-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
why dont we use satellites to convict criminals
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It is possible, but not on the wide scale you believe. The government already uses satellite imagery to track and find certain people, but the air time is expensive. Not only that, but the amount of time a satellite has in a certain orbit really limits where and what time the satellite can scan an area.
😉 HAhahahahaha so funny, but probably so true.
Also, very true. But I am sure the government uses it for certain cases. It is just too expensive to do it on a wide scale. I forgot one of the figures, but for something like a 1 minute satellite scan costs more money than what I will make in 10 years.
Long, long time = 15+ years at least. Costs, manpower required, etc. are just some of the things keeping this from happening. Get rid of that and then it becomes feasible. Like you said, technology increases with time and that is what is holding us back; we're not at the right time for this to happen yet.
Yeah, that's it............since you've seen it done in a movie, it MUST be feasible and true!! :roll:
So, when was the Knights Templar/Mason treasure found or who has that fantastic future-seeing device as in Paycheck or even the miniturizing the submarine to go inside the body to fix damage (Fantastic Voyage)?
I think you'll find that the vast amjority ofur surveillance imaging satellites are directed outward towards hostile environs........such as the Middle East, the old USSR, and the like.
As far as constant surveillance over the U.S., I highly doubt we do or can do what you suggest. If we actually could, don't you think England, our staunchest ally in the world, wou also be using this technology to fight crime there? Instead, they depend upon earth-bound cameras mounted on street corners and atop buildings for their civilian surveillance. Wonder why?
So, when was the Knights Templar/Mason treasure found or who has that fantastic future-seeing device as in Paycheck or even the miniturizing the submarine to go inside the body to fix damage (Fantastic Voyage)?
I think you'll find that the vast amjority ofur surveillance imaging satellites are directed outward towards hostile environs........such as the Middle East, the old USSR, and the like.
As far as constant surveillance over the U.S., I highly doubt we do or can do what you suggest. If we actually could, don't you think England, our staunchest ally in the world, wou also be using this technology to fight crime there? Instead, they depend upon earth-bound cameras mounted on street corners and atop buildings for their civilian surveillance. Wonder why?
Tu13erhead
Diamond Member
Winning argument, right here.
Yeah but they that time we won't need satellites anymore. I'd have my phase plasma rifle (40 watt range of course) and my personal robotic assistant (ED209) to keep watch over me. Why worry about satellites tracking criminals when I can just vaporize them and have my robotic assistant scare them off?
Edit: and even if I was killed by a criminal, I would just have one of my clones take my place. My brain would be constantly backed up so all I would have to do is initiate a "restore brain" function and I'm good to go again.
Geosync doesn't work - to far out (~42,000 Km) Imagery satellite operate at very low altitudes - on the order of hundreds of Km. Which is why the coverage area is so small. It would require hundreds of satellites at that altitude to approach full 24/7 coverage with good look angles just in terms of field of regard - never mind field of view.
Field of Regard: Geometric contraints, such as the horizon
Field of View: What you can actually see through the sensor
FOV << FOR for optical sensors - imagine trying to take a picture of a large mountain range with a powerful telephoto lens. You can see the whole thing, but when you look through the lens you can only see a very small piece at one time.
Regarding resolution - it's not a straight forward linear progression - you run into walls like atmospheric turbulence, etc. that fundamentally limit how good you can do. Adaptive optics are a big leap forward, but there are still limits.
And let's not forget - it's dark half the time and alot of clouds as well. Despite what you read in Tom Clancy books, we can't see in the dark from orbit to the extent that the OP is suggesting.
edit just looked at this post agin - millions to billions of geosync satellites?!? You can cover the whole earth to about +- 70 latitude with just 3 geosyncs. But as I said, you can't do useful imagery from that altitude.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
I guess i could be used in some cases where the crime is committed outdoors in broad daylight. But what about crimes inside a building or at night which I would think are the majority?
imported_electron
Senior member
Do you want to sound like a clueless buffoon? Want people to think you have no idea what you're talking about? Act now and you too can sound just like your local village idiot!
That's right for just 3 easy payments of $29.95 we'll send you a free video describing all the techniques used by the pros to look and sound completely and utterly unaware of what planet they reside in!
Call in the next 20 minutes and we'll throw in this free English To Klingon dictionary! Yes you too can live in fantasy land completely unencumbered by reality!
There are something like 250 imagery satellites. Most of them are bunk pieces of cold war trash. But lets assume they're all nice, shiny, new models with 2 inch resolution. None of them are in a geostationary orbit because such an orbit would make for pretty pictures of the equator, but you can't see anything else. Each frame is less than a square mile. That's less than 250 square miles you can cover if you tasked them all to the same area at once. Which you can't do. Shouldn't we be covering 250 square miles of strategically important military campaign, instead of 250 square miles of suburbia on the off chance that someone might get kidnapped?
Just because Google Earth looks like the entire world is covered by satellites doesn't mean it is. You'll do well to notice that most of those images are old as dirt and were taken with low resolution junkers where you're lucky to make out a city, much less a vehicle.
Just because Google Earth looks like the entire world is covered by satellites doesn't mean it is. You'll do well to notice that most of those images are old as dirt and were taken with low resolution junkers where you're lucky to make out a city, much less a vehicle.
When I worked at the DoD the highest resolution satellite imagines I saw were 2.5MP over 3 meters. That was a geostationary satellite, and it's viewing range was only 10 square miles. I'm not sure on exact figures, but last time I had a conversation about it, I remember it being something like >$45 million to launch a geostationary imaging satellite. And the United States is only 537,441 square miles. Hmm.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
