| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.04.00 09:50l 164 Lines 6173 Bytes #-9514 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_97C
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/97C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 000408/1441Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:60142 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32163 ; Sat, 08 Apr 00 12:52:37 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00000254 ; Sat, 08 Apr 2000 14:32:43 MET
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 00 14:19:32 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_97C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/97C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
used a SA dither to reduce their accuracy. It is an absurd situation
when the only ones locked out of better technology are the ones
who paid for it (ie the taxpayers).
Meanwhile, while the DOD is dithering our GPS satellites, the
FAA is busy installing DGPS transmitters to undo the damage
so that our civilian aircraft can accurately navigate. If that isn't
an absurd situation, I don't know what is.
There is a similar situation with regard to satellite photo
reconnaissance. Our government is trying to prevent us
(John Q Public) from buying from Russian and French
sources imagery better than it is willing to sell from its
own satellites. That isn't denying our enemies anything,
unless the government fears that its enemies are its
own citizens.
Another similar situation exists with regard to encryption
technology. The strongest encryption systems can now
only be obtained from foreign sources. That's because
our government's absurd policies with regard to encryption
have forced development to be moved off shore. Again it is
obvious that the government sees its enemies as being its
own citizens. Either that, or the government is stupid
beyond belief. (The latter can't be totally discounted.)
Gary
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
534 Shannon Way | We break it |
Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:22:58 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Will a GPS provide continuous, accurate altitude measurements?
W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> wrote:
>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> The same is true of latitude and longitude.
>Is it true that there is a deliberate designed-in error to
>keep our enemies from using GPS for precision military tracking
>purposes?
Yes, that is true. But of course you can use the (ex?) enemies' system,
which does not have that problem.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:26:04 -0500
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: Will a GPS provide continuous, accurate altitude measurements?
Gary Coffman wrote:
Thanks Gary, for a very informative posting.
> Again it is
> obvious that the government sees its enemies as being its
> own citizens.
Well, that's perfectly predictable when the government is the
instrument used for denying the citizen's inalienable rights
guaranteed by The Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Yeah, right. Why did alcohol prohibition require a Constitutional
ammendment and the prohibition of marijuana doesn't?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:33:20 -0400
From: Ralph Mowery <rmowery@dialpoint.net>
Subject: Will a GPS provide continuous, accurate altitude measurements?
Yes it is. That is why it is only good for about 100 meters. The
military can do 10 meters or less. Not too sure what the differance
would be in the Atomic Bombs..hihi..
There are ways to find and calculate the offset for a given place if you
want to take the time.
W6RCecilA wrote:
>
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > The same is true of latitude and longitude.
>
> Is it true that there is a deliberate designed-in error to
> keep our enemies from using GPS for precision military tracking
> purposes?
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:08:17 -0700
From: "Jim Donohue" <jim_donohue@computer.org>
Subject: Will a GPS provide continuous, accurate altitude measurements?
Well it ain't all that bad - though I agree the basic idea of SA would seem
to be DOD dumb.
SA provides deliberate random motion that limits your position to 95% of the
time within a 100 meter circle. The actual experience would suggest a
modern receiver gets 95% within a 50 meter circle. Without SA it would be
about 15 or 20 meters.
Various groups including the Coast Guard and amateur radio provide digital
correction signals that can cut the error to 5 meters or so.
Various precision techniques can actual lower the error to cms or less.
The FAA program is to provide both en route navigation and precision landing
systems. These require both satellite corrections and the use of local
ground satellites that provide the accuracy neccessary for enroute or
precision approaches. The FAA requirements are not met by the existing
systems with or without SA. It is simply not sufficiently safe. It is the
ability to determine the safe operation of the system with very high
probability that is proving to be the difficult problem.
It is likely that the FAA wide area system will be available for civilian
use and will allow a few meter accuracy anywhere in the US or nearby with
standard receivers. You will however have to buy a new receiver
While there were supply problems during the Gulf war they have been pretty
well overcome and the troops are supplied with military GPSs. These are not
necessarily more accurate then civilian units but they are more bullet proof
and difficult to fool.
The Russian system is free of SA but consists of only 8 satellites at the
moment. It does not appear that the Russians have the will or the resources
to maintain it as a viable entry. There is some strong possibility of a
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_97D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
