4 ms·
At 1 px/m², the Earth's surface is 5×10^14 pixels, so with the full constellation of 10,000 satellites and 1 fps that'd be 5×10^10 pixels/satellite/second (abou
by Denvercoder9 5y ago
At 1 px/m², the Earth's surface is 5×10^14 pixels, so with the full constellation of 10,000 satellites and 1 fps that'd be 5×10^10 pixels/satellite/second (about a terabit/satellite/second uncompressed). If you can shoot 30 images per second, you'd need a 1.6 gigapixel camera.
It's technically possible but not feasible.
- giantg2 5y ago"It's technically possible but not feasible." Not to mention that earth imaging satellites require approval by the government and, I believe, compliance with international regulations.
- giantg2 5y agoWhy downvote? It's really frustrating to see people downvote a factual statement (as opposed to opinion) without giving any sort of correction to that information. If I'm wrong - show me! I don't need this sort of crap after working all day at a job I hate where my voice is basically worthless and a legitimate debate can't take place.
- tpmx 5y agoIt would be quite useful at lower resolutions too, I think. Edit: The uncompressed bitrate comment is a bit like saying 1080p network video streaming will take decades to become feasible, because the incompressed bitrate is 1.485 gigabit/s...
- bzbarsky 5y agoThe obvious first bandwidth issue here is through the optical sensor, which is definitely pre-compression, no?