Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government Space

Google Earth's New Satellites 118

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-the-better-to-see-you-with,-my-dear dept.
Rambo Tribble writes "The BBC provides some insights into the next generation satellites being built for Google by contractor DigitalGlobe in Colorado. The resolution of these satellites' cameras is sufficient to resolve objects that are only 25cm wide. Unfortunately, the public will be allowed only half that image quality, the best being reserved for the U.S. military. 'The light comes in through a barrel structure, pointed at the Earth, and is bounced around by a series of mirrors, before being focused onto a CCD sensor. The big difference – apart from the size – between this and a typical handheld digital camera, is that the spacecraft will not just take snapshots but continuous images along thin strips of land or sea.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Earth's New Satellites

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:26PM (#46232473)

    ITAR applying to satellites and space probes is a right pain in the ass for anyone actually trying to get useful work done with international assistance.

    • by icebike (68054) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:42PM (#46232637)

      But it probably gets Google the sats it needs for free.

      If google can build it, but only the military can use the full resolution, it sounds like google is probably getting huge piles of money from the US Military.

      • by thomst (1640045) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:29PM (#46233085) Homepage

        icebike conjectured:

        But it probably gets Google the sats it needs for free.

        If google can build it, but only the military can use the full resolution, it sounds like google is probably getting huge piles of money from the US Military.

        The summary is completely wrong (surprise!)

        Google is NOT building the satellite (note the singular) in question. It will merely be a customer of DigitalGlobe - one of many, including the US government.

        Not that the US goverment needs DigitalGlobe's images. After all, the NSA has a fleet of its own satellites with far better image resolution capability than the DigitalGlobe effort.

        Slushdot: come for the misleading summaries, stay for the uninformed commentary!

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:49PM (#46233789)

          The NSA doesn't launch the birds, the NGA handles that.

        • by The Snowman (116231) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @09:37PM (#46234623) Homepage

          After all, the NSA has a fleet of its own satellites with far better image resolution capability than the DigitalGlobe effort.

          Actually, that would be the National Reconnaissance Office [nro.gov] (NRO).

        • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @10:22PM (#46234917) Homepage Journal

          > Slushdot: come for the misleading summaries,
          > stay for the uninformed commentary!

          Yup. Only the power of The Beta can drive us away. :-)

        • by Dr La (1342733) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:00AM (#46236853) Homepage

          It will merely be a customer of DigitalGlobe - one of many, including the US government.

          Not that the US goverment needs DigitalGlobe's images. After all, the NSA has a fleet of its own satellites with far better image resolution capability than the DigitalGlobe effort.

          In fact, the US Government relies heavily on DigitalGlobe imagery. After the optical component of the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) program that should have replaced the aging KH-11 Keyhole/CRYSTAL satelites was scrapped, it left the NRO (the NSA has nothing to do with optical reconaissance) with limited high-res imaging capabilities. For a while they had only 3 operational KH-11 optical reconnaissance satellites left in orbit: two new recent launches have expanded this to 5 recently but one of these is over 17 years old and will likely soon be deorbitted, bringing it down to 4: hardly a "fleet". Lawmakers have been holding off NRO requests for more optical satellites with the argument that it is better to buy time on DigitalGlobe satellites.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2014 @08:50AM (#46237063)

          When I was a contractor at DigitalGlobe, it was explained to me in this way:

          DigitalGlobe was one of the first, if not the first, companies to have a randomly taskable panchromatic satellite. Previously, only state agencies could afford such things.

          To prevent too much sensitive information reaching parties that the US Government preferred to not have access, an arrangement was made to allow the government first priority for exclusive data rights. They would buy up all the images that they wished to remain private, at a preferred rate. The private company didn't have to hassle with the government, could be a partner, and the spies got oversight and a measure of control in the process.

          We aren't Syria or Venezuela, our government doesn't nationalize companies. So, a compromise needed to be made, once private entities could operate technology that previously it took a wealthy nation to accomplish.

    • by frovingslosh (582462) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:49PM (#46232705)

      Unfortunately, the public will be allowed only half that image quality, the best being reserved for the U.S. military.

      This is somewhat to be expected for things like GPS (at least if you ignore that the taxpayers are the ones paying for it). But why is this the case when the instruments are being financed by a private company. Or, to look at it another way, the photos fall into two general categories: those outside the U.S.A. and those inside the U.S.A. It is hard to understand that our military would have many problems with us getting the best images available for locations outside the U.S.A. But it is even harder to understand that the military should get better images of the U.S.A. through Google than we can get ourselves. At least in times of peace and while they claim to not be at war with their own citizens. They have their own spy satellites for the super high resolution images (and don't kid yourself that they don't use them). So how and why has it been decided that we are to get degraded images from a private company when we could get better?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:59PM (#46232803)

        It's not being blocked from Americans per se, it's being blocked from the people outside of America. They don't want Iran to get high res images of the US, for instance.

