Everyone ooohs and aaahs about the pictures of space from space. But how about pictures of earth from the ISS? These pictures of the Kolka Glacier in Russia are better than anything satellites can provide us with for a number of reasons: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/images/eol/kolka.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That being the case Adam, you might be interested in this site too: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks, both are now in my References>Space bookmarks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No doubt. Especially from a U-2 or SR-71 with their sophisticated optics. But they can't provide regular imagining of any place on the planet as the ISS is able to do provided it is manned and the crew isn't tied up making repairs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The question is where would you need regular imaging at this resolution? Unless you were to use these cameras to film an event, it would probably be cheaper to use a plane.
Just like Mt.St.Helens has been, and no doubt will continue to be, studied to understand the consequences of the May 1980 eruption, so will the Kolka Glacier. Which poses the question: How can continuing flights over a relatively remote part of Russia be cheaper than taking high resolution pictures from the orbiting ISS using the cameras already aboard?
I didn't say continuous flights, that's about the only advantage a satellite has over an airplane. I was from the start wondering if some other method would be cheaper. They're measuring the glacier's movement, right?
Gifted, please don't put words in my post. Me.: continuing You: continuous A bit of a difference, no? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
