"Google Satellite" To Be Launched This Week 280
Lord Satri writes "Well, almost. Google signed an exclusivity deal with GeoEye regarding GeoEye-1, the most advanced high-resolution, civil, remote-sensing satellite to date. This must be annoying for other high-resolution, remote-sensing data users since Google already has an exclusivity deal in place with DigitalGlobe, the other major civil satellite imagery provider. From the CNet article: 'Under the deal, Google is the exclusive online mapping site that may use the imagery... in its Google Maps and Google Earth product. And as a little icing on the cake, Google's logo is on the side of the rocket set to launch the 4,300-pound satellite in six days from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed. GeoEye-1 will orbit 423 miles above Earth, but it will be able to gather imagery with details the size of 41 centimeters... Google, though, is permitted to use data only with a resolution of 50 cm because of the terms of GeoEye's license with the US government.'"
Precisions on the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Some precisions on my summary. DigitalGlobe is obviously not the only other remote sensing data provider, but it's GeoEye main competitor in civil high-resolution multispectral remote sensing. GeoEye is itself the merging of two other previous major players on the same playing field, OrbImage and Space Imaging [slashgeo.org].
As for my claim of an agreement between DigitalGlobe and Google, see this two years old entry [slashgeo.org]. The original archive for the DG message is here [osdir.com] (the link on /geo does not work anymore).
One of the obvious questions that comes to mind is to which extent these exclusivity deals have negative impacts on other remote sensing imagery customers, small or big.
Another question is; does Google really needs such a deal to provide the best webmapping and virtual globes-related tools?
Re:why the (Score:2, Informative)
Launch scheduled for Sep 4 11:50am PDT (Score:3, Informative)
GeoEye-1 is scheduled to launch aboard a Delta II rocket from Vandenberg AFB Sep 4 11:50am PDT. However, unconfirmed reports state that the launch may be delayed because Hurricane Hanna has grounded east coast support personnel.
Re:resolution for satellite like digital cams? (Score:5, Informative)
It means a car shows up as 4 pixels by 12 pixels. The top of your head is part of a single pixel along with a square foot of sidewalk.
Google already has higher-res data for populated areas of several countries from aircraft reconnaisance. The satellites are for everything else.
Unfortunately, there is a physical limit [wikipedia.org] to how good an image taken from 400 miles away can be.
Re:why the (Score:5, Informative)
50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??
For once the government is protecting our pivacy (a side effect of portecting its own, no doubt). 50cm resolution hides the identity and activity of individuals, which is for the best.
Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know why you're marked troll. You shouldn't be.
Anyway, above a certain threshold, it starts to get a military-grade function, and therefore it's not something they want the general public to have. The general public includes America's Enemies.
It's the same reason why commercial GPS shuts down above 60,000 feet or faster than [can't remember the units].
I'm sure an American will point out that their 2nd Amendment grant the citizens rights to GPS-equipped military hardware.
Re:50cm? How about 10? (Score:5, Informative)
Google uses aerial photography for the views of major cities - so those 10cm resolution images are not from satellite.
Re:50cm? How about 10? (Score:2, Informative)
A primer on satellite resolution (Score:5, Informative)
Defining optical resolution from space is a bit tricky, as several generations of optical engineers have discovered.
The main criterion is the telescope's point spread function - this is roughly the angular diameter that a pinpoint star appears to be, as seen through the telescope. We want the smallest point spread function, and it should map onto about one to three sensor pixels. (arguments go here about over/undersampling).
The Fourier Transform of the point spread function is the Optical Transfer Function, which is a graph of the spatial frequencies response of the telescope. It's analogous to a hifi's frequency response ... it's an engineering challenge to prevent high frequencies from getting rolled off.
The main limit for high resolution is the diameter of the primary mirror (All mirrors and optical elements, no matter how perfect, have diffraction effects which spread out the light and reduce resolution. The bigger the entrance pupil, the greater the resolution) For the GeoEye, orbiting at 684Km and a resolution of 0.4m, I roughly calculate the primary mirror is somewhere around a half-meter diameter or so, depending on the wavelength of light it's optimized for.
