Someone should tell the Daily Mail that photos in Google Earth aren't taken from space
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Evicted - the woman whose garden weeds grew so high they could be seen from SPACE
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
The whole stupid "visible from space" thing always annoys me. We have satellites that can see things just a couple of metres across, and probably spy satellites that can easily see individual people. We can see tiny features on other planets, so what's so great about being able to see a building or whatever from space? So the Millenium Dome, or whatever they're making a pointless fuss about this time, is visible from space. So's my car. Why isn't anyone making a fuss about that?
Better sorry than safe.
Because your car isn't going to get you evicted! Bless The Daily Mail, they probably never considered that the person may have just been evicted because the weeds make a bigger impact when one sees them in person.So the Millenium Dome, or whatever they're making a pointless fuss about this time, is visible from space. So's my car. Why isn't anyone making a fuss about that?
"Somebody got evicted because their weeds could be seen from space!"
"Really?"
"Yeah..."
"You sure it's cause they could be seen from space..."
"Erm..."
"No no, we'll go with that"
i don't know about the whole seen from space thing, it is a myith that the great wall of china can be seen from space, apparently it con't. we can't even make good quality cctv camaras let alone orbital camaras.
i know you are going to say, well what about hubble, i love the images it gets but they are exposed over very long time periods. google earth is ok if you want the 5 miles high images but thats its limit, anything closer and it just a bler.
On the contrary, I can get a remarkably good image of the building I live in, not a "bler" at all. This may be because I live in London. Not all areas can be viewed at the highest magnification.Originally Posted by dashwood
Yes it can. As I already said, pretty much anything can be seen from space. The most recent camera sent to Mars has a resolution of 30cm (somewhere in that area at least), easily good enough to see any building, although probably not quite good enough to get individual people. Given that, do you honestly think there aren't spy satellites with at least as good resolution orbiting Earth?
If by "seen from space" you mean an astronaut looking out of a window with just his eyes, that is a slightly different question. To be honest, I have no idea what the smallest features visible under those conditions are. However, I don't think that's what most people actually mean.
Yes we can. CCTV cameras are generally fairly low quality because of bandwidth and storage constraints. If you're recording a car park, you really don't need several million pixels being saved 10 times every second, a low resolution, black and white picture every second or so is perfectly good enough. As for orbital cameras, clearly you haven't bothered researching what we know exists, let alone what probably exists, as pointed out above.we can't even make good quality cctv camaras let alone orbital camaras.
Astronomical cameras are really not comparable with terrestrial cameras.i know you are going to say, well what about hubble, i love the images it gets but they are exposed over very long time periods.
Did you even bother reading any posts in this thread? The whole point of the OP was that Goole Earth photos are not taken from space.google earth is ok if you want the 5 miles high images but thats its limit, anything closer and it just a bler.
Incidentally, the shift key is over that way <--
Better sorry than safe.
Yes, that was kind of my point.
Incidentally, the maps at www.live.com are often much clearer at the lower levels than Google, plus the coverage seems wider.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
yes thanks i did read the thread. and you can not see the great wall of china from space, it is only visible with teli optics from low orbit. the best i can get with google earth is about five miles out blur, its great for viewing the piramids or babylon. cctv is always crap, what use is a system that uses adiquate optical resolutions and recording it on ultra low resolution? its like having a realy good radio and no tuning it in properly.Did you even bother reading any posts in this thread? The whole point of the OP was that Goole Earth photos are not taken from space.
may be you should get your facts right before you attack.
He's not wrong...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/wor...reat_wall.html
Arrgh! The irony! It burns!
Once again, try actually reading what other people have written. Who knows, you might even learn something. For example, I just explained to you exactly how and why CCTV is the way it is, yet you carry on obliviously spouting the same nonsense instead of just accepting that you were wrong.
Better sorry than safe.
sorry matt but that is form space with a about 50 to 100 miles out and you can only just see it, space starts at about 150 miles out after the van allen belt. show me a picture of the whole earth and i'll exsept that im wrong.
Man, you just can't help yourself can you? It's amazing how you can fit so much wrong into one sentence. Firstly, the common definition of outer space is greater than 100km (62.5m) from the surface of the Earth. Secondly, the Van Allen belts extend from around 700 - 30,000km from the Earth's surface. Finally, the photo was taken from the ISS, which orbits at around 350km (217m) and is therefore in space by anyone's definition, including your own. Idiot.sorry matt but that is form space with a about 50 to 100 miles out and you can only just see it, space starts at about 150 miles out after the van allen belt. show me a picture of the whole earth and i'll exsept that im wrong.
Better sorry than safe.
[QUOTEYes we can. CCTV cameras are generally fairly low quality because of bandwidth and storage constraints. If you're recording a car park, you really don't need several million pixels being saved 10 times every second, a low resolution, black and white picture every second or so is perfectly good enough. As for orbital cameras, clearly you haven't bothered researching what we know exists, let alone what probably exists, as pointed out above.
][/QUOTE]
if you ever get mugged in a car park you would be ok with a grainy, unuseable picture ?
god probably exsists, father christmas probably exsists.let alone what probably exsists
conspirasy theorists know all about the spy satalites which can read a newspaper from 30,000 miles up, and we trust the inteligence comunity dont we? like when the soviet union brock down and we found out that one missil bunker was controled by a modified commador 64, and the yanks had spent billions keeping up with them.
please dont think im not as inteligent as you because i cant spell and you know different things than me.
Hey I was agreeing with you. I shan't bother next time hurrumph!sorry matt but that is form space with a about 50 to 100 miles out and you can only just see it, space starts at about 150 miles out after the van allen belt. show me a picture of the whole earth and i'll exsept that im wrong.
BTW whislt there is no official demarkation for the "edge of space" the Kármán line 100km above the earth surface is often considered to count as the boundary. The photos from the ISS are above that line. The point of the photos is that you cant really see the great wall of china on them and the person taking them said he couldn't see it with the unaided eye.
I'm confused! The Wikipedia entry for Google Earth says the images are made from aerial photos AND satellite images. Is that wrong?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks