281–290 of 693 posts
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-05/archaeologists-accide...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blurring military bases is pretty common - also done in the US, for example.
I've never seen a US military base blurred on Google Maps.
See https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/12/widespread-blurring-o... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellite_map_images_w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably missing this listing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... Where Gaza listed as its own country, it would be one of the densest, since it's basically a city and its urban sprawl and nothing more (like the other densest entries on the list). Of course, Gaza is itself arguably only part of Palestine, but the West Bank itself is pretty dense (see how high Palestine ranks on tha…
Looking at the country list, I see Israel is the #5 most densely populated country in the world. And Bnei Brak is the #5 most densely populated city, far more densely populated than Gaza. Bnei Brak was hit by rockets this week. Can you link me to some articles that refer to "Hamas firing rockets on Bnei Brak, one of the most densely populated cities in the world"? Or "on israel, one of the most densely populated coun…
You're looking at the second table, which includes only the 100 most populous countries. If you look at the main table, which includes all countries, Israel is #17.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"what would become" and that changes my statement that Palestine has never existed how?
The point is that the U.S. is fully capable of having a political relationship with entities it doesn't recognize as a sovereign state. Take Taiwan as another example. Both the context and details are completely different from that of the PNA, but it nonetheless contradicts your premise in the same manner.
Unlike Palestine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the founder of a company working to solve this exact problem. Revisit rate of Planet's 200+ Dove satellites are quite good (multiple/day) but are comparatively low-res compared to their Rapideye satellites, of which there are fewer. There are a slew of others (Maxar is the next biggest name that comes to mind) but the thesis is low earth orbit is getting crowded, satellites are incredibly expensive even with off-…
Are you talking about passengers taking photos/video out of windows?
We've also developed our own sensing device prototype we call "The Box" that's equipped with a much more powerful array of sensors, but the mobile device-sensing approach makes the most sense for a scalable MVP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found that the maps match the GPS of my phone exactly, but the satellite pictures are shifted. Does that mean: 1) My GPS module also gives out obfuscated coordinates when in China or 2) Google uses shifted satellite images?
I wish I had saved some of the links I had found, one source I read said that the non-satellite map data was actually correct, and it was the stitching of the satellite imagery that was incorrect. I had no way to test this and no other source mentioned this, so I ignored it. But it's funny you mention this, #2 might be the case. robotastronaut also corrected me that it's not actually the GPS that is being obfuscated,…
The opposite is true: If you look at areas like the Macau-Zhuhai border or Hong Kong-Shenzhen, you'll see that the satellite imagery is continuous but the mapping data has discontinuities at the border (some zhuhai streets are halfway across the water to Macau!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The short answer is no. High-resolution imagery comes from low-orbit satellites, which make a complete orbit about every two hours, and image long, narrow strips with each pass, taking days to image the whole planet. There are many of these satellites: commercial, non-military (publicly-accessible) governmental, and governmental (secret), of varying resolutions. These are also supplemented by aerial (plane) imagery.…
I'm the founder of a company working to solve this exact problem. Revisit rate of Planet's 200+ Dove satellites are quite good (multiple/day) but are comparatively low-res compared to their Rapideye satellites, of which there are fewer. There are a slew of others (Maxar is the next biggest name that comes to mind) but the thesis is low earth orbit is getting crowded, satellites are incredibly expensive even with off-…
1. Cell phones from 30,000 ft are going to produce incredibly low resolution images, especially when taken through the window of an airliner. They're also all going to be oblique.
2. If you use real camera rigs, you're going to have to pay a fortune to outfit enough planes. Given that you don't control where the asset goes, this seems really inefficient.
3. Does the entire US actually get covered by all those flights? While ATC tries to give direct routing a lot more than they used to it still seems like you're going to end up with areas where planes hardly ever fly. I'd be really curious to see for a given swath what revisit rate you could get with what confidence from historical ADS-B data.
Please don't take this negatively. I previously cofounded an aerial imagery company and have designed aerial camera systems for a large aerospace company. I came up with an idea like yours, but wrote it off for the reasons I mentioned. It's really cool to see someone pursuing it. Feel free to reach out if you'd like. My email is cornell at cgw3 dot org.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the data exists for one place at a similar latitude, then it exists for every other place at a similar latitude, by the simple laws of orbital dynamics.
You have a completely wrong idea of the laws of orbital dynamics. If satellites don't want to keep burning tons of fuel, they will orbit the center of the earth, not its axis. The only situation where your comment could apply is if the satellite is orbiting only above the equator. All of this, completely disregarding the economics of satellite mapping, their operational limits, etc.
For now, here's a video that might help you get a clearer idea, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jM_BxQGvE - as you can see there's no fuel required. It's all about the inclination of the orbit (i.e. the angle it makes with Earth's equator).
At a 85˚ to 98˚ inclination, the satellite will pass over every to almost every point on the Earth (save for some bits on the poles depending on where you are on that spectrum.
There is no fuel required to make passes over Gaza. The satellite does that naturally, as a matter of course.