In message <f5c81892-7ebd-4f57-8131-59d8eee21...@rtty.us>, Bob Camp writes:
>You still come back to what killer Loran-C in the first place - >Who is going to use it? No, I don't particularly think Loran-C is a "killer", but until recently it was the only feasilble backup for fragile GNSS signals. >Until somebody shuts down GPS in a big way, not a lot of drive for >an alternative. I agree, but that doesn't make it sensible thinking :-) I think the LightSquared fiasco made some people realize how many eggs they put in one basket, and I'm sure the Loran-C tests needs to be seen in that context. But that doesn't make them a good idea: Resurrecting LORAN-C now will never make it an economical backup to GNSS. Instead of insisting on keeping an on-air format optimised for staring at 1950-vintage oscilloscopes, what we need is a VLF system, in sub/low kW power-range, based on spread-spectrum technology, with a data-channel so receivers don't have to have a hard coded list of all transmitters. That would make roll-out a matter not for governments, but for airports, harbours and other interested parties, like for instance DME. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
