Home » Intelligence » DoD, Intel Mull Higher Rez Sat Shots

DoD, Intel Mull Higher Rez Sat Shots

By Colin Clark Friday, February 13th, 2009 5:09 pm
Posted in Intelligence, Policy, Space

The debate is in the very early stages but the intelligence community and the Commerce and Defense departments are considering whether to increase the resolution of electro-optical satellite imagery that can be sold commercially, sparking a complex discussion about whether this may provide enemies with substantially improved intelligence or actually boost US control over the best commercial imagery.

Several sources in government and industry confirmed the basic facts of the policy debate. All asked for anonymity. The Commerce Department has already completed one study of the impact of dropping the current restriction on commercial sale of anything better than .5 meter imagery.

Currently, the US controls the best resolution commercial imagery and restricts what can be sold commercially to .5 meter resolution. GeoEye, one of the two commercial imagery companies in the US, is capable of providing imagery as accurate as .41 according to several sources, but only to the US government. [The picture shown is of the Washington Mall on Jan. 20 at .5 meter resolution. For a higher fidelitydepiction of the image go to this link. ] In order to improve the company’s cash flow and improve the value of the asset that is their imagery database, the company would like to see the U.S. move to the .4 standard. (Their competitor, DigitalGlobe, is notoriously close-mouthed about both its opinions and its operations.) It may also benefit the government in several ways, a congressional aide said.

“If you are going to have increased resolution by the commercial guys then they can provide the government with less costly images because, if the images they are taking can’t be sold commercially, then they are worth more because the market for them is smaller,” the aide said.

Another issue in favor of allowing improved resolution is that helping to guarantee the US commercial monopoly on the sale of high resolution imagery, which this would do, means the US intelligence community would maintain what is called shutter control over the sale of such images during times of high international tension. One country, Japan, is already planning to build and launch by 2014 a satellite capable of producing .5 meter resolution photos.

“IF the US doesn’t control the satellites that provide this imagery then we can’t control what is sold. What good is our shutter control if that happens,” mused the aide.

But the intelligence community is reportedly wary about this proposed change. Apparently, the difference of one tenth of a meter is a markedly significant improvement in resolution that could provide helpful clues to enemies.

The policy issues here are extremely complex and can be argued several different ways by well meaning people. “There are lots of policy issues on both sides of this one,” the congressional aide said. But, “I think there is something to be said for this argument that if we have the monopoly on this level of resolution then we are better for it.”

Do not look for a resolution of this debate any time soon.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	DensityDuck February 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm This is very much in keeping with what I see as a movement in the DoD to get rid of government procurement entirely. The thinking is that the process is so fundamentally broken that the only way to get anything is to “rent” commercial capability–or to convince commercial developers to proceed in a direction that’s beneficial to DoD interests, i.e. Iridium Next.
	Niche Marketing for Newbies February 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm You’ve given me some useful insights — thanks!
	clyde February 20th, 2009 at 6:59 pm I agree with DensityDuck. I’ve been in the DoD civilian world for 16 years, and acquistions is a mess. But caving into contractors even worse. They have NO familiarization with the processes or objectives, other than to make money-it’s Capitalism, at it’s worst-death for a buck. Death has to mean somehing, more than a TDY Hotel room and a quick trip to the shop floor –just enough time to get a powerpoint worth 2 corporate kudos and a contract. Up Yours! If the DoD can’t fix its own acquisition problems, then maybe we ought to contract war out to the SPETNAZ, or somebody, anybody, who will do it right. But if we can’t fix it, then we deserve to lose, and I’ll be G7 Da&ed if some freakin’ contractor is going home to T-bones because of it!!!!!! And then hit the enemy with “the latest thing”
	B February 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am Maybe I’m missing you’re point (DensityDuck/Clyde) and I apologize if so, are you suggesting the Government internally develop and support these and other capabilities? If so, your comments don’t seem very “informed.” True, the acquisition process may be problematic, but commercial development of DoD capabilities IS in the best interest of our country. For decades, almost every significant military capability was conceived using a commercially developed, but often government funded, program. Vice versa, the scientific and civilian community consistently benefit from Pentagon supported research on programs such as space, lasers, medicine … (the list is endless). Also, quite simply Defense contracting is about JOBS, “hundreds of thousands” of jobs. And, from my point of view (GI with 18 years of current military service), often jobs I DON’T want to do.