By using quantum sensing instead of traditional lenses and a CMOS camera, and then running reconstruction algorithms over time on the input, it's possible to get 20x the range, 1000x the processing speed, and sub-diffraction images. It also reduces size and cost from Hubble scale to a big cubesat size.
>>64752266how it works>https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.07262>the companyhttps://diffraqtion.com/techThey announced today and the first sat launches will be in 2028. This is to sensors as SpaceX was to lift desu
>>64752266Huh, can't tell from the articles linked the specifics or see any concrete examples but still looks like interesting tech. And in the future but not so radically that it's "someday maybe", couple of years out isn't bad. Thanks for the heads up anon.
>>64752266>spew out random buzzwords>add quantum for sci fi effect>think people are going to believe youlmao
>>64752365>see the word quantum>immediately dismissi'm tired of chinkshills too but this has some solid science behind it. the potential impact is pretty impressive.
>>64752365On the one hand I can see where you're coming from, and the press release stuff is a little buzzy. On the other hand the arxiv paper is interesting and I've "seen" first hand an approach that is legit and has echoes of this in a different domain, which is using WiFi+comp+ai to construct 3D imagery of a room and the people going around in it, down to figuring out some of what they're typing on a keyboard. Blew my mind when I first encountered the research but it's real. And unlike most bullshit artists they're promising specific real products in a very short timespan. Any potential customers for this are serious players who would want to see real hardware and 2 years out isn't far. So I'm more curious then I'd normally be, though OP as usual is being a big faggot and overstating things more than they themselves do. The news releases have hedging around "up to..." which doesn't tell us what the average would be or what conditions it needs or whatever. Clearly asterisks there. And it sounds like this is information inference about specific (though interesting) data and not a full replacement for optical, like SAR usage. So it could be very cool but isn't "SpaceX to lift" which is shaping to be a straight superset.
>>64752273>lead writter had their google scholer deletedEither they are very full of shit or so not full of shit Raytheon told them to pull it.
>>64752365If you passed university physics you don't need convincing. Spam your nukes-are-fake schizo slop to someone stupid enough not to laugh at you
>>64752266>then running reconstruction algorithmsliterally worthless for intelligence gatheringyou want real information, not reconstructions
>>64752412Depends a lot on how good the reconstruction is, remember even recon sats used image compression for decades due to bandwidth limits.
>>64752266Reminds me of pic related, but it's all bullshit...right?
>>64752266>quantum thingMay we see proof it works before we commit to anything?>n-no this is just futu-That's what I thought.
>>64752273Well, well, well...wouldn't you know it, one of our friends at Raytheon that wrote this is Zachary fucking Dutton. I wonder where I've heard that name before...What is he still doing writing papers? He's a VP at Raytheon now.
>>64752468My brother in Christ...I don't think it's bullshit. Zachary Dutton is as legit as they come, and has about the glowiest of glownigger scientific backgrounds. He's a VP at Raytheon. He's worked for them for over 20 years.
