Anyone from here do this?

Couldn't be anyone from here.....could it?

http://www.nbc12.com/story/35879520...-pg-13-insult-in-field-can-be-seen-from-space.

If I had a yard large enough and one living next to me, I would do it all summer long. With proper watering, fertilizer and weeding to make it highly visible.

If my yard was large enough you could view it from the space station.

Nemo

I'll admit it's big, but I doubt it's visible from 60 miles (the accepted, minimum definition of the altitude where "space") without optical assistance.

A first amendment advocate of the highest order.. However not very neighborly..

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

A first amendment advocate of the highest order.. However not very neighborly..

CCJ

Click to expand...

Unless the neighbor is a pilot and overflies his house, I doubt he can/has read it. Might have noticed it online but that don't count.

Nemo

Fallschirmjäger said:

I'll admit it's big, but I doubt it's visible from 60 miles (the accepted, minimum definition of the altitude where "space") without optical assistance.

Click to expand...

I'll take it you've never had the opportunity to tour NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Complex outside of Colorado Springs. When I was last there, say 1975, there was a supper grainy photo on the wall taken of a US Quarter laying on the pavement in the parking lot and you could make out the date on it. According to the tour guide that photo was taken by one of our Spy Satellites.

I have pulled up Google Earth satellite photo's showing such good detail that you can not only make out the silver color of aluminum power wires strung from pole to pole but can count the number of wires coming off of transformers at the poles. And that was about 2010 or so.

Perhaps the gentleman may wish to re-read what I said about "without optical assistance"?

First, a little history:
The Corona spy satellite system was active from 1959 to 1972.
KH1 was able to resolve a 40' diameter object on the ground.
KH-4B and KH-6 had a resolution of 1.8 m

KH-9 was active between 1971 and 1986 steadily improved until it had a resolution of 0.61 m.

KH-11 aka 'Keyhole' (1976 to current) satellite system has, depending on when it was launched, either a 3-meter or the newer 2.4-meter main mirror. A perfect 2.4-meter mirror observing in the visual (500 nm) and on a perfect, low humidity day, would have a diffraction limited resolution of around 0.05 arcsec, which from an orbital altitude of 250 km would correspond to a ground sample distance of 0.05 m (1.97 inch/pixel). By way of comparison a quarter 0.955" in diameter.



The Scientific formula, for those whom it may interest is R = λ/D where R is the angular resolution in radians, λ is the wavelength of light that is being imaged, and D is the diameter of the telescope. Solve for R at your leisure.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Perhaps the gentleman may wish to re-read what I said about "without optical assistance"?

...

Solve for R at your leisure.

Click to expand...

You may be correct, however, did you read the original article that was referenced? www.nbc12.com/story/35879520/google-maps-neighbors-pg-13-insult-in-field-can-be-seen-from-space It was discussing someone who was playing with Google Earth and browsing. I would suspect that you do know Google Earth is a satellite based imagery system. Therefore said optical assistance is implied. Why comment to the contrary?

Inquiring mind!

LkWd_Don said:

You may be correct, however, did you read the original article that was referenced? www.nbc12.com/story/35879520/google-maps-neighbors-pg-13-insult-in-field-can-be-seen-from-space It was discussing someone who was playing with Google Earth and browsing. I would suspect that you do know Google Earth is a satellite based imagery system. Therefore said optical assistance is implied. Why comment to the contrary?

Inquiring mind!

Click to expand...

Yes, I read the original article and it's immaterial to what you posted. Let me get this straight....

I posted that while large, it wasn't large enough to be seen from space without optical assistance.
You replied with a quote referencing that very same phrase, "without optical assistance
You added a tale about visiting somewhere, adding that they had a photo of something supposedly visible from space with optical assistance.

The question I have is, ... since what you said has nothing to do with what I said, why did you quote me and try to imply something contrariwise?

I hope it's not because you took offense that I posted that an apocryphal tale of a US quarter being photographed from space exceeded the capabilities of satellite imagery from the 70s as well as today's current technology.

ETA: The reason you can see sun glinting from high power lines is the same reason why the flash from a 3-inch signaling mirror is discernible at 10-15 miles distance.

LkWd_Don said:

You may be correct, however, did you read the original article that was referenced? www.nbc12.com/story/35879520/google-maps-neighbors-pg-13-insult-in-field-can-be-seen-from-space It was discussing someone who was playing with Google Earth and browsing. I would suspect that you do know Google Earth is a satellite based imagery system. Therefore said optical assistance is implied. Why comment to the contrary?

Inquiring mind!

Click to expand...

I think nowadays, google earth is more likely to be aerial flyover based then it is satellite based.