![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:36:35 -0400, NoneYa wrote:
We can take pictures of objects on the Earth from space that are 2 inch's wide. We can take pictures of objects on Mars that are 12 inches wide. Why can't we find a wrecked airplane in Nevada?? A place that is mostly dirt and sand with very little vegetation? Makes no sense No, you just have to understand the realities of the process. Imagine a satellite snaps a picture of Wittman Field during Airventure. Assume it has a high enough resolution to allow individuals to be recognized. There are 400,000 people on the grounds at the time...and you want to find one particular person. You don't know where he was at the time the photo was taken That means you will have to zoom in on, individually, each person visible on the image. With average luck, you'll have to examine 200,000 individuals before you find your friend. (Heck, here's an aerial photo of Oshkosh: http://www.airventure.org/2007/media...al_from_SW.JPG ....just try to COUNT how many people are visible) Keep in mind, too, that this isn't a mug shot...unless they were pre-warned, the people in the image won't be looking at the camera. If you take the picture from directly overhead, all you see it a bunch of caps. But even if the picture was taken obliquely, some folks will be turned away from the camera, or holding a cup to their mouths, blocked by other people, inside the exhibition halls, or using a portajohn, or lying under a tree, or even unexpectedly off the grounds entirely. The problem is analogous to the Fossett search. Let's assume the camera gives the equivalent of viewing an area 500 feet by 500 feet. That is about .01 square mile. With a 10,000 square mile search area, that gives one million 500x500 foot blocks to examine. And remember all those persons who were turned away or kneeling down, tieing their shoes, in the Oshkosh picture? After nearly two weeks of an intense air search, the lack of success is probably because Fossett's Decathlon doesn't strongly resemble an aircraft any more. It's undoubtedly crumpled, it's quite possibly burned. By now, it's probably dusted with the "dirt and sand" you refer to, making it blend in even better. The persons who would examine the imagery wouldn't be looking for the big white "+" of wings and fuselage, they'd be looking at every apparent bush, every apparent rock, to guess if sometime, in the past, it just may have been an airplane. How long should they examine each block? If each takes two minutes, we're talking well over 30,000 labor hours. Every shadow on the image might hide wreckage, so you'd better have another set of photos taken at a different time of day. AND look at those. Finally, finding hidden objects in imagery is a *military* specialty your typical Ikonos analyst doesn't practice. If you want experts to look for the plane, you're going to have to go to the government...and those folks are pretty busy on some pretty important tasks. Ron Wanttaja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Steve Fossett search | Don Pyeatt | Aviation Photos | 9 | September 11th 07 06:16 PM |
Steve Fossett | Brian Milner | Soaring | 3 | September 8th 07 08:26 AM |
Steve Fossett | [email protected] | Owning | 15 | September 7th 07 08:45 PM |
Steve Fossett - Missing | [email protected] | Soaring | 18 | September 6th 07 08:16 PM |