I Am the Eye in the Sky

So, yeah.

The U.S. military is testing high altitude, solar-powered balloons allowing the Pentagon to conduct continuous surveillance of a wide swath of the Midwest, according to a new report.

www.newsweek.com...

But it's cool. Just testing...testing...testing.
Right?

No worries.
Right?

a reply to: Phage

I'm already desensitized to this 'revelation'.

I honestly thought they were doing this decades ago.

I was going to ask why they are still "testing" this, like haven't they figured out how to do it yet?
But then I looked up antonyms for the word "testing" and I can't find a good one.
How weird, we are always testing things I guess?

Anyone know of a good antonym for this term in this context?

Baloons?

Sounds like alot of hot air.

chink!

a reply to: muzzleflash

I honestly thought they were doing this decades ago.

Weather balloons. Entirely different.

a reply to: Phage

Well, high altitude spying in general.

Is there any reason why satellites aren't better for this? Seems like a lot of work to release balloons and retrieve them day after day.

Why can't we just use one of the already over 5,000 satellites in orbit?

a reply to: muzzleflash

That is exactly what I was going to ask!!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It seems kinda suspicious actually.

Maybe it's a cover to drain some money and put it into a black project?
Yes... that sounds more like it!

a reply to: muzzleflash

Is there any reason why satellites aren't better for this?

1) Satellites move at 17,000 mph (or so)
2) Satellites' orbits cannot be easily altered on demand
3) The closer you are to something the higher the resolution, in general

There are probably others.

It is maybe also easier to change things on those balloons than on something floating in space where we can not reach it. Like, new cameras and so on.

Can something even "float" in space/near vacuum or is there a better english word?

a reply to: Phage

That's great, it's for ourvown good right, ...we will be safer especially now we can track all those undesirables....

a reply to: Oleandra88

Can something even "float" in space/near vacuum

No.
Satellites don't float, they orbit. At about 27,000 kph.

a reply to: Phage
Thank you for answering this. But not all do move doing 27 000 kph (thank you for using metric for me) relative to the surface or my TV dish would have to move, too.

a reply to: Phage

This is from an NBC news article in 1998:

Linky

They are known in the spy trade as “Keyhole-class” satellites. And they have a resolution of 5 to 6 inches, meaning they can distinguish an object that small, but no smaller, on the ground. Two other satellites are radar-imaging, built by Lockheed Martin in Watertown, Colo. Their resolution is about 3 feet.

They even admit that this is what we know from leaks and that this tech is highly classified, so it could be better than 5 to 6 inches as of 1998.

Now, this other article from 2014 says that DigitalGlobe who provides images for Google Earth is launching a satellite that has a similar resolution, at around a foot - and this is commercial not a top secret military satellite.
worldview 3

Among the satellite's new features is its ability to capture images at 31-cm resolution, about a foot. This is the highest resolution commercially available. For example, it can hone in on a car windshield, grab a picture of a license plate, and can even see home plate on a ballfield. The satellite's infrared sensor allows it to take images through haze, fog, dust, smoke and other airborn particulates, which should be a boost for emergency crews fighting forest fires, for example, and for Google.

I think the author is mistaken though about 'grabbing a pic of a license plate' if the resolution is 1ft. Well, it can show the plate is there but it certainly cannot read it because the plate is hardly bigger than a foot.

Anyways point of my post is that I'm pretty sure we have secret spy satellites over all major populated areas at almost all times that can probably hone in on a 1inch or better resolution by now. This is 2019 and that leaked info in the 1998 article is so dated at this point.

Yeah, I'm going with black project funding cover.

a reply to: Oleandra88

True. But geostationary satellites (which provide your TV signal) orbit at an altitude of about 36,000 km. For that, refer to my point #3.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Well, it can show the plate is there but it certainly cannot read it because the plate is hardly bigger than a foot.

Not to mention that the plate is not mounted on the roof of your car.

a reply to: muzzleflash

If you work in the correct industry, you can get surface radar scans that are so high resolution, you can see 1cm (!!) gaps on roofes. Google earth has some of those.

Only with permission and things edited out by a computer before and it is not cheap.

a reply to: Oleandra88

That would be from aircraft (or balloons), not satellites.

a reply to: Oleandra88

satellites that orbit at different altitudes have different speeds. Satellites that are further away actually travel slower. The International Space Station has a Low Earth Orbit, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the earth's surface. Objects orbiting at that altitude travel about 28,000 kilometers per hour (17,500 miles per hour). The GOES system of satellites, which tracks weather and other things, is in a geosynchronous orbit, 36,000 kilometers (22,000 miles) above the earth. These satellites travel at about 11,000 kilometers per hour (7,000 miles per hour). The moon, at about 380,000 kilometers from the earth (240,000 miles) only travels about 3,700 kilometers per hour (2,300 miles per hour).

a reply to: Phage
Then just take an angular view and not 90° from top down.

a reply to: Phage

Sure? Because overpass shedules..