4 ms·
> It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and have a best resolution of 90cm. Does somebody here know the military logic behind making thes
by 317070 2y ago
> It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and have a best resolution of 90cm.
Does somebody here know the military logic behind making these specifications public? I would imagine you don't want your opponents to know how much you know?
- mytailorisrich 2y agoNothing outstanding with this spec (can buy the same from commercial satellite imaging companies). So either they thought it did not harm to publicise or the actual capability is better than they tell us.
- datahack 2y agoThey can say whatever they want to my friend. It doesn’t mean it’s the real spec.
- gonzo41 2y agoPublic money paid for it and they have a right to know it does at least something useful. Also it 90% can do a lot more than that. It will probably have a higher resolution optic.
- mshockwave 2y agoBecause it’s probably not the real number. The reason why they wanted to release at least _some_ specs is probably because congress / parliament
- knallfrosch 2y agoThere's no harm in making it public because the technical capabilities itself are outdated. As stated in the article, the news is that it's owned by the UK Ministry of Defense.
- dotnet00 2y agoIt's not a particularly advanced capability, and as far as the opponents are concerned, the UK can request imagery from its allies, some of whom do possess imaging satellites capable enough that their exact specifications are a secret.