Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don’t usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos.
I’m in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear.
Literally, yes you can, on that specific website’s satellite imagery. Bloody thing’s over 10 km wide, it’s the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad!
The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy.
You can see it from space
Those photos are from planes.
Planes? I had always assumed it was satellites.
In the bottom middle of the screen it tells you the surveyor. At least it used to I haven’t checked in a while.
Satellites have adequate resolution for imaging large areas with high coverage, but aside of stuff like spy satellites they don’t usually image smaller areas in high resolution all that well. Most of the closer up images on places like Google Maps are aerial photos.
I’m in Finland and when Google Maps first launched we only got low resolution satellite images and some aerial photos of a few cities. The difference was pretty clear.
You can see people’s backyard trampolines.
No, you can’t. This is what earth looks like from space… https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ most of google maps uses airplane aerial shots.
Literally, yes you can, on that specific website’s satellite imagery. Bloody thing’s over 10 km wide, it’s the size of a large city. I can still easily spot it on my screen if I zoom far enough out to also include Edinburgh and Riyad!
The only way not to see it from space would be to look in the wrong place or when it is cloudy.
What am I looking at? The white dot?
The oval beige thing that takes up 1/5th of the width of the screenshot.
It is 10km wide? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_293 Also, I don’t see any beige oval that takes up 20% of the screen.
That wiki link shows the measurement of the bagger 293.
225m length is 2.25% of that 10km. The 46m wide is 0.46% of 10km. You will not spot that with naked human eye in space, it would be a speck.
Plus you circled the mine, not the excavator.
I counted 8 of them on site.