Mars Orbiter Sees Rover Tracks Among Thousands of New Images

Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope. But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

Robert Casey wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:

Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat? But
I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope. But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

I find it highly amusing that people leave small towns because everyone
knows their business, get educated, go to big cities, invent wondrous
technology in order that they can spy on people and learn their
business. We're apparently not happy unless we're under surveillance.

Ain't humans grand? *|;-)

I find it highly amusing that people leave small towns because everyone
knows their business, get educated, go to big cities, invent wondrous
technology in order that they can spy on people and learn their
business. We're apparently not happy unless we're under surveillance.

Ain't humans grand? *|;-)


Sure, if the Department of Defense wanted to know if you had
a backyard barbicue last weekend. But they should be able to
know what an emeny is up to...

Robert Casey wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope.

Sure, it's not very difficult.
Assuming the following:
- No atmospheric distortion (or perfect correction)
- an altitude of about 500km (slightly lower than Hubble, but we're talking
ballpark figures here)
- a 1 meter primary mirror

then the resolving power is as follows:
Resolving power in seconds of arc is 115/D (with D = diameter in
millimeters), so here this would be 0.115 arc-seconds
1 arc second at 500 km = 500/206625 = 2.4 meters
so the max. resolving power of this scope would be 2.4*0.115 = 27.8 cm, or
about 11 inches for the Imperial-minded person.

The Hubble-telescope has a 2.4m mirror, wich would result in approx. 11.5 cm
resolving power, or 4.5 inches.

Basically, the laws of physics prevent the military from putting up a spysat
that can read license-plates or military insignia, because that would
require far too large a mirror to be launchable using existing rockets.

1cm resolving power at 1000km (remember, looking straight down won't show
license plates :-) would require a telescope with a 50 meter mirror,
something which would be somewhat noticeable if orbiting the earth...

But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

But... think of the children, why won't anybody think of the children!!!

In article et,
says...
Robert Casey wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope.

Sure, it's not very difficult.
Assuming the following:
- No atmospheric distortion (or perfect correction)
- an altitude of about 500km (slightly lower than Hubble, but we're talking
ballpark figures here)
- a 1 meter primary mirror

then the resolving power is as follows:
Resolving power in seconds of arc is 115/D (with D = diameter in
millimeters), so here this would be 0.115 arc-seconds
1 arc second at 500 km = 500/206625 = 2.4 meters
so the max. resolving power of this scope would be 2.4*0.115 = 27.8 cm, or
about 11 inches for the Imperial-minded person.

To get an idea what this might look like, go to this site and zoom in on
Tucson (watch the wrap):

http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/gis/map...ide/mgmap.cfm?
path=/gis/maps/mapguide/dotmap65.mwf&requiredversion=6.5

This site has aerial photography at 1 foot resolution. Zoom well in on a
residential lot and select the "2002 Color Orthophoto Imagery - 1 Foot
Resolution". On my own lot I was able to spot a single grey pixel which
I'm pretty sure was my dog taking a snooze in the sun.

If you zoom in on the University of Arizona (between Speedway and 6th
Street, East of Euclid) you can get 6 inch res.

Marc

Actually, they use origami masters to determine how to fold the big mirrors
for shipment, so they can get them up there and have them unfolded properly.
;=)

Marco

========================
Marc Reinig
UCO/Lick Observatory
Laboratory for Adaptive Optics

Basically, the laws of physics prevent the military from putting up a
spysat that can read license-plates or military insignia, because that
would require far too large a mirror to be launchable using existing
rockets.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope. But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

Rumor has it at certain times specified spy satilites were in such a
position to where they only looked out into space. The operators snapped
what they thought were a few cool Pic's that eventually were shown to a few
select members of the astronomy community. "Shazam Batman", the rest is
history.

Needless to say Hubble was designed/built by a different group, with a few
hints here/there, than built the spy satellites. This is why the original
mirror was flawed.
Ralph Nesbitt

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope. But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

Rumor has it at certain times specified spy satilites were in such a
position to where they only looked out into space. The operators snapped
what they thought were a few cool Pic's that eventually were shown to a
few
select members of the astronomy community. "Shazam Batman", the rest is
history.

Needless to say Hubble was designed/built by a different group, with a few
hints here/there, than built the spy satellites. This is why the original
mirror was flawed.
Ralph Nesbitt

THAT IS NOT WHY THE "ORIGINAL MIRROR" WAS FLAWED! IT WAS A COMBINATION OF A
CHANGE MADE BY A WORKER AND A DECISION TO FORGO THE $30M COST OF A PARALLEL
TESTING SYSTEM INDEPENDANT OF THE ONE USED DURING GRINDING. YOUR POST
SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A NEW MIRROR INSTALLED. THE SAME ONE IS STILL THERE
BUT WITH A DIFFERENT SECONDARY FOCUSING SYSTEM THAT COMPENSATES FOR THE MAIN
MIRROR ERRORS.

Z

"zolota" wrote in message
news:kQ3ed.178885$a41.147064@pd7tw2no...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
...

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Jack Harrison wrote:
Resolution of 50 cms per pixel for Mars! Excellent.

The highest resolution routinely available from NOAA satellites
orbiting Earth is 250 metres per pixel (Modis). It would be nice to
see pictures of Earth to resolution of 50 cms per pixel. Landsat?
But I can't find anything on internet.


Spysats are at least this good if not better. Spysats the
size of Hubble must be quite good. The atmosphere astronomers
complain about blurring their astro pictures probably don't
bother the spy sat guys, as sunlight on the items of interest
on the ground allow quick exposure settings in the cameras of
the spy sats. Before the atmosphere wiggles. Even at
night adaptive optics should be able to clean up the
atmospheric wiggles enough to see stuff. Someone who
knows the physics of optics for telescopes can probably make
a very good guess of the resolution one could get with say
a 1 meter reflector spy telescope. But the other guys will
just do their dirty work inside buildings or underground...

Rumor has it at certain times specified spy satilites were in such a
position to where they only looked out into space. The operators snapped
what they thought were a few cool Pic's that eventually were shown to a
few
select members of the astronomy community. "Shazam Batman", the rest is
history.

Needless to say Hubble was designed/built by a different group, with a
few
hints here/there, than built the spy satellites. This is why the
original
mirror was flawed.
Ralph Nesbitt

THAT IS NOT WHY THE "ORIGINAL MIRROR" WAS FLAWED! IT WAS A COMBINATION OF
A
CHANGE MADE BY A WORKER AND A DECISION TO FORGO THE $30M COST OF A
PARALLEL
TESTING SYSTEM INDEPENDANT OF THE ONE USED DURING GRINDING. YOUR POST
SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A NEW MIRROR INSTALLED. THE SAME ONE IS STILL THERE
BUT WITH A DIFFERENT SECONDARY FOCUSING SYSTEM THAT COMPENSATES FOR THE
MAIN
MIRROR ERRORS.

Z

To be clear, Hubble was designed/built by a different
group/organization/company than built the spysats. The
group/organization/company that built the Spysats gave the Hubble group
hints on how to design/build Hubble, but were not directly involved. The
purpose of this was to appear Hubble was a civilian project with no
connection to Spysats to hide the Spysats capability.

You are correct the mirror flaw & causes. You are also correct the
refocusing system.

My original point how Hubble came to be was because Spysat operators
snapped what they thought were a few cool Pic's of things at a resolution
previously unheard of that were shown to selected astronomers. These
astronomers were amazed & started pushing to use the Spysats one they found
the source of the Pic's. The group/organization running the Spysat's
refused. This refusal eventually resulted in the astronomers getting Hubble.

Hubble has been responsible for many known discoveries. No doubt as Hubble
data is reviewed other significant discoveries will be made. It will be sad
to see Hubble allowed to self destruct.
Ralph Nesbitt