For a long time I was under the impression that diesel subs stand out like a sore thumb on sat photos and nation states watch them all like hawks, but apparently not and drug cartels can just roll around as they please in them.
Watched countries argue a bit over diesel vs nuclear submarines and this is where I've been imprinted with the idea that nuclear subs are the only actual true stealth subs you can build. I may be wrong here, but the evidence seems overwhelming based on usage. Diesel subs are for homeland defense purposes and don't worry about the enemy knowing their whereabouts, nuclear subs go silent for months and everyone is completely clueless as to where they actually are.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a281849...
AIP technology means non-nuclear subs still have lots of uses. They can get closer in shore to gather signals intelligence or drop off/pick up SF.
After 200 meters the ocean is practically opaque. Objects much deeper than that are reflecting a handful of photons. Below 500-1000 meters you're talking about photons per second at the surface.
Water is one of a quite small number of general radiation absorbers. To block alpha/beta/gamma radiation you need pure density- more mass per volume to slow down high energy particles. You can use heavy atoms like lead or uranium, or very densely packed lighter atoms. Neutron radiation is different- the actual number of atoms per volume is critical to maximizing the number of scattering events. That means you use things like polymers- hydrocarbons, so you have as many small atoms (hydrogen) in a volume as possible. Water is one of the denser liquids, while still being 11% hydrogen by mass, vs 14% for pure polyethylene. That makes it quite good.
Even sound isn't great underwater, relatively speaking- being a fluid in motion, there's a constantly-changing distortion on everything. The thermal conductivity also means thermal signatures spread out quickly.
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a197847...
I am fairly sure, no one is taking pictures of the whole earth, in 20 minutes intervals in a sufficiently high resolution to pick out an airplane. Specially one, flying over water.
For reference, ISS at its height ~400km, can see roughly 3% of the Earth's surface. This is without any kind of lens.
If someone has any kind of evidence, showing it otherwise, it would be great to see.
The bottom line is that nobody is imaging the entire surface of the Earth at any useful resolution daily (aside from low resolution meteorological satellites, but they can’t find a plane). If you want to track a plane you have to start with other means to point a camera and take an image.
There is a huge difference between a company that has enough satellites in orbit to be able to take an image of any requested area within 20 minutes, and a company that can take an image of all areas on Earth every 20 minutes. MH370 is very unlikely to be captured in an image by coincidence. If there is imagery of it during its last flight then it would be because someone knew in advance that something was going to happen (it seems unlikely that anyone would have known).
Take that 500 Trillion Square Meters and divide it up by 1000 satellites (or whatever Starlink plans) and take images sequentially rather than all at once and it becomes rapidly much more manageable.
You don't need a single mult-terapixel image. You just need lots of much smaller images covering more territory on a continuous basis.
if you wanted pictures of the entire earth every 20 minutes, you'd need to figure out how many satellites would give you that coverage, the amount of resolution per image, and the bandwidth requirements transportation of those images in parallel.
Realistically, to get whole-earth coverage every 20 minutes would require a very large constellation of satellites. It's much more reasonable to get some less-than-100% coverage of the earth on a less-than-every-20-minute schedule and scale up from there.