White House roof edited in USGS photos

Mxsmanic wrote:
Charles Packer writes:

At any rate, somebody alerted me by e-mail to uncensored USGS images
at www.terrafly.com. Presumably they were taken earlier than the ones
at Terraserver and also earlier than whatever was put in place on
those roofs that they don't want us to know about.

There are plenty of spy satellites in the world, some of why can read
the time on a person's watch.

Really ? - I suggest you do your math and play around with the Rayliegh
criteria. Try calculating the diameter of the lens required to resolve a
wris****ch for an altitude of around 250-300km. It is generally accepted by
those who know that current resolution is in the order of 10cm.

I rather doubt that terrorists have
only the USGS as a source of images. I also rather doubt that they
care what's on the roof of the White House, anyway.

Previously in dc.general, "~ Darrell ~" proclaimed :

I would suggest the 'editing' is to obscure not only what missile type
(probably a platform based on the Stinger) but also what warning receivers
are in place, and possibly hide the Phalanx type system that is normally a
last ditch back-up.




ye gads. Phalanx? Last ditch is right. Just before you start
throwing the knives and forks from the presidential kitchen.




__________________________________________________ ________________________

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's
safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
-Unknown
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Remove "die spammers" to email

Keith Willshaw writes:

I SERIOUSLY doubt that there's a Phalanx system.

Spraying central DC with 20mm explosive shells at 6000
rounds per minute seems like a rather bad idea.

The White House is quite a source of bad ideas these days, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Steve Andrew writes:

Really ? - I suggest you do your math and play around with the Rayliegh
criteria. Try calculating the diameter of the lens required to resolve a
wris****ch for an altitude of around 250-300km. It is generally accepted by
those who know that current resolution is in the order of 10cm.

No, it is generally _acknowledged_ that the current resolution is in
this range. Actual resolutions tend to be classified. Spy satellites
long ago abandoned purely optical imaging.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Really ? - I suggest you do your math and play around with the
Rayliegh criteria. Try calculating the diameter of the lens required
to resolve a wris****ch for an altitude of around 250-300km. It is
generally accepted by those who know that current resolution is in
the order of 10cm.

No, it is generally _acknowledged_ that the current resolution is in
this range. Actual resolutions tend to be classified. Spy satellites
long ago abandoned purely optical imaging.

Hmmmm... interesting. If not optical, then what alternatives are there,
apart from radar?.

As an electronics engineer I'm confident in saying that even milli-metric
radar will not provide the resolution, nor the signal return required to
read the time on a wrist-watch from 100-200kM.

Can you provide any links that might expand on this ?

OK with me if there's a Phalanx (or something newer and better) on the roof.
There's a big yard for the bad guys to crash into.

--
Chuck Tribolet

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/triblet

Silicon Valley: STILL the best day job in the world.


"wideglide01" wrote in message ...
Previously in dc.general, "~ Darrell ~" proclaimed :

I would suggest the 'editing' is to obscure not only what missile type
(probably a platform based on the Stinger) but also what warning receivers
are in place, and possibly hide the Phalanx type system that is normally a
last ditch back-up.




ye gads. Phalanx? Last ditch is right. Just before you start
throwing the knives and forks from the presidential kitchen.




__________________________________________________ ________________________

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's
safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
-Unknown
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Remove "die spammers" to email

On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:37:35 GMT, "Steve Andrew"
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Really ? - I suggest you do your math and play around with the
Rayliegh criteria. Try calculating the diameter of the lens required
to resolve a wris****ch for an altitude of around 250-300km. It is
generally accepted by those who know that current resolution is in
the order of 10cm.

No, it is generally _acknowledged_ that the current resolution is in
this range. Actual resolutions tend to be classified. Spy satellites
long ago abandoned purely optical imaging.

Hmmmm... interesting. If not optical, then what alternatives are there,
apart from radar?.

As an electronics engineer I'm confident in saying that even milli-metric
radar will not provide the resolution, nor the signal return required to
read the time on a wrist-watch from 100-200kM.

Can you provide any links that might expand on this ?


As radars are all longer wavelengths than optical, the Rayleigh
criterion gets you even harder there. And although larger apertures
can be synthesized with radar, it is no longer an instantaneous view,
so movement cooks your goose. The Rayleigh criterion rules, and the
stated best resolution of 10 cm is the best physically available. You
might beat it with optical interferometry, but any motion on the
ground will wreck your image. Given that the atmosphere is not that
stable, I'd say you were at the bleeding edge at 10cm with a satellite
mountable optical system.

Incidentally, the other restriction is in downlink band-width. A
softer limit than the hard physics gives you, but still a limit to be
considered. At 10cm pixel size, a 100m square is a megapixel!

Just in case some bright spark asks, no you can't use ultra-violet!
The atmosphere is (for practical purposes) opaque at wavelengths
shorter than the optical band.

Paul

"Nick N" wrote in message
news:Vbboc.329$2c7.323@fed1read07...
Vs. what?
Nick


Vs anything

CIWS are designed to disrupt small missiles
aimed at a warship or kill fighter bombers.

They wouldnt stop a 767 in a terminal dive bit would
add to the destruction and death toll.

Its like trying to stop a runaway truck by machine gunning
the highway, a seriously BAD idea.

Keith

Paul Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:37:35 GMT, "Steve Andrew"
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Really ? - I suggest you do your math and play around with the
Rayliegh criteria. Try calculating the diameter of the lens
required to resolve a wris****ch for an altitude of around
250-300km. It is generally accepted by those who know that current
resolution is in the order of 10cm.

No, it is generally _acknowledged_ that the current resolution is in
this range. Actual resolutions tend to be classified. Spy
satellites long ago abandoned purely optical imaging.

Hmmmm... interesting. If not optical, then what alternatives are
there, apart from radar?.

As an electronics engineer I'm confident in saying that even
milli-metric radar will not provide the resolution, nor the signal
return required to read the time on a wrist-watch from 100-200kM.

Can you provide any links that might expand on this ?


As radars are all longer wavelengths than optical, the Rayleigh
criterion gets you even harder there. And although larger apertures
can be synthesized with radar, it is no longer an instantaneous view,
so movement cooks your goose. The Rayleigh criterion rules, and the
stated best resolution of 10 cm is the best physically available. You
might beat it with optical interferometry, but any motion on the
ground will wreck your image. Given that the atmosphere is not that
stable, I'd say you were at the bleeding edge at 10cm with a satellite
mountable optical system.

Incidentally, the other restriction is in downlink band-width. A
softer limit than the hard physics gives you, but still a limit to be
considered. At 10cm pixel size, a 100m square is a megapixel!

Just in case some bright spark asks, no you can't use ultra-violet!
The atmosphere is (for practical purposes) opaque at wavelengths
shorter than the optical band.

Paul

Thanks for that Paul. As an engineer I've learned over the years to never
fall into the trap of saying something can never be done. Having said that,
some things *cannot* be done, one of them being changing the laws of physics


Now let's wait for somebody to mention quantum mechanics... ;-

Steve

On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:46:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Nick N" wrote in message
news:Vbboc.329$2c7.323@fed1read07...
Vs. what?
Nick


Vs anything

CIWS are designed to disrupt small missiles
aimed at a warship or kill fighter bombers.

They wouldnt stop a 767 in a terminal dive bit would
add to the destruction and death toll.

Would, if it kills the pilot, or disrupts the electronics or hydraulics, which
seems likely considering the hail of bullets.

Its like trying to stop a runaway truck by machine gunning
the highway, a seriously BAD idea.

Keith