASA GSFC

11

Assumptions

• Focus on data acquisition solutions

• Address DoI (USGS) responsibility to store, maintain, and upgrade science-quality data in the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive (NSLRSDA)

• Assume 2007 Landsat 7 failure for purposes of planning and budgeting

• Landsat 5 has limited lifetime and capability

• OLI data available no earlier than 2010 (first NPOESS mid-morning orbit satellite)

• LDCM data specification used to define data quality and quantity goals

• Landsat 7 unrestricted data policy will serve as the model for acquired data

12

Requirements Analysis

• LDCM Data Specification (“Goal”) has been vetted by science and applications communities, and supports the range of Landsat applications

• Obtaining data identical to LDCM from existing systems is not possible

• Acceptable specifications were derived to support basic global change research given available sources of Landsat-like data:– Global mapping of land-cover– Long-term analysis of land-cover change

• Analysis incorporated OSTP Landsat User Survey Responses– Users require Landsat-like data (global coverage, moderate resolution,

spectral coverage)– Many users already considering alternate sources of data following

Landsat-7 Scan Line Corrector anomaly

13

Capabilities Analysis

• Team focused on systems that can best meet acceptable specifications– Used publicly available information to make this determination– Low and high resolution systems were not the initial study focus

• High resolution systems cannot meet global coverage acceptable requirement; might be source for sub-global sampling sites

• Low resolution systems cannot meet spatial resolution acceptable requirement

• Informal inquiry of commercial and foreign data providers to identify global acquisition capabilities and associated data cost estimates

14

• IRS ResourceSat – 1, 2 (India)• CBERS – 2, 2A, 3, 4 (China & Brazil)• RapidEye – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Germany)• DMC – Algeria, Nigeria, UK, China• Terra/ASTER (METI & NASA)• High-resolution U.S. commercial systems

– IKONOS– QuickBrid– OrbView-3

• SPOT – 4, 5 (France)• ALOS (JAXA)• EO-1/ALI (NASA & USGS)

Systems Considered

15

Conclusions (1)

• The Landsat Program is unique– Single source of systematic, global land observations– Alternate sources can reduce the impact of a Landsat data gap

• Data quality of potential candidate systems is unverified, however, based on preliminary analysis– India’s ResourceSat and China/Brazil’s Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS) are the

leading candidates for reducing the impact of a Landsat data gap

• This effort could serve as a GEOSS prototype for International cooperation:– Implementation plan correlates with the GEOSS/Global Land Observing

System/Land Use/Land Cover Change initiative• System of systems• Building upon existing systems• Continuity of observations• Full and open exchange of Earth observations• Data quality and cross-calibration • Data management standards• Interoperability

16

Conclusions (2)

• Several systems could meet special regional acquisition needs during some or all of the data gap period

– ASTER (U.S. and Japan)– U.S. commercial systems (sampled)– SPOT (France)– EO-1/ALI (U.S.) (sampled)

• Key expectations may not be met during a data gap– Data continuity / consistency– Seasonal coverage– A reliable “gold standard” for sensor cross-calibration – Rapid data acquisition and access for emergency response– Acquisition and access to data for internationally sensitive areas for

national/homeland security– Directly downlink to international ground stations– U.S. 16-day repeat coverage – Price of data

17

Conclusions (3)

• There will be programmatic challenges:

– Data cost and licensing

• Commercial prices for global coverage and/or license restrictions could be prohibitive

• Preference is for government-to-government sharing of data or systems

– Negotiations with foreign providers and U.S. commercial companies:

• ResourceSat: Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) and/or Space Imaging

• CBERS: China and Brazil

• ASTER, ALOS: Japan

• SPOT: Spot Image Corporation and Terra Image and/or ScanEx

– Uncertainty in system lifetimes and operational concepts

• Terra/ASTER: continued Terra operations under consideration by NASA

• RapidEye: entire constellation to be launched on one vehicle

• EO-1/ALI: probable operations through FY06

18

Conclusions (4)

• There will be technical challenges:

– Receiving and archiving data from new source(s)

• Different formats, storage media, metadata

• Cataloguing data acquired along different orbits with varying scene sizes and swath widths

– Data characterization and cross-calibration

– Analysis/Applications of data from new source(s)

• Mosaicing and co-registering data from multiple sources with different spatial resolutions, registration accuracy, and scene size

• Differentiating land cover change from data discrepancies

• Developing new methodologies and algorithms incorporating data from multiple sources

19

Immediate Action Plan

• U.S. civil agencies (led by NASA, NOAA, USGS) to:

– Verify data quality of candidate data sources:

• Complete initial analysis of ResourceSat and CBERS data sets and system

capabilities

– If data quality and volume are found sufficient for Landsat-like data continuity, explore

agreement (s) to acquire, archive, and distribute data

• Further investigate other global and regional coverage candidates to better define

technical capabilities, costs of data, and accessibility (SPOT, Rapid Eye, U.S.

commercial firms, etc.)

– Estimate budget impact for FY07-10

– If funding is available, extend operations of Landsat-like Terra/ASTER,

EO-1/ALI systems to provide immediate data insurance if L7 fails early

• Data quality and usefulness, costs well documented

• USGS already ingests, archives, distributes data

20

Near-Term Action Plan

• U.S. civil agencies coordinate data gap mitigation efforts with U.S. Group on Earth Observations

– Correlate with GEOSS-Global Land Observing System Land Use/Land Cover Change elements

– Complete detailed planning for International Cooperative GEOSS/GLOS/LULCC Initiative

– NASA, NOAA, USGS coordinate on agency-unique capabilities

– Develop plan-of-action for the compilation, validation and sharing of global land data sets:

• 2-yr: complete plans, processes, procedures, models, international agreements, etc.

• 6-yr: produce 2010 GLOS GeoCover data set (positionally accurate images of the Earth’s land cover, as in 2000 GeoCover product)

• 10-yr: produce 2015 GLOS GeoCover data set (including OLI data)