3 ms·

I don't think we know that all tech has been eclipsed commercially. Recall that in 2012 NRO donated two unused, spare satellites to NASA that were superior to t

by madars 5y ago

I don't think we know that all tech has been eclipsed commercially. Recall that in 2012 NRO donated two unused, spare satellites to NASA that were superior to the Hubble telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O... and when President Trump tweeted out a, presumably NRO-sourced, picture it was at ~10cm resolution or better https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/trump-accidentally-revealed-the-amazing-resolution-of-u-s-spy-satellites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t... . More to the point, there are sensors that are not commercially interesting but could be interesting for NRO's mission.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
One of the donated telescopes is being used as the basis for the Roman (neé WFIRST) telescope, launching some time around 2027. It'll also be interesting to see if using the donated hardware ends up actually saving any money.
- dylan604 5y ago
  > saving any money. NASA does not understand these words in this order you have put them. By "saving" you mean tripling them, twice?
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    Yeah, it seems like there were 2 schools of thought. One saying "let's just build cheap and compact optics that meet our minimum requirements" Another saying "we have this badass hardware available, let's use it even though it goes well beyond our original design in terms of capabilities and also size/weight/complexity"
    - bradknowles 5y ago
      It’s not like they haven’t done this before. Take a look at the KH-11 and tell me that doesn’t look exactly like the Hubble, just pointed the other way. In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Hubble was actually a cover for some KH-type mission, and the reason they had to go fix the optics to make it actually useful for space telescope purposes was because they had “accidentally” left the earth-viewing optics in place for the launch.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Um, have you run out of tinfoil? They don't need optics to read the thoughts from your brain from space man. That's the real cover. They just pay artists to create those "Hubble images" to add to the cover. /s
        swader999 5y ago
        They can read and write by now.
        dylan604 5y ago
        hmmm, I thought they were WORM devices.
      - otherotherchris 5y ago
        I like to think that the NRO has an AMAZING space telescope with the wrong set of sensors that they can’t use. Whoops.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
A lot of classified stuff that is not known to the public is an open secret among the Baddies (TM). Bin Laden apparently always wore a large hat (a cowboy hat, I believe? Pretty crazy) because he knew the CIA / NRO had satellites good enough to identify him. It feels like "classified" is often an excuse to shut down conversation and general public awareness about how much something costs, not to actually protect knowledge of our capabilities.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  So, Bin Laden: the one guy with a cowboy hat in Asia. Probably easier to recognize from space than his face.
dhx 5y ago
You may be interested in the National Image Interpretability Rating Scales (NIIRS)[1]. Spatial resolution alone is not enough to achieve a high score if the image is blurry, noisy or obscured by clouds or sun reflection, or if it is too oblique or not oblique enough. WorldView-3 (best commercial satellite imagery currently available) can apparently achieve NIIRS 5.7 in ideal conditions[2] although I'd wager that is a fairly optimistic figure. According to what is known or predicted[3] about the image you referred to, I'd guess it is maybe NIIRS 6.5-7.5 according to the scale listed at [1]. NIIRS 5 vs 6 vs 7 are very significant increases in quality on this scale. NIIRS 6 according to [1] would allow someone to determine from an image whether they're looking at [4] versus [5], NIIRS 7 would show a vent on the roof of van or ladder on the side (not possible in WorldView-3 imagery e.g. [6]), NIIRS 8 would mean it's possible to see windscreen wipers on individual vehicles (something that appears to be stretch beyond what the image you refer to shows). [1] https://irp.fas.org/imint/niirs.htm https://irp.fas.org/imint/niirs.htm [2] https://www.gim-international.com/content/news/higher-resolution-satellite-imagery-for-global-applications https://www.gim-international.com/content/news/higher-resolu... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845111 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Russian_Helix_KA-27_(cropped).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Russian_Helix_KA-27_(cr... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamov_Ka-29_%E2%80%9916_yellow%E2%80%99_(24221038748).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamov_Ka-29_%E2%80%9... [6] https://blog.maxar.com/earth-intelligence/2020/introducing-15-cm-hd-the-highest-clarity-from-commercial-satellite-imagery https://blog.maxar.com/earth-intelligence/2020/introducing-1...

by madars 5y ago

Rebelgecko 5y ago

One of the donated telescopes is being used as the basis for the Roman (neé WFIRST) telescope, launching some time around 2027. It'll also be interesting to see if using the donated hardware ends up actually saving any money.

dylan604 5y ago
> saving any money. NASA does not understand these words in this order you have put them. By "saving" you mean tripling them, twice?
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Yeah, it seems like there were 2 schools of thought. One saying "let's just build cheap and compact optics that meet our minimum requirements" Another saying "we have this badass hardware available, let's use it even though it goes well beyond our original design in terms of capabilities and also size/weight/complexity"
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    It’s not like they haven’t done this before. Take a look at the KH-11 and tell me that doesn’t look exactly like the Hubble, just pointed the other way. In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Hubble was actually a cover for some KH-type mission, and the reason they had to go fix the optics to make it actually useful for space telescope purposes was because they had “accidentally” left the earth-viewing optics in place for the launch.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Um, have you run out of tinfoil? They don't need optics to read the thoughts from your brain from space man. That's the real cover. They just pay artists to create those "Hubble images" to add to the cover. /s
      - swader999 5y ago
        They can read and write by now.
        dylan604 5y ago
        hmmm, I thought they were WORM devices.
    - otherotherchris 5y ago
      I like to think that the NRO has an AMAZING space telescope with the wrong set of sensors that they can’t use. Whoops.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

A lot of classified stuff that is not known to the public is an open secret among the Baddies (TM). Bin Laden apparently always wore a large hat (a cowboy hat, I believe? Pretty crazy) because he knew the CIA / NRO had satellites good enough to identify him. It feels like "classified" is often an excuse to shut down conversation and general public awareness about how much something costs, not to actually protect knowledge of our capabilities.

jacquesm 5y ago
So, Bin Laden: the one guy with a cowboy hat in Asia. Probably easier to recognize from space than his face.

dhx 5y ago

You may be interested in the National Image Interpretability Rating Scales (NIIRS)[1]. Spatial resolution alone is not enough to achieve a high score if the image is blurry, noisy or obscured by clouds or sun reflection, or if it is too oblique or not oblique enough. WorldView-3 (best commercial satellite imagery currently available) can apparently achieve NIIRS 5.7 in ideal conditions[2] although I'd wager that is a fairly optimistic figure. According to what is known or predicted[3] about the image you referred to, I'd guess it is maybe NIIRS 6.5-7.5 according to the scale listed at [1]. NIIRS 5 vs 6 vs 7 are very significant increases in quality on this scale. NIIRS 6 according to [1] would allow someone to determine from an image whether they're looking at [4] versus [5], NIIRS 7 would show a vent on the roof of van or ladder on the side (not possible in WorldView-3 imagery e.g. [6]), NIIRS 8 would mean it's possible to see windscreen wipers on individual vehicles (something that appears to be stretch beyond what the image you refer to shows). [1] https://irp.fas.org/imint/niirs.htm https://irp.fas.org/imint/niirs.htm [2] https://www.gim-international.com/content/news/higher-resolution-satellite-imagery-for-global-applications https://www.gim-international.com/content/news/higher-resolu... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845111 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Russian_Helix_KA-27_(cropped).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Russian_Helix_KA-27_(cr... [5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamov_Ka-29_%E2%80%9916_yellow%E2%80%99_(24221038748).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamov_Ka-29_%E2%80%9... [6] https://blog.maxar.com/earth-intelligence/2020/introducing-15-cm-hd-the-highest-clarity-from-commercial-satellite-imagery https://blog.maxar.com/earth-intelligence/2020/introducing-1...