13-08-2020, 04:11 PM
The satellite spy film was very high resolution. Not possible till recently with electronic cameras. The scanning was very slow (relatively) to match the low data rate of the encrypted transmission. Seeing detail was the issue rather than dynamic range. Even ordinary 35mm can be equivalent to 4K. Also it would have been still photographs, not cine. The scanning and slow transmission was simply a better way to send the spy photographs home than the earlier ejection scheme.
These would have been low earth orbit, probably trans polar, satellites that would gradually loose height and burn up in the atmosphere so exhausting the film & chemical stock probably wasn't important.
Now the spy planes and spy satellites may be replaced by the X-37B?
There may have been some science based space missions using intermediate film and then slow scan high definition transmission?
I'm not sure how the Russian maps of the far side of the moon were done or if some early Mars missions used it. It's certainly only in the last ten years that consumer digital cameras have surpassed good 35mm stills.
These would have been low earth orbit, probably trans polar, satellites that would gradually loose height and burn up in the atmosphere so exhausting the film & chemical stock probably wasn't important.
Now the spy planes and spy satellites may be replaced by the X-37B?
There may have been some science based space missions using intermediate film and then slow scan high definition transmission?
I'm not sure how the Russian maps of the far side of the moon were done or if some early Mars missions used it. It's certainly only in the last ten years that consumer digital cameras have surpassed good 35mm stills.
