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.
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.