Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: : Spysats will be on ABC News tonight


From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 18:27:10 -0400




From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com>

A few weeks ago, there were some FOI-L tidbits about satellite photo
resolution.  My ex-spurt on this technology just forwarded the following
item:

Hi. I saw an ad last night in which Peter Jennings would be talking about
the resolution of US spy satellites tonight. They flashed a quick clip
showing what looked like the Hubble Telescope turned the wrong way.

It will be MOST INTERESTING to see if Jennings give an ACCURATE information
(see my earlier posting on this, below) or gives what we politely called
"disinformation" in the Reagan era.


--jim; jwarren () well com
Jim Warren, Contributing Editor & columnist, MicroTimes Magazine
Also GovAccess list-owner/editor; 345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062


=== from my earlier FOI-L posting ===

In the last week or so, there has been some discussion of the resolution of
satellite images ... including some perhaps ill-informed conjecture.

So I asked a semi-exspurt engineering friend -- who has intimate knowledge
of such matters, and has given technical presentations about this subject
-- the following question:

What IS the [estimated] current maximum resolution per pixel of TODAY's
best security spy birds ... in YOUR guesstimation?


He replied, in part -- about 2-inches per pixel -- specifically:

Our LACROSSE (all-weather synthetic
aperture radar imaging) and ADVANCED KEYHOLE (visual imaging) birds
actually fly in 98.7 degree polar orbits at 220 nautical miles (408 km) or
more. So the diffraction limit is actually about 2 inches under optimal
viewing conditions. "Staring", stereo, and heavy image processing can
counteract suboptimal effects such as air turbulence, so I'll go with the 2
inch figure. Not enough to read /Pravda/ or a license plate (lying flat),
but enough to guess at the characters in the headline, if it's brief.


Current thread: