Consider that earth bound telescopes like Keck use a technology called a “guide star” where they shoot a laser into the atmosphere, and see how it is distorted, and then adjust the lenses to compensate. Hubble does not have this as far as I know because it is above the atmosphere. However, spy satellites pointed at the ground in all probability do, and so can resolve things quite nicely when necessary. You do, however, need to have the satellite within range over what you want when you want it, which is very difficult for satellites in fixed orbits. Unmaned reconnisance planes like Predator, Global Star and Dark Star can hover all day and night over an area and get good real time moving pictures of what is going on without being observed. So this kind of data is going to be preferred unless the target is a big country like China where airspace is closed. So if someone were to ask me how good satellite and unmanned planes are at pictures, I’d speculate that they could read the photocredits on a local newspaper a guy was reading at a cafe. That still doesn’t find you Osama bin Ladin. For that you need human intelligence, which we just don’t have enough of.
Which is why the government supports things like the NSF, which funds astronomers, physicists and mathematicians. Who exactly do you think the government would have gone to for the design of such an advanced system back in the days of 8 Mhz processors, the space aliens ? The military pushes the tech envelope by throwing money at low yield processes. That doesn’t get them access to things for which the theory is merely a glimmer in an astronomers eye.
By now the United States has a satellite directly over Iraq, for surviellance purposes. And I think people in Area 51 might have worked on instruments to mount inside that particular satellite.
You can’t park a satellite above a specific country. If you want a seatellie to have an uninterrupted view of Iraq you need to place it in geosynchronous orbit, and then it’d be too far to resolve anything. Spy satellites are usually placed in high inclination orbits so it can view any part of the earth a couple of times a day.
As for the resolution limit, as already mentioned, resolution is determined by the aperture size. You can’t fit a pre-assembled telescope larger than the Hubble into any existing launch vehicle. You need a deployable (folding) mirror or an interferometer with telescoping booms to surpass the Hubble. I personally don’t believe either one has been achieved by the military yet. Optical interferometry is an immature technology even for ground-based astronomy. The first non-military space telescope with deployable optics will be the JWST (formerly known as NGST), but its spatial resolution will be no better than the Hubble, and it won’t be launched untill 2010.
Well sure, but you gotta remember that even the visitors to area 51 are only human.
We do not know what the military has in its arsenil, or what it may use for intelligence gathering. Secondly, there is no reason why a spy satellite cannot be in geosync. over any particular country. Thirdly, we are about to spend 50 billion dollars to mobilize people to do whatever we are going to do in iraq, and that is much more than the cost of one satellite, hence, we probably have a satellite in geosync over the middle east at-least if not totally dedicated to iraq.
Ficer, the government does not have limitless supplies of money, nor do they have the ability to pull scientific miracles out of their hat. Even the NRO is a bureaucracy.
From 1998!
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/185953.asp
From 1999
Source: http://www.space.com/news/gov_imagery_990921.html
Source: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm
Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm
In order to achieve the high resolutions required, spy satellites cannot be in a high geosynchronous orbit.
'Nuff said.
Yes there is. First of all, a geosynchronous orbit is by definition above the equator. Second, the geosynchronous orbit is 36,000 km high. To resolve a licence plate from that distance you need an angular resolution of about 0.5 milli-arcsecond. This requires a mirror 200 meters in diameter, or an interferometer with a 200-meter baseline. And the optics must be accurate and stable to about 1/4 of the wavelength of light - around 500 angstroms. Do you seriously think they have the technology and funding to build such a structure in space?