IP: : Spysats will be on ABC News tonight

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>
>From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
>
>A few weeks ago, there were some FOI-L tidbits about satellite photo
>resolution.  My ex-spurt on this technology just forwarded the following
>item:
>
>>Hi. I saw an ad last night in which Peter Jennings would be talking about
>>the resolution of US spy satellites tonight. They flashed a quick clip
>>showing what looked like the Hubble Telescope turned the wrong way.
>
>It will be MOST INTERESTING to see if Jennings give an ACCURATE information
>(see my earlier posting on this, below) or gives what we politely called
>"disinformation" in the Reagan era.
>
>
>--jim; jwarren@well.com
>Jim Warren, Contributing Editor & columnist, MicroTimes Magazine
>Also GovAccess list-owner/editor; 345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062
>
>
>=== from my earlier FOI-L posting ===
>
>>In the last week or so, there has been some discussion of the resolution of
>>satellite images ... including some perhaps ill-informed conjecture.
>>
>>So I asked a semi-exspurt engineering friend -- who has intimate knowledge
>>of such matters, and has given technical presentations about this subject
>>-- the following question:
>>
>>>What IS the [estimated] current maximum resolution per pixel of TODAY's
>>>best security spy birds ... in YOUR guesstimation?
>>
>>
>>He replied, in part -- about 2-inches per pixel -- specifically:
>>
>>>Our LACROSSE (all-weather synthetic
>>>aperture radar imaging) and ADVANCED KEYHOLE (visual imaging) birds
>>>actually fly in 98.7 degree polar orbits at 220 nautical miles (408 km) or
>>>more. So the diffraction limit is actually about 2 inches under optimal
>>>viewing conditions. "Staring", stereo, and heavy image processing can
>>>counteract suboptimal effects such as air turbulence, so I'll go with the 2
>>>inch figure. Not enough to read /Pravda/ or a license plate (lying flat),
>>>but enough to guess at the characters in the headline, if it's brief.