4 ms·
20 years ago they pretended it was good enough to differentiate between Saddam Hussein and his decoy lookalikes. It is possible however that they made that up
by Iv 9y ago
20 years ago they pretended it was good enough to differentiate between Saddam Hussein and his decoy lookalikes.
It is possible however that they made that up to not reveal an internal source of intel.
I, for one, think we have been there for a while. The tech is not hard: camera with huuuuge optics will bring you there.
The military have secret satellites with undisclosed specs, that's what they have been doing since Sputnik. You bet they are good at it by now.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoThe government never made those claims. The media has fanciful ideas of what our imagery capabilities are and it isn't in the government's interest to correct them.
- jsmthrowaway 9y agoThe tech might not be hard, but stationkeeping an orbit on top of a target is, unless you have optics that can handle 36,000 kilometers of distance (geosynchronous). All other, lower, orbits involve the satellite hauling ass across the ground, usually at 5+ kilometers per second. The video would be great for about five seconds. Real spy satellites have time windows and image like hell within the window, then adjust for the next orbit and wait 90 minutes. They’re often in polar orbit, too, because then you get different parts of Earth as it rotates under you. Satellite surveillance is quite tedious, and the enemy knows where and when they are.
- anon5289602 9y agoHuge optics is one option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-215 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-215 Things in space can often be seen with a good from the ground.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]