Meanwhile in Russia...

[sniper7]

I seriously doubt this, mostly because of the physical properties of light gathering instrumentation. I did the math a while back and to be able to read the big numbers in your license plate, the focal length of the telescope had to be several times larger than the Hubble (BuffCyclist should be able to support me here if I'm not mistaken). Nevermind the optical abnormalities of 400+km of atmosphere, lighting angles, shadows, humidity, clouds, relative motion, etc. I'm sure your FIL is a great guy, but I would recommend taking this with a few grains of salt. The big issue for me is that if we (US Gov) had this kind of resolution, I would be using it for my job fairly regularly.

i wouldn't call him a great guy, but he is manageable.

The hubble was launched in 1990. Think of the technology changes since then, even simple things like a cell phone, then move on to cameras, how many megapixels you can get, the quality of glass, the quality of the focus you can get now. And that is just on simple stuff we use every day.

Even in 2000, satellites could see if a vehicle had a license plate, couldn't read it, but could tell if one was there. 14 years is a lot of time and a lot of satellites have been launched since then.

[Aloha_Shooter]

i wouldn't call him a great guy, but he is manageable.

The hubble was launched in 1990. Think of the technology changes since then, even simple things like a cell phone, then move on to cameras, how many megapixels you can get, the quality of glass, the quality of the focus you can get now. And that is just on simple stuff we use every day.

Even in 2000, satellites could see if a vehicle had a license plate, couldn't read it, but could tell if one was there. 14 years is a lot of time and a lot of satellites have been launched since then.

Sensors change but optics doesn't. There's a limit to what kind of resolvable image you can get based on the primary aperture of the telescope. Yes, you can compensate for atmospheric distortion using deformable mirrors but that usually requires something like a laser guidestar. You can do subpixel processing but that usually requires extended image integration which is pretty tricky given the satellite motion. Bottom line, I might buy the satellite could see the expiration sticker on your plate but I don't buy it can produce a resolvable image allowing you to read the sticker.

[HoneyBadger]

Sensors change but optics doesn't. There's a limit to what kind of resolvable image you can get based on the primary aperture of the telescope. Yes, you can compensate for atmospheric distortion using deformable mirrors but that usually requires something like a laser guidestar. You can do subpixel processing but that usually requires extended image integration which is pretty tricky given the satellite motion. Bottom line, I might buy the satellite could see the expiration sticker on your plate but I don't buy it can produce a resolvable image allowing you to read the sticker.

Agreed. As I said above, optical physics is the big limiter here. There are some nifty tricks, but mm resolution is something I don't think you can get from LEO with current tech.

[sniper7]

Sensors change but optics doesn't. There's a limit to what kind of resolvable image you can get based on the primary aperture of the telescope. Yes, you can compensate for atmospheric distortion using deformable mirrors but that usually requires something like a laser guidestar. You can do subpixel processing but that usually requires extended image integration which is pretty tricky given the satellite motion. Bottom line, I might buy the satellite could see the expiration sticker on your plate but I don't buy it can produce a resolvable image allowing you to read the sticker.

So why can you believe it can see the sticker but not be able to produce an image of the sticker with clarity. And what's to stop optics from improving...are we at the ultimate limit? I honestly don't know a lot of details or facts/figures of satellites or optics/imagery, but I don't doubt we have the technology to see clear images of small objects from space. It's not like it's really that inconceivable of a notion.

[HoneyBadger]

So why can you believe it can see the sticker but not be able to produce an image of the sticker with clarity. And what's to stop optics from improving...are we at the ultimate limit? I honestly don't know a lot of details or facts/figures of satellites or optics/imagery, but I don't doubt we have the technology to see clear images of small objects from space. It's not like it's really that inconceivable of a notion.

As I said previously, the optical physics, combined with building and launch constraints are what limit us. It is absolutely possible, but it would require an absolutely huge focal length, which means a huge and extremely heavy satellite, which means an extremely costly to build and costlier to launch satellite (I don't even know if anyone in the world has a launch capability to launch a satellite of the size and weight we are talking about). Assuming it is technically feasible to get that kind of resolution from LEO, it's really not a good cost/benefit analysis either when you can put up 1 $20M drone which can give us great resolution and is easy to reprogram, repair, update, etc, vs a $10B satellite that is impractical to repair, operates in much harsher conditions, and offers very little tactical, operational, or strategic advantage over a drone.