Copple: The industry does a good job meeting the data collection demands of its customers. We can always do more, so it's important to help customers understand remote sensing's potential. It's a technical industry, and it's often difficult to describe to customers everything that can be done with remotely sensed data.

Demargne: From the standpoint of the customer, I think there are a lot of quality data providers in the mapping industry to pick and choose from—not to always choose the cheapest provider, but to look at the broad spectrum of services offered and to find the right provider for the task at hand. From the standpoint of the data providers, I think we have a dynamic market for geospatial information. In the United States, as well as in Europe and Asia, there is an increased awareness across many public and private market sectors of the importance of geospatial information as a decision-support tool. With their popular online mapping applications, Google and Microsoft are two of the most visible forces behind this increased awareness, which in turn is driving the need for geospatial information. As a result, we have more customers requesting specific types of geospatial information, and we have an industry that is responding with new solutions. This is reflected, in part, in the large number of small start-up companies with innovative geospatial products and services that have emerged during the last three years.

Johnson: One of the main things the remote sensing industry does well is adhere to the science side of the remote sensing equation. The industry is always stretching the limits of how the data can be used to make more informed decisions.

Limp: I think we have mature industry with an excellent suite of products and a strong knowledge base. I have some concerns going forward, but now things look pretty good.

Walker: The industry is experienced and competent in production mapping—that's the photogrammetry component of remote sensing. For many years, the private sector and government agencies have been good at producing large-scale maps and drawings, often for engineering purposes. But in recent years there's been a dramatic increase in large projects, and mapping companies have stepped up to the plate, sometimes covering entire states as part of a single project. One of the phenomena we've seen as a result is that the larger, more adventurous firms have purchased digital cameras and LiDAR systems. These systems cost more than $1 million, so they're not trivial investments. I think the smaller companies that can't make such investments may be fated to become subcontractors to the big firms, and fewer of the smaller companies will be able to survive in the long run.

If you look at the strengths of aerial systems vs. satellite systems, obviously the aerial side has a resolution advantage. A lot of people are raving about the commercial satellites acquiring panchromatic imagery at 50 centimeters or better, but you have to remember that aerial cameras can acquire imagery at 5 centimeters, and often they can acquire multispectral imagery at the same resolution as panchromatic. So, for certain applications, you have to have high-resolution aerial imagery to meet stringent geometric specifications.

Another advantage of airborne systems is that aircraft can fly below clouds. Clouds are also why airborne radar has become popular in certain parts of the world, such as tropical regions. I also think the expansion of LiDAR has been remarkable—about 240 of these systems have been deployed around the world.

But if you look at satellite imagery, it covers larger areas. The resolution is getting better all the time, with a tremendous variety of coverage—different sensors, different fields of view, different spectral characteristics. And another important point is that satellite imagery offers frequent overflights, and that's a boon for applications such as disaster management.

Wilt: What we do best, of course, is provide data for extremely accurate mapping over wide geographic areas. The satellites have a great advantage in areas that aren't accessible by aircraft, particularly countries such as China and North Korea. But really the two data sources are complementary, because airborne imagery can be acquired at higher resolution when the situation calls for it.

Another weakness is that there's been a recession in photogrammetric education. The number of U.S. universities offering high-quality photogrammetry programs has declined. Working for a defense contractor, I know we need many of our employees to be U.S. citizens. But it's increasingly difficult to fi'd U.S. citizens with Ph.D. degrees in photogrammetry. It's not such a problem with remote sensing and GIS in a broader sense—there's more widespread education and a large number of Ph.D. candidates—but there's an issue in photogrammetry, and it could be a serious weakness in coming years.


Wilt: The ability to collect cloud-free imagery is the problem we deal with most. We generally provide our customers imagery with no more than 10 percent cloud cover, but there are certainly areas in the world where that's a difficult proposition, Airplanes have an advantage over satellites when they can get under the clouds, but sometimes even aircraft collection is problematic. Various radar collectors have a great advantage in real cloudy areas.

Demargne: One domain that presents tremendous opportunity for the remote sensing and GIS industry is climate change. Clearly there is a need for geospatial data to help analyze and understand environmental changes related to global warming; then there is a need for geospatial decision-support tools to help implement and monitor the effectiveness of environmental policies that address this problem. It is up to our industry to figure out how we can combine various products, services and technologies to better serve this pressing need.   Another emerging market is navigation and location-based services. Google, for example, is talking about providing location-based services at gas stations, allowing customers to access computers to find particular businesses and to print a map or an aerial image with complete directions while they're filling up their tanks. The remote sensing industry is already responding to such needs and providing the imagery and GIS applications required to make such applications a reality. I am convinced that integrating the 3-D element into such applications will become more important; it is the next step in delivering geospatial information to users in a more realistic, flexible and intuitive way.
As for up-and-coming technologies, I think terrestrial laser scanning—both fixed and mobile—will make a significant impact in the next year or two. More of this technology is being used not just for next-generation surveying work, but also for urban-reality applications that will be used in the navigation and location-based services sector mentioned previously.  I'm also excited about recent advances in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and interferometric SAR technology—both airborne and satellite systems. Because radar data can be collected regardless of cloud cover, these systems will provide users with high-accuracy, high-resolution data to map and monitor areas where they simply weren't able to acquire good data until now.


Johnson: Many advanced scientific uses would like to see additional sensors and capabilities, particularly hyperspectral data in what I would call a 'production mode.' They would also like to see sensor advances in the shortwave, infrared and thermal bands. Fortunately, I think the vendors do a good job responding to their clients' requests. People are looking outside of their own specialty more than ever, and that is encouraging. When you have one expert talking to another expert, you can take the best of both worlds to develop a better product.


Limp: There are enormous opportunities with new aerial platforms and high-resolution imaging products, which present some interesting technical challenges. For example, we need to figure out how to solve the safety and regulatory issues related to [unmanned aerial vehicles]. If we do, we'll reduce our mission costs and product turnaround times, and that will dramatically increase market opportunities. We also need to develop new automated methods to rapidly position the massive numbers of long focal-length, small footprint images that will be produced by these systems.  Increasingly, today's information products result from fusing multiple instruments—hyperspectral and LiDAR or whatever. The industry still sees those technologies as vertical markets, and we really need to break down the boundaries between those verticals to look at the fusion of multiple data sources, particularly in a 3-D context.

Walker: As far as the applications are concerned, I think there's a growing demand for urban modeling. That activity could be focused on all sorts of applications, including planning, situational awareness, vehicle navigation, homeland security, visualization, simulation and even gaming. Owing to the lack of automation, the traditional approach to acquiring the data for urban modeling is in many cases prohibitively expensive.

There's also a wonderful opportunity for the complete fusion of various types of imagery—not just panchromatic and multispectral imagery, but also hyperspectral, thermal infrared, and radar, as well as LiDAR and ifSAR imagery. An effortless and complete fusion of all these disparate data sources, as well as information provided by ground sensors, is an incredible opportunity, but we certainly haven't achieved it yet.

There's also room for greater technology transfer from defense to commercial activities. Similarly, defense organizations want to make greater use of commercial products. Certainly for the routine production of geospatial information, the commercial route is the most economical deal for the taxpayer.


Wilt: Most of our commercial business has to do with mapping or various GIS products derived from the data we provide our value-added partners. In intelligence applications, revisit time becomes more in demand. That opens a great opportunity to us. If the industry can get more sensors on-orbit and revisit targets more frequently, we can take on bigger pieces of intelligence missions.  However, as various countries launch their own satellites, to some degree it becomes a zero-sum game of pixels. For example, if country X collects its own pixels, they might be less likely to buy imagery from us. But if our products have a discriminating edge, and we can collect huge areas accurately, we have an advantage.  I don't think anyone really knows where the commercial remote sensing business might go, but I think it's safe to say that it does have a robust upside. More and more colleges and universities are starting GIS programs, and I'm optimistic about the industry's future.
 

Another interesting debate is whether overseas outsourcing is a threat to U.S. jobs. Many U.S. mapping companies outsource highly labor-intensive tasks such as feature collection. I think market forces compel certain activities to be conducted in certain places, but the overall result is a more vibrant industry. Globalization is a reality. We can adduce macroeconomic theory and all kinds of data to reassure ourselves that free trade is for the common good. I think we should congratulate our industry for overcoming the complexities of outsourcing—the communication, cultural and quality control issues—in the pursuit of success. So overall, in my opinion, the market is growing. There's scope for multiple players, and developments that at one time could be perceived as threats may evolve into synergies.


Wilt: Regarding the commercial satellite industry, I think our most pressing threat is the U.S. government itself. There are agencies in the U.S. government that would quickly align themselves with the 2003 Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy and say more needs to be done with commercial satellites. But there are others who say the imagery and the satellites should be the organic property of the U.S. government; in other words, the U.S. government owns the space collectors. Would the government totally turn its back on the commercial providers? No, I don't think so. But the U.S. government is trying to figure out what to do post-NextView. Is there another NextView-like program, or is it a program where the government builds and flies its own satellites in the one- to half-meter class? That's the debate, and that's the area where I see the most threat to our industry.