Pelican Parts Forums - Survelliance

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Survelliance (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/462783-survelliance.html)

Watched Body of Lies last night; can anyone tell me, can the CIA do ultra high definition surveillance like that? (I'm not paranoid, I gave up any idea of secrecy long ago). I know plenty of the movie was Hollywood, like when DeCaprio looked up into the sky and told his watchers to back off, cuz everyone could see the drone. I'm still rolling my eyes about that one. . . .

But, my thinking is, if the Gov'ment will let us have Google Earth for free, what do they have?

My understanding is that they have had the ability to virtually read a license plate from orbit for many, many years. I suspect the movies make some stuff seem really spectacular, but that the stuff that the govt has while not as flashy is pretty amazing. But it's just me WAG. I've got no first hand exp. My dad was a spook in the Navy, but never really told me anything. He took his clearance stuff very seriously.

All of that high technology and billions of dollars and we still can't (or maybe won't?) find one diaperhead living in NW Pakistan. Brilliant!

Great film I thought.

Probably di Caprio's best role yet.

If my brain is working correctly..
!975 when US News hit the stands , One of their 1st articles was "Satellite can read the headlines on a news paper in front of the kremlin"
And ,perhaps it also said can see the dimples in a gulf ball !

Quote:

Originally Posted by herr_oberst (Post 4543209)

Watched Body of Lies last night; can anyone tell me, can the CIA do ultra high definition surveillance like that? (I'm not paranoid, I gave up any idea of secrecy long ago).

herr_oberst - it's not the government you have to worry about... .it's me you need to worry about.

Now put down your drink - you've already had enough, and stop scratching your crotch.

I'm watching you.....my Pelican Parts Mod status gives me access to so much more than you can imagine....

Muhahahaha!!!
-Z-man.

Sheesh! I thought it was weird that the Pelican BBS was kind of addicting! I've been brainwashed! I wondered why those dreams about Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury seemed so real !!!

And that Doogie Howser look-a-like Wayne - he's just a figurehead, right? The nice guy that everybody wishes he was best friends with! Cripes! We've all been had!

Z-man - can you tell me if the chicken in my refrigerator is good or should I throw it out?

I think you can infer the capability of our spy satellites from our results. If we could accurately recognize facial features from space, certain people would not be still alive, and yet they still are.

The gov may not want whats his face....just wants it to look that way ..??

It has almost zero to do with the equipment put into low orbit. The atmosphere still blurs the image as much looking towards the earth as it does looking away from the earth. Spy technology isn't using adaptive optical systems (at least none as powerful as the astronomers are), which gives them a limit of (being GENEROUS) of 0.1 arcsecond resolution.

At an altitude of 100 miles (the absolutely lowest for stable orbit...your spy satellites would be closer to 200-300 miles), that 0.1 arcsecond resolution is about 0.00005 miles...pr 1/4 of a foot. That means, the satellite imaging can just define two dark points that are 3 inches across on a white background. Anything smaller than 3 inches becomes a single dark point.

If the satellite is 200 miles high, then it becomes 6 inches (it's linear).

So, for something to even be able to SEE the distinct letters of the headline of your newspaper (let's say 1 inch each), then it needs to either be in an unstable orbit, or at 100 miles, and resolve better than 0.035 arcseconds. to actually READ the headline, it would need to be at least an order of magnitude better than that.

Realistic resolution for a classical digital imager on a satellite at 150 miles (say, imaging video or scans over several hours)?
1 arcsecond average resolution (atmospheric average) would give 3.8 foot resolution.

Wow you really ARE a rocket scientist!

