On Fri, 22 May 2009, Attila Csipa wrote: > On Friday 22 May 2009 03:48:44 Andrew Daviel wrote: > > "It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new > > satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption." > > Considering they're matching all the stuff to fiscal years, I'd say this > sounds more like a call to improve/preserve their budget situation in the > current economic climate, rather than a technical issue. > > Glonass doesn't really come into the story as the article is not about LOSS of > gps capability, just precision/lock time degradation. There are methods of > improving this anyway by making more sensitive/accurate > equipment/calculations. GPS became ubiquitous as you could get a reasonable > reasonable quality fix with dirt cheap components. Adding a GLONASS into the > mix would drastically increase cost, so unless you already have a need for > civilian very high precision positioning (or you live really high up North as > some of our Scandinavian friends :), I couldn't really justify it. AFAIK > Galileo (if it was anywhere near operational) would be a better match as the > tech aspect is more similar to GPS so it could be easily adapted for > dual-receiving purpose. Maybe this announcement will give the project a > little boost :) > I concur, but ... Glonass is up, Galileo is not. Integratig the data is not so difficult (it was already done). The single chip is harder. It would require really good software based radio. It -can- be done, but there is little commercial interest. I think it would be awesome to have my car park itself in the garage, as I'd stop loosing mirrors :-) julius _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
