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

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


You certainly are, and you certainly have.
Good Day.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
honestly op, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Some comments on the discussion:
- Satellites are real (I hope it was a troll to say they don't)
- Almost all professionals working with photographs use Photoshop to process the photos (correct contrast, brightness, etc...).

To get back to the topic, many modern mobile phones already use at least GPS, WiFi and cell reception together to get more accurate location. At least Android and IPhone, but probably all the others too by now.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn

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.



Uh, this is something that Apple and Google have had for quite a while. It's quite impressive to me.

My wi-fi only iPad can locate me pretty well when I'm in the city without any GPS.

That's because thousands of iPhone equipped people with GPS have driven nearby and
mapped out millions of wi-fi access ports.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Thought they used this system before the GPS Satellites were in place? Vor, TACAN, ILS, etc... Not to mention the old sextant.

I know some of the older USAF ACFT use the older systems along with GPS...true, I may be working on old as heck C-130's, but the old school stuff is just as good as the GPS stuff. (The Sextant is no longer required for C-130s and most acft have taken out Vor Requirements in training as well).

But your idea of using the old school techniques when a GPS signal is scrambled is a good one - don't think the current drones or new acft use anything other than GPS. A revisit to the old techniques for an 'ok' back-up is definitely needed.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Thought they used this system before the GPS Satellites were in place? Vor, TACAN, ILS, etc... Not to mention the old sextant.

I know some of the older USAF ACFT use the older systems along with GPS...true, I may be working on old as heck C-130's, but the old school stuff is just as good as the GPS stuff. (The Sextant is no longer required for C-130s and most acft have taken out Vor Requirements in training as well).

But your idea of using the old school techniques when a GPS signal is scrambled is a good one - don't think the current drones or new acft use anything other than GPS. A revisit to the old techniques for an 'ok' back-up is definitely needed.



Add to your list of older position-based systems LORAN and the DECCA Navigator System as well. The biggest advantages to GPS are availability, accuracy and physical size of the receiver+antenna. With a decent GPS setup, using DGPS (phase detection) you can have an accuracy of 1cm.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


I told the thread I personally talked to representitives of the cable, "satellite" and analog TV companies.
I asked them pointed questions and took my research from there.

I have no doubt that you did. Also, as shown by your propensity to deny realistic arguments against your foolish claims, I have no doubt that you ignored the answers of those representatives that didn't fit your preconceived notions, in the same way.

For the "most part", reception of radio waves depends on "line of sight" to the transmitter. This is why so many ground based (radio towers) and space based (satellites) relay stations are required for the reception that we take for granted today.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


If by op, you mean Allison Barrie, the writer of the article on fox news, then yes I agree. I think the original problem of the ATS op was getting scientific information from a fox news writer lol. She talks about wifi, cellphone, tv, gps, and radio signals like they are all different things, but really, they are all just radio waves.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


Oh PaperbackWriter, where to begin, where to begin. I think i'll just do this point by point. Firstly ALL gps, cellphones, satellite television, Radio, and wifi use radio waves to transmit information. They all use different and specific frequencies, but none the less, radio waves. And we do this by "modulating" the information we want to send, into these waves.



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.


They are spotty because we do not live in a vacuum. If reception is spotty it is due to a blocking of the signal, a weak signal, or a wave that has been naturally "modulated" due to its interaction with a variety of things in our environment, or the doppler effect. And once again, its not radio signals instead, its radio signals of varying wave lengths.



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.


I have already stated the various reasons that ANY radio frequency device, not just gps, would not work. You are only considering lack of signal strength in your assumption. And yes, GPS do use earth based towers as well to "triangulate" positions. Not angulate, not bi-angulate, but triangulate, meaning to calculate based on 3 or more points. And the frequencies used from those towers are not cell frequencies, they are the same designated gps frequencies shot out from the satellites.



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


First, that is not a satellite, that is a parabolic reflector, more commonly known as a dish. A satellite is an object in orbit. And your flip flopping back in forth between gps and satellite tv clearly shows a lack of understanding of your own ideas. Satellite television works slightly different than gps, it is shot from the earth, to the satellites and then to your receiver. And they are slanted because the earth is not upright, it is tilted, and as such, the satellites above us are angled as well.



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.


I don't understand what you are trying to ask. Radio waves CAN'T travel through mountains, and yes, because of this, it is a hindrance to ground based radio systems. What is your point? Please elaborate.



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.


I don't know where that number came from, but it is really actually not ridiculous at all to presume you need a 10,000+ mile vantage point to communicate with the 196,900,000 square mile entirety of the earth. The only ridiculousness i see is presuming towers would be able to communicate with each other across that distance. And thats really the reason for GLOBAL positioning anyway, sure we can achieve assistants and local positioning from ground based towers, but we wanted it to be GLOBAL, not continental. Another reason for their high altitude, they have to communicate AROUND the globe, not through it.



Thereby negating pinpoint accuracy of say a triangulation.


This is actually why GPS satellites have started sending out two frequencies for a single calculation. We can calculate the error using multiple data points.




If you are standing with a transponder in your backpack broadcasting a signal, how do you know if the signal

I am going to stop you there, i don't think you know what a transponder is. Tell me why you are using this transponder and for what and we can go from there.



Or simply bounce off the ionosphere and return to Earth?

What determines this?


The strength and trajectory of the signal.
edit on 3-12-2012 by twistedlogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 




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.


You have no idea how this stuff works do you? Your GPS does not send signals to the satellites. Each satellite (And ground based towers) have their identities concealed in the information your GPS receives. With this information, your device now knows which satellites it is receiving from. By calculating the time it took for that signal to reach YOU from the satellite, not you to the satellite, it can then calculate the precise location of your device as their will only be that one place on earth that is the proper distance away from all satellites you have received from.



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.


Come on now, lets use are reasoning skills. When you touch water how well can you feel it? When you touch the air around you, how much resistance does it put up? Now which of those two is going to cause more interference?



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


Firstly, no one has claimed it to be a perfect system. Science is progress, not perfection. Second, this is why we use MULTIPLE signals in GPS, so that we can calculate the errors.




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?


There is no back again as far as GPS goes, so umm... moving on.



Oh right. Rain scatters the signal but you turn around and exclaim that we are still "receiving" them from Voyager.


Voyager radio waves are being sent through and received in the vacuum of space, zero interference. next...




If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers?


Cell towers are local, not global, they send radio waves to a specific "cells" hence, cellular network.

I grow tired of reading your gibberish, if there is anything i didn't address or anything thats over your head, let me know and i will elaborate.
edit on 3-12-2012 by twistedlogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


Not sure if it's the same thing, but on the older H60's I've worked on - the GPS system was a modular component about the size of a loaf of bread (which was also it's nickname) and it took about 3 hrs for it to fully triangulate itself during it's op ck (think it was within cm's - can't remember). GPS is good and handy, but sometimes an older system is more bullet proof. Take vacuum tubes vs non-shielded transistor's - one can be defeated with an EMP style boom - the other cannot. Think the soviets even used old school stuff in their end-of-days bombers and fighters (until they figured out a way to shield the transistors).

GPS is good and easy (cheap too) - but sometimes we forget what was used 50 years ago and it becomes 'new' material when someone brings it up. What's the next topic - being able to build a supersonic, high flying, radar evading, ANS using super spy plane only using math and simple computers? By simple I mean ones that can do complex calculations (about the same as what you buy your kids for HS from chinamart) and a few slide calcs.

crazy rant follows:

Extreme high tech will someday be defeated by old school high tech.

Old will outlast new - check out passive radar vs regular radar. The older stuff can detect the modern stealth acft. Passive IR detection or passive turbulence will defeat most current stealth acft/drones.

Think this post was a tad off topic - but trying to keep on topic with the gps system being outdone by BAE's system (who also does work with the passive radar stuff).

-CN



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Old will outlast new - check out passive radar vs regular radar. The older stuff can detect the modern stealth acft. Passive IR detection or passive turbulence will defeat most current stealth acft/drones.


Not true anymore. It used to be long wave radar could occasionally get a return, but nowhere near good enough to target, or vector someone in. As for IR, there has been IR suppression on stealth aircraft from the beginning. It started with passive on the Nighthawks (ceramic brick like structures in the exhaust, and exhaust ports on the top of the wing venting up), and has moved to passive/active since. The B-2 used baffles, as well as classified technology to help mask the IR. It won't completely dissipate it, but it cuts the detection range down to where you would probably see it visually before your IR system sees it. Stealth technology is advancing faster than radar/IR systems right now.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I did mention crazy rant - but you are right. (Now with the extreme crazy rant/reply) But with BAE and others researching the older stuff, I see them being able to detect stealth acft heat signatures many miles out (with multiple outposts - the outposts would be passive so no signal is sent out for conventional armament to zero in on them). A series of low tech - passive IR systems (dotted along your boarder and throughout your country) would be able to triangulate a target and allow missiles to be launched. Low tech flak can also be deployed. Simple targeting computers can estimate the drone's target and toggle flack (or is it flak?) cannon to deploy their stuff (which is cheaper than sending a missile if they couldn't get a solid lock). Even using HAARP like devices to mimick a change in altitude so the drone would think it is too high - so it drops to it's programmed Alt, which can bring it within range of flak or crash into a MT.

The system could also play a net Marco polo game with it - jacking into the main signals used for these drones could be there downfall (I'm sure the drones would go into silent mode X miles out to minimize this). Even a starlight signal system could be deployed (way sci-fi/fantasy stuff) that a satellite or a high flying acft/drone would send out a pulse of a certain wave and receivers on the ground would be able to determine holes in the pulse - with detectors highly concentrated around targets of interest...

-CN (a tad bit buzzed CN)
edit on 4-12-2012 by ChuckNasty because: finished sentence....



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


Except that at the altitude they are operating at, the F-22 operates at 60,000 feet, there isn't an IR detector around that will detect them. At that altitude you could fly a normal plane through and an IR detector would have trouble with it. Even without the IR suppression systems the atmosphere would blot out most of the heat given off by an engine just with residual heat in the atmosphere.

Stealth systems are much farther along than people think. Five or six years ago (or more, the article with the date in it has been removed), they were working on visual stealth, and had moved into microwave and multifrequency systems.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The Germans have an IR system that could detect them...but they'd have to be up flying around and be pretty close under them...the F22 would have launched an air to air missile before the German could say bratwurst. The German acft isn't stealth...

I'm not against Merican Tech - but it is not flawless. The F22, all 23 of them, cannot outdo cheaper soviet acft. Some of the cheaper soviet acft will dominate an F22 in close range combat (notice the close range part, the F22 would have sent off missiles and not have even cared many miles out before the soviet was within their range).

When it comes to air superiority, the USA dominates.

The USA developed the GPS system that others use - I'm sure we can turn it off at will. It will be then that the low-tech solutions dev by companies like BAE will come to light...which if they used DoD monies to dev said solution, the DoD would be able to control them a bit... won't be better than GPS, but it would be available. But others would rely on the cheaper GPS - which would be a no-no if they were against us.

Good topic OP.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


In WVR the F-22 isn't really vulnerable, but it has its weaknesses. All aircraft do. In fact in its current incarnation, it has several at BVR ranges as well. But like you said, the mission is to stay out of WVR range, and snipe.

As for GPS, it has been turned off several times in various regions, and it can also be purposely attenuated, so the accuracy drops significantly, while our systems retain their accuracy.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Some people on here REFUSE to believe that GPS is a true and viable method of terrestrial guidance......i simply wanted to say that I REFUSE to argue with ignorance as it severely limits my potential. Come on dude. We ACTUALLY made it to the moon. GPS was a given. The military wanted it. They kept it choked down for years...then allowed it to be used by civilians once they had improved the technology. The PROBLEM with conspiracy sites is their tolerance of IDIOTS who pretend to show PROOF of concepts that they CANNOT even begin to understand. Show me a VERIFIABLE link to a GOVERNMENT sponsored website showing scans of official documents that can be further researched and PROVES that GPS is a false technology...THEN i may begin to research your mis-informed opinion and develop a response that you may begin to understand.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
While this BAE technology may be a useful supplemental technology it's not actually all that useful in the event of a disaster or militarily. Here's why:

One of the first things to go down in most disasters and military invasions is the power grid that keeps 90% of these radio emitters running effectively leaving your system with no waypoints to triangulate off of. Personally what i'd love to get my hands on is a GPS type system backed up by a digital INS (Inertial Navigation System). Especially if that INS was programmed in such a way as to generate a very large database of waypoints while the gps system is up and running that could then be used to keep the INS calibrated and accurate in the event of the system going down.

This could potentially give you a very accurate map of the areas you frequent most often and with a secondary Peer to Peer waypoint sharing service setup online you could potentially map out billions of waypoints over large geographic areas giving you an unprecedented ability to navigate even in grid down or other catastrophic scenarios.

Which is why you will never see said Inertial Navigation Systems integrated into consumer grade technology even though a gutted Wii controller and a hacked kinect would give 95% of the parts and probably close to 80% of the firmware you'd need to construct said devices.

Just some food for thought





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join