Spy satellites

[Arosolius]

I've read that military satellites are of a resolution on the ground that's high enough for the operator to read a newspaper in the hands of someone on the street. I can't understand why - if the Russians are operating in Eastern Ukraine - the US military haven't shown us crystal clear photos of them and their equipment.

[Ant2]

Quite right. they have banging on for years about reading number plates from space, got to be a load of bull, just a couple of months ago they were showing pics of the possible nuke test site in North Korea & putting them on TV, I am sure you all remember, quite funny when the presenter says, "well it looks like an entrance to a tunnel & we think thats a truck outside, cant quite make it out"

Try putting your house up on Google Earth, shows my front door lovely & I see my neighbour washed her car yesterday, must get that grass cut out the front, pity I am 7000 miles away. Dont need a USA sputnik t tell me that.

[FrazeeDK]

so, do you imagine the spy agencies of various countries would actually show what they really can do? Disclose their "means and methords?" Capabilities? Reading a newspaper? Nah, probably not.. Reading a license plate; yes without a doubt..

[novo58]

I have often wondered ...........................

why is it that they can ( supposedly) read a car license plate from these spy satelites when they are point towards earth---- yet when we point a camera at the moon or Mars ....we only get grainy , out of focus and post photo-shopped pictures
with no real definition ?????????

Ive never seen a high res photo of the ( supposed ) lunar landing sites that showed the remnants of the lander vehicle, the american flag or the rover vehicles used in the early landings.

Maybe they can just never get the right lighting !!!!!

[rjj04]

I've read that military satellites are of a resolution on the ground that's high enough for the operator to read a newspaper in the hands of someone on the street. I can't understand why - if the Russians are operating in Eastern Ukraine - the US military haven't shown us crystal clear photos of them and their equipment.

Probably the same reason why they didn't give us the pictures of the WMD in Iraq

[FrazeeDK]

because, er... the moon and Mars are significantly farther away.. low orbit satellites can be at around 300 miles and are in a fast orbit giving only short windows of time over targets.. Geosynchronous satellites are at 22,500 and are essentially stationary so can observe the same target continuously albeit from a much higher altitude.

as for the WMD in Iraq, they published low orbit recon photos of Special Republican Guard transports configured for Chemical transport at a site due for a UN visit.. they were gone the next orbit with tracks to the east..

Remember that technology has advanced tremendously since the late 90's early 00's. Not only does top notch digital photography exists but all sorts of reconnaissance radars as well as thermal and night capable optics..

[Arosolius]

During the Gulf wars there were plenty of high res images & videos of the situation on the ground in Iraq. These were way above what would be required to show Russian tanks in Ukraine if they're there so why aren't we seeing them?

Of course not many people now believe the images of Iraqi troops on the Saudi border in 1990 were genuine after a Florida newspaper bought commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time showing that there were no Iraqi forces there at all. But nevertheless US satellite pics of Russians in Ukraine would go a long way to convincing people that what the US is saying is true.

If Google Earth can show us so much detail why can't we see the Russian presence in Ukraine on our TV sets taken in the higher military resolution. Beats me.

From http://www.wired.com/2008/10/geoeye-1-super/ "Since around the late 70s, the military has used high-resolution spy satellites capable of reading newspaper headlines in Red Square" and that's not the only publication claiming such resolutions.

[MrFixer]

Having worked on some of the technology (CCD image sensors) used in these satellites, I can tell you that they would not be able to resolve a car number plate.
Older (film based) spy satellites were relatively cheap and so could deployed in a very low earth orbit (90km perigee). Atmospheric drag leads to rapid decay, but not much of problem since they were relatively low cost.
With modern CCD-based satellites costing upwards of USD1bn a much longer mission life is called for which means higher orbits - typically 300km perigee - more demands on the optics So there is trade-off to be made.
Anyone who has studied physics will know about the Rayleigh Criterion, which imposes a limit on resolution of the optical system. A 2m optical system on a satellite at perigee 300km will hit diffraction limit at about 10-15cm resolution (let's say 10cm if we are being very optimistic). Enough to resolve vehicles and people/animals, but not enough to resolve car plates. Optical data is supplemented by additional data from multispectral sensors, radar and Lidar, so its possible to determine with some certainty what kind of activities are taking place in a given location and the kind of threat posed.
I have little doubt that the US military know with a great degree of certainty what happened in the downing of MH17 over Ukraine, but they are choosing not to release the information.

I worked on the development of some of the low-light imaging systems as used in the Gulf. The results were very impressive, you could literally see a black cat in coal cellar. If there was ANY light (a couple of stars would be more than enough) we could obtain good quality images.

[Arosolius]

OK, so it seems to be established beyond reasonable doubt that American spy satellites can see with reasonable clarity a group of half a dozen Russian soldiers and, with imaging enhancing, identify them as such. And it further follows that they could also see half a dozen Russian tanks rolling through the Ukrainian countryside?

So back to the question alluded to in my original post which was about: Why, if Russian military personnel and vehicles have really entered Ukrainian territory, the USA doesn't seek to convince us all that they're there by showing us the satellite images.

I also don't understand why - if the Russians are not in Ukraine - Russia hasn't asked the USA to put up or shut up and show photographic evidence.

I don't understand much about the situation but it doesn't make sense to me from either side.

[Arosolius]

Having worked on some of the technology (CCD image sensors) used in these satellites, I can tell you that they would not be able to resolve a car number plate.
Older (film based) spy satellites were relatively cheap and so could deployed in a very low earth orbit (90km perigee). Atmospheric drag leads to rapid decay, but not much of problem since they were relatively low cost.
With modern CCD-based satellites costing upwards of USD1bn a much longer mission life is called for which means higher orbits - typically 300km perigee - more demands on the optics So there is trade-off to be made.
Anyone who has studied physics will know about the Rayleigh Criterion, which imposes a limit on resolution of the optical system. A 2m optical system on a satellite at perigee 300km will hit diffraction limit at about 10-15cm resolution (let's say 10cm if we are being very optimistic). Enough to resolve vehicles and people/animals, but not enough to resolve car plates. Optical data is supplemented by additional data from multispectral sensors, radar and Lidar, so its possible to determine with some certainty what kind of activities are taking place in a given location and the kind of threat posed.
I have little doubt that the US military know with a great degree of certainty what happened in the downing of MH17 over Ukraine, but they are choosing not to release the information.

I worked on the development of some of the low-light imaging systems as used in the Gulf. The results were very impressive, you could literally see a black cat in coal cellar. If there was ANY light (a couple of stars would be more than enough) we could obtain good quality images.

Thanks. That explains a lot to me Mr. Fixer because in 1975 or thereabouts I saw a range of commercial satellite images of Victoria Australia which were extremely clear. They must have been taken with film then I guess? The company selling them were trying to convince Australian local councils to buy them to see if people had constructed illegal buildings on their properties and stuff like that. I assumed that images now would have been much clearer after 40 years of progress. Mind you I can see people on the street in Google Earth which I figure has nowhere near the clarity that military satellites have. Is that right?

[MrFixer]

Optical imaging from satellite is only one part of military surveillance. Multispectral sensing (e.g. infra-red and microwave) is also used and the US will monitor the radio emissions in the Ukraine to try to identify the radio 'signatures' of the different types of equipment in use. These taken together, plus high-resolution imaging from high-altitude aircraft and, possibly, drones, will give them a very accurate picture of what is happening on the ground.
I would imagine they know the situation with a very small margin of error (down to +/- a few 10's of troops or handful of vehicles).
They seldom release much information unless strongly in their interests to do so. Also the interests of the military might not align with those of politicians such as Obama.

[MrFixer]

Thanks. That explains a lot to me Mr. Fixer because in 1975 or thereabouts I saw a range of commercial satellite images of Victoria Australia which were extremely clear. They must have been taken with film then I guess? The company selling them were trying to convince Australian local councils to buy them to see if people had constructed illegal buildings on their properties and stuff like that. I assumed that images now would have been much clearer after 40 years of progress. Mind you I can see people on the street in Google Earth which I figure has nowhere near the clarity that military satellites have. Is that right?

Film based satellites can take images from an altitude of 100km. But its a costly business due to the very short life of the orbit, so high-altitude aircraft are more usually used when high resolution is called for.

The baseline resolution for Google Earth is about 1m for the US - so about a factor 10 lower than military. Some areas are resolved at higher resolution, some lower.
With military LEO IMINT systems you could easily resolve people, possible determine whether they were wearing glasses, but not read the headlnes of the newspaper they were reading.

Do not confuse satellite imaging with aerial photography - which is another field entirely..