[sheltgor]

I do think, though, that as lake99 pointed out there could be TREMENDOUS value in this. Extending our image record a full 17 years is has enormous scientific value. It gave examples of imagery of the Aral Sea, which allows for significant study there, and 17 years more of full polar ice records. All of that has pretty big implications for a number of fields.

[soperj]

It's not really extending it by 17 years though since they don't have data for the full 17 years. They have snapshots from 17 years prior to the start of actual data collection.

[sheltgor]

I haven't actually poured through the data set linked in the article, but skimming it gives the impression that it includes a variety of images from 1964-70, which seems to me like a lot more than just a snapshot. It even mentions in the article that they were able to see multiple years of polar ice.

[soperj]

That would still be a snapshot. There is no monthly data, or even yearly on the same date by the sounds of things, nor does it backfill up to 1979(when we started actually collecting data)