This breakthrough suggests that, with just three satellites, China could achieve global, 24/7, all-weather reconnaissance coverage of high-value targets, including US naval fleets.
To match this capability, other countries might need to deploy hundreds, if not thousands, of satellites.
Suggests that…Might need to…I don’t think the author is familiar with the subject matter they’re reporting on
There’s plenty to understand. Synthetic apertures allow getting a far higher resolution than you could otherwise which mean that you can place satellites in higher orbit to get the same coverage you’d get with more satellites in a lower orbit. This is what the article says, but you clearly have no clue regrading the subject and just need to argue for the sake of arguing. Go touch some grass.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Suggests that…Might need to…I don’t think the author is familiar with the subject matter they’re reporting on
wow what an amazing counterpoint you got there
There’s is no useful information in this article, just speculation
Sounds like you need to read up on what synthetic aperture radar is to understand the article.
There is nothing TO understand. It’s “this thing happened. Here’s two statements of what that might mean”
There’s plenty to understand. Synthetic apertures allow getting a far higher resolution than you could otherwise which mean that you can place satellites in higher orbit to get the same coverage you’d get with more satellites in a lower orbit. This is what the article says, but you clearly have no clue regrading the subject and just need to argue for the sake of arguing. Go touch some grass.
The article is 6 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are speculation from the author.
This is not a good article.