In article , Venik
wrote:

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography for four
obvious reasons: an recon aircraft is much close to the target,

Maybe, maybe not. If your recce a/c cannot get close enough because of missile
defense, then you're pushed too far away from the target for good resolution.
The slant range will put more atmosphere between the target and you.
A satellite in LEO may in fact have better resolution.

it usually can carry more equipment,

Not true at all. The fast movers used for recce duty (other than the U-2)
are very limited in space and weight carrying

it's equipment is more up-to-date and

Not necessarily. Spaceborne recce assets come from a different bucket of money
and usually does not compete with tactical assets. The satellite may be
of a newer generation than the aircraft SPO can afford.

can be customized for each mission, and it's usually less expensive.

Once the launch costs are paid for, the satellite system operates
pretty cheaply. Aircraft OTOH still require fuel, maintenance and basing
all the time.

Satellite photography will never replace aerial photography, but not for
the reasons you mentioned:
The real benefit of airborne recce is mission flexibility, the ability to
task an a/c when you need it, not when the orbit is right.
Also ease of upgrade.
Once the satellite is in orbit, it's difficult (but possible) to upgrade,
but aircraft are relatively cheap to mod.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur