The ISS's contribution to Earth Science

[Chagur]

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

 

[Adam]

Very nice.

 

[Chagur]

That being the case Adam, you might be interested
in this site too:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

 

[Adam]

Thanks, both are now in my References>Space bookmarks.

 

[Gifted]

You could probably get better pictures from an airplane.

 

[Chagur]

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.

 

[Gifted]

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.

 

[Chagur]

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?

 

[Gifted]

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?

 

[Chagur]

Gifted, please don't put words in my post.

Me.: continuing
You: continuous

A bit of a difference, no?

 

[wet1]

Thanx for the links, Chagur.

 

[Gifted]

Sorry, it didn't register.