"Google Satellite" To Be Launched This Week

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

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:Precisions on the summary

My biggest concern as a consumer of GIS data has always been access to the high-quality, tax-payer funded data (which is usually aerial, not satellite). Exclusivity deals are fine as long as any data gathered from the instruments for tax-payer funded programs remains accessible without restrictions.

I'm not sure how deals such as Google's will affect this, but as the parent pointed out, there are already many sources of high-quality data from government sources.

If there is something to fear from Google Maps/Earth, it's the spatial imagery mono-culture developing around consumer and media GIS applications. Google's approach is by no means the best approach for all geospatial data, it just happens to work well for navigating large data sets. But, as we've learned from Microsoft, if enough people are using a solution, the level of technology present in dominant solution becomes the "state-of-the-art" even if it isn't.

-Chris

Re:Precisions on the summary

Maybe the satellite company wouldn't afford a satellite if it didn't sell exclusive rights to the pictures.

I'm not saying the whole thing isn't evil, it's just a little more complicated than you make it appear.

Re:Precisions on the summary

Considering it costs millions and millions of dollars to develop and launch an orbital satellite, there is no way GeoEye could make money by only exclusively licensing the use of its imagery to Google. I am guessing that Google fronted much/most of the development and launch costs for the satellite. Basically I would assume that Google owns the satellite and GeoEye is simply managing the logistics of orbiting, photgraphing, and maintenance.

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).

50cm? That barrier is gonna fall soon

Within 1-2 years other countries will have civilian spy satellites that break 50cm, putting American companies at a disadvantage.

The USA will have 3 choices:
Shoot the birds down, literally.
Shoot the birds down, politically - bully the other countries into imposing similar limits.
Lower or eliminate the artificial limit.

Anyone remember when encryption software was considered a munition? Apple and other companies had to go through hoops to export it, putting them at a distinct disadvantage over non-American companies.

Re:50cm? How about 10?

Google uses aerial photography for the views of major cities - so those 10cm resolution images are not from satellite.

Re:50cm? How about 10?

They use aerial photogr.... wait a minute, *FOUR* other people have said this already.

Don't you wish that everyone would read the whole freakin' thread before replying.

Jesus.

Courtesy of Google SatWords

Guy comes out of bar holding a girl's hand while walking home. Suddenly, a targeted ad for condoms is projected on the ground in front of them.

Re:why the

50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??

Everyone knows WMDs are only 49cm across.

Re:why the

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

Hmm, I'd be inclined to bet that it will hide precisely 9cm!

Re:why the

But if you're limited to 50cm, that means that you're not going to be able to accurately identify a number of things. You'd be able to pick out a book on a table, but you'd not know what it was. You might be able to tell that that lady is sunbathing in the nude, but not actually see anything.

50cm is like half a meter. Most people are under 2 meters tall, and between 50cm and 100cm wide. So if you had a resolution of 50cm, you wouldn't see a 'lady sunbathing in the nude' you'd see 1x4 to 2x4 block of colored pixels. Try to draw a 'woman sunbathing in the nude' using 8 pixels. Now using 4-8 pixels draw each of 'borat wearing a g-string', a pig, a camel, a litter of cocker spaniels, a beige hammock, and a cardboard box and explain how to tell them apart.

For comparison the 'mario' in the original Nintendo "Super Mario Brothers" was around 400 pixels. And they had to dedicate the entire top 3rd to his head just so that he'd have a discernable eye, nose, and moustache.

Re:why the

50cm is like half a meter.

It's precisely half a meter.

Re:why the

Most people are under 2 meters tall, and between 50cm and 100cm wide..

100cm Wide? I know a third of Americans are Obese, but 100 cm is massive. I'm about average and only 45 cm wide

Re:why the

I can think of a few loopholes around this regulation.

What about taking many low resolution images of the same area and combine them later using super resolution [wikipedia.org]?

Re:resolution for satellite like digital cams?

I'm not really sure how this breaks down in terms of what I can actually SEE. Since current imagery lets us sorta see people

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.

A primer on satellite resolution

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:The jury's still out

Is there a death ray? It's the only way to be sure.

Re:The jury's still out

Is a Google satellite evil or not evil? Discuss.

Do you mean.... Dr. Evil??



Johnson: [Noticing Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
Jet Pilot: Dick.
Dick: Yeah?
Jet Pilot: Take a look out of starboard.
Dick: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's--
Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
[looking up from game]
Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous--
Chinese Teacher: Wang, pay attention!
Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying--
Musician: Willie.
Willie Nelson: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie Nelson: [squints] Well, that looks like a giant--
Colonel: Johnson?!
Johnson: Yes, sir?
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.

Re:The jury's still out

It all comes down to Google's stated goal: To index and make available all the worlds information.

The less friendly side of their stated goal, which they don't state as explicitly, is that all the worlds information should be available only through them

Re:Gee I should have had a..

Of all the evil corps predicted to rise in the future by all the cyberpunk and sci-fi writers. I'll bet you not one of them was named "Google"

Re:Gee I should have had a..

How weird will that be, if 50 years from now people associate the word Google, like they associate the word Nazi?

Then we can all say "back in my day Google was just a search engine, not a military force that had every bit of information on each human on earth. All hail Page Brin."

Re:Gee I should have had a..

vegetables, oh teh horror! ;)

Re:Which Orbit?

The interesting thing is that in order to get such an orbit, it has to pass over other countries. Will Google take footage of other countries? If so, will it use that footage? That would probably require some intense international negotiations.

Actually, it will not. I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere in international law or just by historical precedent, but a nation's airspace does not extend into space. A satellite can legally take photos of anything it can see, and there's little a country can do about it except hide things under cover or shoot it down (which likely would be considered an act of war).

Some countries (like the US) can exert control in limited ways by restricting operations if the imaging company does business in the country, but that's it.

Google has quite detailed satellite photos of Pyongyang, North Korea - I'm sure they didn't really agree to that.

Re:Good news

I thought we already established that WMD are only 49cm across. You don't need to hide it, just paint it beige and it will look like a nude woman sunbathing... or a litter of spaniels. What is the differnce between the 3?