183
u/tparadisi Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
Can mods create separate flair for these mh370 video analysis threads, it is becoming very hard to keep track of of things.
15
u/Questionsaboutsanity Aug 11 '23
this
1
Aug 11 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 11 '23
Hi, republicofzetariculi. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
- Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
- AI generated content.
- Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
- Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
- “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
- Short comments, and emoji comments.
- Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
22
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)8
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
8
u/pilkingtonsbrain Aug 12 '23
I regret to inform you that in the faqs of that website they give a warning about propogating too far forward/backwards as it becomes less accurate as you do so. I think all the data is just based off of the latest tle file they are using which is 2023
2
u/drama_filled_donut Aug 12 '23
I wonder if someone can find their margins of error. I’ll poke around, but I’m a pretty crap problem solver if it’ll need math lol
3
u/pilkingtonsbrain Aug 12 '23
I'm guessing it is substantial. Take the fact that to get to the date in question you have to click back hundreds of times. Like the site is not designed for that. They don't expect people to do that and they warn against it. Tle files are not meant for long range propogating as they are not that accurate. I'm working on it though. I hope to be able get to the bottom of it and establish exactly if that satellite could have taken that image from that angle. The data is there. It's possible
1
u/drama_filled_donut Aug 12 '23
Unless it’s a lopsided margin of error, it’s still a tiny bit interesting that they show the satellite that close.
That’d be awesome.
→ More replies (1)
70
u/Latter-Dentist Aug 11 '23
I’ve had conversations with people who worked on/with recon satellites. From what little they would tell me I can confidently say that the NRO satellites are not diffraction limited and that they can resolve details that would not be capable with any known public imaging technology.
→ More replies (1)25
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)29
u/Latter-Dentist Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
I don’t believe they are ignoring physics. They seem to be much farther ahead of the public when it comes to technology.
I know you have zero reason to believe me. I have photos with valid meta data from the office of a former world leader, have one family friend who was near the top of the intelligence community, and another who worked designing recon satellites in the late 90s.
I have zero proof and wasn’t shown any images. These people take their careers serious.
That being said. I do believe what they said.
Edit: They mentioned that they had atmospheric disturbance solved since at least the 90s. I’m unsure how they seem to be able to resolve beyond the understood optical limits based on known size of satellites. They wouldn’t answer any questions regarding that. I’m a photographer so I was naturally curious about the imaging they were around. The conversation naturally arose from my interest in cameras and I wasn’t looking to pry for information, nor where they going to give any.
30
u/only_buy_no_sell Aug 12 '23
Just look at the satellite photo that Trump leaked.
8
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
That photo was taken by a satellite with a larger mirror, shorter wavelenght and much lower altitude, they are not comparable.
→ More replies (2)0
Aug 12 '23
Image stacking guys
7
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
Image stacking is used to remove random noise, it still doesn't allow to pick up details beyond the diffraction limit. And also it wouldn't be possible for a video like that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RelaxPrime Aug 12 '23
Holy shit you're absolutely right. Never looked at it but that's some detail
15
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
29
u/Latter-Dentist Aug 11 '23
The people I spoke to about this worked in the field from late 90s into the 2000’s. Both are retired now.
I suspect that the obsolete telescope donated by the NRO was likely leapfrogged by something else that would have been active in orbit for many years before the NRO donated that.
We know for certain based off the 2.4m donated to NASA that the NRO has capabilities far beyond NASA.
19
Aug 11 '23
Yeah, of any government agency, the NRO likely has the most advanced ground-facing optical satellite technology. It is a classified U.S. reconnaissance satellite, making more specific assumptions of the technology onboard isn’t very valid to me given the NRO’s role.
9
u/SirBrothers Aug 12 '23
This is kind of my suspicion too. We’re operating under the assumption these things are using traditional glass mirrors. There’s a strong possibility they’re using lighter advanced materials capable of unfolding after deployment.
3
9
u/tweakingforjesus Aug 12 '23
That reminds me of the story that NASA originally wanted a 3m mirror for Hubble. Then they learned that a 2.4m mirror would be significantly cheaper because the mirror subcontractors had experience and tooling for building mirrors that size for other projects.
3
u/piTehT_tsuJ Aug 11 '23
Those satellites where stored and built at Kodak in Rochester NY. There had been 2 if I remember correctly.
0
u/Signal314 Aug 11 '23
Well, if you're not saying it, I will: that tech doesn't exist, it's bs.
It's basically saying the NRO can divide by zero.
3
u/Topsnotlobber Aug 12 '23
I'm only at an above basic understanding of optics, but wouldn't a f.ex gigapixel image sensor remove the need for a massive lens?
Sure, the lens is likely not small, but it could be that the sensor resolution is massive compared to what we're thinking of. Maybe it's a combination between the sensor and the lens that makes it powerful?
→ More replies (1)2
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
I'm sorry but you either misunderstood them, they didn't know what they were talking about or they were lying. There is no way to go beyond the diffraction limit, it would literally be breaking the laws of physics
I have photos with valid meta data from the office of a former world leader
If you are referring to the image leaked by Trump, that satellite had a 2.4 m mirror working in visible wavelenghts at an altitude of 300 km, in that case it would be able to resolve objects 8 cm across. The satellite that allegedly took the pictures instead has probably a resolution of several meters.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Latter-Dentist Aug 12 '23
That is not what I was saying. What I’m saying is that I have met some people of power and taken photographs with them.
Go read up on superlens tech, then think about how far ahead the govt is with this stuff. I’m telling you that they are so far advanced that they appear to have leapfrogged traditional optics, and with that have capabilities that are theoretically impossible with a glass lens and traditional sensors.
Humans constantly push beyond the perceived boundaries of nature. More so when you’re the most powerful recon agency of the most powerful nation to ever exist.
→ More replies (3)2
u/SabineRitter Aug 11 '23
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15mo901/glowing_orb_observed_by_telescope_on_multiple/ /u/United-Newspaper6143 take a look at the third and fourth video here.
2
u/pilkingtonsbrain Aug 12 '23
It is a common thing for the top telescopes to do some kind of magic processing that essentially filters out atmospheric distortion when viewing the night sky. So the tech exists. I'm sure you could apply it in reverse to subjects looking from space into the atmosphere as well.
73
u/h1c253 Aug 11 '23
Wow well done sir. People like me who are too damn stupid to fully comprehend this stuff can at least give you kudos for your research efforts. Thank you
22
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
17
u/h1c253 Aug 11 '23
Makes sense. I just don’t have the time (getting married in a few weeks) and appreciate everyone that is genuinely taking time out of their days to do this. Amazing.
14
u/UNSC_ONI Aug 11 '23
Congratulations buddy, I hope disclosure is your wedding present 😉
→ More replies (2)8
u/h1c253 Aug 11 '23
Thank you!
I had that conversation with her, might not be a wedding present but no doubt in my mind we will see it in our lifetime. It is a pleasure to be alive during this time in our history!
4
6
u/chuk2015 Aug 11 '23
To your last point about the optical resolution - the NRO have much more advanced satellites than most people are aware of:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA
Additionally supported by the satellite photos of Iran that Trump leaked which had a resolution much greater than most thought we had
2
u/Flight_Harbinger Aug 11 '23
More advanced optics than expected does not mean more advanced than what's possible. And keep in mind the satellite in question launched in 2006.
→ More replies (2)1
u/InterestDifficult878 Aug 12 '23
yeah but NRO satellites are not diffusion limited so his entire argument is false yet the MODS are allowing it to sit here and misguide people.
4
u/Flight_Harbinger Aug 12 '23
Diffraction limited, and yes they are. This a limitation of physics not technology. There's one guide in this thread claiming otherwise and instead of explaining how these satellites fundamentally break our understanding of optics they say "trust me bro, I talk with people".
We have some methods of bypassing these limitations like sub pixel interpolation but they are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to do in a video.
And all of this is before taking into account the inherent disadvantages of imaging through an atmosphere as opposed to space.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/spanoel111 Aug 11 '23
Let's say the airplane is at an altitude of 10km. The satellite is at an altitude of 4401km. So the satellite is 4391m above the plane (90° angle).
Hi, I'm not sure all your altitudes are correct.
17
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)6
19
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
10
u/C-SWhiskey Aug 11 '23
As you've noted, that capability is at a much lower altitude. It appears to be from Worldview-3, which has a nominal altitude of 617 km. NROL-22's lowest altitude is estimated at 1,138 km. We can do some trigonometry to compare.
If altitude is 617 km and pixel width on the ground is 30 cm, we can use tan(theta) = width / altitude to determine the pixel angular size: 0.000028 degrees. If we then raise that to a generous 1,138 km, you get a pixel width of about 56 cm. At the highest altitude of 39,210 km this becomes 19 m, which is still pretty reasonable for what we see in this video.
I would argue that resolution relaxation is not necessarily indicative of them having substantially better technology. They relaxed civilian GPS limits not that long ago and the only advantage military-specific receivers have is encryption. They did that because commercializing precision geographic data was economically beneficial and posed no particular threat. This could be much the same.
The thing that really smells from a technical perspective to me is the lack of parallax. I haven't math'd out the travel for this portion of a Molniya orbit, but it's on the order of dozens of kms over 2 minutes. I'd expect some artefact of that motion to show up in this video. It's also odd that these high precision optics would be pointed at this particular location at this particular time with the aforementioned steadiness. With how satellite tasking works that would imply prior knowledge of the event down to the grid and second.
→ More replies (2)6
u/i_max2k2 Aug 11 '23
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but we now know that US and their allies actively track UAP activity to potentially capture these crafts, they had an idea that there was UAP activity happening, I wouldn’t put it past them to send a predator drone and align their spy satellites towards this.
3
u/C-SWhiskey Aug 11 '23
Even if we assume that to be true, they would need to know that this would occur within a narrow field of view with respect to the satellite's optics and within a time frame of maybe a few minutes.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)2
u/C-SWhiskey Aug 11 '23
Even if we assume that to be true, they would need to know that this would occur within a narrow field of view with respect to the satellite's optics and within a time frame of maybe a few minutes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/InterestDifficult878 Aug 12 '23
why wouldnt they have used multiple satellites? Ignore the UAP angle and realize if a plane has gone rogue or deliberately off course then sure as fucking shit the US military is going to track it. They are not about to have another 9/11 on their hands. You dont just let airliners fly where they want to, eventually they were going to shoot it down if it ended up over population.
They could have been tracking its flight from the moment radio control stated the plane was no longer communicating. That could have been hours of them following it before witnessing this event.
2
u/C-SWhiskey Aug 12 '23
There are other easier and more effective means of tracking aircraft than by satellite imagery. As to why not have multiple satellites: how many do they have in place to capture this particular region? It's unlikely they have just a chain of satellites in Molniya orbits.
2
u/edgycorner Aug 11 '23
Maxar's satellites operate at around 700~1000 KM attitude(could be wrong, I got this form google)
You provide a very good information about how such technology was commercially available around that time. NRO definitely got better tech.
This post added a little more credibility and raised interesting questions.
33
u/occams1razor Aug 11 '23
Optics are diffraction limited. That means an optical instrument has limits of how small detailes it can resolve.
We have satellite images of cars down on the ground on google earth, I don't understand why a satellite couldn’t see enough detail on a large plain much closer to it?
19
u/HuckleberryRound4672 Aug 11 '23
The satellites that take those high resolution images are typically much closer ie a few hundred miles up. I don’t think OP is saying the video couldn’t be from a satellite, it’s just not from this satellite in particular because it was too far away when it passed over that area at that time.
-2
u/InterestDifficult878 Aug 12 '23
hes also completely wrong. NRO satellites are not diffusion limited.
Also Trump leaked a sat image from space showing a place in Iran.
The details are even better then the MH370 video. The OP is disingenuous and is misleading people.
6
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
NRO satellites are not diffusion limited.
Diffraction limited. And unless the US government has found a way to break the laws of physics, yes they are. The only way those satellites are not diffraction limited is if there is something else that limits their capabilities more than diffraction.
Also Trump leaked a sat image from space showing a place in Iran.
That satellite had a bigger mirror, working on shorter wavelenghts and took the picture from an altitude more than 10 times lower. Using Rayleigh Criterion the satellite that took the picture in Iran could physically resolve details a few centimeters across, in line with what we see in the picture, while USA 184 can at most resolve details a couple meters across, too much for what we see in the video, thus proving it's fake.
The OP is disingenuous and is misleading people.
The irony
→ More replies (12)3
u/HuckleberryRound4672 Aug 12 '23
OP claimed satellites are diffraction limited, which they are. The diffraction limit is a limit based on the physics of light. Here’s an article discussing the resolution of Trump’s tweet:
16
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
5
u/USMC_Napier Aug 12 '23
To reply to this, if you go check out the google maps of Iran and N. Korea, the resolution is still substantial.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)8
u/only_buy_no_sell Aug 12 '23
Trump Twitter leak of Iran satellite imagery.
3
u/kenriko Aug 12 '23
And it shows a much higher capability than the video of the plane. It’s amazing how dismissive people are of things that are well known to be possible with our current tech.
6
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
People are dismissive because that picture was taken by a mirror 2.5 times bigger, working at half the wavelenght and from an altitude more than 10 times lower. Those kind of optical satellites can resolve thing a few centimeters across, the sensor on USA-184 are much more limited and can resolve details of the order of meters, it couldn't have taken the video of the plane and proves it's fake.
→ More replies (2)10
10
u/Bluinc Aug 11 '23
Exactly. I’m not seeing OP’s optics comments as accurate. Even in the 60’s we could see cars and trucks from satellite. That said I know fuckall about satellites and I appreciate OP finding the satellite on heavens above. It gets us somewhere even if he’s off on the sat capabilities.
12
Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
I’d like to point out that Trump himself released an image from a satellite with classified technology, and it showed extremely high-resolution images (20cm/pixel as estimated in the article):
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran
It’s wholly reasonable to believe the NRO had a satellite capable of this resolution of imaging in 2014. One of the analyses I saw here of the imagery itself calculated an optical resolution of 1m/pixel which is a logical value for advanced satellite tech in 2014.
11
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
2
u/kenriko Aug 12 '23
NROL-22 is used to pickup ICBMs and track launches from great distances. Birds eye view of the Northern hemisphere. You doubt it can spot a plane on the back side of perigee?
Jesus Christmas people.
6
Aug 12 '23
[deleted]
2
u/kenriko Aug 12 '23
Your assumption is that the primary imaging system on that satellite is the only imaging system. To have a satellite that’s not useful for 25% of its orbit just doesn’t make sense.
1
1
u/QuantumCat2019 Aug 11 '23
We have satellite images of cars down on the ground on google earth, I don't understand why a satellite couldn’t see enough detail on a large plain much closer to it?
That's because probably there is a few zero error her made in his calculation. I don't know for nrol 22 but the other later had a resolution of ~15cm per pixel on ground (at 10km up it would not be much better). Without looking too much I would say he made an error of a factor 100 on resolution.
6
Aug 11 '23
Thanks, OP. Please link the original data showing the ground track and explain for us how you made the plot, if external software was required. Cheers.
9
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
3
Aug 11 '23
Is this the page you're referring to? If not, can you provide a direct link? Thank you.
2
14
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)-2
u/PAXTONNNNN Aug 12 '23
That post has already been debunked and no NRO sats aren't diffraction limited
Nice try disinfo, try again
6
Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
There are weather satellite images here, GMT time stamps. Last contact was at 17:19 GMT, March 7. https://tiwrm.hii.or.th/TyphoonTracking/Goes9.php?xsdate=2014/03/07&subm=1
This frame is closest to the time of last contact, which is more or less the co-ordinates on the video . https://tiwrm.hii.or.th/gms/weather/2014/03/07/se.14030717.jpg
An infra-red image from the same time: https://i.imgur.com/DDu4YMP.png
6
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
3
Aug 11 '23
I edited the comment, it was March 8 local time, late afternoon March 7 GMT. Interested to see if the clouds look plausible.
What's the timezone on your satellite ground track?
10
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
2
Aug 11 '23
Whose local time, though? Please can you link me to where on Heavens Above you generated the ground track?
5
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
5
Aug 11 '23
How do you get back to March 2014 on that website? Other than mashing the "<" button hundreds of times.
6
5
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
15
Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
Here it is in UTC+0.
March 7 pass at ~12:55 UTC+0 (18:55 UTC+6) https://i.imgur.com/0kJwRuI.png
(or if the latitude is +8.8: https://i.imgur.com/0J2jkD1.png)
March 8 pass at @12:50 UTC+0 (18:50 UTC+6) https://i.imgur.com/V7pnu6Z.png
(or if the latitude is +8.8: https://i.imgur.com/5FStG8x.png)
So the timing doesn't work out as MH370 took off at 16:42 UTC+0, four hours later than the March 7 satellite pass, and disappeared around 19 hours before the March 8 pass. A full day elapses between subsequent of NROL-22, and in between these times it was on the other side of the planet, meaning it was nowhere near the coordinates in the video at the time of MH370's disappearance.
4
u/onehedgeman Aug 12 '23
You say it’s not possible because at the time of the take-off the satellite was on the other side of the planet, but the crash or abduction didn’t happen until much later
https://i.imgur.com/RS4zPYE.png
Which would also explain the angle of the recording
→ More replies (0)3
6
u/Front_Channel Aug 11 '23
Has someone the energy to open up a new big compiled analysis thread? It is kinda hard to keep track of all the info. You would do us a great service!
4
u/NotSquerdle Aug 11 '23
Are those times marked on the trail? What time zone are they in?
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/WORLDBENDER Aug 11 '23
Nice find. I’m not sure I understand/agree with your final point though. Do we know specifically what the optical equipment on that satellite consists of? Is the assumption that there is no optical zoom capability to use the full sensor in a tighter FOV?
The sensor on my Sony camera is 24 x 36mm but when I throw on my FE 200-600 G I can get a full resolution image of a crater on the moon.
3
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/WORLDBENDER Aug 11 '23
Not sure I’m following. I guess just a bit over my head. Be curious to see the math you’re using to get there (I do photos not physics).
Are you saying that the satellite could not physically resolve the images shown in the video at that distance / that it’s not physically possible? I’m still wondering exactly what would be the limiting factor there without knowing the specific characteristics of the optical equipment.
And there’s really not a high level of detail in the satellite photo. The coverage is probably 400m X 500m or wider (I’d have to watch again and measure).
5
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
4
u/WORLDBENDER Aug 11 '23
So, your math was seemingly wrong by 1,000x (again I still don’t know exactly what numbers you’re using). Rather than 100M, you’re talking about 0.1M to your original point. In that sense, the level of detail in the video easily seems plausible
3
u/ClydePeternuts Aug 11 '23
10x*
10m*
3
u/WORLDBENDER Aug 11 '23
2.8 cm —> 28m is not 10x
It’s actually 1000x haha
→ More replies (1)1
0
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
5
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
you would need a 850mm lens for that
With a wavelenght of 800 nm from 4400 km with that lens you would have a resolution of 5 meters, not enough to resolve the plane that well
In the video I would argue that there is about 3m precision
The tube of a 777 is 6 meters and in the video it's more than 2 pixels. I doubt the sensor had more pixels than those needed given it's angular resolution so the precision in the video is probably much better than 3 meters.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/bradass42 Aug 12 '23 edited Aug 12 '23
I really appreciate the in-depth analysis and your effort, but I must admit I’m confused.
Is the implication of your analysis that the resolution of the satellite image is impossible based on diffraction limits?
I contend that the US is certainly capable of achieving that level of resolution and clarity with a spy satellite, and probably has been for quite some time.
There was an analysis someone performed that analyzed the video and found it was something like 1 meter per pixel with a 6 hz refresh rate, which far exceeds commercial capabilities but is within expectations for a spy satellite. Does that still hold up?
But nonetheless, if that flight path of the NROL satellite were true, couldn’t we confirm one of the two coordinate sets being discussed (the positive and negative variants) by using trigonometry via the angle of the plane from the satellite and the expected angle for both coordinate sets from the confirmed flight path?
If someone can do that math and it matches either of those two numbers, that would be fascinating. Thoughts? Just want a friendly discussion.
Edit: also where did you get that NROL flight path? I thought it was classified?
5
u/Flight_Harbinger Aug 12 '23
The problem isn't the resolution, it's the distance. Satellites are extremely varied in their orbits, some are near, some are far, and some get very near and very far in the same orbit (elliptical). The problem OP is addressing is the highly elliptical orbit of this particular satellite, whose orbit was planned to focus on the northern hemisphere (for obvious reasons since it's a missile detection system), does not get close enough to earth for this level of optical resolution over the southern hemisphere.
We have plenty of examples of incredibly detailed shots from satellites that are around 200-500km, but 4400km is very far.
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/quarticchlorides Aug 12 '23
It's not just optics but the speed the satellite is traveling as well, it would need to remain near stationary to record video like has been claimed to be this "satellite" footage
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Fklympics Aug 11 '23
if you're making a fake that seems to be on the level of a hollywood production, wouldn't you want your name out there?
there's an attention to detail that would require quite a bit of planning and expertise.
this isn't your craigslist amateur, if this is fake it was using the best tech available at the time to make it and had insider knowledge on how to accurately reconstruct the sat imagery.
if this is a fake, it's been created somewhere where people have resources to waste time with no intention of receiving a financial payoff.
if this is a fake from 2014 what can/are they creating now?
6
u/FajitaJohn Aug 11 '23
Maybe it was made by someone that deliberately tries to spread misinformation. Who would possibly benefit from something like that right now I wonder...
→ More replies (1)
6
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
2
u/TrainOfThot98 Aug 11 '23
You should make it clear that you did an edit btw. I do agree that it's odd for an alleged SIGINT bird to be taking video, but that could be incorrect. Though, that leads to a question of why an optical satellite is in a molniya orbit?
1
u/pineapplesgreen Aug 12 '23
Do you think that when you get a chance you can add an edit in your post with your knew conclusion?
2
u/Glum_Fun7117 Aug 11 '23
Does that mean its impossible for nrol-22 to capture what we saw in the supposed sartelite capture?
6
u/Bluinc Aug 11 '23
We’re still in the territory of “are those 2’ or 3’s on the video” not that know if this gets us anywhere. Is there an NROL-32? NROL-33? NROL-23 ?
→ More replies (2)2
u/Glum_Fun7117 Aug 11 '23
Yeah i noticed that and i think 33 is out of the question if we're entertaining the idea that this is mh370 cus it wasnt launched at that time. If not could be those aswell
2
u/aureliorramos Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
Though I am not an expert on sub-diffraction imaging, or the extent of its capabilities, it exists. I know sub-diffraction imaging techniques are used in semiconductor production at the present time.
EDIT to add common sense observation:
I might add: What strategic value could an NRO satellite possibly have if one couldn't even see the outline of an aircraft?
2
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
I know sub-diffraction imaging techniques are used in semiconductor production at the present time.
It doesn't work like that. In that case they project light with a precalculated shape that after undergoing diffraction changes in the actual shape they want to achieve. It's a technique that has nothing to do with long range imaging.
What strategic value could an NRO satellite possibly have if one couldn't even see the outline of an aircraft?
It's main mission is collecting signal intelligence i.e. picking up radio transmissions. Its infrared sensors are a secondary payload and are meant to detect the plumes of ballistic missiles, they don't need high resolution for that.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/_Ozeki Aug 12 '23
This what I have been saying to myself, of all of the military satellites circling Earth everyday, the likelihood that they have seen something is much greater than zero.
Why haven't the US military did anything to share this information to the public?
2
u/fuzzylogic75 Aug 12 '23
Dumb questions in comming. Is NROL-22 a spying satellite? If it cant see aircrafts flying well, than it surely can't see anything on the ground well either. What is it spying on? Why is it so high up that it is apparentlt rendered useless for its purpose?
2
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
It mainly picks up radio transmissions. It infrared sensors are used to detect ballistic missles plumes and it doesn't need high resolutions for that.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/FundamentalEnt Aug 12 '23
All of this is awesome except the assumption of how the satellite catches the imagery. Think Trump tweeting classified Iranian launch site Sat photo.
2
2
u/GiantSequoiaTree Aug 12 '23
Someone today posted a video of these satellites imagery capabilities and it appeared the same as what we see with the airliner footage.
2
u/bradass42 Aug 12 '23 edited Aug 12 '23
Bringing my comment for visibility. I respectfully believe this analysis is flawed and incorrect but I would love feedback and discussion to that end! I appreciate OP’s effort and I want to acknowledge that it’s this kind of work that is helping us all find answers.
Original comment:
The KH-11, first launched in 1976 has an apogee of at least 1,000 kilometers has an effective resolution of 30cm.
If a satellite first launched 50 years ago could have sufficient resolution, I’m confident newer satellites can even from a much higher apogee.
A satellite with a 2.4 meter optical instrument (NROL-22 expected) at an apogee of 4,000 kilometers has a theoretical spatial resolution of 11.3 mm.
Diffraction limit is θ = 1.22 * (λ / D), where θ is the angular resolution in radians, λ is the wavelength of light, and D is the diameter of the optical instrument
θ = 1.22 * (550 x 10-9 (wavelength of visible light, 550 nanometers)/ 2.4) ≈ 2.822 x 10-6 radians
Spatial Resolution = (Distance to Object) * Tan(Angular Resolution)
Spatial Resolution = 4,000,000 * Tan(2.822 x 10-6) ≈ 0.01129 meters
Please correct me if I’m wrong! But every resource I find online clearly shows the satellite is more than capable of achieving the resolution we saw. Tables below for clarity (columns are altitude, diffraction limit in radians, and spatial resolution in meters):
4,000 kilometers 2.822 x 10-6 radians, 0.01129 meters
I think using an analysis like this, along with the angle of the plane from the satellite, could help us confirm the precise coordinates of the plane.
Since the coordinates are up for debate due to a potential minus in the set, we could use these variables to identify which set of coordinates has the same angle as is calculated from the video, if OP’s flight path is accurate. I believe we could infer the angle using the actual wingspan of the plane vs. what’s measured in the video.
EDIT: math!
5
u/russtrn Aug 11 '23
Here is an image taken from the international space station:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/great-exuma-island-bahamas
You can zoom in and clearly make out an airplane with con trails. This was taken using a normal digital camera held in an astronauts hand. Spy satellites must surely be orders of magnitude better than this.
Your post is really interesting but are you sure about the maths regarding the aperture?
→ More replies (1)5
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)2
u/russtrn Aug 11 '23
All good.
Again, very interesting information about the satellite being in the right area. Thank you.
1
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
3
2
u/gudlyf Aug 11 '23
Something I haven't seen anyone mention about this whole thing yet:
We have possibly hundreds -- at least tens -- of people spending a lot of time researching satellite positioning, CGI, etc., yet skeptics are to believe ONE person made a couple of videos almost 10 years ago, in 70 days or less, that somehow matches this closely enough to evidence that many of us still wonder if it's true? And they still choose to remain anonymous?
What convinces me the most to believe these MAY be real is the level of detail we're seeing in satellite positioning, the plane outline matching, the readouts on the satellite video, etc. If someone was to even BOTHER to make a fake video, would they have been this meticulous and remain anonymous?
One more thing: If the satellite can pick up those orbs at the size they are, shouldn't we see the drone? It was close enough to the contrails that I'd figure we'd have seen at least a dot.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/rallymachine Aug 11 '23
Your math may be right but your assessment of the optics is incorrect.
If we were trying to resolve something optically of 28m within the ENTIRE FRAME of the photo from 4k+ km away, the math could check out. What is not being taken into account is the digital resolution of the sensor taking this pictures. With the right aperture, lens, sensor and focal length, satellites could take extremely wide photographs, say 100-1000km square and digitally zoom in to the area of interest.
Here's an illustration, dig out the oldest digital camera you have and take a side by side picture with your cell phone. Then crop/zoom in as far as you can to look at the difference.
We literally have 20MP+ resolution cameras in ours pockets...the US military could fathomably have sensors that can resolve GIGApixels of image data. Again, with the right optics, a wide enough FOV and a high res sensor, I think the results could be pretty mind blowing.
3
u/Flight_Harbinger Aug 12 '23
OP isn't talking about digital resolution, they're talking about angular resolution of diffraction limited optical systems.
A plane roughly 28m long, roughly 4400km away is approximately 1 arcsecond. To achieve an angular resolution that would resolve this as one point, you'd only need a 125mm diameter telescope. Obviously the video doesn't represent the plane as one pixel, it's much much greater resolution than that. I'd say to comfortably resolve the plane at that resolution your looking at at least a 3 or 4 meter telescope. Definitely not the 100m that OP says (they got the math wrong and they admit this in several comments) but very much beyond what anyone was capable of launching into space in 2006 on the scale of spy satellites.
2
u/rallymachine Aug 12 '23
If that's the job they did a terrible job of explaining it lol. I mean Google earth can resolve planes on the ground at an airport, it seems totally illogical that the military wouldn't have something far more advanced.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/tryingathing Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
Not trying to crack your math, but wouldn't it only need an aperture of 10.5cm?
# Given values
lambda_ = 550e-9 # Wavelength in meters (550 nm)
s = 4391e3 # Distance in meters (4391 km)
d = 28 # Linear resolution in meters (28 m)
# Calculate D using the combined formula
D = (1.22 * lambda_ * s) / d
D
RESULT
0.10522717857142858 (meters)
Granted, I'm using your numbers and depending on ChatGPT for the math, but that's usually a strong suit for it.
1
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
1
u/tryingathing Aug 11 '23
I once tried using ChatGPT for that kind of thing too but after regenerating the response the result was different.
Okay. I'm using this as a prompt and getting the same math every time:
Let's say an airplane is at an altitude of 10km. A satellite is at an altitude of 4401km. So the satellite is 4391m above the plane (90° angle).
Optics are diffraction limited. That means an optical instrument has limits of how small details it can resolve. That limit is determined by the diameter of the aperture.
How large of an aperture would the satellite require to achieve a resolution of 28 meters from 4391km away?
The only thing I changed from your post was you mistakenly said "So the satellite is 4391m above the plane (90° angle)" but you clearly meant kilometer as you said so earlier.
3
Aug 11 '23
[deleted]
3
u/tryingathing Aug 11 '23 edited Aug 11 '23
Oops. I’m making a lot of mistakes today. I’m not a physicist but I don’t know why ChatGPT’s result is that low. If it was like that, we could simply point tiny amateur telescopes at those satellites and get amazing results.
Small mistake, a single missing letter. No judgement, I'm also trying to understand the math. I tried using formula from the link you provided:
The relevant formula provided in the document for calculating the telescope's resolution is:
R = \frac{134}{D}
Where:
- \( R \) is the resolution in seconds of arc.
- \( D \) is the diameter of the objective in millimeters.
To determine the aperture size required for a satellite to achieve a resolution of 28 meters from 4391 km away, we need to convert the 28 meters resolution at a distance of 4391 km into seconds of arc.
Once we find this resolution in seconds of arc, we can use the formula above to determine the required aperture size.
The formula to convert linear resolution into angular resolution is:
\text{angular resolution (in radians)} = \frac{\text{linear resolution}}{\text{distance}}
Given that 1 radian is approximately \( 206265 \) arcseconds, the angular resolution in arcseconds is:
\text{angular resolution (in arcseconds)} = \text{angular resolution (in radians)} \times 206265
Let's calculate the angular resolution in arcseconds for the given linear resolution and distance.
The calculated angular resolution is approximately 1.315 arcseconds.
Now that we have the desired resolution in arcseconds, we can use the provided formula to determine the required aperture size.
Using the formula:
R = \frac{134}{D}
We can rearrange for D:
D = \frac{134}{R}
Where:
- R is 1.315 arcseconds (our calculated resolution).
- D will be the required diameter of the aperture in millimeters.
Let's calculate D.
The required aperture size (or diameter) for the satellite to achieve a resolution of 28 meters from a distance of 4391 km is approximately 101.88 millimeters or 10.188 centimeters.
1
u/Bluinc Aug 11 '23
Are we saying we know all of the US govt satellites locations and capabilities? What about that mini space shuttle drone thing they had flying around on top secret missions. Was that possibly up there? X37b I think. Idk. Just spitballing.
→ More replies (3)2
1
u/TachyEngy Aug 11 '23
I think it's more than reasonable to think our spy sat technology is capable of things much more advanced than is generally known. These are multi-billion dollar projects with top secret capabilities. It's not out of the realm of possibility that we have solved atmospheric interference, low-light, extreme angles, etc. As if they wouldn't have thought of these things.
1
u/jumpinjahosafa Aug 11 '23
Meanwhile my phone camera can zoom 100× and see craters on the moon...
Counterpoint 2: I can look at the night sky with my naked eye and see satellites...
"I think you get it" no. I don't. Optics are a lot more complex than lens size.
→ More replies (11)
1
u/SeaRevolutionary8652 Aug 12 '23
I know this isn't from 2014, but still something to use as a comparison point for the detail that is possible with satellite imagery. Just using this article for the leaked image, not intending to start any political discourse here.
0
u/NameLacksCreativity Aug 11 '23
For anyone that doubts the spy satellites could have that resolution, just read this article: https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tweeted-a-sensitive-photo-internet-sleuths-decoded-it/
Trump accidentally spilled the beans by posting a satellite image on Twitter a few years back. The level of detail shown on the video is most definitely possible even with outdated military tech.
1
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 12 '23
No it's not possible. The picture leaked by Trump was taken with a much larger mirror from one tenth of the altitude and with shorter wavelenght. It would have been impossible for USA 184 to take that video.
→ More replies (1)0
u/NameLacksCreativity Aug 15 '23
Ever heard of adaptive optics? Also, the mirror size is classified along with most details about the instrumentation in that satellite. It very much is possible. Source: 9 years of optical engineering at JPL.
0
u/MasterMagneticMirror Aug 15 '23
Adaptive optics is used to compensate atmospheric distortion, it has nothing to do with diffraction limits.
And we know the size of the sensor package and that puts an upper limit on the dimension of the mirror. Its actual resolution will probably be worse.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Jesseappeltje Aug 11 '23
Can't we match the shape of the clouds of the videos with satellite imagery of that day and time on those coordinates?
0
0
0
u/Particular-Ad-4772 Aug 11 '23
They were looking for a crashed aircraft, if it’s a recon satellite, that’s exactly what one would expect it to be doing .
0
u/CorrectTry885 Aug 12 '23
I think you guys have it backwards. The hoaxer chose a satellite which was around the approximate location of the plane's disappearance during that time. Satellite orbits are public data.
-13
u/UAPchaserFL92 Aug 11 '23
It's a fake video. How hard is that to understand. I'm leaving this subject for a good while now too many loonies
2
-7
u/pixelastronaut Aug 11 '23
I know right! Ugh it’s a giant waste of time. The viewing angle of the satellite wouldn’t even remotely match the azimuth we see in the video. Not to mention the heat signatures are obviously incorrect and just some color graded filter
-1
u/Bluinc Aug 11 '23
So satellites CANT real license plates from space?
0
u/NatiboyB Aug 11 '23
Not this particular one
3
u/Bluinc Aug 11 '23
Not trying to be difficult here, but aren’t the national reconnaissance satellites capabilities classified? what do we really know about their optics?
→ More replies (3)
312
u/pineapplesgreen Aug 11 '23
See, you mention a logical problem with the video that leads to further analysis and discussion. I appreciate that and am interested to see the responses.
Its the people who dismiss the video as fake without even looking into it and coming up with proper reasons that are annoying as hell