FCC chair says we’re too dependent on GPS and wants to explore ‘alternatives’.
-
Nah the idea is sound. As someone else said, GPS is incredibly fragile. Also very terrestrial...it doesn't work once you leave the atmosphere.
This will probably be another SpaceX grift, but there are alternative technologies that are more resilient to attack. From military/defense perspective (the original reason for GPS), that's pretty important.
-
Yeah. It's grift. They want a privatized solution.
-
GPS is incredibly fragile.
No, not really. The GPS signal isn't designed to penetrate concrete, no. But that doesn't make it fragile.
Also very terrestrial…it doesn’t work once you leave the atmosphere.
Considering it was never meant to...that's really not that goddamn weird. It's a global positioning satellite system. So clearly for it to work you have to be on the fuckin' globe...
-
Cell towers, in an urban area you're typically within range of a couple.
-
Too often, the vertical location (Z-axis) information that 911 call centers receive is not easily usable
So...use the barometer in tandem with GPS? This is shit I can easily track from my personal Homassistant server.
Also, you know how to make GPS more reliable, secure, and redundant? You launch more GPS satellites.
-
And was the second time that window had the ball bearing thrown at it. They'd tested it backstage but didn't replace that window for the on stage demo, so it was already weakened.
-
Having functional GPS in a tunnel would be very nice...as someone who drives through Boston and fucking hates tunnels.
But that's not what I meant by fragile. I meant it can be disrupted/jammed fairly trivially.
-
GPS depends on a friendly spectrum. I suspect the FCC is preparing for a war where GPS will be jammed, faked, or destroyed.
-
What if we built a system of beacon transmitters that sent out pulses and then used recievers that would compare arrival times of those pulses to make a measurement, thus establishing positional location?
We could call it the Long Range something or other. Need a catchy name!
-
Yeah I'm gunna be frank on this one... it's GOOD that it broke. If you're in a car fire (which these seem to do often), you want to be able to break out a fucking window to get out.
Any civilian that wants a window that strong is too stupid to properly risk evaluate the features of a car.
-
No, you need 4 minimum.
Two satellites intersection places you on a circle. (all points possible)
Three satellites intersection places you on two possible points.
The last satellite give you the exact location.
However, often the 4th is omitted if one of the 2 points is not in a sane location. (eg well below the crust). And it's trilateration not triangulation.
-
Global Positioning System, I sleep
Universal Positioning System, real shit -
Also, you know how to make GPS more reliable, secure, and redundant? You launch more GPS satellites.
But where will we find room for more Starlink satellites if we do that? Elon said he needs another contract, and when the boss says jump...!
/s
-
Uhhh nope, that's incorrect.
The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance.
So 1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite.
2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect.
3 satellites gives you a single location.
That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3
-
Having functional GPS in a tunnel would be very nice
In a tunnel
a tunnel
tunnel
I fear for the world. You afraid that you're gonna make a wrong turn? Inside of a tunnel? A fuckin' tunnel my guy?
-
You have clearly never driven on 93 through Boston where the person you replied to said they are from (aka the Big Dig). It is basically an entire highway that is underneath the city. There are many on and off ramps, lanes suddenly become exit only, complex multi-lane exits that branch...it's intimidating. As somebody that has lived in the Boston area for 15 years now, I still mess things up.
-
Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let's break it down:
-
"The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance."
- Nope. This describes trilateration, not triangulation.
- Triangulation uses angles, while trilateration uses distances. GPS works via trilateration.
-
"1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite."
- Kind of, but missing a crucial detail:
- A single satellite defines a sphere around itself (not just a circle—you exist in 3D space).
- Kind of, but missing a crucial detail:
-
"2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect."
- Wrong. Two satellite distance spheres intersect to form a circle, not just two points.
-
"3 satellites gives you a single location."
- Mostly right, but incomplete.
- In theory, three satellites narrow it down to two possible points, but one is often out in space or somewhere unrealistic, so it can often be ruled out.
- However, because your device lacks an atomic clock, it typically requires four satellites to synchronize time properly.
-
"That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3"
- Nope. GPS does NOT use triangulation.
- The "tri" in triangulation comes from angles, not the number of satellites. GPS uses trilateration, which is based on measuring distances, not angles.
Final Verdict
This comment is a trainwreck of incorrect terms and flawed explanations. If they meant "trilateration," at least part of it would make sense, but calling it "triangulation" completely ruins their credibility.
So, in short? No, their comment is very incorrect.
-
-
A single satellite defines a sphere around itself (not just a circle—you exist in 3D space).
You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That's why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don't know what you're talking about.
-
You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That’s why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Coordinates on a circle is a 3 dimensional location. The earth isn't flat.
-
You are so close to VOR!
