Steve Fossett

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

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


No, you just have to understand the realities of the process.


That's a bad analogy, we're not looking for one airplane in a sea of
other planes. Remove all the planes in the picture except one. Now try
and find the one plane.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Ron Wanttaja wrote:


No, you just have to understand the realities of the process.


That's a bad analogy, we're not looking for one airplane in a sea of other
planes. Remove all the planes in the picture except one. Now try and
find the one plane.

Except that Fossett's plane may or may not look like an airplane now. Or it
may
be partially or wholly obscured by vegitation, water or shadows.
Or both.
TP

Now you are talking about something I know something about. I have
written the image search software that pretty much has 90% of the
US intelligence market. There are two things you need:

1. Satellite tasking over the area.
2. Enough dedicated eyeballs watching the monitors who know
what to look for.

Believe me, even the commercial satellites such as Digital Globe
have enough information (time / location) and if DG wanted to
collect imagery, they probably could over a weeks time do it.
However, whose going to pay them? Satellite time costs money.
It's not just a bunch of data sitting in a google earth like
database of the entire world. Things are collected as there
is a demand.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Now you are talking about something I know something about. I have
written the image search software that pretty much has 90% of the
US intelligence market. There are two things you need:

1. Satellite tasking over the area.
2. Enough dedicated eyeballs watching the monitors who know
what to look for.

Believe me, even the commercial satellites such as Digital Globe
have enough information (time / location) and if DG wanted to
collect imagery, they probably could over a weeks time do it.
However, whose going to pay them? Satellite time costs money.
It's not just a bunch of data sitting in a google earth like
database of the entire world. Things are collected as there
is a demand.

GeoEye has already collected the images.

http://www.avweb.com/alm?amazon_stevefossett&kw=Flash

Should yield the dedicated eyeballs.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

is there a way to know just how far the new images extend ?
it seems they don't cover the area I want to look at.


"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
news:IdqdnaxSYN1XWnjbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Now you are talking about something I know something about. I have
written the image search software that pretty much has 90% of the
US intelligence market. There are two things you need:

1. Satellite tasking over the area.
2. Enough dedicated eyeballs watching the monitors who know
what to look for.

Believe me, even the commercial satellites such as Digital Globe
have enough information (time / location) and if DG wanted to
collect imagery, they probably could over a weeks time do it.
However, whose going to pay them? Satellite time costs money.
It's not just a bunch of data sitting in a google earth like
database of the entire world. Things are collected as there
is a demand.

GeoEye has already collected the images.

http://www.avweb.com/alm?amazon_stevefossett&kw=Flash

Should yield the dedicated eyeballs.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:20:40 -0600, Newps wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

No, you just have to understand the realities of the process.

That's a bad analogy, we're not looking for one airplane in a sea of
other planes. Remove all the planes in the picture except one. Now try
and find the one plane.

As I originally posted,"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."

Just because a section of the image DOESN'T contain a *recognizable* aircraft
doesn't mean the wreckage of Fossett's plane isn't there. You could certainly
shorten your search time if you only searched for intact airplanes that were not
covered with dust. But I don't believe the Decathlon is just sitting parked,
undamaged.

Here's a picture of a Twin Beech crashed in the desert:

http://www.aircraftwrecks.com/images...beachcraft.jpg

Noticed how the crumpled portion of the main section seems to blend into the
desert. The tail cone is fairly obvious (this close), but remember the
Decathlon was fabric covered...it may have burned away, and all they'll see is s
skein of blackened 3/4" steel tubes. It probably looks closer to this:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargra...desert_500.jpg

It's been two weeks. Certainly one doesn't want to give up hope; after all, an
elderly woman lost for two weeks in the Pacific Northwest was recently found
alive. But then, she was in the woodlands, not a desert. How much water was
Fossett carrying?

Ron Wanttaja

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:19:40 -0700, I wrote:

It's been two weeks....How much water was Fossett carrying?

Ooops, my bad: One week.

Ron Wanttaja

Newps,

That's a bad analogy, we're not looking for one airplane in a sea of
other planes. Remove all the planes in the picture except one. Now try
and find the one plane.


Hey, "we" can't even find Osama when "we" have 6 years to try (in a similar
landscape, I might add).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Newps,

That's a bad analogy, we're not looking for one airplane in a sea of
other planes. Remove all the planes in the picture except one. Now try
and find the one plane.


Hey, "we" can't even find Osama when "we" have 6 years to try (in a similar
landscape, I might add).

True, but I don't think Fossett is trying to not be found. :-)

Matt