      • by magarity (164372) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:01PM (#46232817)

        Because the military finds out some company is launching a satelite that can take pictures at a certain resolution and simply contracts to exclusively access that. It's a great money maker for Google or anyone else who can launch one.

      • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:17PM (#46232993)

        But why is this the case when the instruments are being financed by a private company.

        Because the export limitation is based on military utility, not on ownership of the company. Most weapons and other military equipment is produced by private companies, even if in some cases it is using government equipment or facilities to do so.

        If Apple were to branch out into military equipment, even if they didn't sell to the US government, wouldn't you want someone watching what happens with iMissile shipments?

        But it is even harder to understand that the military should get better images of the U.S.A. through Google than we can get ourselves. At least in times of peace and while they claim to not be at war with their own citizens.

        A couple of things there. First, many things of interest to enemies, adversaries, or terrorists don't move. If you take their picture once, it's always there until you remove the picture. The water treatment plant for your city? It won't be moving anytime soon, including the roads, tanks, fences, and ground cover. Second, the US is involved in military conflict at present against al Qaida, the Taliban, and associates. Iran has agents and allies in the US, thousands of them, and plans to hit the US as it desires.

        Iranian commander: We have targets within America [dailycaller.com]

        Finally, that line of "they claim not to be at war with their own citizens" is tedious demagoguery. If the US was at war with its citizens I think the results would be more dramatic than limiting the resolution on satellite photographs you can purchase.

        .

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:08PM (#46233427)

          " If the US was at war with its citizens I think the results would be more dramatic than limiting the resolution on satellite photographs you can purchase."

          This.

          • Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)

            by davester666 (731373) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:57AM (#46235835) Journal

            Yes. They would be spying on the general population. They would be busy video installing camera's in major cities. They would tracking who you called, emailed, or texted. They would have roving armed groups descend on a location and demand people's identities and search their persons and belongings.

            Crazy stuff like that. Good thing we're in the land of the free, where stuff like this would never happen.

            • by cold fjord (826450) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @10:02PM (#46242811)

              In short, you agree that there isn't a general war on American citizens.

              • by davester666 (731373) on Friday February 14, 2014 @01:56AM (#46243511) Journal

                no.

                • by cold fjord (826450) on Friday February 14, 2014 @02:29AM (#46243591)

                  So where are the battles? Where are the mass arrests? Where are the ambushes? What cities are surrounded or occupied by the army or marines?

                  All you seem to have shown is some border enforcement, some police activity, some surveillance activity, and that's about it. That isn't much of a "war."

                  • by davester666 (731373) on Friday February 14, 2014 @04:50AM (#46243873) Journal

                    "some surveillance activity"...way to just sweep it under the rug that EVERYONE within the borders of the US is being actively surveilled if they use any form of 18th century or newer form communication.

                    The President has the right to grab anyone off the street, remove that person from the country, and hold them somewhere else, indefinitely, without charge, and without notifying anyone. But this is OK, because the current president promises not to use that power unless absolutely necessary.

                    Of course, how can anyone prove he has or has not used this power, because if he has, the person has just disappeared. It would only show up as a missing person. Perhaps a kidnapping if somebody saw the person being taken.

                    But we're all friends here!

  • Continuous Image (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bondsbw (888959) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:28PM (#46232493)

    What, pray tell, is a "continuous image" and how is it not a series of snapshots?

    Is this like a video (which is seemingly continuous over time, made by sequencing snapshots) or like a panoramic image (which is continuous over space, made by processing/overlaying snapshots)?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:33PM (#46232541)

      It's continuous like two halves of a piece of string.

    • by Vulch (221502) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:43PM (#46232649)

      Usually means the sensor is just a single strip rather than a 2D array. The sensor is aligned across the path of the satellite and the motion along that path provides the other dimension.

    • by icebike (68054) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:47PM (#46232689)

      What, pray tell, is a "continuous image" and how is it not a series of snapshots?

      Is this like a video (which is seemingly continuous over time, made by sequencing snapshots) or like a panoramic image (which is continuous over space, made by processing/overlaying snapshots)?

      Think slit cameras.
      You only need to capture a small slit-width at any given time, and paste them side by side in an endless stream of slit widths. You build images one slice at a time.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:36PM (#46233163)

        Think slit cameras.

        Think /r/gonewild.

      • Re:Continuous Image (Score:5, Informative)

        by LoRdTAW (99712) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:23PM (#46233563)

        Or better yet: a flatbed scanner.
        In a scanner you have a 1 dimensional array of sensors defining a pixel width. You then move the sensor along an axis repeatedly recording that data at regular intervals (distance or time). That motion gomes from a little rubber timing belt around two pulleys, one of which is a step motor, which drags the 1D sensor across the photo or page being scanned. The result is now a 2d array of pixels that is, drum roll please: a picture we can see. If you ever used a scanner you would notice that high resolution scans take much longer. This is because the sensor has to be moved more slowly in order to allow the scanner to properly process the large amount of data from the sensor and send it to the computer without needing large amounts of memory in the scanner. Lets do some math: a hypothetical scanner has a sensor with 300 pixels per inch, 8.5 inches wide (for letter sized paper) and capturing 24 bits of RGB color. You now have (300*8.5*24)/8 = 7650 bytes per sample. And if you sample at 300 evenly spaced points in one inch and you page length is 11 inches (again letter size) then you have 7650*300*11 = 25245000 or 25.25 megs of data for a 300x300 DPI 24 bit color scan.

        The same technology is used in slit cameras for industrial automation systems on conveyor lines or other areas of machine vision. The conveyor or linear movement is like the little belt in the flatbed scanner moving the object past the 1D sensor array. The cameras used are slit cameras that contain a 1D pixel array and using an encoder on the conveyor or timing, a computer can determine the speed at which to sample the array and write that line of data to a 2D array and voila, a picture appears. You can treat the image as a stream of pixel lines and write them to a file akin to a scrolling image. The interesting part is the images from that stream isn't a single instant in time (or freeze frame) like a photo from a 2D sensor but a picture of time elapsed from row to row of pixels. Its a picture of elapsed time. Or like an oscilloscope. But you have a 2D array of pixels vs time instead of signal amplitude vs time.

        But why a 1D array when we have 2D arrays in cameras already? The answer is twofold:
        -you can more effectively make a wider pixel array consisting of millions of pixels and remove the need to take a large, data intensive frame. You simply stream the 1D array and buffer it. You somewhat simplify the imaging process as you simply stream the sensor data to disk(or wherever) instead of freeze, write buffer to disk and then get ready to snap again.
        -pixels next to each other on a 2D sensor experience noise from each other. Ever zoom in on a picture taken with a cheap, high megapixel camera? Its looks like grey, fuzzy/blurry snow. That is the noise. So a 1D array has less noise as its a single row of pixels.

        The Google satellite is using the same technology and the benefits are enormous.

        And one more tidbit: those persistence of vision displays that uses a 1D array of spinning LED's to create images or text works the opposite of a slit camera. Instead of reading a sensor array, it writes to an array of LED's at regular intervals (say every degree of rotation at a constant speed) to produce an image. It does this so fast your eyes don't notice the array LEDs switching on and off.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:40PM (#46233711)

        What, pray tell, is a "continuous image" and how is it not a series of snapshots?

        Is this like a video (which is seemingly continuous over time, made by sequencing snapshots) or like a panoramic image (which is continuous over space, made by processing/overlaying snapshots)?

        Think slit cameras. You only need to capture a small slit-width at any given time, and paste them side by side in an endless stream of slit widths. You build images one slice at a time.

        I built it one slice at the time. with respect to Johnny Cash

    • by kimvette (919543) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @12:46AM (#46235617) Homepage Journal

      It probably is a single strip of sensors almost exactly like a scanner.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:30PM (#46232511)

    Yup Google is in no way in bed with the US Government.
     

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:32PM (#46232529)

    Continuing to do good at any cost because doing good and doing well are the same thing...

  • by schneidafunk (795759) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:33PM (#46232533)

    I thought the original satellites were not owned by google but the images were leased. Do these satellites actually belong to google?

  • by houseparty2 (3535181) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:34PM (#46232553)
    The technologies that exist to create such high tech maps are incredible. I find it sad the the average human will mostly never see the extent of this technology. There are many technologies that already exist that we will never see or hear about. It is to bad that we can't even experience a high quality images of the world we live in. I would find it incredible interesting to view.
  • by Nutria (679911) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:35PM (#46232559)

    I'm not exactly crying a river of despondent tears.

  • by John.Banister (1291556) * on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:36PM (#46232563) Homepage
    I wish they'd do a modern (eg LTE) version of what Teledesic claimed to intend. Global access to data communication with a direct link to Google's cloud services could be beneficial to huge numbers of people on the planet, and would also give Google the sort of infrastructure level access to data that they have seemed to enjoy having in the past.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:38PM (#46232585)

    We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.

