Iranian Rocket Failure

a reply to: Barnalby

The SR-71 was designed for side scanning, while the A-12 was designed originally for direct overflight IIRC. So it wanted to map the largest area possible in a single pass.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

If it was USA 224, that's been identified as a late block, probably Block IV, KH-11.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

There is, officially, at least, no such thing as a "KH-12". It was a KH-11 block IV that did it, and the imagery is well within that capabilities of that bird.

The KH-11 first flew in the late 70s and is actually the basis for the Hubble Space Telescope (as in, they're as closely related as the Boeing 367-80 and the 707), right down to the 2.4m primary mirror the early iterations of KH-11 shared with it. Supposedly the later KH-11s fly a ~3m primary mirror, which combined with advancements in imaging sensors should get you an IMINT platform whose resolution is limited essentially by the atmospheric conditions that it's shooting through.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That makes sense.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, it's interesting to see that it was one of the post-FIA birds.

a reply to: Barnalby

I have to admit that Topaz is far better than I expected it to be. I figured it would be good, since they continued it, but Jesus, not this good.

Side scan photography is getting pretty damn good...For earthy cameras check this pic out.
Mnt Blanc 385megapixels

a reply to: Zaphod58

At least they got their money's worth, haha. What're the odds that it's flying some sort of Keck Telescope-style adaptive optics to filter out atmospheric distortion in real time?

a reply to: Barnalby

From what I understand the post FIA birds, at least the first flight, are Topaz only. Although it's certainly possible.

Looks like the image was from KH-11 USA 224 sat.

Excellent analysis and match up by Dr Marco Langbroek.

Dr Marco Langbroek Twitter Link.

a reply to: Zaphod58

the pic shown has a 10cm/pixil res +/- 2cm

and that is RIGHT at the limit of what can even be imaged with the sat in question and in general unless there have been some serious serious breakthroughs in optics i.e perfect mirrors and superlenses that use some sort of metamaterials this rez is where we will be at for visible light

possible but the fact there is clearly redacted info in the picture means it was reviewed and honestly looks like it was taken off a glossy print out from a briefing.

also what about the misty sats ?

a reply to: penroc3

Topaz isn't optical.

a reply to: RexKramerPRT

You Know of Course , President Trump Had Nothing to Do with this , Right > ?

a reply to: Zaphod58

the sat they are saying took this is optical it's the same as hubble and in NASA docs where they were talking about the mirror size they decided on the 2.4 mirror so that it could be made in the same NRO facilities so i'd say it is a safe bet to say it is the exact same as far as optics go.

do you think that FIA radar could image better that this? i'm sure it can but i would love to see what the raw pics look like. its probably multispectral + radar. SAR images look very strange




its crazy to think you could tune your SAR to pic up very specific things.

a reply to: penroc3

Yep it is optical. It was 47 that was Topaz, 224 was 49.