Re: MOON as providing a 24e8 SAR imaging receiver

From: Brad Guth (bradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:39:25 +0000 (UTC)

Steve Willner; "Let's be a little careful here. This thread seems to be
confusing three separate techniques: _radar_, which involves
ransmitting a signal and looking for the reflection; _interferometry_,
which involves reconstructing an image based on observations with
separated receivers combined coherently; and _optical imaging_, which
involves non-coherent image formation."

"Each technique has its own capabilities and limitations."

Thanks for all the feedback.

Essentially the shuttle based SAR imaging task was being operated at
roughly 225 km above Earth, however limited to an extremely slight
baseline as accommodated by a 60 meters deployed mast, yet the German
Aerospace Centre(DLR) reported as obtaining 1.5 meter/pixel resolution
(roughly 20 fold better results than publicly announced by our
'nondisclosure' NSA/DoD team of cold-war cloak and dagger wizards.

Thus I was wondering as to what a slightly extended baseline of 386,400
km might otherwise obtain, especially if the Earth based radar
transmitters were a million fold more intensified than the shuttle
package, and certainly capable of being better focused, whereas planets
or whatever's passing in the general direction of the moon is exactly
where having a moon-surface deployed SAR receiving aperture of a greatly
enhanced number of pixels/mm would certainly offer a somewhat
astronomical improvement in resolution, all without spendy mirrors or
lenses, and not in any way dependent upon illumination, just via brute
force radar waves and by the extremely energy efficient and nicely
extended baseline of 386,000 km instead of the rather minor 60 meters of
what the shuttle team had to work with.

"separating the receivers has nothing to do with the gains that are
possible"

If that's the case, then why bother with an extremely spendy and complex
60 meter tower for the process of what the shuttle SAR imaging required?

It seems perfectly clear if one draws out the baseline that more is
certainly far better than less, and that the offset is in fact directly
scaled to the resolution that's being obtained. Why would you suggest
otherwise?

Should I bother posting links to the official NASA/shuttle SAR imaging
pages, and other pages as from ESA, Japan, Russia and simply an overload
of more technology data upon radar imaging than you can possibly shake a
stick at?

Technically the secondary mirror of a telescope could even be situated
upon the moon. Are you thereby suggesting that there'd be nothing to
gain?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG