A couple of things to consider above and beyond the relationship between image size and viewing distance.
1) The image itself looks like a specimen of agate or similar geological specimen - but it can be viewed as an abstract pattern. In this case, detail is not so relevant, as it is the impression, pattern and color that creates the experience of viewing it, not recognizing someone's face in an image shot from 50,000 feet above the surface of the earth. You can try resizing to the desired output size and resolution using Photoshop or some specialty software and see how it looks.
2) If you actually shot this image for the purpose of creating a large, highly detailed print at the size you have called out here, then you might consider shooting the specimen again, with a microscope, and stitching a set of images together to form a large, highly-detailed composite. You would need to carefully index the stage of the microscope so that you could manipulate it to shoot rows and columns of images and then stitch the matrix of images together to form the full-sized final composite. You would need to figure out what optical zoom level (10x, 20x, etc.) you would require to get the final output size you need for the sensor size you are using to record the images you shoot through the microscope optics.
The file size of such an image would be staggering, so you need to consider your computer hardware and software's ability to handle the job. 10m is roughly 30 feet: 30 ft * 12 in/ft * 300 pixels/in = 108,000 pixels on the long edge... for the 10mx6m image at 300 pixels per inch, you are talking about a 7 GigaPixel image. This seems like serious overkill.
I created a 360 degree spherical panoramic image of a workshop years ago shooting with a 5DII and a 15mm fisheye lens. I stitched the images together and created a final image that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 13000-15000 pixels on the long edge (I cannot remember the exact amount). It was printed on a dye-sub printer (on fabric) for a trade show backdrop, 20 feet wide and 8 feet high. The printer told me the final resolution (in PPI) at print size that he required for the file- I used photoshop to enlarge the image not a trivial amount. The image printed perfectly fine, even at a viewing distance of a couple feet. But, I had a lot of pixels to work with from the beginning because I made a composite from multiple images.