🚀 go-pugleaf

> "Satellites hundreds of miles in space that can detect ground
>  objects less than an inch wide."
> 
> Anyone care to comment?

Strictly speaking, this is a true statement. Most stars are far smaller
than the diffraction-imposed resolution limit, but telescopes and eyes
have little trouble seeing them, albeit as "blobs" that appear much
larger than they really are. You aren't really "imaging" them. And I
don't know whether this is relevant to seeing objects on the ground that
only reflect ambient light.

Phil

--
I think the way the newspapers get this kind of (mis)information is
to get some military type when intoxicated and bragging and then print
everything said.  Newspaper people have a reputation for gullibility.

-- 
John Herman    ARPA:  herman@marlin.nosc.mil

In article <23855@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
}"Satellites hundreds of miles in space that can detect ground
} objects less than an inch wide."
 
}Anyone care to comment?


I see no problem, as long as you can first heat said object to a
few million degrees first.  

Otherwise, nnnnnnaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.....



Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

In article karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> "Satellites hundreds of miles in space that can detect ground
>  objects less than an inch wide."
> 
> Anyone care to comment?

On a television program I saw a purported satellite image of a
~ square foot region that was pretty clear.  Although I can imagine
the TV people mixing it up with something from a surveillance aircraft.

Also, the U.S. monitors space junk probably much smaller than 1 inch.
Each piece is a potential missile or something to rip through a shuttle
or whathaveyou.

I'm not so sure that it *is* misinformation. For some years now
I've seen a multitude of references to the ability to read car
license plates from orbit.
    Doug

In article <11962@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> trainor@lanai.UUCP (Vulture of Light) writes:
>In article karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>> "Satellites hundreds of miles in space that can detect ground
>>  objects less than an inch wide."
>> 
>> Anyone care to comment?
}
}Also, the U.S. monitors space junk probably much smaller than 1 inch.
}Each piece is a potential missile or something to rip through a shuttle
}or whathaveyou.


I am inclined to believe that this detection is based on the ability
to differentiate the object from its background (i.e. none).  An object
against the ground would probably be much harder unless there was some
characteristic which enabled easy separation.


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

#include comments about space junk

I would doubt they're using visuals for this task.  Good enough radars can
pick up small objects, but they can shine the radar equivilent of a flashlight
up there to help look.  You can't do that when you're looking at the
ground and you don't want people to know what you're looking at.

James Moore				| Nil aon fhocal maith le cur sios
jmm@bartleby.berkeley.edu		| agam anseo inniu.
#airigh "leithsceal caighdeanach"	|

In article <5102@cup.portal.com> doug-merritt@cup.portal.com writes:
>I've seen a multitude of references to the ability to read car
>license plates from orbit.

But what good is reading a license plate that has fallen off a car?