Wiki Article
Talk:Satellite imagery
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timothy McC..
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Blue Marble
[edit]Blue Marble was a project for mapping the visible color of the Earth with about 1-km resolution. The beautiful resulting images have become very popular in the media and among the public.
Blue Marble is the name given to a single photo taken during an Apollo space mission, it is not a project.
--Abdull 11:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Resolution
[edit]Rural areas are mapped at 100-150m resolution? The Landsat program images most of the world to 15m also see here and search for Landsat. Should this be updated? How about some discussion or at least links to spy satellite imagery, which is classified but guessed to be at 4cm resolution? cluth 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an awful lot of guessing about the image resolutions possible from military satellites. Another guess: it has never been better than 30cm GSD. It would also seem that the military is not developing drone/UAV-based reconnaissance technology for no good reason. Commercial small-UAV operators are routinely achieving 4cm resolution for specific projects, and large-format digital aerial imagery can achieve 2.5cm GSD. The issue of resolution is clearly no longer with the satellites. Aerometrex (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Moving Images?
[edit]What's the point of this section? It seems to be somewhat random, singular, and under a heading to which I don't understand the relationship....--Koeppen 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-REPLY MESSAGE-
If you would like to download a broad spectrum of satellite data and images you can direct your request to: gosat@live.com this data is 100% free for private use.
Cheers.
Samuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Google's Intention
[edit]Perhaps someone should mention that in many countries, especially the U.S., google doesn't provide any more significant photo data to the public then is already available for sale by the government itself.
If somehow intensity is increased on an Earth surface (eg. an important monument) either by using halogen lamps or floodlights then if satellite takes image the image it would get will be a white image?? Please somebody answer.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.242.177 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Merger
[edit]I must say, I feel like Satellite Image Comparison should be deleted outright. It has no sources and just two large images that make up the article. Or are you thinking that a section of satellite imagery should say something about image comparison? I'd be ok with that too.--Will.i.am 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Feeling is an unjustifiable for reason of deletion. The article in question is there for support of another article. This article Satellite Image Comparison is justified by its content as it supports a stream of facts coming from the articles water vapor, humidity, etc. DO NOT DELETE OR MERGE. --Hard Raspy Sci 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- It has since been deleted. -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
NRO
[edit]The mention of the NRO's capability is most likely exaggerated and not cited in any way. There are theoretical limits to the resolution that can be obtained from that far out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.213.130 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Cost per image?
[edit]Yes, price depents on resolution but what to expect if one would like to buy images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.154.209 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The claim that aerial imagery is more expensive than satellite imagery should be vigorously contested. In the sub-metre resolution range, digital aerial imagery is much less expensive for new data collections on a per km2 basis. It also offers multispectral imaging capability, full 3D stereo capability and much higher resolution than even the best commercially available satellite imagery. Orthophoto production and digital terrain modeling is often an included service with digital aerial imagery service providers. The only way satellite imagery can compete with digital aerial imagery on cost is by reselling imagery from data archives. Aerometrex (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Applications
[edit]Interesting article, either for inspiring content here or linking to: [1] -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I just created Category:Satellite imagery. Please help out.
For instance there are many entries in Category:Earth observation satellites & Category:Space observatories that should have the category added to them.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satellite imagery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130171224/http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000200.html to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000200.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
References
[edit]I am going to add a few academic sources to the article. The last references were pulled over 3 years ago. One of the links no longer works. I'm going to re-pull some of the sites and articles as well.Timothy McC. (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposed addition: Financial applications section
[edit]I would like to discuss adding a section on the use of satellite imagery by institutional investors (hedge funds, quant funds, etc.). The content is supported by sources including Berkeley Haas Newsroom, Paragon Intel, and International Banker, with specific verifiable data points and reputable sources.
My edit was reverted citing namedropping and inappropriate editing. The companies mentioned (Planet Labs, Orbital Insight, RS Metrics) are cited in context with sources, similar to how other Wikipedia articles reference specific companies. It would be negligible not to mention them in order to present a full picture of the satellite imagery usage for institutional investors, which has been gaining traction in recent years. Peter6393 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- The proposed content can be viewed in the article's edit history (it was reverted by editor: Mr.Ollie. I welcome feedback on whether it meets Wikipedia's standards. Peter6393 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- It was full of unreliable sourcing and inappropriate promotion of individual vendors. It was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia in pretty much every respect and I continue to oppose its inclusion in any form. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Could you specify which sources you consider unreliable and which mentions constitute inappropriate promotion? Berkeley Haas Newsroom, Paragon Intel, and International Banker are cited with specific verifiable data. Constructive feedback on how to improve the content would be welcome.
- Please note that for example Wikipedia's page on "social media" lists main companies in the sphere, such as Facebook, Twitter, WeChat, etc. and that is not characterized as namedropping or promotional material. Peter6393 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- If I could see some way to improve the content I would have done so. It was wholly inappropriate and unfixable so complete reversion was the proper action.
- That some other article somewhere on Wikipedia mentions a company name in some other context is in no way support for what you attempted to add to the article. MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- It was full of unreliable sourcing and inappropriate promotion of individual vendors. It was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia in pretty much every respect and I continue to oppose its inclusion in any form. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)