Military satellite technology

[qso1]

Even the ones in the far reaches of places like the Australian outback? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[netarch]

You guys need to get out more! Google Earth has seen sunbathers.<p></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Full-time cruising now!!! </div>

 

[qso1]

It occured to me some of the images have to be satellite because you can go to places like the North Korean ICBM launch site and somehow, I don't think Kim Jong Ill would allow aircraft overflights of sensitive military installations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

The high res ones where you can see people etc are definitely from aircraft. Not all areas are covered in the same resolution - remote areas, places like the North Korean launch site and even my house in Devon lack the high res cover and you can't see nearly as much detail.<br />There may be a couple of isolated spots with higher res stuff from government satellites where those data have been released but those make up a tiny fraction of the total.

 

[chao83220]

Try this link (www.sightseebyspace.com) also.<br /><br />I think the small dots are people.<br /><br />Tiananmen Square on sightseebyspace.com

 

[arkady]

Hmm, had forgotten all about this thread. <br /><br />I remember feeling that I'd given it the wrong title, in that it's really the camera technology that's most interesting. What inspired me to start the thread was pondering the possibility of creating a worldwide web of cameras allowing us to more or less record everything that goes on the surface of the planet. Sort of a planetary database, that coupled with the ever increasing computational abilities raises some really interesting prospects. Facial recognizion is often the first aspect that comes to mind considering police work, but all sorts of applications can be thought of, especially in many scientific fields of study. <br /><br />Now, it's apparent that these techniques is allready in use and has been for quite some time. What I'm suggesting is making it official and systematic. However the most interesting aspect of the idea perhaps, is the how problematic it quickly becomes, and the amount of power it represents. Much like depicted in popular litterature. (Big Brother) <br /><br />So, given we're able, do we build it? <br /><br />No need to respond to the question, as I'm afraid it wouldn't really belong in this section of the forum, however I'm still interested opinions about the technical aspects of the idea. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[billslugg]

In a previous post it was established that a reasonable guess as to spy satellite capability is a 1.25 inch resolution. This is the same ability that the best human eye has at 1070 feet. <br /><br />The 1.25 inch number assumes a 100 inch mirror operating at 80 miles altitude in blue light with zero air turbulence. The 80 mile altitude can be done only a few times because of the need for fuel to get down there and back and is probably an absolute limit. The blue light cannot be improved upon because the atmosphere is opaque to UV. Mirror diameter has reportedly been improved upon, to the point where a 3 cm (1.2") resolution has been achieved.<br /><br />This resolution would not allow the determination of facial features, identification of individuals, or reading of license plates. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

Also licence plates face the horizon instead of the zenth(typically) so the angle is unfavorable, unless the satellite is looking at an angle which increases the 80 miles to more than 100 miles slant line distance. Neil

 

[jimfromnsf]

more than 100 miles and more atmosphere to look thru

 

[xmo1]

Brainstorm it. There are many ways to visualize objects. Optical telescopes, as you know them, are close to being the least effective at observing Earth bound objects from space, or even from the ionosphere. Consider multiple units, each employing their own discrete technologies to come up with 3D multimedia representation of objects moving in real time. Adjust frame speed or project future events.<br /><br />The military does not always have the best equipment. Far from it. They are notoriously budget constrained. Huge budget of lowest bidders.<br /><br />The government has areas of concern, particle physics for example, that are more under the scope than other areas, and those inventions and technologies are more likely to be withheld than others. Visualization is one of those areas. Again, brainstorm it. You are likely to come up with some fascinating conclusions fairly quickly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Thanks for the encouragement, but the brainstorming has been ongoing for some time now and we are at an impasse. The atmosphere is pretty much opaque to all wavelengths shorter than that of blue light, you can't really get much closer than 80 miles while in orbit, and no one has been able to get anything much over 100 inch diameter into orbit. Except for the diameter question, those are absolute limits that cannot be exceeded.<br /><br />What do you mean by "multiple units"? VLB synthesis? Being worked on.<br /><br />Adjust frame speed? What does that mean?<br /><br />What is visualization? Remote viewing? Wouldn't that be neat! Many have claimed to have done it, but unfortunately no one has shown convincing evidence to the scientific community that it can be done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

55 years ago I got to use a very high quality missile tracking telescope. We could see cars on the highway 6 miles away, but they were barely visable. Buzzards were visable a mile away, so people would also be visable, but not good enough to make a positive ID. Adaptive optics (very costly) would be needed to get better detail or an airplane camara flying at about 300 meters = 1000 feet altitude, under most favorable conditions. From this height, less than one square kilometer is closeup, so about a billion pictures are needed to cover all the land area of Earth. In many locals, little is visable other than tree tops and shrubs. If we produced a million new pictures per day we would need a staff of about 1000 persons to look carefully at the pictures and compare previous pictures of approximently the location of something suspicious. Looking at a million per day some spots would only be viewed once per decade at one centimeter resolution. Important spots could be photographed several times per day, but the cost would be high. I suppose, every airplane could take quality photos whenever it was at an altitude of about 300 meters. Neil