    WTF?

    I'll just proxy that...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:39PM (#46232593)

    Google ties to military and NSA

  • by hubie (108345) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:46PM (#46232679)

    'The light comes in through a barrel structure, pointed at the Earth, and is bounced around by a series of mirrors, before being focused onto a CCD sensor.

    Hmmmm, some kind of "barrel structure" and "bouncing light around with a series of mirrors". That all sounds pretty futuristic. And here I thought they could get by with just using something like a telescope.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:24PM (#46233027)

      Well, once you shoot all the fish it is good to recycle the barrel somewhere...

    • by mspohr (589790) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:04PM (#46233389)

      I think they are using this technology:
      http://www.apartmenttherapy.co... [apartmenttherapy.com]
      10 Ways to Use Mirrors to Make Your Space Look Larger
      See, it's space and magnification...
      Here are a few hot tips from the article...
      1. Group Them Together:
      2. Behind The Stove:
      3. Turn Them On Their Side:
      4. Cabinet Fronts:
      5. Next To Your Dining Room Table:
      6. Floor Length:
      7. Layer Them Up:
      8. Fake A Window:
      9. Beautiful Backsplashes:
      10. Fake Mirrored Furniture:

      From the looks of it, they are using all of these tricks in this new satellite.

    • by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @08:03PM (#46233909)
      So read the article:

      With its long cylindrical shape, WorldView-3 looks more like a telescope than a camera and it works on the same principle. The light comes in through a barrel structure, pointed at the Earth, and is bounced around by a series of mirrors, before being focused onto a CCD sensor.

      • by hubie (108345) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @10:32PM (#46234985)
        Of course it is a telescope. I'm not sure what the person who wrote the article was thinking; maybe they were thinking the optics would be some kind of big refractive system that snaps on the front of the camera like a Nikon lens. There are many, many telescope designs, but a couple of the defining features of them are that they have cylindrical barrels and they bounce the light that comes into them through a series of mirrors (and lenses too). I'm not sure why the author would think that a space telescope would somehow look like a commercial camera.
        • by Rich0 (548339) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @11:08PM (#46235179) Homepage

          Well, when you stop and think about it, telescopes and cameras are really just the same thing. At what point do you call a "camera" with a high magnification a telescope, and at what point do you call a "telescope" with a wide field of view a camera?

          You have a device that captures images, and you have an optical system that projects an image onto it. There are a bunch of ways you can design the optical system, and you can find many of them both in telescopes and in things you can plug onto a camera you might take to a sporting event. The main difference tends to be man-portability.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:47PM (#46232691)

    Only the military will be able to resolve my dick then.

  • by rea1l1 (903073) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:55PM (#46232759) Journal

    Another reason to plant more trees.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:55PM (#46232761)

    There is a lot of new technology out there, but most of us will never get a chance to be a part of it. It is scary to think about what happens when stuff like these images can get into the wrong hands. What do you guys think?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:56PM (#46232779)

    The new Robocop film shows Google like autonomous robotic war machines carrying out a holocaust in Iran, not as SATIRE as the original movie used in its social commentary, but as wonderful example of the future for Americans, when its war machine can 'conquer' nations of 'sub-Human' without risking the lives of 'master-race' Americans.

    Google has spent the last few years buying into EVERY available company developing technology of any sort for military robots. Now you have a story about Google buying MILITARY grade surveillance satellites to provide Google war machines with real-time battlefield intelligence.

    Up to know, Google has functioned entirely as the R+D arm of the NSA. Google designed hardware and software systems power all the major NSA installations across the planet. The owners of Google believe the NSA project is about done- and that very average work can progress the engineering needed by the NSA in the future. The owners of Google have moved onto the next 'big challenge'.

    Long before the first drone strike on a funeral procession held by 'sub-Humans', Hollywood movies proudly portrayed such Crimes against Humanity by an imagined near future US government. The propaganda tactic is called "predictive programming". Robocop is the first film to push the concept of US robotic war machines in near future conflicts, but many similar movies and TV dramas are in the pipeline. Google knows the sheeple are going to need some major GROOMING to gain their passive support of American robots mass slaughtering the Humans of target nations.

    Google's robotic tanks need information. They need accurate, up-to-date, images of the streets they will travel down. RING A BELL? They need software systems that can drive the tanks down these roads. RING A BELL? They need real-time face recognition software to target the auto-cannons to slaughter every person in the vicinity of the tank. RING A BELL? They need real-time satellite feeds showing the state of the surrounding area. RING A BELL?

