alt Hacker NewsMost high resolution "satellite" imagery on Google Maps etc is actually stitched from photographs taken from cameras attached to small aeroplanes which fly at a low altitude even compared to commercial flights let alone 100km.
There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?)
So while these images of the landers are from a satellite orbiting the moon, the satellite is orbiting with an eccentric polar orbit, and the images it takes may be perfect for it's mission but might not be good enough to identify small 1960's landers.
> There are a few high resolution satellites but there frame is very small and not suited for complete coverage. If they are geostationary they cant look anywhere, or they have to look at an angle giving oblique photos. If they are moving then they are only over the part of the earth once per several days (weeks/months?)
Pleiades Neo advertises 30cm resolution with possibility for twice a day visits for a location. They are operating on sun-synchronous orbits with afaik global coverage. They also advertise that they can capture up to 2 million km² daily. So Earth imaging satellites are pretty good these days.
That being said, it is true that Google Maps etc heavily rely on aerial imagery instead of satellites.
Airbus does have some sample images available on their website if you want to see what actual satellite imagery looks like: https://space-solutions.airbus.com/resources/satellite-image...