Timeline for Is it easier to detect a satellite than an aircraft with a land-based radar?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2023 at 21:34 | comment | added | uhoh | @Ludo Oh I see. Yes I'm getting it. Radar gives you direction and range (localizes in 3D space) but also gives you range-rate via Doppler. Since we know Earth's gravity, that allows you to predict forward in time based on radar only, not some ephemeris of known objects. "for a typical satellite you know where to look" sounded to me like you meant using an ephemeris to point a radar beam (as one would point a flashlight) to say "yep it's where it's supposed to be". Now I understand it's a regular, thorough scan of a good chunk of sky, and "look" is what algorithms do to the massive dataset. | |
| Dec 2, 2023 at 17:05 | comment | added | Ludo | @uhoh the point I’m trying to make is that if you have capable radar, like the Smart-L, it’s not so hard. You scan the sky twice and you’ll have all the satellites: first scan will find it already, then you predict forward in time, and the second scan confirms. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 22:00 | comment | added | uhoh | @Ludo you both make good points, but since the (very short) question asks about satellite "detection" rather than tracking, the crow at night with a flashlight analogy does seem to fit. Ideally the OP should have made that distinction clearer though, and explained what "detection" means here. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 16:48 | comment | added | Woody | @Ludo .. if you know where it is and its trajectory, you don't need radar. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 8:06 | comment | added | Ludo | Not entirely a fair comparison with the crow: for a typical satellite you know where to look and it has a very predictable path, unlike the crow. | |
| Dec 1, 2023 at 5:05 | vote | accept | S. Kohn | ||
| Dec 1, 2023 at 3:22 | history | answered | Woody | CC BY-SA 4.0 |