Thanks cgl, I think you'll find that's a max resolution in...

Thanks cgl,
I think you'll find that's a max resolution in absolutely perfect atmospheric conditions and that average delivered resolution will be less. The other aspect to consider here is what type of satellites: geostationary or orbital. And resolution also decays very rapidly away from the perpendicular, so need to be directly overhead to get optimal image resolution. But the real issue is cost of delivery. Even the cheapest mini-satellites cost about $20m to put up into orbit so this is a reasonable barrier to entry - especially at the price point that NEA is aiming at. It probably costs NEA less than $10k/day for 2-3 days to fly a city the size of Sydney to get 7cm resolution that can tie accurately into many other GIS data bases.

I'm also not yet convinced that the market is that much bigger for daily/high frequency imagery Vs monthly; but once you have amortised the huge cost of a satellite, I guess it costs relatively nothing to provide daily updates.

I still think the resolution/price-point proposition that NEA is delivering has at least 5 years on satellites.
But by then, NEA's visual data base will be worth a lot more than the market is currently giving value.

Cheers,.