FCC chair says we’re too dependent on GPS and wants to explore ‘alternatives’.

[Guest]

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!

[saik0shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com]

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.

[saik0shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com]

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.

[deranger@sh.itjust.works]

Global Positioning System, I sleep
Universal Positioning System, real shit

[telorand@reddthat.com]

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

[ulrich@feddit.org]

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

[xanza@lemm.ee]

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?

[wjs018@piefed.social]

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.

[notfromhere@lemmy.ml]

Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let's break it down:

1. "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.

2. "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).

3. "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.

4. "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.

5. "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.

[ulrich@feddit.org]

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.

[saik0shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com]

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.

[leeks@lemmy.world]

You are so close to VOR!

[splinter@lemm.ee]

They’re describing LORAN.

[abidanyre@lemmy.world]

There was an article today about how they just used GPS on the moon.

[ulrich@feddit.org]

The earth isn't flat.

So which coordinate accounts for elevation? Latitude or Longitude?

[dubyakay@lemmy.ca]

Don't need GPS to track phones. You triangulate the receivers.

[rizzrustbolt@lemmy.world]

Whatever happened to radio ranging?

That shit was super coolio.

[t156@lemmy.world]

It's also just a generally bad idea to be too dependent on a single system. If GPS reception fails for one reason or another, it would be good idea to have a backup.

[t156@lemmy.world]

Its like the video showing firefighters struggling a lot to break the window of the Tesla pickup. That's not a prasieworthy thing. You want the windows to break easily enough you can get out in an emergency, or someone can break in to get you out.

[rottingleaf@lemmy.world]

That would be wise.