Author Topic: NRO Chief Aims To Get More Money [Via False Flag Terrorism Attacks on US?]  (Read 9505 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510

NRO Chief Aims To Restore Technology Development Funding

By Turner Brinton
04/14/10 09:02 PM ET

Bruce A. Carlson, director of NRO. Credit: Space News photo by Thomas Kimmell

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The budget for science and technology development programs at the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) has been drastically reduced in recent years, and the spy satellite agency’s top official will push to reverse that trend starting with the 2012 federal budget request.

NRO Director Bruce Carlson, a retired Air Force general, now has nine months under his belt leading the development and operation of the nation’s classified spy satellites. In that time, he has focused on some of the agency’s toughest problems, including a relatively young and inexperienced work force and bottlenecks at the U.S. satellite launching ranges.

Though the NRO’s budget is classified, Carlson has said funding for science and technology development programs was cut in half over the last five years. The NRO’s 2012 budget request will begin down a path to fully restoring that funding, Carlson said April 14 at the National Space Symposium here. He did not say whether that correlates to requesting a top-line budget increase for the NRO.

“Over that half a decade, through a number of reductions and taxes and other things, that investment has slackened, and that’s the seed corn of the future,” Carlson said. “We just simply cannot allow that continued erosion in our science and technology base. So when I submit my 2012 budget, it will have a road map to get us up to the level we have historically been at the National Reconnaissance Office.”

Like other U.S. defense and space agencies, the NRO has struggled with cost growth on its satellite programs in recent years, which has exacerbated the budget pressures it faces.

Meanwhile, the NRO over the next 18 months will pursue its most aggressive launch campaign of the last 25 years, Carlson said. This will be a challenge because the nation’s space launch capability has been scaled back in many ways, he said.

“There are a number of very large and very critical reconnaissance satellites going to orbit in the next year, year-and-a-half,” Carlson said. “We simply have to get these off and get them off on time.

“Now we will do that at a time when the launch infrastructure is not what it used to be. Through a series of conscious decisions, this country has downsized the industrial base in the launch business. We’ve downsized the number of locations from which we can launch. We’ve downsized the number of crews to take care of and operate that equipment. We have literally no or very little backup capability in the launch business.”

Moreover, he said, the U.S. government has “made national decisions to spend very little money on the development of new facilities and the recapitalization of the ones that we have. We’re not building new engines. We’re not building new rocket cores. In fact, we’re not even spending money to upgrade the ones that we have.”

Carlson said the NRO is working with Air Force Space Command to stabilize or potentially expand U.S. launch infrastructure, but he provided no specifics.

The NRO is also making changes to how it is staffed. Established as a hybrid Defense Department-intelligence community organization, the NRO is staffed by military and intelligence personnel on loan from their respective organizations. This is sometimes troublesome for program continuity, so Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently approved a program that will allow for a limited number of personnel to be directly employed by the NRO, Carlson said.

In addition, the NRO has initiated a scholarship program in which it pays for university graduates with general science and engineering degrees to go back to school for space-specific degrees. In exchange, each student will owe six years of service to the NRO after graduation. The office recently selected its first class of four scholars, to be followed by six next year and eight in the years after that, Carlson said.
Comments (0)

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: NRO Chief Aims To Restore Technology Development Funding
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2010, 09:43:57 pm »
NRO Taps Boeing for Next Batch of Cubesats
By Turner Brinton

The University of Southern California (USC)'s Aeneas cubesat project. Credit: USC photo
Enlarge Image

04/8/10 06:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON — The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in February contracted with Boeing Phantom Works for as many as 50 triple-unit cubesats, each about the size of a can of tennis balls, for use in technology demonstrations, a government official said.

The inexpensive satellite platforms will be used for the follow-on to an NRO research program called Colony, which is scheduled to make its first launch this year, Air Force Maj. David “Dutch” Shultz, director of the NRO’s Colony Program Office, said in an April 8 interview.

The Boeing-built Colony 2 platforms will be more powerful than their predecessors and feature better pointing accuracy, Shultz said. The NRO has yet to assign specific experiments to the craft, he said.

The Colony Program Office, nestled within the NRO’s Advanced Systems and Technology division, was established in 2008 to demonstrate new technologies. The office uses cubesats, which are standardized, cube-shaped satellite platforms measuring 10 centimeters on a side. Last year the office bought its first batch of 12 triple-unit cubesats — three cubesats attached end to end — from San Francisco-based Pumpkin Inc., about half of which were resold to research institutions such as Utah State University’s Space Dynamics Laboratory and the University of Southern California, Shultz said.

One of the NRO’s Colony 1 satellites will host a space weather payload developed in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory, Schultz said. The missions of the remaining satellites are classified, he said.

The first two Colony 1 satellites are manifested for launch as secondary payloads on the second flight of the Falcon 9 rocket built by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., Shultz said. SpaceX plans to launch the first Falcon 9 in May and the second later on this year. The second Falcon 9 flight’s primary payload is SpaceX’s Dragon capsule, which is designed to deliver cargo to the international space station. The flight also will carry two cubesats built by the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one built by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

The rest of the Colony 1 spacecraft will be launched together on SpaceX’s smaller Falcon 1e rocket in 2011, Shultz said. The launch, which is being managed by the Pentagon’s Operationally Responsive Space Office, will be the first to use a new, small satellite rideshare adapter known as the wafer. The wafer is an aluminum disk that fits between the upper stage of a rocket and its primary payload and dispenses satellites from spring-loaded canisters. Each wafer can carry as many as 24 single cubesats or eight triple cubesats.

This particular Falcon 1e mission will have two wafers stacked on top of each other, one holding as many as eight NRO triple cubesats, the other holding an assortment of Air Force and NASA research cubesats, Shultz said.

For the follow-on Colony 2 program, the NRO purchased 10 triple cubesats from St. Louis-based Boeing Phantom Works, the advanced research and development division of the aerospace and defense giant. The NRO likely will purchase 10 more satellite platforms from Boeing next year, and possibly as many as 30 more beyond that, Shultz said.

The goal was to acquire the craft for no more than $250,000 each, and the unit cost ended up well below that amount, he said.

Offline Eckhart Tolle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,510
Re: NRO Chief Aims To Restore Technology Development Funding
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2010, 09:46:49 pm »

NRO Chief Crafting Road Map To Spur Spending

Apr 15, 2010

 By Amy Butler

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Director Bruce Carlson says he plans to submit a research and technology investment road map with his Fiscal 2012 budget plan, and he hopes this will kick off increased spending in this area.

Carlson says that 50%-60% of the technology now on satellites that are soon to launch came from those research coffers. But, science and technology funding has “slackened” in recent years, jeopardizing the ability of the NRO to deliver innovative satellites and sensors in the future. The NRO is responsible for developing and operating the nation’s classified satellites.

Carlson says that there are “several” forthcoming launches of “very large, very critical” satellites in the next 18 months. He says that the NRO is embarking on its “most aggressive” launch schedule in the past 25 years.

This will mark a turnaround for NRO, which has been bogged down by poor performance in some major programs, including the defunct Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) effort.

Carlson also echoed concerns of other senior Pentagon officials about the health of the U.S. industrial base for launch. There is widespread worry over how to support the industry in the area of both liquid-fueled boosters and solid rocket motors. A report on solid rocket motors is due to Congress in June. And the Air Force has kicked off a Launch Broad Area Review to update the BAR of 2001, which examined the root causes for a series of launch failures in the late 1990s.

While the concern today is not as much about mission assurance, officials are clearly trying to carve a path forward to stabilize the industrial base in a tightly constrained fiscal environment.

Carlson says he is satisfied if the Air Force emerges as the government-wide manager of all launch issues, though a decision has not yet been made.

Finally, he outlined a plan to invigorate the workforce at the NRO, which has been battered by retirements and an aging population.

Also, the national security apparatus is still recovering from decisions in the 1990s to reduce the number of cost estimators, acquirers and systems engineers working on major programs. He says he has proposed a plan to trade experts with the Air Force and Navy to get officials with the right skills in the right jobs.

He is also kicking off an education program that will fund four students in its first class. The goal is to offer graduating seniors a position at the NRO in exchange for government funding of their master’s degree work. The first four students are seeking additional education in systems engineering.

Image: NRO

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: NRO Chief Aims To Restore Technology Development Funding
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2010, 10:29:28 pm »
The real agenda of the Times Square FF Patsy!!!!!!!!

Were US Special Forces Involved in the Arrest of Faisal Shahzad?
Jeremy Scahill
May 4, 2010  

Reports are emerging suggesting that secret US military intelligence aircraft were used to find and locate Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of attempting to set off a crude car bomb in Times Square. The CBS affiliate in New York reported today: "In the end, it was secret Army intelligence planes that did him in. Armed with his cell phone number, they circled the skies over the New York area, intercepting a call to Emirates Airlines reservations, before scrambling to catch him at John F. Kennedy International Airport." The post at 5:34 PM was titled "Army Intelligence Planes Led To Suspect's Arrest." But then at 6:21 PM, the article's title was changed to "Total Time Of Investigation: 53 Hours, 20 Minutes: Faisal Shahzad In Custody After Nearly Fleeing United States." As Rayne observed on FireDogLake, the paragraph about the Army planes was deleted from the CBS story. Screenshot of the original post here.

A US Special Operations Force source told me that the planes were likely RC-12s equipped with a Guardrail Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) system that, as the plane flies overland "sucks up" digital and electronic communications. "Think of them as manned drones. They're drones, but they have men sitting in them piloting them and they can be networked together," said the source. "You have many of them--four, five, six of them--and they all act as a node and they scrape up everything, anything that's electronic and feed it back." The source added: "It sucks up everything. We've got these things in Jalalabad [Afghanistan]. We routinely fly these things over Khandahar. When I say everything, I mean BlueTooth would be effected, even the wave length that PlayStation controllers are on. They suck up everything. That's the point."

Guardrail has been used for years by the US military. In recent years, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has also used the "Constant Hawk" and "Highlighter" aerial sensor platforms. All of these programs have recently undergone a series of upgrades.

So were US special forces involved with Shahzad's arrest?

"My conjecture at the moment is that immediately after this went down and they knew that he was on the loose, parts of the domestic counter-terrorism operations that they had set up during the Bush administration were reactivated," says the Special Forces source. "They're compartmentalized. So they kicked into high gear and were supporting law enforcement. In some cases, law enforcement may not have even known that some of the signals intelligence was coming from covert military units."

