Can spy-satellites zoom closer than u think?

This goes out to all the military buffs...

I have heard countless times that earth facing satellites can zoom in so close and with crystal clarity that they could actually read the label of what cigerette brand you are smoking while standing on a street?

I personally think it could be possible considering how far space telescopes can see, why not point it the other way?

-Also, if this technology where available why dont they use it openly instead of always having blurred grid satellite maps of earth. Imagine if that footage of those militants loading the rocket/stretcher was in photo quality then there would be no room for error or speculation.

(P.S.) - I know the footage was taken by a drone and not a spy sat...

Yes, spy satellites can zoom in enough to even identify your change in your hand as a dime, nickel, penny, etc. - makes you kinda wonder what they are all really watching. (closes curtains because I'm in my boxer shorts ... lol)

Maybe just maybe if we had used our technology (or did we?) we could have found out that Iraq possessed no WMD in the first place ... gee, that would mean 1,040 less US casualties. It really makes me wonder why we did not use it to locate Osama before he hid away somewhere. Ticks me off to say the least!

I know they are able to read license plates, but that is a combination of optical and digital zoom, with some image enhancement programs thrown in there too. I guess if you cold get a shot of someone zoomed all the way in and enhance it enough to see that he had a pack of cigerettes that was red and white...you could say he was smoking Marlboros... That I guess would be a case where you could tell what brand he was smoking.

I wish I had something to support this but honestly, if that technology exists then why not use it more??

We've all seen those crummy video's or hazey maps with people eyeingballing them with a magnifying glass...

"We've all seen those crummy video's or hazey maps with people eyeingballing them with a magnifying glass..."

It's like poker.

It is critically important that your opposition does not KNOW what your capabilities are.

It doesn't hurt a bit if your opposition BELIEVES you have exceptional capabilities. It's wonderful if you have capabilities your opposition doesn't know about. It's fine if he believes you have capabilities you don't.

Think of it in these terms: If a convenience store robber knew that the can of peas on the top shelf had a hidden camera, he would avoid that part of the store. If he did not know, he would walk right past it, on camera. If he believed there might be a concealed camera inches from his face, he would have to behave himself.

This is why the general public doesn't find out about our assets until the opposition knows all about them.

Current optical spysats are indeed very good.

Lets just say (for the sake of an arguement) that our current generation spysats can distinguish objects 6 inches long and can identify objects 12 inches long.

Now, this would generally only apply to objects that are stationary. Moving objects would probably throw off any quality resolution, depending on the speed of the object. So, to continue the argument, for a soldier standing still, you could probably identify his height, weight, coloration, unitform, and weapons, and with any luck, specific object like sunglasses, cell phone, or maybe even a watch.

The same soldier jogging at a brisk rate, maybe you can only tell height, if he is in uniform, and if he is carrying a weapon.

Now, considering that Imsats are generally strategic platforms designed to collect strategic-level intelligence, and also considering the limitations of moving objects, ask yourself this: what stationary object, that is less than six inches in length, needs to be detected for national intelligence purposes?

All things being equal, to do the job effectively, our current Imsats are better than capable. Although detail resolution is always a source for improvements, I bet being able to tell the defference between a penny and a nickel is not really that important to the NRO (although I'm sure that they are working on it, if they already don't have it). Imsats are designed to look for things like missiles, tanks, planes, and other forms of hardware. Being able to have precise details, such as model, armed/unarmed, material condition, readiness, etc., is what we strive for.

Being able to tell what kind of cigarettes someone is smoking is a job for spooks on the ground.

All things being equal, to do the job effectively, our current Imsats are better than capable. Although detail resolution is always a source for improvements, I bet being able to tell the defference between a penny and a nickel is not really that important to the NRO (although I'm sure that they are working on it, if they already don't have it). Imsats are designed to look for things like missiles, tanks, planes, and other forms of hardware. Being able to have precise details, such as model, armed/unarmed, material condition, readiness, etc., is what we strive for.

Thats fine, I didnt literally mean to waste that technology by like looking at peoples bald spots i meant that if Imsats do have crystal clarity when examining an object(s) in a target area...why cant the target be more clear, especially if its a building?

I have seen very acurate and clear satellite pictures of popular buldings but they always seem zoomed out and like they could get closer, thats what i mean.

The gov't has set a standard for what private or commercial sats can have as maximum resolution. While military spysats may be able to read what change you have in your hand, commercial sats are legally resrticted from any high resolutions for national and induvidual security. So, us average janes and joes will probably never see a good example of military resolutions in spysat photos. Needless to say experts have commented that they can pretty much read a newspaper from orbit, no problem.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

But also think about the fact that what you are seeing online for free and notice that most of those sites offer a better/closer picture for a fee. I know that on free sites with pictures that are almost 10 years old I can tell my house,car, boats etc. And think of how much the technology has advanced in 10 years.

jm

When the NOAA brought there last satellite online they put a live feed on the internetso that everyone could see the testing in real time, in one of the tests they zoomed in on the the corner of Ashbury and Haight in San Francisco, Anyone who saw it knew because you could read the street signs and make out peoples faces. It was very very cool. so yes
Low Earth Orbit and Mid Earth Orbit satellites can really really see well.


geo

I have heard that what you see in Movies is pretty much what they can do in real life. The thing I heard that the movies get wrong alot is that they often show the picture staying in one spot over the target something they cant do.

I have heard 6 inch resolution, you would be able to see a grapefruit size object from space with that amount of resolution. but I think thats even a fudged account.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by guardian_of_truth
Maybe just maybe if we had used our technology (or did we?) we could have found out that Iraq possessed no WMD in the first place ... gee, that would mean 1,040 less US casualties. It really makes me wonder why we did not use it to locate Osama before he hid away somewhere. Ticks me off to say the least!

Yeah but they have problems,

Known passover times...

Limited fields of view...

Not enough of them....


KH-12's

Originally posted by edsinger

Yeah but they have problems,

Known passover times...

Limited fields of view...

Not enough of them....


KH-12's

Thats true they cant do everthing and have their limits. This is why we still fly the U-2 and create new spy drones like global hawk.

Makes you wonder about them retiring the SR-71 because they said satellites could do it all then. Its quite clear they cant, but I guess its a better cover then saying we have a better spy plane now.

This may sound like a silly question but spy satellites must lose a lot of their clarity when viewing things more off the vertical from space. Ie when not looking straight down but more at an angle to see number plate and faces etc.?

Yes they can read a newapaper, if needed (why not just go and buy one? LOL) -> Source JPL employee. The only limitations are lighting and atmospheric conditions.

if we have satellites that can see the logo on your shirt why not use that in war?

[edit on 16-10-2004 by bloodlust11009]

So we could eliminate all of the Polos, but let the Izods pass?

J/K

How do you know that we do not use it in war?

Originally posted by geocom
When the NOAA brought there last satellite online they put a live feed on the internetso that everyone could see the testing in real time, in one of the tests they zoomed in on the the corner of Ashbury and Haight in San Francisco, Anyone who saw it knew because you could read the street signs and make out peoples faces. It was very very cool. so yes
Low Earth Orbit and Mid Earth Orbit satellites can really really see well.


geo

The NOAA doesn't have satellites (or need ) anywhere near that type of capability. I don't know what you saw but it wasn't a NOAA satellite. Look at what their requirements are, why would they have a sat that zooms up that much.
You didn't just make this up did you

if we have satellites that can see the logo on your shirt why not use that in war?
I was thinking the same thing Bloodlust... In fact, with all of the Sats that we and others own, would it be a far reach to consider having most of them during there flight over Iraq to scan for activity that may be in question? Case in point, When convoys are in route to where ever, keeping those Sats glue to them in the event of a hostle take over/kidnapping etc.. and watch them transport their captives to where they will be held. From that point send in a rescue team and take action to resolve. Lets take it a step further, Those cars bombs have to be built in a few close areas of where there are intended to be blown, (I suspect anyway) keep those areas under close watch to try and determine where those cars/trucks are being modified ie: Garages/Buildings/factories etc.. and go right to the source and do away with those little Bas*****!

Anyway just a thought.

Originally posted by guardian_of_truth
Maybe just maybe if we had used our technology (or did we?) we could have found out that Iraq possessed no WMD in the first place ... gee, that would mean 1,040 less US casualties. It really makes me wonder why we did not use it to locate Osama before he hid away somewhere. Ticks me off to say the least!

I was just thinking though, maybe our Government doesn't want us to know that we have that kind of technology. I mean just imagine if everyone knew that the U.S. could see everything, anyone was doing. Even if we did know where Osama was, or that there was no WMD in Iraq before we went in (just following through with my theory that the U.S. doesn't want people to know we have that technology) we would still have to go through with the war, because if Bush were just to say "Oh, Iraq isn't a threat, let's move on" then people would second guess him. They would think that he wasn't serious about his War on Terror.

I'm just putting this idea out there, it coud be a possibility as to why the U.S. is supposedly not using these spy satelites