It just seems to me – given the plethora of electro/optical (E/O, e.g., visual) commercial satellite ventures that are either proposed or on underway (Spire, Skybox, DigitalGlobe, Geoeye, PlanetLabs) – why is there not a movement afoot to include a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery offering/capability? Certainly the all-weather, day/night capability that SAR brings to the table has its own niche.
RADARSAT has proven that it can be done on a decent-sized scale. I neither know how small one can go vis-à-vis resolution with corresponding mass and power requirements – nor what that complexity might entail as one tried to get smaller and thus cheaper to launch.
Is there a mathematical “proof” or rigorous academic research that, when it comes to data analytics, adding SAR imagery to visible imagery is more beneficial than just adding more visible data? I.e., for data analytics, “SAR + visible > 2 x visible” (if you will).
It seems there should be something based on orthogonality – that the two sources of data are different phenomenologies (and therefore unique and independent?) – but I just can’t find the right words to express what seems to be intuitive.
It just seems to me – given the plethora of electro/optical (E/O, e.g., visual) commercial satellite ventures that are either proposed or on underway (Spire, Skybox, DigitalGlobe, Geoeye, PlanetLabs) – why is there not a movement afoot to include a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery offering/capability? Certainly the all-weather, day/night capability that SAR brings to the table has its own niche.
ReplyDeleteRADARSAT has proven that it can be done on a decent-sized scale. I neither know how small one can go vis-à-vis resolution with corresponding mass and power requirements – nor what that complexity might entail as one tried to get smaller and thus cheaper to launch.
Is there a mathematical “proof” or rigorous academic research that, when it comes to data analytics, adding SAR imagery to visible imagery is more beneficial than just adding more visible data? I.e., for data analytics, “SAR + visible > 2 x visible” (if you will).
ReplyDeleteIt seems there should be something based on orthogonality – that the two sources of data are different phenomenologies (and therefore unique and independent?) – but I just can’t find the right words to express what seems to be intuitive.