If true, that could mean that secretive programs such as "Power Geyser" or "Granite Shadow," remain in effect. These were the unclassified names for reportedly classified, compartmentalized programs under the Bush administration that allegedly gave US military special forces sweeping authority to operate on US soil in cases involving WMD incidents or terror attacks.

"They sidestep Posse Comitatus," said the source.

The Joint Special Operations Command, which was run by Gen. Stanley McChrystal from 2003-2008, is reportedly allowed to operate on US soil. That's a result of Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), an executive order drafted by President Clinton on May 3, 1994. The complete text remains classified, however, "The full text of PDD-25 is reported to exempt the Joint Special Operations Command from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 18USC Sec.1385, PL86-70, Sec. 17[d]. which makes it illegal for military and law enforcement to exercise jointly," according to

Among the questions raised by the apparently central role of US special forces in the arrest of Faisal Shahzad is this: To what extent are US Special Forces permitted to operate on US soil under President Obama?

Also, Why did CBS scrub the initial mention of the involvement of Army Intelligence aircraft from its story?
Jeremy Scahill
May 4, 2010  
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Everyone, please read this thread to get an idea of the NRO/SIGINT prison planet we have been living in for decades:

National Reconnaissance Office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The NRO is the most powerful government agency!  Much more powerful than FBI/CIA/NSA

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONAR) at Tyndall AFB, Fla., was informed by Marr about the suspected hijacked aircraft shortly after 8:40 a.m. Arnold, who then headed the 1st Air Force for Air Combat Command, was in Air Operations Center preparing for another day of a major NORAD counter-terrorism exercise that morning called "Vigilant Guardian."

September 11, 2001

The National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly, Va.,

a branch of the military intelligence community

that operates the nation's spy satellites

was engaged in a similar exercise in which a

passenger jet leaving the nearby Dulles Airport would

crash into the NRO building.

"I told him to scramble; we'll get clearances later," Arnold said. On Sept. 11, a time consuming bureaucratic procedure was required before scrambling defensive interceptor jets. FAA officials had to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. The NMCC then had to call NORAD's command center and ask about availability of aircraft and finally approval had to come from the Defense Secretary - Donald H. Rumsfeld - before launching fighters. This time consuming procedure was the result of a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction dated June 1, 2001.

The Committee of 300 Writer Coleman talks about them:

Wake up America! - Dr. John Coleman (Illuminati, Committee of 300)

1 hr 43 min - Aug 8, 2006 -  (104 ratings)

Hey look at the organizational chart.

Why is someone above the president?

And why is that person blacked out?

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

07/05/06  - IN-Q-TEL... La SEC enquêterait sur un scandale qui pourrait éclabousser la CIA

WMR May 6, 2006 -- "General Hayden's nomination to be the next CIA Director came as another scandal involving the intelligence agency emerged in addition to the "Hookergate" scandal centered on the Watergate and another Washington hotel. Under Goss, the CIA's venture capital arm, IN-Q-TEL, which provides CIA money to promising high-tech start-up firms, became the subject of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation for possible massive misappropriation of taxpayer money and private money involving IN-Q-TEL, NASA's venture capital branch -- Red Planet Capital -- The US Special Operations Command's venture capital firm On Point, and the infamous Carlyle Group -- the war profiteering company in which George H. W. Bush, the Bin Laden family, and former Secretary of State James Baker have held major financial interests.

Suspicions about IN-Q-TEL were raised in late April when its 35-year-old CEO, Amit Yoran, abruptly resigned to "spend more time with his family." Yoran, an Israeli-American, had been on the job for just four months after he succeeded IN-Q-TEL's first CEO, Gilman Louie, a well-known Silicon Valley investor and technical guru. Before taking over IN-Q-TEL, Yoran was the director of the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security.

Under Yoran, IN-Q-TEL's operating budget increased exponentially and the firm began negotiating with various high-tech firms to develop deep data mining programs and spy technology. Yoran's rumored successor was said to be Mark Frantz, who Yoran brought from The Carlyle Group to be IN-Q-TEL's managing general partner and board of trustees member. Frantz worked for George H. W. Bush and held a senior position with Alex Brown, later merged with Deutsche Bank, the firm where the CIA's former Executive Director, A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard served as Chairman. IN-Q-TEL's board of trustees chairman is Lee A. Ault III of Delray Beach, Florida, who also serves on the board of Office Depot.

Individuals familiar with IN-Q-TEL report that the company is suspected of steering CIA funds to start-up firms with close ties to the GOP as well as "pump and dump" penny stock firms tied to three foreign nations -- Israel, Dubai, and Malaysia. The emerging IN-Q-TEL scandal is mirrored by the financial scandal involving favoritism in CIA contracts to Brent Wilkes' ADCS and its subsidiaries.

Deputy DNI Gen. Michael Hayden, who presided over dubious multi-billion dollar contracts -- including Groundbreaker and Trailblazer -- as NSA director, has a great deal of experience in covering up cost overruns, contractor fraud, and contract favoritism. Beyond the need to have a good foot soldier at the helm of the CIA, the Bush administration is clearly hoping that Hayden, using his special form of intimidation through the use of psychiatric and security personnel to threaten whistleblowers, can tamp down the emerging financial "Watergate" emerging at the CIA."

Four Months Later, In-Q-Tel Again Needs New CEO

Amit Yoran, former head of cybersecurity for the Homeland Security Department, says he wants to spend more time with his family. (By Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post)

By Terence O'Hara
Monday, April 24, 2006

Amit Yoran resigned over the weekend as chief executive of In-Q-Tel , the venture capital arm of the U.S. spy community, after less than four months on the job.

Yoran, a seasoned technology entrepreneur and investor as well as a former head of cybersecurity for the Department of Homeland Security, had led In-Q-Tel since January. He said yesterday that his reasons for leaving were entirely personal, including a desire to spend less time on the road and more with his family. He and his wife have three young children. In-Q-Tel has investments all over the country, and Yoran has traveled extensively. Considered a success inside the Central Intelligence Agency, which created it, In-Q-Tel's mandate has been expanding to find more technology for more spy agencies.

"It's a very amicable parting," said Yoran, 35. "I will say I'm sorry and disappointed as well. But these are personal issues. . . . My continued performance as CEO was not going to be possible."

Yoran said he will continue to work with In-Q-Tel as a part-time consultant. Before taking the chief executive job four months ago, Yoran had invested money in several private technology companies. He continues to serve on several company boards.

Lee A. Ault III , chairman of In-Q-Tel's board of trustees, said he accepted Yoran's resignation "with regret."

"In-Q-Tel has benefited from Amit's vision and leadership during his tenure as CEO," Ault said in a statement. "We appreciate his service to In-Q-Tel, and we look forward to continuing In-Q-Tel's unique and important mission of delivering important and cutting edge technologies to the CIA and the intelligence community."

In-Q-Tel calls itself a venture capital firm, but venture investing is a small part of what it does. The CIA created the organization as a nonprofit, and its job was to identify technologies being funded and developed by the private sector that could have value in intelligence-gathering or national security applications. In-Q-Tel makes small investments in start-up companies, almost always as a junior partner to traditional venture capital funds. Most of In-Q-Tel's money goes toward evaluating and funding the technology to make sure the CIA or other intelligence agencies can use it.

Yoran had begun to ramp up In-Q-Tel's investment activity to meet its growing budget and responsibilities. He said the organization has an annual budget of more than $50 million -- up from $30 million to $35 million several years ago -- and includes as "investors" several other intelligence and homeland security agencies in addition to the CIA. In its early years, In-Q-Tel was funded almost entirely by the CIA. All of In-Q-Tel's contacts with the intelligence community, no matter the agency, still run through a special office inside the CIA.

Last month, Yoran hired his old friend, Mark Frantz , a well-known local venture capitalist who spent the past five years with the Carlyle Venture Partners , as In-Q-Tel's managing general partner. Frantz in an interview last week said the organization would be hiring more people for its investing team.

"We're not exactly taking out help-wanted ads, but we want to add to our venture team," Frantz said. "We've got some very talented folks here, but we're here to turn it up a notch. "

Yoran took over from founding chief executive Gilman Louie , who ran In-Q-Tel since its 1999 inception. The board is expected to appoint an interim chief executive this week and begin a national search for Yoran's replacement.

Yoran said 120 technologies partly funded by In-Q-Tel have been deployed by the CIA or other agencies. "Unfortunately, we can't talk about the specific uses," he said.

Investing in Start-Up Banks

For two decades, Danielson Associates of Rockville has been among the leading dealmakers for start-up banks on the East Coast. Now, it's investing in them.

Founder Arnold Danielson , known for his deep relationships with the region's community bankers, advised dozens of young banks as they grew and ultimately were acquired. His credibility stemmed in part from the reams of cogent research he wrote on community banks. In the past 10 years, Danielson Associates represented sellers in 34 bank acquisition deals worth nearly $3 billion. One of Arnold Danielson's crowning achievements was the sale of Columbia Bancorp to Fulton Financial Corp . Columbia was a longtime Danielson client, and Danielson advised the bank in its $306 million sale to Fulton in February.

Arnold Danielson is semi-retired, spending a lot of time writing a history of banking at his residence in the south of France. The firm is run by his son, David , who is president, and by principle Jonathan D. Holtaway .

Last year, Danielson Associates started Ategra Capital Management , which is run by Holtaway. The new company runs an investment fund that has bought stakes in 32 small banks, totaling about $9.4 million, said Holtaway, who was an analyst at Danielson for 10 years until 2001 and rejoined the firm last year in part to help start the fund.

The fund was created to profit from Danielson's expertise in small banks, which typically have small, intensely local shareholder groups that don't seek out institutional investors.

Not that there's a lot of institutional investment money chasing those banks. The professionally managed investment funds that specialize in community bank stocks generally invest in bigger banks, typically with assets of $500 million or more. Holtaway is investing much earlier.

"We have been a seen a good three-year wave of bank start-ups, and it's expected to continue," Holtaway said. "We only exist at the very low end, where these stocks sometimes don't even trade. You really have to work it to buy some of these stocks."

A typical investment will be $300,000 to $500,000, Holtaway said. The fund is focused on East Coast banks, the region where bankers know Danielson well.

"People in this business identify with the Danielson brand," Holtaway said. Start-up banking "is a highly specialized thing, and if you're going to join these early investors, you really have to understand it and enjoy it."

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I wonder if this post is going to get added to my DARPA file...

Does this guy have unchecked power?  First time I heard of him. At the least he represents a serious conflict of interest.

