But the public availability of such images -- for a fee -- also raises some thorny business and political issues.

The increasing availability of super-high resolution 3-foot (1-meter) images snapped from orbiting cameras soon will rival what was once only available through a spymaster's lens. And many in the government aren't happy about it.

"There remains increasing resistance to using commercial [space] imagery, especially by the intelligence community," says Joanne I. Gabrynowicz, an expert in remote-sensing policy at the University of North Dakota.

"There are some 'blue suiters' who say 'hey, this shouldn't be a commercial program' and are fighting these trends," she added. The term 'blue suiters' usually refers to Air Force officers whose uniforms are dark blue.

But it's far too late to staunch the flow of remote sensing into the commercial world.

The government agency that licenses remote-sensing satellites, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), says that they have given the approval for some $2 billion worth of such sensing craft.

"We have issued 13 licenses for 17 remote sensing satellites," said Charles T. Wooldridge, remote sensing licensing coordinator and senior international relations specialist at NOAA's Silver Spring Maryland headquarters.

Wooldridge also said that his office had approved 31 amendments to existing license applications and filing requests, supporting U.S. and foreign partnerships.

These new international deals brought business worth $450 million to the sponsoring companies. That means the availability of advanced sensor images and products from space-based studies of Earth can only continue to grow.

And now, satellite companies are developing entire remote sensing systems -- satellites, ground elements and marketing networks -- and they are selling the service as a package called a "turnkey operation." With these, the satellite builders no longer retain interest in the service they provide.

"Our licenses are for the operation of a private remote-sensing space system that produces data and imagery of surface features," Wooldridge explained. "We license the company and its system, not just the cameras or optics, for example."

With turnkeys, NOAA and other licensing agencies look carefully at each such project, mindful of issues like technology transfer and space-technology exports.

"These are reviewed on a case-by-case basis," Wooldridge said.

Still there are issues that concern the remote-sensing industry. When applying a concept called shutter control, U.S.-issued licenses also contain provisions for the control of sensitive areas where space imaging might be limited.

Shutter control restrictions on the space photography of Israel were inserted into a Senate bill in 1997. Drafted by Rep. John Kyle (R-Arizona) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), the law imposes restrictions on imaging Israeli territory during certain periods invoked by the Israel government.

The imposition of restrictions was unpopular with U.S. industry, which saw foreign partners without these limits as more competitive internationally. Still, U.S. providers worked around the matter.

"The whole issue of shutter control was a short-term issue," Gabrynowicz said. "It wasn't a major issue, such as ownership control, monitoring or compliance," she said.

Wooldridge agreed.

"Any imposition of the [shuttle control] provision will be for the smallest area and the shortest period necessary," he said. "There can't be any permanent blackouts."

To lessen political tensions, the U.S. follows provisions that provide Third World countries -- or any "sensed state" over which satellite images have been taken -- with access to the images of their lands.

"As these systems progress, everyone will have equal access to the products commercially," Wooldridge predicted.

And the technology will continue to enter the commercial marketplace as the remnants of the Cold War recede. Once-classified space technology used by U.S. military spy agencies is now being declassified and snatched up by industry.

Even that became controversial.

"When U.S. spy images were released, some foreign countries accused the U.S. of dumping," said Gabrynowicz. "They accused us of subsidizing declassified technology."

The accusation was that U.S. agencies like the Pentagon had spent billions to develop the technology during the Cold War, which was now free to be exploited by U.S. commercial companies who didn't have to pay for its development.

Foreign providers felt that this could put them at a competitive disadvantage, since any technology they needed they would have to pay for.

Which, during the long Cold War, was true -- even if few taxpayers knew it.