Timeline for Why don't commercial airplanes carry Earth-observing instruments?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2018 at 1:13 | comment | added | Philip Tinney | I believe it's entirely cost. Weight and modifications to the plane would make it expensive. Most sensors would need an unimpeded view. External sensors would impact fuel efficiency. Internal sensors would need to be mounted so it can "see" the earth. That likely means modifying the hull. | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 22:44 | comment | added | Camilo Rada | I'm not suggesting that EO systems on comercial planes can replace GOES or MODIS. I'm just pointing that the data that could be captured from commercial planes would have a great scientific and commercial value, and I not sure why that potential haven't been exploited. I gave the example of some satellites like Icesat and I can add all he WorldView ones, for which EO systems on commercial planes could produce similar data with reduced coverage but also reduced cost. | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 1:40 | history | edited | Philip Tinney | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 137 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2018 at 0:41 | comment | added | Philip Tinney | The point isn't the resolution. It's that they have 100% coverage every five minutes. The airlines will get an insignificant percentage and infrequent revisits. At a cost of putting sensors in 1000s of planes. | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 0:27 | comment | added | Mark | The GOES satellites may cover the entire United States, but they've got lousy resolution: 500 meters per pixel at best. To put that in context, there are entire small towns that won't show up on GOES imagery. | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 19:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 30, 2018 at 20:04 | |||||
| Nov 30, 2018 at 19:48 | history | answered | Philip Tinney | CC BY-SA 4.0 |