Mike  Munson

Career Summary

Extensive senior leadership experience in the Intelligence Community and Department of Defense. Expertise includes general management, planning, programming and budgeting, Congressional relations, and intelligence collection. Broad knowledge of intelligence agencies and operations.

May 2004-May 2005 Executive Office of the President
Deputy Director for Plans, Presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction responsible for determining whether the United States Intelligence Community is properly organized, resourced and equipped to meet the threats of the 21 st century. Managed all studies on intelligence technical and human collection , counterintelligence, covert action, domestic intelligence, information sharing and overall intelligence community organization and structure. Made significant number of recommendations for improvement almost all accepted by the President.

January 1999-May 2004 Munson Enterprises, Inc.
Consulting and training services for the Intelligence Community and Defense Industry. Consults on intelligence community contracts, specifically dealing with intelligence analysis and collection. Training includes basic and advanced courses on intelligence systems and processes and Intelligence Community planning, programming and budgeting. Customers include NGA, DIA, NRO, CIA and senior intelligence and defense related corporations.

March 1996-December 1998 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
Deputy Director for National Support responsible for providing space-based reconnaissance intelligence collection in support of national agency customers (including State Department, Defense, CIA, FBI, DEA, etc.)
•  Established office to improve intelligence support to all national agency customers.
•  Established process allowing national customers to understand and influence multi-billion dollar decisions regarding space-based reconnaissance intelligence.
•  Directed International Space Cooperation Program with allied nations.
•  Implemented program for NRO management of all Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT) Special Communications activities.
Study Director for Jeremiah Panel responsible for defining the mission and responsibilities of the NRO for the future.
•  Reviewed NRO mission, organization, management, technology development program and business practices. Recommendations for improvements approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence.

May 1997-December 1997 National Defense Panel
Study Director for seven-month congressionally mandated study on determining the mission and objectives of the US Armed Forces for the 21 st century.
•  Reviewed existing mission, budget and force structure of the Armed Forces.
•  Developed priorities for Defense five-year plans and programs.
•  Recommendations were supported by the Secretary of Defense and US Congress.
January 1995-March 1996 Defense Intelligence Agency
Deputy Director , Chief Operating Officer responsible for management of day-to-day operations of large scale Defense Agency with several thousand employees and a budget in the hundreds of millions. Deputy Program Manager of billion dollar program for the production, collection and support of Defense-wide military intelligence.
•  Conducted review of all agency resources. Adjusted agency priorities; reallocated resources based on new priorities; developed and implemented successful legislative proposal for resource augmentation; and initiated agency quality program and outsourcing review.
•  Established agencies information system program and priorities.
•  Reoriented and restructured Defense-wide Intelligence production program.
•  Provided guidance and direction for Defense Measurement and Signature and the Defense Human Intelligence Program.
•  Developed and implemented agencies senior executive service program and served as senior procurement executive. Assigned 70 senior executives and evaluated performance.
July 1991-January 1996 Office of the Secretary of Defense
Director, Intelligence Program Support Group (IPSG) established for oversight of all Defense Intelligence resources and the functional, technical and programmatic
evaluations of intelligence programs.
•  Implemented National foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) and Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) cross-program reviews;
•  Established the Counterintelligence and Security and related activities program; managed development of the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP).
•  Chaired DCI-directed community wide review on intelligence infrastructure.
•  Established Intelligence Systems Council to address intelligence community-wide systems issues relating to interoperability, programmatics and architectures.
•  Developed program for successfully gaining Congressional support for initiatives.
July 1987-July 1991 Defense Intelligence Agency
Deputy Director for Resources serving at corporate vice-president level position responsible for Agency's day-to-day administrative operations. Daily supervision of 800 employees and annual budget in excess of 100 million.
University of Wisconsin , BS History, 1967
American University, MS Information Systems, 1975
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1981
Harvard University , Senior Executives in National Security, 1990


Check out this line:

"Deputy Director for National Support responsible for providing space-based reconnaissance intelligence collection in support of national agency customers (including State Department, Defense, CIA, FBI, DEA, etc.) "

We now have a government department calling other government department customers.

Well what do you do with customers?

Try and grab all the market share?

Increase profit?

Decrease costs?

Manipulate the market to change it and create a bigger pie to eat from (create threats that do not exist to get greater funding)?

So the NRO regards all the subservient intelligence agencies (State Department, Defense, CIA, FBI, DEA, etc.) as customers.

The NRO has all the f**king intelligence in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acting NRO Director Appoints External Review Panel

17 April 1996

Washington, DC -- Keith R. Hall, the deputy director and acting director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), has commissioned a panel to review the NRO's current organizational structure and make recommendations regarding its role in the 21st century.

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral David Jeremiah, former Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff and now President of Technology Strategies and Alliances, will head the panel.

The panel's Executive Secretary will be Mr. Mike Munson, former Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Other panel members are:
Mr. Stephen Friedman, a member of the Aspin-Brown Commission on the U.S. Intelligence Community and Senior Chairman and Limited Partner of Goldman, Sachs, & Co.
Mr. Tony Iorillo, Chairman of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation Board of Directors and former Senior Vice President of Hughes Aircraft Company
Mr. John McMahon, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and retired President and CEO of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company
General Larry Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute for Defense Analysis and former Air Force Chief of Staff
Mr. Martin Faga, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for Integrated Intelligence Systems, MITRE Corporation and Director of the NRO from 1989 - 1993.

In chartering the panel, Hall asked its members to review several major issues facing the NRO, the first one being to review the NRO's mission and strategic vision into the 21st century. In addition, the panel will address how the NRO can improve customer satisfaction, how the NRO should be organized and structured for its future mission and what existing and reengineered business practices and processes will be necessary to meet additional challenges.

"The NRO's technical program is on track and the consolidation of assets [in other words, centralized power, NWO!] in space and on the ground is clearly beneficial for the nation's intelligence requirements," Mr. Hall recently stated in a town meeting to NRO employees.

"The way the NRO has been conducting its business, however, needs a thorough review after nearly 30 years of evolution," he continued.

"We want to retain the elements of the NRO that make it a dynamic space agency. At the same time, we need a candid look by outsiders to ensure the next director of the NRO has an organizational structure that meets the need of the customers, answers to increased executive and legislative oversight, and is responsive to new fiscal management policies."

The Intelligence & Security Academy, LLC


The Intelligence & Security Academy, LLC  offers education, training and consulting in national security issues and the more general area of analytic training. The Academy was created in 2005, succeeding its predecessor company, Munson Enterprises, which had been in operation since 1999.

Our clients include both government agencies involved in a broad range of national security issues (intelligence, defense, homeland security) and private sector corporations who either work in these same fields or who are interested in improving the capabilities of their analysts in general.

The Intelligence & Security Academy brings to bear decades of senior executive experience in intelligence, national security and policy analysis that our clients can apply to their programs and processes.


The Academy faculty consists of former senior executives from several national security agencies, including the major intelligence agencies: CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO and State/INR. Each faculty member brings a wealth of detailed personal experience in dealing with the issues shared with our clients.

Mark Lowenthal has held a wide array of senior positions: Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production; Vice Chairman for Evaluation of the National Intelligence Council; Staff Director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. He is the author of the standard college and graduate school textbook on intelligence, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (CQ Press), now in its 3rd edition. Dr. Lowenthal is an adjunct faculty member of Columbia University. He was also the 1988 Grand Champion on Jeopardy!

Mike Munson has served as the Deputy Director, Defense Intelligence Agency; and Deputy Director for National Support, National Reconnaissance Office. He also served as Director of Intelligence Program Review for DOD and as study director for the National Defense Panel and the recently released report from the President’s Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Marge Munson has served as Director of the Defense Investigative Service and as Deputy Director for Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency. She has also served as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security and as Study Director for Defense studies on the use of Chemical Weapons during Desert Shield/Storm and the recently released study in support of the Secretary of Defense on detention operations at Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Robert M. Clark served in the Air Force, including a tour in Vietnam, and the CIA, where his focus included Soviet space programs, and technical collection issues.  He continued to work on these issues in the private sector in senior positions at STAC and BTG.  Dr. Clark's writings include a special National Intelligence Estimate on denial and deception; Intelligence Analysis: Estimation and Prediction; and Intelligence Analysis: A Target-centric Approach, now in its second edition.  

Lee Hanna has over thirty years of senior management experience at NSA, including management of its largest analytical component as Chief of SIGINT (signals intelligence) production for worldwide targets; Director of the National SIGINT Operations Center (NSOC); and Chief of Management Services. Ms. Hanna also developed NSA’s Instructor Training Program. Since leaving government service, Ms. Hanna has consulted for government agencies and private sector companies.

Jennie Liston spent 20 years at CIA, concentrating on European political and security issues.  She has also created and taught courses at CIA's Sherman Kent School, included advanced courses on analytical writing and briefing.

Anne Miles is a retired Air force officer and has extensive teaching experience at the Air Force Academy, the Joint Military Intelligence College and St. Mary's College, Maryland.  Dr. Miles has written several articles about U.S. government structure and policy process in national security.

John L. Moore is a specialist on the Middle East, with over 30 years of analytic intelligence experience in that region, including service as DIA's senior expert on the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism. Mr. Moore served with the 18th Airborne Corps and the 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam during 1960s.  In addition to being a faculty member of the Intelligence & Security Academy, Mr. Moore works as an independent consultant on the Middle East for the US Government, private firms and international organizations. Mr. Moore was a witness at the International Court of Justice testifying for the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2003.  He has also written and lectured on the region for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Middle East Institute and also serves on the Board of Advisory Editors of the Middle East Journal.

Anthony C. Nelson has wide ranging national security experience. He spent 20 years as an Army artillery officer, including two tours in Viet Nam and service as a Foreign Area Officer for South Asia. He then joined DIA, where he established the Counterterrorist analytic element and the Global Analysis Division focusing on transnational issues (terrorism, narcotics, weapons and money transfers). [He is the cleaner!] Mr. Nelson managed DIA’s imagery analysis office, served as DIA Representative to US Central Command, and served as the Deputy to the Director of Intelligence Production, Defense Intelligence Agency. His long experience as an intelligence officer includes counter-terrorism and regional specialties in Asia and the Middle East.

Dan Spohn spent 20 years in the intelligence community directing strategic targeting activities and supporting the weapons development and policy offices in the Defense Department, particularly those related to nuclear activities and counterproliferation. Mr. Spohn is a physicist specializing in nuclear weapons effects. He has extensive experience in the laboratory environment simulating the effects of nuclear weapons and hardening military equipment. Before retiring from the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2000 he held the position of Deputy Director for Policy Support, with responsibility for intelligence support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, DIA participation in National Intelligence Estimates, foreign intelligence exchanges and special access programs.
In addition to Mark Lowenthal, who serves as President and CEO of the Academy, and Marge and Mike Munson, our board of directors includes:
Harold Rosenbaum, President of Centra Technology

James Simon is Director of The Microsoft Institute for Advanced Technology in Governments.  Before joining Microsoft, he was President and CEO of IntelligenceEnterprises, LLC.  A career CIA officer, he was appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate as the first, and last, Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Administration. After September 11th, he was designated as the senior intelligence official for homeland security.  

Aris Pappas, Senior Director of the Microsoft Institute for Advanced Technology in Governments.  Prior to joining Microsoft, Mr. Pappas was co-founder and vice-president of IntelligenceEnterprises, LLC, a consulting firm supporting a broad range of customers ranging from the space-based imagery industry to the Department of Homeland Security.  Mr. Pappas was a career CIA analyst, holding positions in both the Intelligence (analytic) and Operations Directorates.  He was an Assistant National Intelligence Officer during the first Gulf War, and later Executive Secretary of the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Intelligence Science Board. After a year-long tour at the FBI, Mr. Pappas established the DCI’s Homeland Security Staff.

Office Location
4121 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: 703-528-9040
Fax: 703-528-9047
[email protected]


The Academy offers a range of courses, each of which is built to meet the client’s specific needs, combining a variety of individual modules. The complexity and length of the courses depend on the client’s needs, the modules that are selected and the level of the course: basic or advanced. The flexibility of our curriculum allows us to serve each of our clients very precisely. Many of our courses include hands-on exercises.

Our current course offerings include:
The U.S. Intelligence Community: Key Structures, Roles and Current Issues (Basic or Advanced)
Planning, Programming and Budgeting
The New Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Structure: Prospects, Problems and Opportunities
Analyst Training: Writing Analyses and Briefings
Analyst Management
National Security Issues: Regional and Functional
The U.S. Intelligence Community:  Heritage and History
Depending on the course, some of the following modules typically are taught:
Legal Basis & Origin of the US Intelligence community
Intelligence Community Roles and Functions
The Intelligence Community Budget Process
Intelligence Collection
The Role of Congress in Intelligence
The Current International Security Environment
Issues in Analysis & Production
We usually conduct our courses at the client’s location. Courses can be conducted at the classified or unclassified level. The Academy’s management and faculty all have current TS/SCI clearances. We work throughout the Washington, DC area and beyond. We regularly teach courses in St. Louis, the Boston area, San Diego, Colorado and Germany.

Our courses are competitively priced.[Who the f**k is competing?  How many spooks are there?] Prices vary depending on location, length, duration (typically one or two days) and any other specific needs.  Most courses include hands-on exercises and are enhanced by senior guest lecturers.  References are available upon request.



The Intelligence & Security Academy consults with both government and private sector clients across a wide range of issues, including:
Internal education and training programs, including curriculum evaluation and development.
Advice on product development, demonstrations and presentations, and strategic marketing advice, especially for use with the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Congressional strategies for the budget and legislative processes.
Teaming with other companies in support of government contracts.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

"We Own The Night"??!?

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey NRO!

The Cat's Out of the F-ing Bag

You assist in False Flag Terrorism to get increased funding and power!

We get it already, now read the constitution!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

Giant golf ball deployed.  CNN says that "a floating X-band radar has to be modified to track the satellite's trajectory."  That would be the massive -- and massively controversial -- Sea-Based X-Band Radar.  The $815 million, 28-story, orb-like contraption has the ability, in theory, to tell which way a baseball is spinning -- from 3,000 miles away.  But it's also proven to susceptible to the elements and high seas.  The thing has been in and out of the repair shop for years.

Big bucks.  "The attempt by the U.S. Navy to use an anti-missile missile to shoot down a potentially hazardous satellite will cost between $40 million and $60 million, Pentagon officials told CNN. "The missile alone costs almost $10 million."

Your chances of being hit by the falling satellite: one in a trillion.  "Compared with, for example, a one in 1.4 million chance of being hit by lightning in the United States," the Discovery Channel notes.

FEMA to the rescue?  "With an eye to the possibility that the missile effort will fail, the government has placed six rescue teams across the country to be prepared to act if the satellite hits the United States," according to the AP.

The spacecraft contains 1,000 pounds of hydrazine in a tank that is expected to survive re-entry and a fuel tank liner made of beryllium.

FEMA has prepared a guide for emergency responders that includes information about hydrazine and beryllium. The agency warns officials not to pick up any debris or provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to anyone who has inhaled hydrazine or beryllium.

Old news for NASA chief? Some were surprised to see NASA head honcho Michael Griffin helping plan this operation.  They shouldn't be.  Not only does he have to worry about what happens to the Shuttle and the Space Station.  But he was "deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and worked on missile defense systems from 1986 to 1991."

Diplomatic action.  According to the Washington Post, "the State Department sent cables to all embassies yesterday instructing diplomats to explain to foreign governments how the upcoming attempt to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite is different from China's destruction of one of its orbiting satellites early last year."

Do or die for missile defense?  The shootdown "carries opportunity, but also potential embarrassment, for the administration and advocates of its missile defense program," notes the NYT.

They are pulling out all the stops on this. Watch out.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Other versions of this document

Order Code RL31369

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

Imagery Intelligence: Issues for Congress

April 12, 2002

Richard A. Best, Jr
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ~ The Library of Congress
Imagery Intelligence: Issues for Congress


Intelligence derived from satellites has become an essential element of military operations and foreign policymaking. In particular, precise imagery from space-based collection systems makes possible the effective use of precision-guided munitions that is becoming the basis of U.S. defense planning. Imagery intelligence also provides the factual bases for addressing many foreign policy issues.

Imagery is collected by satellites acquired and operated by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an organization with a record of enormous technological achievements since its creation in 1961. Imagery collected by the NRO is processed, analyzed, exploited, and disseminated by another organization, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). NIMA was established in 1996, incorporating the Defense Mapping Agency and various intelligence offices.

Congress has been concerned with satellite imagery because of its critical importance and its high costs. Independent commissions established by Congress to assess the state of the imagery intelligence effort have concluded that significant changes need to be made in the way the Nation’s imagery effort is conducted. There is a consensus that greater emphasis should be placed on better collection targeting and improving processing, exploitation, and dissemination (the processes collectively termed TPED); that greater attention should be given to acquiring commercial imagery; and that the management of the imagery effort may need to be changed.

Even before the events of September 11, 2001, there appeared to be a fairly widespread view within congressional committees that at least some additional funding should be directed towards imagery collection and TPED. Subsequent military campaigns have underscored the use of imagery in military operations and other counterterrorist efforts. TPED encompasses the establishment of a “multi-int” database, i.e. an electronic file containing information from all intelligence sources, that will require the balancing of different needs of intelligence agencies and government consumers. Congress has encouraged NIMA’s role in establishing this database, but obstacles include costs, inherent technical difficulties, and the administrative and security complications of placing one agency in charge of maintaining and editing data for a multitude of users.

Some observers advocate more fundamental changes. These include significantly greater reliance on commercial imagery and a reduction in coverage by Government satellites. In this approach, the NRO and NIMA would concentrate on developing cutting edge technologies and on meeting special requirements beyond the capabilities of the private sector. Some would reconsider the next generation of imagery-collecting satellites. Satellite imagery is among the most important technological achievements of the Intelligence Community; maintaining a capability to support military operations that avoid inflicting vast civilian damages provides the underlying justification for a continuing effort.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tasking, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (TPED) . . . . . . . . . . 7
Funding TPED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Commercial Imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Management and Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. National Reconnaissance Organization (NRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) . . . . . . . . . 28
Imagery Intelligence: Issues for Congress

The NATO campaign against Serbian forces in Kosovo undertaken in the spring of 1999 has been termed both a brilliant success and a harbinger of military operations in the twenty-first century. Among other things, it demonstrated the increasing importance of precise imagery intelligence that permitted NATO to attack and destroy crucial Serbian targets with minimal friendly losses or collateral damage. Over 9,300 strike sorties were flown with NATO losing no aircrews and only two aircraft.  Without the need for a costly ground campaign, Serbian forces pulled out of Kosovo and Albanian refugees were able to return to their homes.

In the midst of this successful air campaign, however, occurred a significant blunder that was to have major repercussions on the other side of the globe and demonstrated significant weaknesses in the imagery analysis and dissemination process. On May 7, 1999, a U.S. B-2 bomber fired a 2000 lb. guided bomb and precisely destroyed a building believed to be the Headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP), a legitimate military target.  The building was first designated by intelligence officers at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Unfortunately, the building was not the FDSP headquarters, but the Embassy of China.

As a result of the attack, three Chinese officials were killed and the United States had to apologize formally and pay restitution. Despite the apology and restitution, the mistaken bombing was deeply resented in Beijing and may have contributed to a general deterioration of Sino-American relations. The misidentification of this Belgrade office building reflects both the crucial importance that intelligence has come to have in military operations and the serious consequences of what Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet acknowledged as an intelligence failure. As Tenet later testified: When cities were struck in past wars, none doubted that civilians, embassies, hospitals, and schools would be in harm’s way.

Today, our ability to strike precisely has created the impression that sensitive sites can be safe in the middle of a war zone. Our desire to protect innocents in the line of fire has added an enormous burden on all of us that we accept. The incident demonstrated the crucial importance of integrating satellite imagery of major installations with other forms of intelligence that would identify what was going on inside them. Tenet also suggested the origins of the mistake­a failure to maintain accurate data bases. “We have diverted resources and attention away from basic intelligence and data base maintenance to support current operations for too long.”1

In the post-September 11, 2001 campaign against the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, imagery intelligence has continued to be of great value. Aircraft based in the U.S. are able to attack ground (and underground) targets with precision weapons using imagery obtained by reconnaissance satellites. Imagery intelligence is also an important component of the global war against terrorism in which it is tied to information from other intelligence sources and from unclassified, open sources to locate terrorist facilities and activities. The additional funding becoming available for intelligence in the wake of September 11 is expected to alleviate some of the problems encountered in the Kosovo campaign, but the overarching challenges of aligning the agencies involved and maximizing the usability of their products by both policymakers and the operating forces remain to be resolved.

The Intelligence Community has emphasized the development and operation of satellites of great technical complexity, but exploitation and dissemination of the data collected have fared less well. Furthermore, the changing nature of warfare has required that information be transmitted to theater commanders immediately (in “real time”) not just forwarded to Washington agencies. These two requirements­the need for better analysis and the requirement to move the data rapidly to field commanders­underlie the challenges facing two agencies charged respectively with collecting and producing imagery intelligence from satellites, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).2

Background on the two agencies is provided in the appendices.
Imagery from satellites is used in conjunction with imagery from airborne systems­manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These much less expensive systems have been used extensively in recent combat operations but can be vulnerable to enemy attack and lack the technical capabilities possessed by satellites. In many cases aircraft and UAVs do not collect imagery for use by national intelligence agencies to build permanent databases.3

It is possible that reviews of intelligence organization underway since early in the current Bush Administration may result in recommendations to make major changes in the organization of the imagery effort by placing the NRO and NIMA directly under the DCI. Earlier, one influential study group proposed the abolition of the NRO and the transfer of its program offices to NIMA and NSA­ the national managers of the overall imagery and sigint efforts.4

While observers believe that such proposals would be likely to face substantial resistance, the technical, administrative, and budgetary challenges that have been identified by the NRO and NIMA Commissions will be central considerations for the future of the imagery effort under any circumstances. The nature of these challenges involves billions of dollars which are required for satellite imagery collection and processing. Costs of intelligence programs are not made public (being authorized in the classified annexes to defense and intelligence authorization bills), but it widely understood that satellite programs cost several billion dollars annually and absorb a large proportion of the budget of the National Foreign Intelligence Program.

DCI Statement on the Belgrade Chinese Embassy Bombing, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Open Hearing, 22 July 1999.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is responsible for tasking and analyzing signals intelligence collected by satellites; its role is discussed in CRS Report RL30740, National Security Agency: Issues for Congress, updated January 6, 2001, by Richard A. Best, Jr. See CRS Report RL30727, Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): the U-2 Aircraft and Global Hawk UAV Programs by Richard A. Best, Jr. and Christopher Bolkcom, updated December 1, 2000.

Concerned with the future of imagery programs, in 1999 Congress created two commissions to assess space-based intelligence issues, one addressing the NRO and the other NIMA.5 Both have issued reports with a number of recommendations that are currently under consideration in the executive branch and Congress. Congress also mandated the establishment of a commission to assess national security space management and organization.6 The latter commission’s concerns extended far beyond intelligence collection platforms, but it addressed organizational issues involving both the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community. The establishment of these commissions reflected congressional concerns in particular about several aspects of the Nation’s imagery intelligence effort:

Walter Pincus, “Intelligence Shakeup Would Boost CIA,” Washington Post, November 8, 2001, p. A1; National Institute for Public Policy, Modernizing Intelligence: Structure and Change for the 21st Century, September1997. The chairman of the study group was Lt. Gen.  William E. Odom, a former Director of NSA.5 The National Commission for the Review of the National Reconnaissance Office, established pursuant to Title VII of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-120) and the Independent Commission on the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, established pursuant to the classified annex to the Conference Report (H.Rept. 106-371) accompanying the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-79).

The report of the former is Report of the National Commission for the Review of the National Reconnaissance Office, The NRO at the Crossroads, November 1, 2000, hereafter cited as NRO Commission Report.  The report of the latter is The Information Edge: Imagery Intelligence and Geospatial Information In an Evolving National Security Environment: Report of the Independent Commission on the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 10 January 2001, hereafter cited as NIMA Commission Report.6

The Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization [Space Commission]; established pursuant to the Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 (P.L.  106-65). This commission was initially headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, subsequently appointed Secretary of Defense. For further background, see Marcia S. Smith, Military Space Activities: Highlights of the Rumsfeld Commission Report and Key Organization and Management Issues, CRS Report RS20824, February 21, 2001.
! perceived imbalances between funds allocated to launching and operating satellites on one hand and that spent on tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination on the other;

! the decision to choose a new generation of satellites that was designed to meet established criteria rather than extend the envelope of technical capabilities;

! the possibility of making greater use of commercial imagery;
! ongoing, but disjointed, efforts by NIMA to create and maintain a worldwide geospatial grid.

Dealing with imagery issues is undertaken against an unstable geopolitical environment in which access to high-quality intelligence and communications equipment is becoming available to many other countries and even terrorist organizations. Some observers fear that hostile countries could leap-frog the technological capabilities that the United States has acquired after many years and end up with virtually comparable intelligence at a fraction of the investment made by this country.7

Given the growing importance of space-based intelligence and the sums of money involved, some analysts believe that evaluating, and possibly redefining the responsibilities of the NRO and NIMA will be among the most important challenges facing the Intelligence Community and congressional armed services and intelligence committees in the next decade. Imagery intelligence lies at the heart of efforts to transform the post-Cold War defense establishment, but it is costly. Balancing the opportunities with the costs is a crucial responsibility of both Congress and the executive branch.


The need for space-based intelligence became evident in the earliest years of the Cold War long before the United States developed the capacity to launch and operate satellites. In the late 1940s and the 1950s, ignorance of the military capabilities of the Soviet Union was a source of profound concern given the pervasive fear of Soviet aggression. Overflights near and over Soviet territory were undertaken to collect aerial photography, but there were great risks involved, as demonstrated when a U-2 aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was shot down over Soviet territory in May 1960 and the pilot, Francis Gary Powers, put on public trial in Moscow.

The U-2 shootdown provided strong impetus for a satellite program already planned that could provide intelligence from space without risking either pilots’ lives or diplomatic crises.8 (See Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, January 11, 2001, pp. 19-22, hereafter cited as Space Commission Report. A even greater concern expressed by some observers is the possibility that a foreign entity could find a way to “blind,” disrupt, or falsify a comprehensive intelligence database that had become an integral part of U.S. military operations. Ibid.)

The satellite reconnaissance program grew in importance throughout the remainder of the Cold War, providing the necessary intelligence foundation for U.S. defense programs, national security policies, and, especially, for arms control negotiations. Additional satellites provided different forms of intelligence­from electronic and communications transmissions, radar and telemetry. By the end of the Cold War, satellite programs provided an major portion of the intelligence needed to formulate national security policy and consumed a sizable percentage of the intelligence budget.9

Throughout the Cold War satellite reconnaissance data was primarily used by national-level policymakers and planners focused on the threat of strategic nuclear conflicts involving the West and major communist countries. Many of the collection targets were fixed installations­ missile bases, shipyards, defense industry factories, etc. The data acquired was the basis for targeting aircraft and missiles and for arms control discussions, but it was not, for the most part, integrated directly into ongoing military operations.

The Persian Gulf War in 1990 against Iraq, however, saw extensive use of satellite-derived data in contemporaneous combat operations,­ a practice that was to have a profound influence on military planning for the post-Cold War environment.  The much greater tactical use of satellite reconnaissance resulted in part from the fact that the flat desert terrain was ideally suited to overhead imaging (as compared, for instance, to the triple-canopy jungles of Southeast Asia). In part, it was made possible by the end of the Soviet threat that allowed the diversion of satellite coverage to non-Warsaw Pact targets. The potential value of satellite imagery was quickly grasped by military commanders, but there were many complaints that the ability to disseminate the product was woefully inadequate ­in some cases, imagery had to be hand-carried to various Desert Storm commands. The use of satellite data in Desert Storm was a key part of a major technological breakthrough, in large measure unanticipated:

Yet what, in the end, largely predetermined the allied victory had never been tested before, least of all in the synergistic combination that roved so overwhelming against Iraq. The power of a few stealthy F-117s to operate with impunity and to substitute for mass by way of precision, the confident knowledge of the battlefield at any moment that air- and space-based information superiority gave the coalition’s commanders, and the strategic effectiveness of round-th-clock bombing of Iraqi ground forces were all, to varying degrees, revelations whose extent of leverage became clear only as the war progressed.10

The legality of space-based reconnaissance is recognized in international legal instruments including the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, and the United Nations General Assembly December 1986 document, Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space.

For background, see CRS Issue Brief IB92011, U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial, by Marcia S. Smith.

Benjamin S. Lambeth, The Transformation of American Air Power (Ithaca: Cornell

In the 1990s, at the urging of military commanders and congressional committees, the Defense Department smoothed out dissemination problem to ensure that satellite-derived intelligence could be transmitted without delay to consumers.  This required new communications links, equipment changes, and the development of new analytical and dissemination procedures, including the lifting of restrictions on disseminating information that had previously been strictly accessible only to users with certain special clearances. Much had been accomplished by the time of the NATO-led attack on Serbian forces in the spring of 1999 (Operation Allied Force). As a result, in part, of faster dissemination of satellite data, the Kosovo air campaign achieved most of its objectives. It did so with almost no loss of Allied life and minimal loss of civilian lives on the ground­despite the lamentable attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.11

In the post-Cold War environment, requirements for satellite data are closely tied to the growing use of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) that allow very specific targets to be destroyed while minimizing loss of civilian life and damage to civilian facilities. Targeting PGMs depends on very precise locating data that are acquired from satellite data supplemented by airborne reconnaissance.

Current defense planning documents such as Joint Vision 2020 describe precision engagement as including more than the employment of PGMs, encompassing a vision of information superiority that “will enhance the capability of the joint force commander to understand the situation, determine the effects desired, select a course of action and the forces to execute it, accurately assess the effects of that action, and reengage as necessary while minimizing collateral damage.”12 Growing reliance on information superiority by civilian policymakers as well as military leaders will result in increased requirements for space-based imagery­a major consideration for planning the future evolution of the Intelligence Community.

Issues for Congress

Satellites consume a major proportion of the intelligence budget and are thus a focus of congressional attention. In its oversight of the NRO and NIMA and in authorizing and appropriating funds, Congress will ultimately determine the shape of future imagery programs.13 It can augment or decrease funding for the NRO and NIMA.
(...continued) University Press, 2000), p. 260.

The question of whether the air campaign by itself brought about the withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo is controversial and lies beyond the scope of this report.

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Vision 2020 [] .

For the significance of congressional oversight of the NRO, see Clayton D. Laurie, Congress and the National Reconnaissance Office (Unpublished ms., Office of the Historian, National Reconnaissance Office, October 2000). Also, Jeffrey T. Richelson, “Out of the Black: the Disclosure and Declassification of the National Reconnaissance Office,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Spring 1998. For congressional involvement in the creation of NIMA, see Anne Daugherty Miles, The Creation (continued...)

It can budget for innovative but expensive research. It can realign agency roles and responsibilities. At the same time, Congress cannot direct Presidents to devote more of their personal time to satellite issues, nor can Congress mandate effective cooperation among agency heads within the executive branch. Commissions and many observers have argued against the need for new legislative initiatives. Many believe the number of congressional committees involved and the separate legislative vehicles by which funds are authorized and appropriated for space collection, analysis, and dissemination complicate efforts to address space-based intelligence issues.

Observers note in particular the potential for different priorities among armed services and intelligence committees as well as the budgetary pressures on space-related programs that have existed in recent years. Another view, however, is that the evolution of space-based intelligence may have to be guided by new statutory authorities. Existing or potential overlap among the current authorities of DOD and the Intelligence Community, as well as funding changes and trade-offs that may be required among high-cost programs, may, according to this view, lead to a necessarily larger congressional role. Given the central role of space-based intelligence in future military planning and in intelligence effort, most observers expect a continued high level of congressional interest.

Tasking, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (TPED)

TPED is the collective term used to describe the tasking of satellites to image a particular area at a particular time, downloading the “take,” analyzing it, and disseminating it within specified times to the officials or agencies who use it, the “consumers.” TPED is the core NIMA mission and it is at once a major technological challenge, a significant budgetary issue, and a matter of contention among intelligence agencies.

TPED is seen as encompassing a vast information system that includes inputs from various collection systems that are immediately accessible to users at many levels to use for their own information requirements. It is the foundation of the Defense Department’s determination to use information to secure decisive military results.

Joint Vision 2020 argues that:

The evolution of information technology will increasingly permit us to integrate the traditional forms of information operations with sophisticated all-source intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in a fully synchronized information campaign. The development of a concept labeled the global information grid will provide the network-centric environment required to achieve this goal. The grid will be the globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities, associated processes, and people to manage and provide information on demand to warfighters, policy makers, and support personnel. It will enhance combat power and contribute to the success of noncombat military operations as well.

Realization of the full potential of these changes requires not only technological improvements, but the continued evolution of organizations and doctrine and the development of relevant training to sustain a comparative advantage in the information environment.14 Further discussion of the geospatial grid may be found in Appendix B, but, put simply, the goal is to provide a database built around a geographic display (essentially a map displayed on a computer screen); the user clicks a computer mouse on a specific point on the display to obtain information about geographic features such as rivers or hills, the location of manmade structures such as buildings, bridges or weapon emplacements, information about activities likely occurring within buildings, the presence or absence of personnel, etc.

(...continued) of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency: Congress’s Role as Overseer (Joint Military Intelligence College, Occasional Paper Number 9, April 2001).
This information is intended to permit the recipients to take appropriate action with confidence that targets can be hit, refugees rescued, etc. Much of the discussion of the geospatial grid is focused on the needs of military commanders, but this type of information could be of great utility to government officials outside DOD. For instance, during the Kosovo conflict, NIMA made a daily presentation to the State Department that provided:

! A geospatial reference, including shaded terrain relief overlaid with towns and roads;

! Over this was layered census data showing the distribution percentage of
ethnic Albanians;

! Over which was satellite and aircraft imagery of burning houses; added to
which was:

! Imagery or graphics of the movements of Serbian paramilitary forces and the resulting flow of displaced Albanians.15

NIMA’s role as the functional manager of the whole enterprise is a matter of significant concern. Managing the grid includes making many technical decisions regarding information reliability, communications systems, message formats, access controls, etc., all of which will be difficult to establish on a government-wide basis since, in practice, there may be different needs by different consumers­some with great clout­for specific types of data within different time constraints. Observers express concern that NIMA, as a new agency, will find it difficult to make final judgments resolving differences. Beyond bureaucratic concerns, observers consider that NIMA has far to go in being able to exploit the vast quantities of data collected.

Nevertheless, most observers have reached the conclusion that NIMA should retain control of the geospatial grid. The NIMA Commission concluded, “To whom should we entrust ...[the responsibility to fuse imagery and sigint]? Against all odds, the Commission feels the answer may well be NIMA.” According to the Commission, “the geospatial construct is the obvious foundation upon which fusion should take place.”16 However, the Commission expressed concern not just about NIMA’s ability to manage the TPED process, but also about the agency’s ability to manage the acquisition of TPED systems even for its own staff. Joint Vision 2020. Ibid, p. 64. NIMA Commission Report, p. 48.

“The current TPED acquisition effort lacks a clear baseline, which should tie clearly to overall strategy, requirements, and cost constraints. In addition to the lack of a common definition of TPED, there is similarly confusion as to the requirements that TPED must satisfy.”17 The Commission expressed concern about NIMA’s lack of plans to integrate imagery from airborne collectors­aircraft such as the U2 and UAVs­into TPED based on the FIA. According to the Commission current plans do not address either the integration of airborne imagery or multi-INT integration. Similarly, the Defense Science Board Task Force concluded that NIMA, “as the government agency responsible as the functional manager for imagery and geospatial intelligence, will be at the center of the ‘information revolution’ as it affects individuals and organizations that contribute to national security.”18

According to the Task Force, NIMA should “have the clout to bring other communities to accept the architecture and the standards necessary to build an integrated TPED system.”19 More specifically, the Task Force argued that NIMA should act as the single functional manager for imagery and geospatial information, define future TPED architecture, products, and services; task (and make tradeoffs between) commercial and government collectors, and review budgets of agencies responsible for imagery and geospatial efforts.20

The Senate Intelligence Committee has expressed concern that NIMA “does not exercise comprehensive functional management authority over U.S. imagery and geospatial programs.” The Committee noted in particular the NIMA’s absence of authority to set standards and review investment and RDT&E programs of tactical efforts of the military services.21 The conference report accompanying the FY2001 Defense Authorization Act also took note of the need for an integrated multi-int TPED architecture. NIMA was directed to undertake a review regarding means to achieve the development of such an architecture with “the direct and personal involvement by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence.” The report anticipates the establishment of a universal architecture that would include information collection not only from overhead satellite systems, but also aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles and all tasking, data, storage, processing, exploitation, analysis and disseminations systems.

NIMA Commission Report, p. 87.

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on National Imagery and Mapping Agency [hereafter cited as Defense Science Board], April 2000, p. 9. [Defense Science Board, p. 26. 20 Ibid, p. 29. 21 U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 2d session, Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Intelligence Activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, May 4, 2000, S.Rept. 106-279, p. 30.

The report indicates that NIMA should aim for a 2005-era vision for the imagery TPED architecture and concept of operations.22 NIMA may not be ready to accept such a broad role within the Intelligence Community. According to a media account, Robert Zitz, a senior NIMA official, has stated that for the present integrating imagery and geospatial data and imagery remains the agency’s primary focus; “right now,” according to Zitz, “we don’t feel that we are ready to take on the challenge of doing imagery and signals intelligence both in one architecture.”23 NIMA officials undoubtedly recognize that such fusion would not only be technically challenging but it could involve conflicts with other, older, and larger agencies that could complicate NIMA’s overall missions.

Peter Marino, the chairman of the NIMA Commission, in April 3, 2001 testimony, indicated continuing concern that NIMA lacks adequate resources for such a task: and I think what you’re creating is a recipe for disaster for the day when [FIA] starts dropping down volumes of data that is considerably greater than the volumes of data that we’re seeing today and expects an organization like NIMA to start processing and exploiting that data. That doesn’t close at all right now with the budget that NIMA has to do TPED.24

Beyond questions of resources, some observers express concern that the heavy responsibility of managing a multi-int geospatial grid would be assigned to a relatively new organization that is a DOD combat support agency. According to this view, developing and acquiring the necessary systems that manage the flow of imagery will be a daunting task that NIMA will probably be able to accomplish only with additional funding and by drawing upon outside assistance. They suggest that establishment of collection requirements­determining which targets should get the highest priorities­more appropriately should become the responsibility of the DCI who has, in any event, been assigned the responsibility by statute.25

Nor do they believe would NIMA be a logical candidate to address the tasking of the sigint collection efforts of the National Security Agency (NSA) for which longstanding interagency procedures exist. Organizing a process by which analysts in various agencies can annotate data on an imagery base would be a logical NIMA responsibility, but attempting to become a “final authority” for validating such annotation would, at least in some cases, appear to be an overstretch that could cause prolonged interagency disagreements.

In addition to NIMA’s apparent ambivalence, it should be noted that the NRO Commission recommended that imagery and signals intelligence requirements committees should be returned to the DCI instead of being left with NIMA and NSA in order to ensure the balance and priority of requirements between military and national consumers is maintained.26 It is possible that the DCI’s staff has been reluctant to become overly involved in the operational activities of a DOD combat support agency, but many observers believe that to the extent that NIMA becomes responsible for managing the geospatial grid for a wide variety of Government consumers, inside and outside DOD, there will have to be a significant role for the DCI if for no other purpose than ensuring that NIMA decisions are acceptable to the entire Intelligence Community.  

U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 2d session, Committee of Conference, Enactment of Provisions of H.R. 5408, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H. Rept. 106-945, October 6, 2000, pp. 713-715.

Amy Butler, “NIMA Official Says Agency Can’t Yet Handle ‘Multi-INT’ Responsibilities,” Defense Information and Electronics Report, February 16, 2001.

Testimony to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, April 3, 2001, Federal Document Clearing House transcript. 50 USC 404f.]

It cannot not of course be proven that different organizational arrangements for identifying geospatial data would have prevented the mistaken bombing of China’s Embassy in Belgrade, but almost all observers agree that there needs to be better arrangements for bringing all forms of data ­including human reporting­to bear on target selection and other functions. Establishing systematic collection and review procedures and fixing responsibilities would arguably serve to minimize blunders in the future.

Funding TPED. The question of NIMA’s ability to manage the geospatial grid is closely related to the adequacy of funding for TPED. Reacting to the longstanding tendency to favor collection systems over analysis, Congress has expressed concern that planned investment in FIA has not been matched with a willingness to make the necessary investment in TPED, creating a potential for excessive collection of data that cannot be effectively used. In 1998 Congress authorized FIA but inserted provisions in the FY1999 Intelligence Authorization Act requiring that FIA funds be embargoed pending the identification of TPED requirements.27 In 1999 the Senate Intelligence Committee noted that the FIA program “focuses on collection and pays relatively less attention to the tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination functions necessary to a coherent and comprehensive end-to-end architecture.” As a result the Committee urged maintaining a cap on the FIA budget until all requirements, including TPED, were identified.28

In floor debate prior to passage of the FY2000 Intelligence Authorization Act (P.L. 106-120), Representative Jerry Lewis (who also served as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense), noted that while the FIA “will be the most expensive program in the history of the intelligence community,” there had been “no plan to fund TPED and not even an understanding of how we ought to go about it.” As a result the FY2000 Act included provisions that advised the executive branch that Congress would not fund FIA “unless there is a plan implemented that will process the satellite data that FIA will collect.”

“In English, it does not do any good to take pictures that no one will ever see.”29 The Clinton Administration’s FY2001 Defense budget request included additional funding for TPED as a down payment on a $1.5 billion multi-year TPED enhancement program. The Defense Science Board Task Force, however, concluded that TPED will actually require $3 billion.30 The report accompanying the House version of the FY2001 Intelligence Authorization bill noted that the “administration has, indeed, added funding ... in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Committee agrees that this figure represents a substantial investment. However, it is well short of the range of necessary investment reported to Congress by the administration both last year and in testimony this year.”31

NRO Commission, Report, p54.

This provision was criticized in floor debate for complicating the work of the NRO by Senator Thurmond, then chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he argued that some who were concerned about cost growth in FIA “also want to see FIA’s capabilities to support military users reduced so that savings can be used to support other programs. . .that have a more ‘national’ orientation.” Congressional Record, October 8, 1998, p. S11904.

U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 1st session, Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 for the Intelligence Activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System and for Other Purposes, S.Rept. 106-48, May 11, 1999, pp. 4-5.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in reporting its bill the same month also asserted that funding for analysis “remains woefully inadequate” and discussed a NIMA report on TPED that described projected challenges and budgetary shortfalls related to FIA. The Committee noted that NIMA has proposed a three phase plan that would first (in 2001-2005) lay the infrastructure foundation for effective use of new space platforms, commercial imagery, and “minimal levels of modernization supporting airborne systems.” The second and subsequent phase (2002-2007) would see a transition to full support for using imagery from new satellite systems, provide greater support to airborne systems, and provide infrastructure “hooks” for all intelligence disciplines, including human intelligence (humint) and measurement and signature analysis (masint).

The third phase (2004-2009) would see the establishment of a common operational picture including full support for all intelligence disciplines, full support for airborne systems, and integrate moving target data.32 The Senate Committee expressed concern that the level of funding proposed by the Administration for the first year of the first phase was inadequate. “The Committee is concerned that the dramatic underfunding of Phase One TPED modernization in fiscal year 2001 is setting up a budgetary crunch wherein a disproportionate amount of funds will be required in subsequent years....”33 The following October, in floor debate in the House on the intelligence conference report, the late Representative Dixon, then the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, noted that in the previous year Congress had made clear its expectation that FIA would encompass an adequate balance between collection and TPED.

“Congress was clear in the description of the consequences that would flow from an executive branch decision not to make TPED investments sufficient to utilize fully the collection capabilities of the FIA. As the classified annex to this conference report makes clear, the resolve of Congress has not changed.”34 The report accompanying the House version of the FY2002 Intelligence Authorization bill (H.R. 2883), while noting “totally inadequate planning and investment,”indicated that the bill provided initial funding for NIMA’s modernization.

Congressional Record, November 9, 1999, p. H11758.

Defense Science Board, p. 32.

U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.Rept. 106-620, May 16, 2000, p. 19.

U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 2d session, Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 for the Intelligence Activities of the United States Government and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System and for Other Purposes, S. Rept. 106-279, May 4, 2000, pp. 7-8.

S.Rept. 106-279, pp. 7,9.

“The funding will enable the initiation of acquisition reform, improved information management capabilities, new business processes to better produce innovative imagery and geo-spatial products, and greater access to all imagery sources.”35 The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) similarly noted “serious deficiencies in the NIMA’s preparedness to task, receive, and exploit data from the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) being developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).”

SASC lamented the necessary transfer of millions of dollars from NIMA’s modernization budget mostly to modify legacy systems for tasking, workflow management, and data transfer.36 The congressional power of the purse was dramatically demonstrated in August 2000 when funding for the Discoverer II radar satellite program was eliminated from the FY2001 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-259). Discoverer II would have tested new technology that would permit testing of movable antennae that could provide data on a 24-hour basis that is currently being collected by JSTARS aircraft and other systems.

House appropriators criticized likely development costs and foresaw costs of a fully-deployed system reaching some $25 billion. The House Appropriations Committee further noted that DOD “has conducted no trade-off analysis between Discoverer II and other systems and processes” that might accomplish the same tasks nor had DOD analyzed “the impact a Discoverer II constellation would have on an already overtaxed imagery processing, exploitation, and dissemination system.”37 Although plans for alternative approaches were underway in early 2001,38 the congressional willingness to cancel funds for Discoverer II to free up funding for TPED carried a clear and unmistakable message.

Congressional Record, October 12, 2000, p. H9854.

U.S. Congress, 107th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, H.Rept. 107-219, September 26, 2001, p. 13.

U.S. Congress, 107th Congress, 1st session, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, S.Rept. 107-62, September 12, 2001, p. 115.

U.S. Congress, 106th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2001, H.Rept. 106-644, June 1, 2000, p. 150. A different perspective is provided by Zachary Lum, “Congress, Not Air Force, Stymies Progress in Space,” Defense News, September 11, 2000, p. 15. On the desire to find funds for TPED, see also Amy Butler, “Space-based Radar Funds May be Used to pay TPED bills, Officials Say,” Defense Information and Electronics Report, December 17, 1999, p. 5.38

Amy Butler, “AOA for Space-based Radar on the Horizon, Space Ops Chief Says,” Inside the Air Force, February 2, 2001.

While acknowledging that investment in collection efforts has not been matched by funding of TPED, some observers note that it may be technically appropriate in some cases to invest in systems before making the necessary arrangements for utilization of the data collected. Furthermore, there may be sound reasons to maintain an extensive imagery database that can be exploited in the event of unanticipated military operations.39

Commercial Imagery

A second major issue is commercial imagery which some believe can reduce the need for massive investment in government satellite reconnaissance systems.  Commercial imagery is increasingly available to customers, government and private, throughout the world.40 It is expected that the quality of resolution available, the extent of coverage, and timeliness of delivery of the finished product will be enhanced by more commercial satellites that are anticipated to be orbited in the coming decade.  At some point, observers predict, continuous global coverage will become available on the open market.

Although there are obvious security concerns about high-quality imagery becoming available to other governments (and terrorist groups), the large inventory of commercial images that can be purchased will be of significant potential interest to intelligence agencies. NIMA is currently purchasing commercial imagery annually, but many observers argue that much larger amounts of commercial imagery could be purchased. Although cost data on government imagery is not public, a given amount of imagery purchased from commercial firms could, in some circumstances, cost considerably less than comparable government imagery. Thus, heavier reliance on acquiring commercial imagery could represent important cost savings, given the potential cost of FIA. The Space Commission argued that, with the currently available half-meter imagery, approximately half of NIMA’s requirements for information on the locations of objects on the Earth could be met.41 In particular, commercial imagery could provide coverage of wide-area surveillance and government satellites could be targeted on more challenging and more sensitive point-target reconnaissance.42

See the conclusions of conferees on the FY2002 Defense Authorization bill; U.S. Congress, 107th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, H.Rept. 107-333, December 12, 2001, p. 507. See also remarks by NIMA Director Clapper quoted by Joanne Sperber, Military Information Technology, Vol.  6, No. 1 (2002): “There is the proverbial, perpetual metaphor that the intelligence community collects far more than we can possibly process and exploit. To a certain extent, that’s true; but that’s not all bad. The U.S. intelligence community has a global responsibility, so to the extent that we can collect and archive material that we can refer to late, it’s not all bad.”

See Yahya A. Dehqanzada and Ann M. Florini, Secrets for Sale: How Commercial Satellite Imagery Will Change the World (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000). A principal advocate of greater reliance on commercial imagery and other open source information is Robert David Steele, On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World (Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International Press, 2000).

In December 2000 the Clinton Administration licensed two U.S. firms to sell half-meter resolution imagery to customers worldwide. See Vernon Loeb, “U.S. Is Relaxing Rules on Sale of Satellite Photos,”Washington Post, December 16, 2000, p. A3.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
April 29, 2010, 7:02 a.m. EDT · Recommend · Post:   
Iridium Announces Government Advisory Board

MCLEAN, Va., Apr 29, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Iridium Communications Inc. (IRDM 7.94, -0.19, -2.34%)  today announced that it has
established a Government Advisory Board comprised of former senior U.S. government officials and business leaders. The Iridium Government Advisory Board will provide counsel to Iridium as the Company continues to enhance its suite of products and services for federal and state civilian, defense, intelligence and law enforcement customers.

"Iridium is pleased that such an extraordinary group of individuals has agreed to serve on our Government Advisory Board," said Matt Desch, Iridium CEO. "As we continue to strengthen and expand our offerings to the government community, I have no doubt that the perspectives, advice and counsel of our Government Advisory Board members will be invaluable. Today, we are a critical communications lifeline upon which our government customers rely on for both voice and data communications. Iridium is committed to continuing to be first and foremost in the minds of our government customers as we develop new products and services that meet their needs, particularly given the opportunities associated with building our next generation constellation, Iridium NEXT."

"We are proud to serve our government customers, and they continue to be an important part of our diverse global business," said Lt. Gen. John H. Campbell, (U.S. Air Force, retired), executive vice president, government programs, Iridium. "No doubt the guidance and perspective of the members of our Government Advisory Board, with their first hand and front line experience, will benefit Iridium and ultimately the military and civilian men and women who we're proud to serve as our customers."

Members of Iridium's Government Advisory Board include:

  --   The Honorable Donald M. Kerr, Ph.D. is a research professor in George
      Mason University's Volgenau School of Information Technology and
      Engineering. He has served as principal deputy director of U.S. National
      Intelligence, director of the National Reconnaissance Office, and deputy
      director for Science and Technology at the Central Intelligence Agency
      (CIA), where he received the Distinguished Intelligence Medal. Kerr has
      also held leadership positions at the Federal Bureau of Investigation
      and Los Alamos National Laboratory.  From Cornell University, Kerr
      earned a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, a master's degree
      in microwave electronics, and a Ph.D. in plasma physics and microwave
      electronics.  He has received the Department of Energy Outstanding
      Service Award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal and
      the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service. Kerr is a
      Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for
      the Advancement of Science.

