31–40 of 45 posts
I suspect the most powerful are classified NRO satellites. The public's knowledge is likely a decade or two behind actual capabilities. I recall reading somewhere about satellites being able to see license plate numbers from space but I have no idea where I read that or if it's true.
I worked a earth imaging system (EIS) back in the 1990s. I didn't have security clearance (almost got it and realized it had no benefit to me but a bunch of crap I'd have to do, or not do/say, so I passed). I'm pretty sure that the satellites at the time could read 3 inch newspaper print under the right conditions which happened rarely. I've got a tack sharp 600mm Canon lens and it's sort of useless for a lot of stuf…
I remeber flipping through some spy tech book a while ago and one photo, allegedly quite famous, stuck with me - it was of a wrist watch on a hand of someone lying on a beach and while it was on a blurry side you could still tell what the time was. From the context it was taken in the 70s and from what I gathered it was a satellite snap. Now thinking about it, it might've been a high-altitude plane (U2) photo instead…
Also looking right from the top, at the best conditions, from 200km (a stable orbit can't be lower), will give 4cm resolution for a Hubble-like mirror, or 2cm per pixel Niquist frequency.
As many have alluded to here, there's likely to be a big difference between publicly available imagery and what's currently possible. Sticking to publicly available stuff though, while the resolution of all mapping services varies a lot across the globe, http://wego.here.com provides satellite imagery that betters Google's in a lot of cases.
This is all somewhat moot if you're looking for MIB-esque video of course as these still images are compiled rather than directly snapshotted
High-rez satellite cameras don’t film videos. Satellite cameras don’t have a 2D sensor you can find in a traditional camera. Instead, they feature a long narrow sensor. As the satellite flies over the earth, the sensor records a single row below the satellite. That row is oriented perpendicular to the satellite’s velocity. As the satellite flies, it scans a long strip of land underneath. It works similar to a flatbed…
https://www.wired.com/2011/05/with-drones-and-satellites-u-s...
This article explains more about how they used a combination of satellite imagery and drones.
High-rez satellite cameras don’t film videos. Satellite cameras don’t have a 2D sensor you can find in a traditional camera. Instead, they feature a long narrow sensor. As the satellite flies over the earth, the sensor records a single row below the satellite. That row is oriented perpendicular to the satellite’s velocity. As the satellite flies, it scans a long strip of land underneath. It works similar to a flatbed…
https://terrabella.google.com/
> As far as images go, I haven't found any other image source providing a better definition image than what Google Maps provide As many have alluded to here, there's likely to be a big difference between publicly available imagery and what's currently possible. Sticking to publicly available stuff though, while the resolution of all mapping services varies a lot across the globe, http://wego.here.com provides satelli…
I'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…
Hubble was launched in 1990, is it surprising that 22 years later, NRO telescopes are substantially better ?
http://www.space.com/16077-nasa-space-telescopes-failed-nro-program.html
That said, I don't think they'll give an appreciably better resolution -- given good fabrication techniques, optically a 2.4m mirror is a 2.4m mirror, and everything I've read suggests that US IMINT satellites have been (in good seeing conditions) close to diffraction-limited for a long time now.
I'm sure the capabilities of the satellites have improved a great deal, but in other directions than resolution. More communications bandwidth? Faster repointing (giving more flexibility about which targets get imaged on a given pass? Better multi-spectral imaging? I'm sure there will be some surprises when the program is eventually declassified. (And I'm optimistic it will be -- there's lots you can read now about the film-return satellites).
I worked a earth imaging system (EIS) back in the 1990s. I didn't have security clearance (almost got it and realized it had no benefit to me but a bunch of crap I'd have to do, or not do/say, so I passed). I'm pretty sure that the satellites at the time could read 3 inch newspaper print under the right conditions which happened rarely. I've got a tack sharp 600mm Canon lens and it's sort of useless for a lot of stuf…
And now they are happy because RAID configurations are fairly common these days.
Satellites have had the ability to do that for decades. I was in the military during the Reagan administration and we would roll $weaponsystem under cover when the Russian satellites were passing over. They could see even small details such as which model it was. But more resolution isn't what's important. Other capabilities, such as deep infrared, ultraviolet, radio, whatever scanning is more useful. Sats made U-2s,…
High-rez satellite cameras don’t film videos. Satellite cameras don’t have a 2D sensor you can find in a traditional camera. Instead, they feature a long narrow sensor. As the satellite flies over the earth, the sensor records a single row below the satellite. That row is oriented perpendicular to the satellite’s velocity. As the satellite flies, it scans a long strip of land underneath. It works similar to a flatbed…
Video from space has been done by civilian spacecraft, e.g.: https://terrabella.google.com/ We know that the film-return satellites were working in push broom mode (or "whisk-broom", as I've seen the KH-9 cameras described). I have little doubt that the primary observation mode of the follow-on electro-optical systems is also push-broom. But not sure I'd want to rule out the possibility that the more recent blocks mi…
The ground wind speed at the time of eruption was below 5 m/s, i.e. the video plays much faster then real-time.
If you’ll download the video, pause it, skip between frames, you’ll notice different parts were shot from different positions and with different resolutions.
They probably abused the fact clouds move in very predictable manner. They took several satellite images from whatever satellites happen to pass roughly above the volcano, and used creative video editing to make a smooth video from those several frames.