Xref: utzoo sci.space:4142 sci.crypt:724
Path: utzoo!linus!necntc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!calmasd!jnp
From: jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: satellites
Summary: Image, not picture
Keywords: resolution
Message-ID: <2604@calmasd.GE.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 88 20:29:27 GMT
References: <873@uop.edu> <2166@umd5.umd.edu> <4910@well.UUCP> <1952@netsys.UUCP> <2209@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: G.E.- Calma R&D, San Diego, CA
Lines: 30

> >>>? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says"
> >>>Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally..
> >On the other hand, several public sources have reported that
> >resolutions good enough to read the brand of coffin nails
> >being smoked by the guard on duty in Moscow are in use. 
 
> I haven't read the book, but there is a simple argument against
> such resolution.  Cameras in orbit are limited either by diffraction
> or atmospheric conditions.  A telescope at sea level, in perfect 
> weather, is typically limited to no better than 1" (that is a unit 
> of angle: 1 arc-second, not 1 inch).  At 200 km this is a linear 
> distance of 1 meter.

Except sattelites don't use cameras - in that sense of the word.  They use
CCD's and all sorts of bizarre imaging equipment - but they DON'T take
pictures - I don't think that the same limitations apply (although they no
doubt have other limitations).

I've seen a message on this subject from someone at NASA - can anyone talk?







-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   jnp@calmasd.GE.COM   GEnie: J.PANTONE