Timeline for Why don't commercial airplanes carry Earth-observing instruments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29, 2018 at 21:03 | comment | added | alephzero | @CamiloRada No, the coverage would be very poor. The USA only has about 5,000 commercial airports with paved runways. Most of those 5,000 have flights to fewer than 10 other destinations, and many have only one commercial route, to the nearest large airport. In other first world countries (Canada, for example) the coverage would be even sparser. | |
| Nov 29, 2018 at 19:55 | comment | added | Camilo Rada | Well, EO systems are not that large anymore. Every kilogram put into orbit cost a lot. So many last generation satellites are the size of a minifridge or smaller. The point of airlines wanting to go from airport to airport as quick as possible makes a lot of sense. But for instance, within the US borders coverage of commercial flights would be good, and in the US, agriculture, map providers (like google maps), mining, and other industries spend millions on imagery and terrain data that could be acquired from comercial planes. I wonder what makes Earth Observation such a bad idea for airlines | |
| Nov 29, 2018 at 16:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 29, 2018 at 16:40 | |||||
| Nov 29, 2018 at 16:22 | history | answered | Smewhen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |