[tinus_hn]

The maximum resolution of satellite imagery is about half a meter. That is not due to sensor limitations, it’s because a satellite has to watch through the atmospheric distortion.

Satellite images can’t compete with aerial photography, unless you are trying to photograph an area where you can’t fly, such as in military applications, because in that case there just is no aerial photography.

[djbebs]

That's not true. We know from trumps "leak" of a satellite photo showing an Iranian missile that there are satellites with resolutions at least as good as 7cm to 10cm

[tinus_hn]

It is not in fact known that that photo was taken by a satellite, it is only known that around that time a spy satellite was in the sky in the direction of where the photo was taken. But it could also have been taken by other means.

The image is supposedly taken at a pretty big angle, yet shows a pretty much crystal clear image with no atmospheric distortion at all, of a scene in the desert. I’m not convinced. If this were possible, what would be keeping companies from commercializing it?

Here’s an interesting source though for computationally sharpening the images for static scenes:

https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChanGroup/project_turbulence....