3 ms·
> Satellite data is extremely idiosyncratic. It's coarse (~10m at best), infrequent (every few days at best), and oh you have to deal with the fact that the pla
by blincoln 3y ago
> Satellite data is extremely idiosyncratic. It's coarse (~10m at best), infrequent (every few days at best), and oh you have to deal with the fact that the planet is covered in 50% clouds at any moment.
Are the coarseness and cloud aspects going to become less of a factor now that there are commercial high-resolution synthetic aperture radar imagery providers? I'm just a hobbyist, but the imagery I've seen is <i>sharp</i>, and it even caught the NRO's attention.[1]
[1] https://spacenews.com/national-reconnaissance-office-signs-agreements-with-five-commercial-radar-satellite-operators/ https://spacenews.com/national-reconnaissance-office-signs-a...
- nico 3y agoSuper interesting. Hadn’t heard of SAR before. Quickly reading about it, it seems like it works like lidar, what’s the difference between the two techniques? Is SAR like “lidar for space”?
- changoplatanero 3y agoI think one difference is that with SAR the sensor needs to be moving.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- RosanaAnaDana 3y agoLike... no? InfSar (InSar, SAR, whatever we're calling it these days) isn't a drop in replacement for anything. Its really neither here nor there when it comes to the utility of other dataset. Infsar is amazing, dgmw, but its stands on its own and has its own advantages/ disadvantages. The ocs point stands. Satellite data is tough because there is a shit ton of atmosphere between you and the target. That issue doesn't go away with infsar and especially not if it isnt coincidentally collected with higher resolution spectral data. I've been in the industry for around 15 years. Things have gotten better, but really, its important to understand the context and limitations of specific platforms. Afaik, there is no panacea.