As an aside, that donation has actually put NASA in a bit of a bind. For political reasons they can't very well turn down the offer. But the telescope itself is only about one third of the total cost of space telescope, with the rest being due to the cost of the instruments and the launch itself. Unlike the US military, NASA does not have an unlimited budget so this unexpected expense threw a wrench into their long-term plans. Furthermore, the telescopes were designed to look down instead of up, so they're not optimized for astronomical observations.
Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#12Disclaimer: I'm the OP on that question.
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#1341cm/pixel available to the government & 50cm/pixel available to Google through GeoEye-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoEye-1 31cm/pixel through WorldView-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldView-4
> "The latest US spy satellites, in comparison, are reported to be able to pick out objects less than 10cm (4 inches) across."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140211-inside-the-google-e...
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
what does "refueling spy sat" mean? (I know nothing about satellite power sources)
The problem with spy sats is they orbit too low, so the suffer from drag in the trace atmosphere. Also, moving them in their orbit is super useful. Covers more, plus confusing the opposition as to their location. But it takes too much fuel. If you refuel them, both problems solved. They have onboard fuel for "stationkeeping"; most low orbit sats do. That is keeping them in their proper orbit and attitude in spite of…
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#15For the full NIIRS rating: https://fas.org/irp/imint/niirs.htm
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#16KH-11 had a theoretical resolution in the inches. "Not quite good enough to identify faces." Those were first launched in the seventies, so I assume they are doing much better now. I think it's safe to assume 5cm or better resolution on a minutely refresh.
even the supposedly recorded-with-mobile footage is always so bad. as if the person is stumbling around not knowing their phone's cammera is rolling.
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#17Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with spy sats is they orbit too low, so the suffer from drag in the trace atmosphere. Also, moving them in their orbit is super useful. Covers more, plus confusing the opposition as to their location. But it takes too much fuel. If you refuel them, both problems solved. They have onboard fuel for "stationkeeping"; most low orbit sats do. That is keeping them in their proper orbit and attitude in spite of…
I would expect a more elliptical orbit to be useful too. It would let you swing down lower over your target while keeping your satellite out of the atmosphere most of the time, and it would be even harder to track.
Elliptical orbits still require station keeping. Elliptical orbits tend to circularize over time from the drag they experience at the closest point to the Earth.
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#19I'm assuming this is all pretty well classified, but I would be shocked if the US government hasn't had the ability to do that for a long time. Consider that back in 2012, the National Reconnaissance Office donated two surplus telescopes to NASA that were substantially better than the Hubble telescope. If those are the sort of telescopes that the government has no need of anymore, imagine what the state-of-the-art is…
Re: Ask HN: Which is the most powerful satellite camera directed towards earth?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with spy sats is they orbit too low, so the suffer from drag in the trace atmosphere. Also, moving them in their orbit is super useful. Covers more, plus confusing the opposition as to their location. But it takes too much fuel. If you refuel them, both problems solved. They have onboard fuel for "stationkeeping"; most low orbit sats do. That is keeping them in their proper orbit and attitude in spite of…
I would expect a more elliptical orbit to be useful too. It would let you swing down lower over your target while keeping your satellite out of the atmosphere most of the time, and it would be even harder to track.
We do have uses for highly elliptical orbits, but they're usually used for long residency times on their high side. The Molniya orbit is a prototypical example.