Other things limit resolution - scattering of light in clear air (Rayleigh scattering) screws up the image, especially in the blue. Dust, haze, clouds and urban pollution are a bother, but not as much as you might think. Naturally, there's lots of image processing software ... quite compute intensive.
A typical human, seen from above and not casting a shadow, is about 20 to 60 cm across. So someone walking down the street should appear on a few (1 to 5) pixels. Not enough to recognize someone, especially since you're looking down on 'em.
Generally, images taken from aircraft have better resolution (they're closer, and there's less Rayleigh scattering). Perhaps airlines will attach automated, downward looking hires cameras to their daily flights.
Re:Competition (Score:4, Informative)
This is the american way of doing business. Competition exists to ensure that customers get the best possible price. That's why we tolerate it. That's why we encourage it. When a company talks about putting up "barriers to entry" and signs exclusive deals with all the suppliers, we don't get the benefits of competition anymore.
Re:Which Orbit? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which Orbit? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Precisions on the summary (Score:5, Informative)
If Google did front most of the costs, then it's not anti-competative to ask GeoEye to agree to only allow Google use of the photos. If GeoEye fronted all of the costs themselves, then how do they plan to make money off a multi-million dollar investement by simply licensing use of the photographs to a single entity?
Satellites are not vital infrastructure like telephone lines. As such, I doubt there is any legal standing to say what GeoEye can and can't do with their own satellite (especially if Google DID provide some initial funding).
Oh, I just RTFA, and apparently Google is the only "online mapping company" allowed to use the photographs. I guess Google just paid a lot for those rights. Kinda like how Pepsi is the official soft drink of the International League of Woman Voters (though no one considers this to be legally anti-competative to Coke or Royal Crown Cola).
Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)
Although, oddly enough, the law is more permissive than that; the GPS can work above 60,000 feet or faster than that velocity, but not both at the same time.
Not that there aren't firmware hacks to get around that, at least for older hardware.
Re:why the (Score:2, Informative)
100cm Wide? I know a third of Americans are Obese, but 100 cm is massive. I'm about average and only 45 cm wide.
Agreed. I wanted to keep it to round numbers. Where a reclined person at 50cm resolution would be 1 or at most 2 pixels wide. So 70cm or 100cm ... really made no difference.
Looking it up after the fact...
http://www.morencyrest.com/sizing.htm [morencyrest.com]
If this is to be trusted, it appears most people are 16-26 inches at the shoulder. (or 40-66cm)
Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Precisions on the summary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:why the (Score:2, Informative)
For higher resolution, use an airplane instead of a satellite. Which is what they already do. (As also mentioned elsewhere)
- RG>
Data sources and GPL NavSystems (Score:3, Informative)
I keep hoping that Google will start releaseing some of their data into the public domain/GPL/Creative Commons.
That Google spy van must be gathering data like speed limits, which streets are one way. Maybe even which are paved and not.
You're right for StreetView (you can still use Google's StreetView data in OpenLayers.org [openlayers.org] for example), otherwise, Google Maps/Earth licenses data from others (Tele Atlas/NAVTEQ/DigitalGlobe/GeoEye/etc), so they are not the ultimate geodata owner (yet? ;-).
One place missing GPL application is a really good navigation system.
Yes but... do you really need this? When you'll buy your GPS-enabled navigation system (e.g. from Garmin, Magellan, TomTom, etc), you'll be given appropriate software that works with the hardware you just purchased (even the iPhone [slashgeo.org] has (in dev) it's turn by turn nav syst software). You don't "need" to install an open source nav syst.
That said, I agree, a solid open source nav syst would be nice. Roadnav is an example [sourceforge.net], but I think it's not as mature as commercial offers. The data for such an open source software project already exists on OpenStreetMap.org [openstreetmap.org].
Re:The jury's still out (Score:4, Informative)
No, I have a computer from the 'future' First you search google, then you "View source", copy, and paste.