3 ms·

That was their theoretical ground resolution. I doubt they ever achieved anything near that in reality.

dasmoth 15y ago
We'll have to wait until some GAMBIT imagery is released before we know for sure -- and it sounds like the NGA isn't terribly enthusiastic about big data releases right now. But if the best practical resolution is no better than HEXAGON could achieve, I do wonder why they went on flying HEXAGON and GAMBIT in parallel (and, indeed, why they substantially upgraded the GAMBIT optics between KH-7 and KH-8).
- arethuza 15y ago
  From the article: "The KH-9 would image a wide swath of terrain, later scrutinized by imagery analysts on the ground for so-called ‘targets of opportunity.' Once these potential targets were identified, a KH-8 would then be maneuvered to photograph the location in much higher resolution."
  - pointyhat 15y ago
    KH-8 resolution is "0.5m". That is analogue as well as they used photographic film in them. This is "0.5m" resolution (from GeoSat-1). http://geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/gallery/ge1/images/Inauguration1.jpg http://geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/gall...
    - tokenadult 15y ago
      There is no reading automobile license plates from space (a common misleading claim about spy satellites since the 1960s) at that resolution, not to mention that the viewing angle is all wrong for that. Thanks for sharing the photo to add an example to this discussion. As several comments above have pointed out, Google Maps misleads the public by referring to aerial photos taken from airplanes as a "satellite" view of the ground. Studying imagery of my own neighborhood on Google Maps makes clear that the images at close-in views must come from airplanes. The particular walking path I take from my house to the local public library is very clearly visible, but again there is no hope of reading automobile license plates from those photographs.

We'll have to wait until some GAMBIT imagery is released before we know for sure -- and it sounds like the NGA isn't terribly enthusiastic about big data releases right now. But if the best practical resolution is no better than HEXAGON could achieve, I do wonder why they went on flying HEXAGON and GAMBIT in parallel (and, indeed, why they substantially upgraded the GAMBIT optics between KH-7 and KH-8).

arethuza 15y ago
From the article: "The KH-9 would image a wide swath of terrain, later scrutinized by imagery analysts on the ground for so-called ‘targets of opportunity.' Once these potential targets were identified, a KH-8 would then be maneuvered to photograph the location in much higher resolution."
- pointyhat 15y ago
  KH-8 resolution is "0.5m". That is analogue as well as they used photographic film in them. This is "0.5m" resolution (from GeoSat-1). http://geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/gallery/ge1/images/Inauguration1.jpg http://geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/gall...
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    There is no reading automobile license plates from space (a common misleading claim about spy satellites since the 1960s) at that resolution, not to mention that the viewing angle is all wrong for that. Thanks for sharing the photo to add an example to this discussion. As several comments above have pointed out, Google Maps misleads the public by referring to aerial photos taken from airplanes as a "satellite" view of the ground. Studying imagery of my own neighborhood on Google Maps makes clear that the images at close-in views must come from airplanes. The particular walking path I take from my house to the local public library is very clearly visible, but again there is no hope of reading automobile license plates from those photographs.