At 5:41 PM -0700 5/27/04, Bill Stewart wrote:
Pringles cans.
Okay... I'll bite.
What *is* resolution of a Pringle's can at 100-200 miles? 23,000 miles?
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
R. A. Hettinga
At 12:35 PM -0400 5/27/04, John Kelsey wrote:
Does anyone know whether the low-power nature of wireless
LANs protects
them from eavesdropping by satellite?
It seems to me that you'd need a pretty big dish in orbit to
get that kind
of resolution.
The Keyholes(?) are
At 12:35 PM -0400 5/27/04, John Kelsey wrote:
Does anyone know whether the low-power nature of wireless LANs protects
them from eavesdropping by satellite?
It seems to me that you'd need a pretty big dish in orbit to get that kind
of resolution.
The Keyholes(?) are for microwaves, right?
At 04:04 PM 5/27/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:35 PM -0400 5/27/04, John Kelsey wrote:
Does anyone know whether the low-power nature of wireless LANs protects
them from eavesdropping by satellite?
It seems to me that you'd need a pretty big dish in orbit to get that kind
of resolution.
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
It seems to me that you'd need a pretty big dish in orbit to get that kind
of resolution.
The Keyholes(?) are for microwaves, right?
Where better to put the big dish than in orbit? Clarke-belt birds are
separated by what, 10 km? So a 5 km
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 12:35 PM -0400 5/27/04, John Kelsey wrote:
Does anyone know whether the low-power nature of wireless LANs protects
them from eavesdropping by satellite?
It seems to me that you'd need a pretty big dish in orbit to get that kind
of resolution.
The Keyholes(?) are