  --  Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, (U.S. Navy, retired), Ph.D. serves
      as vice president, Science Programs for CSC Corporation as well as the
      president of Antarctic Research Support.  He previously served as
      undersecretary of commerce for Oceans & Atmosphere and Administrator of
      the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has spearheaded
      the development of the Group on Earth Observation, served as president
      and CEO of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education
      (CORE), and served as deputy chief of Naval Operations. Lautenbacher is
      a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, holds a master's degree and Ph.D.
      from Harvard University in applied mathematics, and was a Federal
      Executive Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

  --  General Lance W. Lord (U.S. Air Force, retired) is the CEO of Astrotech
      Space Operations.  Lord served 37 years in the U.S. military, most
      recently as the commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command.  In his career,
      he also led more than 39,000 personnel who provided combat capabilities
      for the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Strategic
      Command.  Lord holds a bachelor's degree in education from Otterbein
      College and a master's degree in industrial management from the
      University of North Dakota.  He was a distinguished graduate of the Air
      Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.

  --  The Honorable Arthur (Art) L. Money served as the assistant secretary of
      Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (ASD C3I)
      from 1999 until 2001.  Prior to that, Money served as the senior
      civilian official, Office of the ASD C3I.  He also served as the U.S.
      Department of Defense chief information officer; as assistant secretary
      of the U.S. Air Force for Research, Development and Acquisition; and as
      chief information officer of the U.S. Air Force. Money holds a master's
      degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Santa Clara, and
      a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from San Jose State
      University.  He has also participated in programs at Massachusetts
      Institute of Technology and Harvard University.

  --  The Honorable Peter B. Teets served as undersecretary of the U.S. Air
      Force and director of the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office.  As
      undersecretary, he was responsible for U.S. Air Force actions on behalf
      of the secretary of the Air Force and was acting secretary in the
      secretary's absence.  Previously, Teets was president and chief
      operating officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Teets earned Bachelor
      of Science and Master of Science degrees in applied mathematics from the
      University of Colorado, where he also received an honorary doctorate of
      science degree.  He also holds a Master of Science degree in management
      from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  In 2009, Teets received
      The General James E. Hill Lifetime Space Achievement Award.

In addition, the following two current members of Iridium's Board of Directors, will also serve ex officio on the Government Advisory Board:

  --  Brigadier General Peter M. Dawkins (U.S. Army, retired) is senior
      partner of the commodity hedge fund Flintlock Capital Asset Management.
      He is a graduate of West Point, was a Rhodes Scholar, studied at Oxford
      University, and earned a Ph.D. from the Woodrow Wilson School at
      Princeton University.  During his distinguished 24 year career in the
      U.S. Army he was a combat commander, and served as military assistant to
      the deputy secretary of defense. Dawkins began his career in the private
      sector as a partner at Lehman Brothers, and spent 25 years leading a
      number of financial institutions.  He was a White House fellow and was
      identified by Time magazine as one of the "Top 50 Leaders in the U.S. in
      1963." In 2006, he received the Horatio Alger Award.

  --   Mr. Alvin B. ("Buzzy") Krongard is the former CEO and chairman of the
      board of Alex. Brown Incorporated.  During Krongard's 29-year career in
      the private sector, he held numerous financial industry leadership
      posts. Krongard has also served as executive director of the CIA.  He
      holds his Bachelor of Arts degree with honors from Princeton University
      and a Juris Doctor degree with honors from the University of Maryland.
      He served three years active duty as an infantry officer with the U.S.
      Marine Corps.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
DARPA Bounces Smart Radar Off Buildings To Track Individual Urban Vehicles From the Sky
By Clay Dillow
Posted 03.24.2010 at 1:07 pm

Tracking from Above It's difficult to use radar in urban environments because of all the structures that get in the way. But by bouncing highly sensitive radar off of buildings' facades, DARPA hopes to lock onto individual vehicles from UAVs and track them through urban streets even when buildings block line of sight. Zemlinki

Radar is great for tracking objects in the wide-open sky or even at sea, but when you try to take it to street level you run into some obstacles -- literally. Radar requires a good line of sight, and obstructions like buildings or terrain features can render radar useless. But now, using a handful of unmanned aircraft and technology that allows them to intelligently reflect radar off buildings, DARPA is developing a system that should be able to track individual vehicles even as they dart between skyscrapers and other structures.

Dubbed Multipath Exploitation Radar, the system works by using buildings as mirrors, bouncing radar off of surfaces to "see" around corners and keep tabs on vehicles even without direct line of sight. First the MER system uses LIDAR -- optical surveying tech that is already packed on many aircraft -- to create a 3-D map of a city. That model of the city allows the system to calculate which reflective angles can best keep an eye on a particular vehicle even when it is obscured by a structure.

Using Ku-band radar, the MER is sensitive to even slight differences between similar vehicles, ensuring that the target car isn't lost in the mix of traffic even when the signals are bouncing off of buildings. That's a key component of MER that can't fail if the system is to work in crowded urban environments. And it will have to; DARPA thinks that once a LIDAR model of a city is made, MER can cover a swath of terrain more than 600 square miles in size.

But MER has some obstacles of its own to overcome before it starts seeing through buildings. The key challenge is maintaining a lock on the target as the radar re-orients itself from line-of-sight to reflection and back, perhaps multiple times very rapidly as a car speeds through urban streets. In the meantime, the ever-ambitious DARPA is looking into developiong an algorithm that would allow MER to track several vehicles in different areas at once.

DARPA Wants Roving 'Smart Cameras' That Understand What They See
By Clay Dillow
Posted 03.17.2010 at 5:16 pm

Smarter Cameras DARPA wants cameras that can interpret what they're seeing Hustvedt

The problem with surveillance cameras is that they can see but they can't think, which means there always has to be a human on the other end making cognitive sense of what's right in front of the camera. But if we meshed machine vision with visual intelligence, DARPA argues in a solicitation for its new "Mind's Eye" program, we could remove the human element from myriad tasks.

In essense, DARPA wants a smart camera that not only sees what's in front of it, but thinks about what's going on and even what might happen next.

For humans, taking in our surroundings and applying learned concepts to them is innate. We can use our imagination to apply learned concepts to potential scenarios that haven't even taken place. These things are so easy to do we don't even think about them, but they're very difficult to duplicate in machines.

Machines, DARPA argues, can't piece the entire mosaic of space together, perceiving only the "nouns" in a given setting. "The focus of Mind's Eye is to add the perceptual and cognitive underpinnings for recognizing and reasoning about the verbs in those scenes, enabling a more complete narrative of action in the visual experience."

Applications for such technology abound, but specifically DARPA mentions the need for a smart camera that can "report on activity in an area of observation." The agency sees such visual devices deployed on fixed surveillance platforms, "camera_equipped perch-and-stare micro air vehicles" and unmanned ground vehicles. But if the technology is such that it can do all the things DARPA wants it to, we think they can do even better.

Out of the Blue, DARPA Seeks Means to Manipulate Lightning
By Clay Dillow
Posted 12.21.2009 at 5:30 pm

Lightning Mother Nature has it. DARPA wants it.

China and Russia try to control rain clouds and the Dutch use technology to keep low-lying inland areas from flooding, so why shouldn’t the United States be able to manipulate lightning? In an attempt to better understand one of nature’s most powerful processes, DARPA issued a broad agency announcement yesterday asking for ideas on how to best protect American personnel and resources from dangers and costs associated with lightning strikes. To wit:

Lightning causes more than $1B/year in direct damages to property in addition to the loss of lives, disruption of activities (for example, postponement of satellite launches) and their corresponding costs. A better understanding of the physics underlying lightning discharge, associated emissions, and related processes (for example, tribocharging in the clouds) may lead to revolutionary advances in the state of the art of lightning protection.

Specifically, DARPA seeks validated models on the natural lightning process, a means of triggering lightning within a storm intentionally, and strategies for protecting a given area from lightning strikes during a storm by somehow reducing the probability that lightning will strike there.

The call for proposals also asks various questions about manipulating lightning’s natural unpredictability: “Given an area (size: 1 square kilometer) in the presence of a thunderstorm, is it possible to reduce the probability of a cloud to ground lightning strike in that area? How might lightning initiation be inhibited, or lightning propagation be diverted or blocked to achieve this goal? Is it possible to induce lightning in one region within the storm system, in order to suppress lightning in the region in need of protection?”

The call for proposals clearly seeks a means of protecting U.S. assets – think military and space installations that could do without a massive, circuit-frying electrical surge – from the often-devastating effects of a lightning strike.

Of course, the DARPA enthusiasts in us want to believe that the DoD is actually pursuing a lightning weapon that we can aim at our enemies’ military installations. But one thing is made abundantly clear by this call for proposals: there’s a lot about lightning we just don’t know.

How Bat Sonar Could Improve Human Cameras
The complex algorithm which bats employ to identify plants could make for the most advanced facial recognition software yet
By Matt Ransford
Posted 03.24.2008 at 5:07 pm

Bats Seth Tisue

This past week we happened to cover both dolphin echolocation and facial recognition. Today comes a report on a study that may bring the two concepts a little closer together. German researchers have devised a computer algorithm which is able to identify plant species using sonar echoes, in the same way bats are able to find fruit and insects. If the technology is one day sufficiently refined, it could ultimately be used for facial recognition.

Bats rely on echolocation to find their way around and to hunt prey and forage for fruit. In order better to understand how the bats identify which plants bear the fruit they prefer, the researchers at the University of Tübingen devised a software routine that could analyze the echo response time and frequency of sound waves reflected off isolated plants. Each presented a distinct signature, based on the size and number of branches and leaves. The team was able to achieve nearly 100 percent accuracy once the study was complete.

Not only will the findings be valuable for the science of bats and echolocation, but the applications for humans are potentially great as well. The distinct advantage of a sonar identification system over a visual-based system is that it would be able to operate in low light or total darkness.

Tested: Face-Detecting Cameras
New cameras can spot a face in a crowd—and focus on it
By Aimee Baldridge
Posted 07.12.2007 at 2:00 am

The goal of autofocus is to make something in the picture come out sharp. But if you're taking a photo of people, it's not their hands you want in focus. Recently, camera makers have been adding the ability to detect faces in a scene, track them if they move, and optimize both focus and exposure to make everyone look their best. But not all face-detection systems are equal, as I discovered after testing several compact cameras on patient friends who posed by indoor light, as well as on passersby rushing through Times Square.

How it Works

All face-detecting cameras compare the scene before them to a built-in library of features derived from images of real people, such as the distances between eyes, patterns of light and shadow, and skin colors. So far, no models can identify a face in profile, and they don't function well in low light, such as in bars or candlelit rooms. But they're not easily fooled: In our tests, none were thrown off by variations in skin tone or by accessories like eyeglasses.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately