Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Better than GPS? BAE navigator uses Wi-Fi, radio signals

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Navigation via Signals of Opportunity (NAVSOP)




In BAE’s system, everyday signals like TV, Wi-Fi, radio or cell phone are used to triangulate the location of a person or vehicle. NAVSOP gets the position exact within several feet with this signal-scavenging approach. It uses all sorts of other signals as well, from GPS satellite to air traffic control. The system can even learn and evolve by taking signals that were originally unidentified and using them to build increasingly reliable and more exact fixes on location.

Source

This pretty freakin cool, also a little bit disturbing considering what else a system like this could lead to. Not to mention the main use it is going to be put to, namely UAV and missile guidance systems. Still, I can see uses for it in search and rescue operations.


Because Navsop uses a number of signals (sometimes hundreds, depending on your location), it's resistant to jamming devices. In fact, in certain situations, it can even use the signal from a GPS jammer as one of its location beacons. It also shrugs off spoofing, where a bogus signal tricks a device into misidentifying its location.

Wired article from June

Nevertheless, I'm excited about getting this eventually for my car or phone. I am frequently going places where maps are less than useful and GPS and Cell signals are spotty at best.

More technological advances, we can whine and cry about it all we want, but it's not going to do any good. Might as well hop on the train.

I am still waiting for my damned laser gun.

Baesystems.com




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Why would cell and GPS service ever be "spotty" if they are truly linked by satellites that "blanket" the Earth?
This does not surprise me that they would say that they can use "radio signals" instead.

I was just writing about this on the Iridium thread.
They have always used radio signals.

The thought is that whether analog or digital that they still both utilize radio waves that bounce off the Ionosphere.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


I'm no expert, I am sure there are plenty of people on here that are more knowledgeable about this stuff than me.

But I have been in large underground parking garages, cities with lots of tall buildings, tunnels and vast stretches of nowhere. There have been many many times where I have just been roaming around lost trying to find where I needed to be, with no signal.

And I don't take a compass with me everywhere I go.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Let's just say that if there were satellites above that relayed signals over the Earth your GPS should have worked.
But, since we know they rely on relay cell towers and you weren't near one that that would account for lack of signal.

Why would "cable TV" signals that allegedly receive satellite signals be interfered with by mere rain and cloud
cover?

Why do satellites in general when attached to homes face out instead of up?
Because they are using Earth bound relay systems.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Why would cell and GPS service ever be "spotty" if they are truly linked by satellites that "blanket" the Earth?
This does not surprise me that they would say that they can use "radio signals" instead.
Those are different technologies. GPS is satellite, typical cell phone is not. Iridium has satellite phones but few people use them due to cost.

GPS signals will not go through buildings and mountains, so if you're in an area that has those features, they are able to block GPS signals which require line-of-sight.

Cell phone service is spotty in remote areas. You can pull up maps of cell phone coverage online from the various providers. Here's a T-mobile cell phone coverage map in North America, as an example:

www.t-mobile.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Here's a link to the thread that got pushed down page after a mass newbie invasion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If GPS were " satellite" based, why would the signal NEED to travel through mountains?
Mountains would only be a hindrance to ground based relay systems.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
It is somewhat ridiculous to watch people rejoice over unrestricted use of wireless technologies. Microwaves are a type of penetrating radiation which makes your nerves, your limbs, your DNA, etc. resonate at very high frequencies. Every technology has its downsides and harmful effects, but with wireless most people believe this trade-off is non-existent.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If GPS were " satellite" based, why would the signal NEED to travel through mountains?
Mountains would only be a hindrance to ground based relay systems.
Does this help?
About half the sky is blocked at his receiver.
At the floor of the canyon in places as much as 80-90% of the sky could be blocked.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 2-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not really, because there is more than half the sky that isn't.
If you base GPS as linked to a network of satellites ranged from 1000 to 30,000 miles above the Earth on average.
I, no longer believe this garbage. He would definitely be lacking since the GPS is really a ground based relay system that does not rely on the ridiculous need for a satellite to be say 28,000 miles above him.

However a mountain might get in the way of ionospheric relay with the signal only bouncing in limited directions.
Thereby negating pinpoint accuracy of say a triangulation.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Here's my central thesis question.

If you are standing with a transponder in your backpack broadcasting a signal, how do you know if the signal
will travel to a satellite 500 miles above you, 1000 miles above you, 10,000 miles above you, or 25,000 miles above you, then bend and return?

Or simply bounce off the ionosphere and return to Earth?

What determines this?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 

If you stand against a tall wall of flat rock it will block roughly half the sky. This is true regardless of the elevation of the satellite

If you mean he can access 185 degrees instead of 180 degrees, that much is probably true, since "half" was just an approximation.

If you don't think GPS is satellite technology, I don't know how to help you there. Every source says it is, except perhaps at the Flat Earth society, which most people don't consider a reliable source.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   


If GPS were " satellite" based


It is. No secret there What makes you think it may not be.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
Here's my central thesis question.

If you are standing with a transponder in your backpack broadcasting a signal, how do you know if the signal
will travel to a satellite 500 miles above you, 1000 miles above you, 10,000 miles above you, or 25,000 miles above you, then bend and return?

Or simply bounce off the ionosphere and return to Earth?

What determines this?


GPS sends signals to you, you have a receiver. Also the signal frequency will only be interrupted if something is "blocking" it, I.E rain, buildings, stronger signal.

Also note civilian GPS is 50x weaker than military grade GPS.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No you are wrong in that assumption.
No flat Earth society necessary to ask the questions.

It shouldn't matter how much of the sky is blocked if a satellite system is in effect.
Your transponder signal would travel to a satellite which would denote where below that particular signal eminated from by coordinates of latitude and longtitude.

Should it not? I mean some of the satellites cover an area as large as the contiguous US or so they say.
Can you answer the above post question?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
Here's my central thesis question.

If you are standing with a transponder in your backpack broadcasting a signal, how do you know if the signal
will travel to a satellite 500 miles above you, 1000 miles above you, 10,000 miles above you, or 25,000 miles above you, then bend and return?

Or simply bounce off the ionosphere and return to Earth?

What determines this?
If we are talking about GPS, the signal is coming from the GPS satellites.

This diagram may help to illustrate. It shows a hypothetical position on the Earth's surface, and how the different satellites pass above. They are all around the same altitude, around 12,600 mi (20,200km):

en.wikipedia.org...


As you see, everything is moving, the earth and the satellites.


Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
It shouldn't matter how much of the sky is blocked if a satellite system is in effect.
The reason it does, is you need more than one or two satellites for GPS to work. If you're at the floor of the canyon and can only find one satellite, GPS won't work. Ideally you'd like to have contact with at least 4 satellites to get a fix on your position and elevation. This is easiest to do if canyon walls aren't blocking some satellites from reaching your GPS unit.
edit on 2-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gunblaza
 


Rain blocking it? What about the Ionosphere which would lie between the signal relay?
That would seem to be a far greater stumbling block than mere rain.

Good heavens how effiecient a system could you develop that was thwarted by something as common as rain?

In any case, some of the satellites are alleged to be situated in the Exosphere.
How do you imagine those signals would be able to be maintained in a transit from Earth to
satellite and back again through the Ionoshere without completely being degenerated into useless
static?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Tsk. And yet you worry about a little mountain interfering with that?
It's such a nice graphic, too.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
Here's my central thesis question.

If you are standing with a transponder in your backpack broadcasting a signal, how do you know if the signal
will travel to a satellite 500 miles above you, 1000 miles above you, 10,000 miles above you, or 25,000 miles above you, then bend and return?

Or simply bounce off the ionosphere and return to Earth?

What determines this?
If we are talking about GPS, the signal is coming from the GPS satellites.

This diagram may help to illustrate. It shows a hypothetical position on the Earth's surface, and how the different satellites pass above. They are all around the same altitude, around 12,600 mi (20,200km):

en.wikipedia.org...


As you see, everything is moving, the earth and the satellites.
edit on 2-12-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Also do add on to this, GPS is based on triangulation.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


yes, The units are receivers, they do not transmit to the satellites.
edit on 12/2/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join