On 3/5/12 6:19 AM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
Poul-Henning wrote:
Thats why some people in the military is looking into a modern
more lightweight version of "Tactical Loran" for use when GPS is jammed.
That is a much easier thing -- our military/intelligence complex
(however oxymoronic that notion is) tries very hard to keep its
engagements well away from US soil, so (i) no regulatory approval is
required
As someone who deals with non-FCC regulatory approval on a fairly
frequent basis, I can tell you it's not quite that simple. If you're
the US government, you're regulated by NTIA, which works much like FCC
for licensing. You have to tell where and when and what sort of
emissions, where and when and what sort of receivers, get permission, etc.
And if you're planning on operating outside the US, that gets
coordinated via some ITU process.
This is a HUGE problem for the plethora of colleges, businesses, and
government labs and research institutions jumping on the nanosat and
cubesat bandwagon. Their operations don't really fit within the "amateur
radio" bucket, where licensing is fairly easy.
and (ii) the geographic area of the operating theater is
usually far smaller than the size of the US. So, we may very well see
the development of mobile beacons for military deployment in hostile
areas, but I very much doubt that we will ever see another terrestrial
beacon system in the US.
Perhaps not a unified one, but I can see a variety of proprietary or
private locating networks being set up. Surveyors already have high
accuracy reference networks. Some are state run, but others are run by
consortiums or private parties. 20 years ago, you used to be able to
subscribe to a private service that would give you differential
corrections for GPS via a FM broadcast subcarrier or pager.
_______________________________________________
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.
