Comments on: New satellite gets INSANELY hi-res view of Earth

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:58:02 +0000

Well…you also have to remember that NPP does a lot more than visible light. Those who say other satellites have higher res are correct but that is not the point. This is the first view from a brand new satellite. A satellite packed with great science instruments. It was a prototype at one time (technically still is) but has been thrust into an operational role due to the gap in data due to lack of funding for new missions. NPP is already filling the data gap for some missions and when the EOS missions, Terra, Aqua, Aura finally end (they are already years past the original end of mission life) NPP will be the only satellite filling vital continuity gaps in science data. It does not just take pretty pictures. It measures chemicals in the atmosphere, earth radiation budget, bio mass, etc etc etc. These missions are to the most important planet in the universe….Earth.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:05:53 +0000

>>”22. Radwaste Says:
>>November 23rd, 2011 at 7:17 am
>>I’m not completely impressed. Google Earth (Moon, Mars) does better than this, and what it >>shows is often depressing. Florida’s barrier islands are being buried in pavement.”

The high-res pictures on Google Earth are taken from aircraft, not from space.

By: Chris A.

Chris A. — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:40:39 +0000

@Another Chris (#19):

“Hubble…is capable of imaging with the _shortest_ exposure time of 0.1 sec. For Hubble in a case where it’s attempting to image something on Earth, anything in the FOV would move ~700 meters before the image shutter closes. The satellite and any like systems are simply not capable of establishing the requisite pointing lock.”

Typical Hubble targets are many orders of magnitude fainter than the surface of the earth, so a faster shutter on Hubble wouldn’t make a lot of sense. Large diameter optics on a spy satellite increase resolution, but they also shorten exposure times (so orbital motion is less of a problem). The fastest high-speed cameras are capable of capturing images with durations as short as 4e-8 sec. At that speed, image blurring would not be a problem.

My argument was entirely about what’s possible given the _optics_ of a Hubble-sized KH-11. I wasn’t claiming that KH-11s were _mechanically_ identical to Hubble (in fact, Hubble can’t focus on Earth–its near focus is greater than its orbital altitude).

“Compare this to the work to collect the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.YD3 image: HST held a precise, accurate lock on its target and kept the shutter open for something like 11.6 consecutive days (yes, days).”

I’m well aware–I was on the team responsible for planning and scheduling the first HDF (which, BTW, was not a multi-day long, single exposure–it was many shorter exposures stacked together. The trickiest thing to maintain was HST’s roll orientation throughout, not its pointing.)

But comparing (relatively) long exposures of dim, deep space targets to short snapshots of bright terrestrial ones is apples and oranges. The game with a spy sat isn’t to maintain lock over long periods (which wouldn’t help even if you could because the of the constantly changing angle at which the target is being viewed), but to take very short snapshots to “freeze” the motion, much like a sports photographer. I guarantee a KH-11′s fastest “shutter speed” is a lot shorter than 0.1 sec.

By: Michael Suttkus, II

Michael Suttkus, II — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:34:00 +0000

Looking at this picture, I can’t help but think of the early weather researchers. These people did everything they could to get broad data. They set up observation networks, sharing by mail what weather events they saw on what days so that patterns could be correlated, slowly, weeks later. Hard, slow, painstaking work to accomplish a tiny fragment of what this one image gives you in an instant.

What would one of these people have paid for this picture? How much could they have learned from just this one image? Looking down, I see the way the clouds follow the land differently than the ocean, they way they form striations across distances, etc. etc. I can see things they could only imagine.

The world is full of amazing things, you just need to remember your perspective.

By: WJM

WJM — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:29:19 +0000

There looks to be a large circular depression just south of the St. Lawrence river in Quebec and upstate NY. just west of Lake Champlain. Is this an impact site, volcanic caldera, pareidolia, or something else?

= = =

Large circular-ish undepression… that’s the Adirondacks.

By: Oscar Haglund

Oscar Haglund — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:39:19 +0000

Not to be a downer or anything, the image sure is pretty but 6000×6000 is not very big for a satellite image. They are often 10 000 or more pixels in width or height.

By: flibbertigibbet

flibbertigibbet — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:45:47 +0000

This is a thing of beauty- but I understand why some people here aren’t impressed by it- you’d really have to be a person that works in remote sensing to truly appreciate this. Look at how blue it is!

By: Scott P.

Scott P. — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:43:09 +0000

By: The Lonely Sand Person

The Lonely Sand Person — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:26:14 +0000

It’s pictures like this that forcefully remind me that we live at the bottom of an ocean of air.

By: Radwaste

Radwaste — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:34 +0000

I’m not completely impressed. Google Earth (Moon, Mars) does better than this, and what it shows is often depressing. Florida’s barrier islands are being buried in pavement.