"1970s spy satellite 'better than Google Earth'" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article Mal Wright  experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
Featured Profile Article The Editor heads for Vicksburg...
Featured Book Review
|
| Tango01 | 04 Sep 2016 10:25 p.m. PST |
"Sorry to break it to you, but Google Earth ain't all that. In a pre-digital era more than 30 years before Google Earth, an ultrasecret US satellite program spied on other countries by taking much higher quality photos of the planet's surface.
The intelligence community called this program Big Bird and Keyhole-9, but its codename was Hexagon.
"These were much better pictures than Google Earth," Phil Pressel told CNN's "Declassified."
More here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 04 Sep 2016 11:11 p.m. PST |
Yea, sadly, Google is pretty disappointing, when you want to see real closeups of stuff. |
| nickinsomerset | 04 Sep 2016 11:29 p.m. PST |
|
| deephorse | 05 Sep 2016 4:06 a.m. PST |
Indeed. Another clickbait headline that has precious little to do with the following story. And since commercial satellite operators are apparently forbidden to sell very hi-res images we don't actually know how good Google's images might be. |
| Dynaman8789 | 05 Sep 2016 5:07 a.m. PST |
Try getting hold of ANY of that spy satellite imagery and then try getting Google Earth Imagery… |
| Charlie 12 | 05 Sep 2016 7:52 a.m. PST |
Another clickbait headline that has precious little to do with the following story. And we should expect anymore… |
| deephorse | 05 Sep 2016 11:20 a.m. PST |
|
| Rod I Robertson | 05 Sep 2016 1:03 p.m. PST |
deephorse wrote: And since commercial satellite operators are apparently forbidden to sell very hi-res images we don't actually know how good Google's images might be. The use of 'apparently' is key. As far as I know, such laws only limit what US companies can sell and distribute. Imaging resolution better than 0.5 m/pixel is now available from many non-US providers, so I'm not sure what constraints exist and are enforceable. Resolutions of 0.25-0.20 m/pixel are now being considered by US authorities for commercial release with special permission, but again that's only for US-based/owned companies. The only US extra-territorial regulation I can find is the infamous Kyl-Bingamen Amendment of 1997 which forbids imaging of Israel and the occupied territories with resolutions better than those of non-US firms. As of 2014 that was at 0.5 m/pixel but may be limited to 2.5m/pixel by the amendment; the issue is very confusing. This is why images of Israel are often obscured by pixelation on sites like Google Earth. Incidentally, much of Google-Maps imaging is not sattelite imaging at all but is aerial photography from about 250 m – 500 m altitudes. This is especially true for city and suburban images. Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| Rod I Robertson | 05 Sep 2016 1:07 p.m. PST |
On a related topic, what are the limits of resolution for ground penetrating radar imagery from satellites these days? That's the kind of imaging which could really present a threat to critical infrastructure and thus national security. Cheers.
Rod Robertson. |
| Tango01 | 06 Sep 2016 10:20 a.m. PST |
Good question!. Amicalement
Armand |
|