Mike:

AFAIK, there at least three known "Hubble class" telescopes which are adapted to look down, not up - below says ground resolution is "probably 6 inches or better."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-12

Quote:

"KH-12" is an unofficial designation of the successor to the KH-11 spy satellite. A system with the official designation KH-12 does not exist because the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) decided to refer to satellites by a random numbering scheme after repeated public references to KH-8, KH-9, and KH-11 satellites.[1] It is also known as the "Advanced KENNENAN" or by the codenames Ikon and Improved Crystal. It is a successor to the KH-11 reconnaissance satellite and also used digital imaging. It is believed that the KH-12 improved upon the previous design by including signals intelligence capabilities and sensitivity in broader light spectrums (probably into infrared). Data is transmitted through a relay network of communications satellites. The satellite, with a mass of 19,600 kilograms, has been manufactured by Lockheed. Ground resolution is probably 0.15 meters (6 inches) or better. Like the KH-11 (Crystal), the KH-12 is believed to use a large mirror to capture light, and probably resembles the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in size and shape.

As the "Improved Crystal" nickname implies, many believe that the KH-12 is largely an incremental improvement upon the KH-11, and a number of observers classify the spacecraft as a KH-11. Similarly, a successor KH-13 program may currently exist (some have called that a "KH-12B").

The spacecraft's mirror is believed to be 2.9-3.1 meters[2] somewhat larger than that of KH-11, believed to have a 2.3 meter diameter, and that of the HST, 2.4 m. Jane's Defence Weekly indicates that the secondary mirror in the Cassegrain reflecting telescope system can be moved significantly, allowing images to be taken from angles unusual for a satellite. Also, there are indications that the satellite can take images every five seconds. Sources vary on how the KH-12 communicates with ground stations. Several different clusters of relay satellites are available, so the birds may use the Satellite Data System (SDS), MILSTAR, or Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) networks.

At least three were launched between February 1990 and December 1996, and others have probably been launched since. KH-12 satellites were launched on Titan IV rockets. Each satellite is estimated to have cost more than US $1 billion, and the launches cost close to $400 million.[3]
KH-12 satellites are believed to have been the source of some imagery of Russia and China made public in 1997, as well as images of Sudan and Afghanistan made public in 1998 that were related to the response to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.

See the link for references and such.

BTW, AFAIK, very little is known about the KH-13, which is supposedly the successor to the one referenced in my post above.

beyond Hubble class - Hubble is less capable than the secret stuff

Mike did not discuss image enhancement techniques...

clouds & forest cover are the friends of the peons on the ground

herr oberst,

please move to left and adjust your elbow. we are having a hard time reading your document.

thank you.

Don'T shoot me...I am just repeating what US News said................loosely

. . . I knew smart people would help me to form a conclusion. Since the KH 13 series was apparently last launched in '96, subsequent versions are obviously more sophisticated, but atmosphere is a huge hurdle which is extremely difficult to overcome, but I daresay not impossible? So, as I read these posts, the ultra hi def shown in Body Of Lies is probably (but not necessarily definitely) a figment of Hollywood. (FWIW, it should read as a given that the beautiful rooms and the click to zoom features shown in the movie would not be a priority in real world surveillance?)

On a somewhat related note, Hollywood still wants us to believe that a 1megapixel bitmapped image (hyperbole alert!) of a face can somehow be enhanced to show sufficient detail to identify the subject. I work every day with digital images and I am certain that at least in my lifetime, this will never happen, Tom Cruise notwithstanding.

Thanks to the Rocketmen out here that know these things, and can share what they can.

What I think I know...digital is one thing to work with, But, you can only enhance what is there or make believe and add to it ??? Is that correct?
ON the other hand...maybe Big Bro is not even using digital ?
Like they once said " we do know what a making big noise over E. coast" (early 1960s ) 20 years go by...Now we know. - was the SR71 making the big noise.
SO..I do not trust anything they claim.
Except they will spend my $$$

Quote:

Originally Posted by herr_oberst (Post 4543315)

Z-man - can you tell me if the chicken in my refrigerator is good or should I throw it out?

Nice try - you don't have any chicken in there.

But your milk is about to expire....

- Z

Satellites work, but mid-altitude unmanned drones have a clearer view if you know where you want to be looking.