Physics help

Hey I was just wondering if anyone could help me with a physics question. I more so need help finding references than anything else. The question is "Why doesn't the US have a permanent spy satellite over Iraq 24 hours a day? Why instead are there a series of satellites who overlap?"

I've been trying Google and can't seem to find anything so any help finding information would be GREATLY appreciated.

a couple of reasons i can think of that are probably wrong:

A permanent satellite means geostationary orbit, which is around 22000 miles above the equator. And for a surveillance satellite to provide the sort of information needed on the surface (ie, troop and armour movements etc) in enough detail, it just would be too difficult. Not only that, if there is cloud cover (in Iraq, im not sure), then proper surveillance isnt possible.

It would also be very expensive to launch a satellite of its type, when there are others which are able to monitor the area every few days. UAVs can also be used to pick up vital information. Not only that, launching a permanent satellite would help international relations would it.

Maybe it's not a prime spot for a geosynchronous orbit for some reason? munu9

Yeah it has to do with the physics obviously. I'm thinking it would take too much power to get it moving that fast, but I can't seem to find any sources at all to back it upTERMINAT0R1

[QUOTE="TERMINAT0R1"]Yeah it has to do with the physics obviously. I'm thinking it would take too much power to get it moving that fast, but I can't seem to find any sources at all to back it upFunky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="TERMINAT0R1"]Yeah it has to do with the physics obviously. I'm thinking it would take too much power to get it moving that fast, but I can't seem to find any sources at all to back it upTERMINAT0R1

Satellites can only be put into geostationary orbits at the equator. thriteenthmonke

yes but at 22,000 miles, you can see from pole to pole pretty much. Weather satellites for example. I can see photos of the UK taken from a geostationary satellite from the met office.

The issue is that the quality of the images is nowhere near high enough to pick out surface details to half a meter, which is the sort of level the military use. Im sure you have heard in movies the idea of being able to tell what the headline on a newspaper is or whether you have a shoelace tied or not from a satellite. Now this is exaggerated (i hope) but seeing that from 20000 miles away, you can see the problem here.

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"]Satellites can only be put into geostationary orbits at the equator. Gigagamer2

yes but at 22,000 miles, you can see from pole to pole pretty much. Weather satellites for example. I can see photos of the UK taken from a geostationary satellite from the met office.

The issue is that the quality of the images is nowhere near high enough to pick out surface details to half a meter, which is the sort of level the military use. Im sure you have heard in movies the idea of being able to tell what the headline on a newspaper is or whether you have a shoelace tied or not from a satellite. Now this is exaggerated (i hope) but seeing that from 20000 miles away, you can see the problem here.