This breakthrough suggests that, with just three satellites, China could achieve global, 24/7, all-weather reconnaissance coverage of high-value targets, including US naval fleets.
To match this capability, other countries might need to deploy hundreds, if not thousands, of satellites.
Suggests that…Might need to…I don’t think the author is familiar with the subject matter they’re reporting on
There’s plenty to understand. Synthetic apertures allow getting a far higher resolution than you could otherwise which mean that you can place satellites in higher orbit to get the same coverage you’d get with more satellites in a lower orbit. This is what the article says, but you clearly have no clue regrading the subject and just need to argue for the sake of arguing. Go touch some grass.
The OP made a vapid comment that adds nothing to the discussion. Had OP actually made a contribution discussing the veracity of the article one way or the other that would be an interesting discussion. The article doesn’t go into details of how this technology works, but simply throwing shade at it shows that OP isn’t actually interested in the subject in the slightest.
Suggests that…Might need to…I don’t think the author is familiar with the subject matter they’re reporting on
wow what an amazing counterpoint you got there
There’s is no useful information in this article, just speculation
Sounds like you need to read up on what synthetic aperture radar is to understand the article.
There is nothing TO understand. It’s “this thing happened. Here’s two statements of what that might mean”
There’s plenty to understand. Synthetic apertures allow getting a far higher resolution than you could otherwise which mean that you can place satellites in higher orbit to get the same coverage you’d get with more satellites in a lower orbit. This is what the article says, but you clearly have no clue regrading the subject and just need to argue for the sake of arguing. Go touch some grass.
The article is 6 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are speculation from the author.
This is not a good article.
The OP hasn’t argued anything except the quality of the article, your reaction is quite absurd and detracts from what would be an interesting topic.
The OP made a vapid comment that adds nothing to the discussion. Had OP actually made a contribution discussing the veracity of the article one way or the other that would be an interesting discussion. The article doesn’t go into details of how this technology works, but simply throwing shade at it shows that OP isn’t actually interested in the subject in the slightest.