Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanishes without trace

[wiskey]

SBIRS, BMEW is looking for missile attack. Electro-optical IMINT isn't.

I was being flippant. sorry.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Was on the TV today or yesterday, that the images the public are seeing are the 2 metre ones, not the 0.5 metre ones

However, DigitalGlobe also stated somewhere that something as small as a briefcase can be picked up. Maybe so, but I doubt on most home PCs anyone would be able to identify it as such

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

oh, I'm also confused about something else. I've seen conflicting reports about the debris that's been seen, and it being 100-200kms (or miles) from last sighting of debris.

Some expert on tv (before the new sighting of debris that far from original sighting) had said the debris might travel that far in 10 days, but a much shorter distance (which I can't remember, but it may have been 25km or 25 miles) a day

So anyone know what the correct figures would be.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I'm wondering if the French imagery referred to today is perhaps from one of the Pleiades satellites. Those are military/civil, have a resolution down to 50-70cm or thereabouts, similar to GeoEye-1 and WorldView-2. Though once again achieving optimum resolution will depend on favourable target geometry (largely pot luck without planning prior to image acquisition, which will be the case here of course).

Came across this earlier

France’s foreign ministry said the images came in the form of satellite-generated radar echoes, which contain information about the location and distance of the object which bounces a signal back.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Also just came across this, which puts French imagery waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out from other possible debris reports, and which doesn't seem to be very clear anyway

A Malaysian official involved in the search operation told the Associated Press the new French satellite image showed possible objects spotted around 930km (575 miles) north of where the Australian and Chinese images of objects were seen.

The official, who declined to be named, said one of the objects was estimated to be about the same size as one captured on Tuesday by the Chinese satellite, which appeared to be 22 meters (72 feet) by 13 meters (43 feet).

The official stressed that the French satellite image is fuzzy and unclear, making it difficult to determine the exact dimensions of the possible debris.

 

[2hats]

Came across this earlier

Ah, possibly TerraSAR-X then.

 

[2hats]

So anyone know what the correct figures would be.

That's the nub of the problem really. The circulation (surface and at depth) and surface winds tend to be less accurately modelled in such a remote area as there are simply fewer data points to initialise the models. At least as they keep dropping data buoys they will gradually get a better handle on this.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

That's the nub of the problem really. The circulation (surface and at depth) and surface winds tend to be less accurately modelled in such a remote area as there are simply fewer data points to initialise the models. At least as they keep dropping data buoys they will gradually get a better handle on this.

unless the cyclone throws a spanner in the works?

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Ah, possibly TerraSAR-X then.

I've googled that and come up with this

http://www.astrium-geo.com/terrasar-x/

So, why then are the images provided not great (as mentioned in post 1174)?

I understand there's choppy waters there, but source doesn't exactly explain "fuzzy" images, although unclear could be explained by wave motion

 

[laptop]

So, why then are the images provided not great (as mentioned in post 1174)?

I understand there's choppy waters there, but source doesn't exactly explain "fuzzy" images, although unclear could be explained by wave motion

Spray and cloud?

 

[existentialist]

Toning mist and cloud?

CFY. HTH. HAND.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Spray and cloud?

In which case, I would use the words "obscured", so maybe it was just a bad choice of words

Fuzzy to me indicates not sharp, not obscured by clouds, waves or mist

eta: or zoomed in to such an extent that definition is lost

 

[2hats]

I understand there's choppy waters there, but source doesn't exactly explain "fuzzy" images, although unclear could be explained by wave motion

Cloud isn't the issue, synthetic aperture radar sees straight through it.

SAR imagery is not like an optical image; it is much harder to interpret. A SAR observation of the ocean surface is a complex superposition of surface waves, sub-surface waves, internal oceanic waves, currents, wind interaction effects, effects influenced by sea floor topography and boundary layer interactions. The target area is also moving as the receiving aperture is synthesised (hence the name) by virtue of the satellite borne antenna sweeping along the orbital arc (think along the lines of a longer exposure photo).

If that is indeed what the 'image' here is.

 

[laptop]

Cloud isn't the issue, synthetic aperture radar sees straight through it.

SAR imagery is not like an optical image; it is much harder to interpret. A SAR observation of the ocean surface is a complex superposition of surface waves, sub-surface waves, internal oceanic waves, currents, wind interaction effects, effects influenced by sea floor topography and boundary layer interactions. The target area is also moving as the receiving aperture is synthesised (hence the name) by virtue of the satellite borne antenna sweeping along the orbital arc (think along the lines of a longer exposure photo).

If that is indeed what the 'image' here is.

Ah.

I was thinking it was an optical image. (Which it may be?)

 

[Dogsauce]

The reason for satellite images being 'low res' is so that a larger area can be covered. For a simple analogy, think of it like the zoom on your camera - if you want to see something in more detail you zoom in and exclude a lot more features from outside the frame. Zoom out, you can see more, but in less detail. To find fairly large chunks of plane, meter or half meter resolution is good enough to start with, 'zoom out' and cover a wider area in fewer shots (and we're dealing with a massive area here) then maybe 'zoom in' later once the position of the debris field is a bit more certain.

The imagery is also not being processed in real time - it can take days to find a feature of interest in a massive quantity of images, so it's not like someone is there in front of a screen saying 'wait a minute, look at that bit there in more detail, enhance'.

There's a lot of crap speculation around on some forums about not showing the capability of military hardware by deliberately degrading images and so on, but the reality is much more boring.

 

[2hats]

There's a lot of crap speculation around on some forums about not showing the capability of military hardware by deliberately degrading images and so on, but the reality is much more boring.

The reality is that all the released imagery is commercial in origin and indicative of the resolution when slant range and orbital altitude (precession of the perigee) conspire to result in sub-optimal observing circumstances. Some of the best commercial satellites can produce images of just under a metre resolution in perfect conditions, but these aren't those. The showcase stuff you see on line is taken under such conditions and can't be acquired on any given day/orbit the operator/customer would like (well not at anything other than prohibitively excessive cost/reduction in the on orbit lifetime of the satellite).

 

[laptop]

There's a lot of crap speculation around on some forums about not showing the capability of military hardware by deliberately degrading images and so on, but the reality is much more boring.

Nevertheless, the owners of high-res surveillance satellites are keen to conceal their capabilities.

For example, it's only a couple of years ago that the US National Reconnaissance Office found two satellites lurking unused in a warehouse. Several hundred million dollars each, but there you go.

The NRO gave them to astronomers - but on strict condition they never, ever be pointed at Earth.

 

[weltweit]

They must be approaching half the life of the underwater beacons by now.
How many days since the loss is it, perhaps 15?

 

[2hats]

They must be approaching half the life of the underwater beacons by now.
How many days since the loss is it, perhaps 15?

Depends on how thorough MAS maintenance are. 30 days (ie 15 days left) is the mandated minimum. They might run for 40, 60, 90 days perhaps, but even that might not prove sufficient. If the aircraft is in the southern Indian Ocean it may come down to some smart modelling and extensive sonar surveys with a few hunches and a bit of luck mixed in, in order to locate the data recorders and other useful debris.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Cloud isn't the issue, synthetic aperture radar sees straight through it.

SAR imagery is not like an optical image; it is much harder to interpret. A SAR observation of the ocean surface is a complex superposition of surface waves, sub-surface waves, internal oceanic waves, currents, wind interaction effects, effects influenced by sea floor topography and boundary layer interactions. The target area is also moving as the receiving aperture is synthesised (hence the name) by virtue of the satellite borne antenna sweeping along the orbital arc (think along the lines of a longer exposure photo).

If that is indeed what the 'image' here is.

Ah.

I was thinking it was an optical image. (Which it may be?)

ah from me too!

I'm not sure what I expected it to be. On the one hand, I got the impression it was like some sort of image you might get from a radar or sonar, but then the info from the Malaysians gives me the impression that it's an image. I've decided I don't understand this at all.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

There's a lot of crap speculation around on some forums about not showing the capability of military hardware by deliberately degrading images and so on, but the reality is much more boring.

I've seen a lot of that as well, especially re: Tomnod. A lot of people have completely unrealistic expectations

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

The NRO gave them to astronomers - but on strict condition they never, ever be pointed at Earth.

Can they tell if the astronomers ever point them at earth? Maybe they get their satellites to spy on the astronomers' satellites

 

[laptop]

Can they tell if the astronomers ever point them at earth? Maybe they get their satellites to spy on the astronomers' satellites

I expect they tap the downlink, no?

 

[2hats]

Can they tell if the astronomers ever point them at earth? Maybe they get their satellites to spy on the astronomers' satellites

If you've built yourself a state of the art optical imaging system and attached extremely sensitive instrumentation to it (read: counting photons) then you don't point it at the Earth anyway - or the Sun (avoidance angles are something like 6 degrees dark Earth limb, 20 degrees illuminated Earth limb and 50 degrees solar, respectively for Hubble). In short - there was no such limitation made on use of the kit (and it was surplus to requirements, not just 'discovered'; I think it coincided with a move to a different generation of NRO imaging sats anyway).

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I expect they tap the downlink, no?

I'm far too busy to answer that. I'll get my colleague 2hats on the job

ah, I see 2hats has said exactly what I was going to say

 

[2hats]

I expect they tap the downlink, no?

In the past HST and NRO IMINT data has used the same data relay satellites (the latter being on more secure channels on the same kit).

 

[laptop]

If you've built yourself a state of the art optical imaging system and attached extremely sensitive instrumentation to it (read: counting photons) then you don't point it at the Earth anyway - or the Sun (avoidance angles are something like 6 degrees dark Earth limb, 20 degrees illuminated Earth limb and 50 degrees solar, respectively for Hubble). In short - there was no such limitation made on use of the kit (and it was surplus to requirements, not just 'discovered'; I think it coincided with a move to a different generation of NRO imaging sats anyway).

Ah: couple of years ago I read between the lines of this:

At least one use is off limits, though. NASA ruled out any plans to use the telescopes for their original task of imaging Earth, although studying the upper atmosphere is allowed. "We don't want it to appear like NASA is now a spy agency," says Fletcher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729033.800-nasa-spy-telescopes-wont-be-looking-at-earth.html

 

[thriller]

why hasn't anyone asked uri gellar for help?

 

[laptop]

why hasn't anyone asked uri gellar for help?

Silly:

Spoon-bender Uri Geller asked by Malaysian officials to locate missing plane

INTERNATIONAL paranormalist and renowned spoon-bender Uri Geller has been drafted in to help find the missing Malaysia Flight aircraft.

By: Sophie Alexander
Published: Sat, March 15, 2014

 

[ruffneck23]

really ?

they must be getting desperate, i would have asked Dynamo myself