    The owners of Google introduce their talks with US politicians and military leaders with an opening sentence. "Why is the USA currently unable to take down Iran?" And then Google goes on to give a presentation of a near-future US military armed with legions of Google designed autonomous robotic slaughter machines, machines depicted as flooding into a near future Iran, exterminating all those who attempt to defend their nation or oppose the US invasion.

    Google says "nukes are useless, and so is the massive arsenal of chemical and biologic weapons that the US military holds. What is the point of a weapon system you cannot use?"
    Then, Google goes on to say "our robots will CHOOSE every Human target, and in war, under US rules, if you 'choose' a target, the 'kill' is always 'legal'".

    Obviously, Google faces scepticism that robots can ever perform as promised, which is why Google is currently engaged in a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR+ project to build the first prototypes, and prove their effectiveness. And remember, by 'robot', Google simply means an autonomous tank, not some SF terminator nonsense like the usual vile shills will try to pretend makes the proposal laughable.

     

  • by Vermonter (2683811) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:02PM (#46232827)
    So how exactly does this 0.5 meter resolution compare to the current resolution on google's sattelite pics? Seems to me like the current pics have pixels thinner than 0.5 meters... I feel like I am missing something? I don't really know much about photography, so maybe someone can fill me in.
    • by coolsnowmen (695297) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:09PM (#46232905)

      Just a guess, It might be more of a vertical integration answer than a quality of your local pictures one.

      If they have to get their map data from someone else, at what ever most-recent time is available, at what ever resolution is available-- it might be nicer to get more regular dumps data you have more control over from the same satellite.

    • Re:Resolution (Score:4, Informative)

      by maeka (518272) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:12PM (#46232933) Journal

      Seems to me like the current pics have pixels thinner than 0.5 meters... I feel like I am missing something?

      In many (most?) developed western areas the images are from planes, not satellites. There is a great deal of high-res aerial photography on the open market and Google has used much.

      The development being discussed in the article will benefit outlying areas and places where having temporal density is useful.

    • by Nukenbar (215420) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:15PM (#46232975)

      most close in google photos are taken via aerial photography.

  • by Severus Snape (2376318) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:10PM (#46232917)
    "We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee."

    Not cool BBC, not cool.
  • "“Once a year they pick cities like Denver or London and rescan them and they get it into their database – how often Google buys those images and updates its maps, is up to them.”
    I'm surprised that Google is still buying DigitalGlobe imagery for the continental USA, ESPECIALLY for major metropolitan areas.

    Most states have state-level orthoimagery collection programs, and as a result, there is high-quality aerial imagery significantly exceeding these satellites in quality over most of the USA, especially in metropolitan areas.

    For example, New York State has 2 foot (24 inch) resolution across the entire state (only slightly worse than DigitalGlobe's best quality available), and over much of the state has 1 foot (12 inch) and even 0.5 foot (6 inch) resolution, the latter of which is better than what DG offers government customers. This data is under similar extremely permissive licensing to most other government GIS data such as TIGER. (Anyone can download NYGIS orthoimagery, and this same imagery is what Google uses for Maps/Earth for "satellite" which is really "aerial")

    Pennsylvania has similar quality statewide imagery. Same for New Jersey (1 foot in the case of NJ).

  • by boorack (1345877) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:35PM (#46233161)
    Looks like new and cool revenue stream for Google. Are they becoming military contractor for war criminals^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HUS Army ?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @06:45PM (#46233245)

    Google's New Revenue Stream: Pron from space!!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:15PM (#46233491)

    ... now everyone will be able to see that I'm bald.

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:40PM (#46233713)

    That means it's probably safe to assume the ones we're not allowed to know of are substantially better than that.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @07:50PM (#46233803)

    Can someone draw a venn diagram of google and the NSA/CIA.

      I keep drawing one big circle.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @08:04PM (#46233917)

    Pitty the space people who will not be able to see my 10 inch penis for lack of a decent magnifying lens.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @09:03PM (#46234397)

    Sounds like the cameras that Urthecast just had installed on the International Space Station (ISS)

  • by koan (80826) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @09:39PM (#46234647)

    What would happen if a civilian entity launched high res sats and allowed civilians to use it at the highest res.

  • by SuperDre (982372) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @04:34AM (#46236299) Homepage
    what the hell does US militairy have to do with satelites being designed and payed for by google? the militairy doesn't have anything to say about what is allowed or not..

Optimism is the content of small men in high places. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack Up"

Working...