Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wonder if GPS and the like will be used more for their clock features than for position. The emissions celestial bodies are perfect fiducial markers [0,1], but connecting them to position still requires accurate timekeeping [2], as the paper notes:

Provided the use of an accurate clock, the results presented in this paper will not degrade over time.

0. https://www.twz.com/17207/sr-71s-r2-d2-could-be-the-key-to-w...

1. https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics...

2. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/harrisons-clocks-longit...



They are perfect markers only as long as you can see them. Clouds and fog are your enemies here


That. However that works just fine for ICBMs and the like…

The future is more likely to be quantum accelerometers and quantum gyroscopes, as they have no “external dependency”.


More likely image-based navigation, where you just upload the entire imagery of the route and then use it to correct your inertial references.

Encrypted positioning information from low-orbit satellites is another option.


That doesn't work well in some conditions, it's not new either. Some cruise missiles that have TFR (Terrain-following radar) and actually do this already.

It also is not really applicable when you are on a balistic course at *very* high altitude, course correction has to happen early in these case given the reentry speed/constraints.


I presume radio signal or certain frequencies of thermal would be viable for adverse weather conditions.


The frequencies used in GPS: Yes. The frequencies used for celestial nav: No.


I guess timekeeping is relatively easy? These systems would only operate independently for a few hours tops. I would imagine even a standard quartz movement would be accurate enough.


Depends on what you're using time for. If you are doing advanced anti-jamming for comms for instance, you want extremely accurate timing (more accurate means you can frequency hop faster and do better anti-jamming).


> I guess timekeeping is relatively easy...... would imagine even a standard quartz movement would be accurate enough.

Good Lord! How wrong can you get!

Very precise timing (often taken from GNSS for convenience) is needed for much of the modern word, from IP, cellular and DAB networks, to AC phase matching the electrical mains grid. Quartz clocks are nowhere near accurate enough for these purposes.

This government report makes very sobering reading: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/satellite-derived...

TLDR: Our dependence on GNSS for timing almost dwarfs that for navigation. And we urgently need to consider using backups (be that local atomic clocks, or long wave time signals).


In the context of position keeping I think it's not too bad.

If we focus on longitude, where timing I guess matters more, the equator moves at a speed of about 0.46 km/s. So I guess being out by 1 second translates to precisely 0.46km error. That's second order compared to the stated error of 4 km, and it will be smaller still away from the equator.

I'm working off the assumption that such a drone can sync up to an accurate time source at launch, and then only needs maintain good timekeeping for its time in the air. I guess without the accurate initial time source, it gets bad. Being a minute out is suddenly 30km of latitude direction away.


Plus I think most decent quartz oscillators have a drift measured in single-digit PPM (or less) so even 100ms error over a single sortie would be surprising.


> Our dependence on GNSS for timing almost dwarfs that for navigation.

Galileo satellites also now sign the timestamp (IIRC) via a Merkle tree so you know it isn't spoofed.


I mean, considering celestial navigation was a thing long before we had accurate clocks… I’d venture they aren’t wrong at all. Or did you forget that people have been doing celestial navigation by hand for over two millennia?


Celestial navigation actually drove the development of accurate clocks

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/navigating-at-sea/longitude...

Quartz clocks didn't overtake chronometers in terms of accuracy until the mid 20th century, and chronometers will still beat regular crystals like you'd find in cheap electronics.


> Celestial navigation actually drove the development of accurate clocks

That's true, but that still doesn't change the fact that you don't need nanosecond precision for this purpose. At the equator, 1 second precision gives you roughly 500m accuracy, which is already much higher than what the celestial imagery allows here (4km in the paper).

Clearly this method isn't limited by clock accuracy at all.


1 second precision is a lot. A typical quartz resonator will drift by about .5 seconds per day at ambient conditions. In this paper they set the clock with GPS right before flight and they only fly for a few hours, so it's tolerable. But in a GPS denied environment where you can't set the clock right before flight, ie exactly where you are using this instead of gps, clock accuracy will become the dominant factor affecting your accuracy after a few days.


> But in a GPS denied environment where you can't set the clock right before flight

First of all I don't think the use-case involves the drones operators being deprived of GPS, but even if they were: you don't need GPS to get sub-second accurate time, any internet connection will do it thanks to NTP. Sure it's not as accurate as GPS, but it's still way more accurate than what you need for this to work. Heck, even sharing time through a phone call would work well enough.


Some clueless downvoting here!


The clock accuracy required for celestial navigation is on the order of seconds, not microseconds.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: