©stock.adobe.com/au/immimagery
Uncertainty surrounds the nature and goals of Australia’s National Space Mission for Earth Observation.
By Jon Fairall
In the mini-budget of March 2022, the then federal government committed to a $1.2 billion program to deliver four Earth observation satellites called the National Space Mission for Earth Observation (NSMEO).
It appears, however, that the NSMEO we get will be quite a different beast to the one we were promised.
Upon taking office in May 2022, the incoming Labor government ordered an urgent review of government spending. There was speculation in the media that this would include at least part of the space budget. However, according to a statement from the Australian Space Agency (ASA), which has carriage of the project, the NSMEO allocation survived not only the review, but also the first budget of the new government.
A spokesperson for the ASA said, “The Government remains committed to delivering on space programs that align with national priorities and deliver value for all Australians. There have been no changes to funding for space programs in this Budget.”
However, it is hard to say what that means in practice. The ASA and other government agencies did not respond to requests for comment on the aims or design of the project.
Rumours persist that the project is being delayed, or its scope reduced due to budget constraints in Canberra. It’s not clear whether this is true or not. What is for sure is that the project is effectively hidden from sight. Even well-connected figures in the industry are unsure of its fundamental aims.
As a result, it’s difficult for the land information community, let alone the wider public, to know whether it should care about the NSMEO.
When the government announced the project, it made the ASA the lead agency, with important roles for Geoscience Australia, CSIRO, the Department of Defence and the Bureau of Meteorology. All of these agencies responded to queries about the project from Position by referring us to the ASA.
In support of the allocation of funds, the government said the NSMEO would have a key role in improving flood and fire response and in monitoring biomass. However, we have been unable to find any potential user that has been given any role in the project.
Firefighters, for instance, would seem to know nothing about the project. The Rural Fire Service in NSW did not respond to questions from Position, but the Country Fire Authority in Victoria confirmed that it is not involved. “We are open to collaboration with all agencies and research providers in areas that would benefit our mitigation, preparedness and response to bushfires,” the organisation said in a statement
CFA currently uses satellites directly, or through partner agencies, to gather information on existing fires, monitor grassland conditions and detect changes in land use, such as building locations.
In introducing the NSMEO, Melissa Price, the then Industry Minister, said the project would “create more than 500 jobs, with an anticipated supplier network of more than 100 companies across Australia”. We have been unable to uncover any company that has been sub-contracted to do any work at all. Michelle Gilmour at launch provider Gilmour Space said that she would like to be involved, but she had not received any approaches from the agency.
Andy Koronios, the chief executive of SmartSat CRC, an alliance of universities using artificial intelligence to streamline image transmission from satellites, says his organisation has not been involved with the NSMEO.
EO uncertainty
The NSMEO had its origins in Geoscience Australia, where it was seen as a logical consequence of the 2021 Earth Observation from Space Roadmap. The Roadmap was one of the first tasks undertaken by the ASA upon its formation. It contained three hooks: secure access to EO data, make a contribution to EO internationally and enable international collaboration.
The University of Queensland’s Stuart Phinn, a long-time observer of the industry and chair of the committee that produced the 2016–26 Australian Earth Observation Community Plan, a precursor to the Roadmap, says the NSMEO was driven by a need to produce a tangible response to the Roadmap. It came with five high-value missions. The first of these was a series of satellites designed to improve the calibration of space-based sensors, which would also act to improve the interoperability of data from sensors. Then there were proposals to monitor water and bushfire fuel loads, the weather and to undertake maritime surveillance. The proposed meteorological satellite would be the first Australian-built payload in geostationary orbit.
There can be very little doubt that an investment in technology that could make a serious difference to the problems presented by fire and flood would be welcomed by most Australians. It would seem to be a good use of taxpayers’ funds.
But we are unsure if that is the plan. And it’s not as if there aren’t alternatives.
Koronios said that SmartSat CRC was playing a role in two such projects: AquaWatch and Ozfuel. Both are aligned with the Roadmap. AquaWatch is a CSIRO project to develop ground-to-space water monitoring technology for Australia’s waterways. Ozfuel is a project led by the Australian National University to monitor fuel conditions in bushland that is dominated by eucalypt species.
But so far as one can tell, the NSMEO seems to be exclusively focused on the Satellite Cross Calibration Radiometer Mission. This will support improved calibration of international operational EO missions and improved interoperability of data from different satellites. It appears to duplicate work being undertaken by the European Space Agency’s TRUTHS mission and NASA’s CLARREO mission.
If it turns out that the NSMEO really is about supporting these missions, that would be a controversial decision. Stuart Phinn says that while more rigorous values from the sensors on satellites would be welcome, it is not the most pressing problem in Earth Observation and certainly not the best way for the Australian government to spend a billion dollars.
There is doubt about the concept’s value even in the US. CLARREO has been repeatedly robbed of funds by the US Government.
Other users of spatial data say the whole thing should be re-thought. Paul Farrell at NGIS in Perth says that, if the aim is better land management, we should look to a marriage of the best modern spatial data and traditional Aboriginal knowledge.
Jon Fairall was the founder and editor of Position magazine in the 1990s, under its original guise of GIS User magazine.
This article was first published in Issue 116 (Dec/Jan 2022-23) of Position magazine.
Stay up to date by getting stories like this delivered to your inbox.
Sign up to receive our free weekly Spatial Source newsletter.
