3 ms·

You still need an accurate clock even if you can use a view of the sky, right? Not sure the best way that could work. Could accept optional updates to time via

You still need an accurate clock even if you can use a view of the sky, right? Not sure the best way that could work. Could accept optional updates to time via GPS? Would this potentially work during the day, or do you need to be able to see stars? If you can see the Sun I guess that should be good enough, if the sensor can even handle that without clipping to hell? Do you also have to be able to accurately measure angle to the horizon too? I'm not all that familiar with celestial navigation in practice.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
So most of my research is historical (military hardware [1]) and amateur. Building my own attempt has been on my TODO list for sometime. Assume I would use something like a CSAC (chip scale atomic clock) for local high accuracy, high stability timekeeping (and for my purposes, it's probably okay to cheat and fallback to GPS to get a PPS time update occasionally). It's my understanding that existing celestial navigation systems can discern stars even during daylight, but as I mentioned, I haven't tried it yet (although when you can detect celestial markers, accuracy can be as good as ~20 meters with a fix provided in sub 30 seconds based on state of the art). To me, there's something profound about the idea of locating yourself in 3D space using light from stars light years away. GPS is great, but the universe is inherently providing beacons (not just stars, but also pulsars [2]) for positioning and guidance. That's very cool! [1] https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics-nas-14v2-astroinertial-navigation-system https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics... (Nortronics NAS-14V2 Astroinertial Navigation System: Mounted behind the SR-71’s cockpit, this unit, affectionately known as “R2-D2,” computed navigational fixes using stars sighted through the lens in the top of the unit. These fixes were used to update the inertial navigation system and provided course guidance with an accuracy of at least 90 meters (300 feet). Some current aircraft and missile systems use improved versions as a backup to GPS.") [2] https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/iss-utilization-nicer-sexta-1 https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missio... (ISS Utilization: NICER/SEXTANT) (I have not acquired nor reversed engineering any military grade celestial navigation equipment or systems, please don't sic ITAR on me)
loonster 5y ago
The sun is only 1 point of reference. You would want at least 3 to know exactly where you are. I suppose a built in compass would be a 2nd. With two points that should narrow down the position to two possible locations (with rather large uncertainty). Edit: thinking about it further knowing north would reduce it down to 1 point. You also need to know where you are in the world to know which way magnetic north is pointing. It would be 1 very fuzzy spot.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Yeah, you're sort of assuming a generic geometric solution, when we already know how to simplify a lot of the math/ reduce the unknowns. If you find Polaris, you have both a vector to north and an angle to calculate latitude. No other info needed for that. So you only need 1 overhead star plus a clock to figure out approx longitude. Magnetic north is only useful if you need help finding Polaris.
  - loonster 5y ago
    During the day, can you see polaris? If you only have the sun as a reference you will need a 2nd reference to know where you are. Magnetic north would be easily available. For celestial objects, The math is rather simple. It is the intersection of 2 circles. The refence between the two objects would resolve which intersection is the correct one. For magnetic north and 1 celestial object, the math is much more complex. Magnetic declination changes depending on where you are. You have to know roughly where you are before you start using it.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      You can see Polaris with the right equipment, meaning an eye adjusted to darkness, and a filter on your optics. It's always above the horizon in the Northern hemisphere, even during the day. (Same goes for the Southern cross in the Southern hemisphere.) Polaris is important because it doesn't move, relative to the rest of the sky rotating around it. You measure the angle from Polaris to geodetic "up" and that's the complimentary angle to your latitude. There is no complex math, just 90-x=y If you have the time in London, and can observe the sun at its peak (solar noon) then you have longitude (after converting hours to degrees, and keeping minutes and seconds). Or with an almanac, you can measure pretty much any known ID'd star or the sun at any time, and look up longitude from that. Reinventing the wheel isn't needed, it's been the same process for centuries.
beerandt 5y ago
You'd either need to know your starting location, or have a clock synced with a known observatory, (which in combination with an overhead observation, is just another way to determine your approximate starting location). You don't measure angle to the horizon, but angle from gravitational/geodetic "up", so you'd need probably a good leveling mechanism plus an inertial device, (if you want to be moving). And a reference to correct geodetic up to elliptical up (similar to a magnetic declination, but for gravity). But even military quality geodetic transits can only get your longitude +/-100yds, plus they weigh a few hundred pounds, need to be manually set up, leveled, and a person has to do the actual observation (click a button as a star passes through the crosshair). Granted this is decades old technology, (and I think actually used a electronic-mechanical computer) but I don't know that much has changed since then, at least in the unclassified world. I believe ships at sea doing it manually with a sextant or similar device are only going for accuracy in the magnitude of 1-10 nautical miles. So depending on what you're trying to do, it's questionable how much this might help you.
tzs 5y ago
> You still need an accurate clock even if you can use a view of the sky, right? Yup. In the 18th century figuring out a way to get accurate enough time at sea to allow accurate navigation was one of the most pressing problems for the various countries trying to establish themselves as major players in the New World. Whichever country figured it out first would gain a significant military and economic advantage for as long as they could keep it secret. An excellent book about this is "Longitude" by Dava Sobel [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)

toomuchtodo 5y ago

So most of my research is historical (military hardware [1]) and amateur. Building my own attempt has been on my TODO list for sometime. Assume I would use something like a CSAC (chip scale atomic clock) for local high accuracy, high stability timekeeping (and for my purposes, it's probably okay to cheat and fallback to GPS to get a PPS time update occasionally). It's my understanding that existing celestial navigation systems can discern stars even during daylight, but as I mentioned, I haven't tried it yet (although when you can detect celestial markers, accuracy can be as good as ~20 meters with a fix provided in sub 30 seconds based on state of the art). To me, there's something profound about the idea of locating yourself in 3D space using light from stars light years away. GPS is great, but the universe is inherently providing beacons (not just stars, but also pulsars [2]) for positioning and guidance. That's very cool! [1] https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics-nas-14v2-astroinertial-navigation-system https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/nortronics... (Nortronics NAS-14V2 Astroinertial Navigation System: Mounted behind the SR-71’s cockpit, this unit, affectionately known as “R2-D2,” computed navigational fixes using stars sighted through the lens in the top of the unit. These fixes were used to update the inertial navigation system and provided course guidance with an accuracy of at least 90 meters (300 feet). Some current aircraft and missile systems use improved versions as a backup to GPS.") [2] https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/iss-utilization-nicer-sexta-1 https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missio... (ISS Utilization: NICER/SEXTANT) (I have not acquired nor reversed engineering any military grade celestial navigation equipment or systems, please don't sic ITAR on me)

loonster 5y ago

The sun is only 1 point of reference. You would want at least 3 to know exactly where you are. I suppose a built in compass would be a 2nd. With two points that should narrow down the position to two possible locations (with rather large uncertainty). Edit: thinking about it further knowing north would reduce it down to 1 point. You also need to know where you are in the world to know which way magnetic north is pointing. It would be 1 very fuzzy spot.

beerandt 5y ago
Yeah, you're sort of assuming a generic geometric solution, when we already know how to simplify a lot of the math/ reduce the unknowns. If you find Polaris, you have both a vector to north and an angle to calculate latitude. No other info needed for that. So you only need 1 overhead star plus a clock to figure out approx longitude. Magnetic north is only useful if you need help finding Polaris.
- loonster 5y ago
  During the day, can you see polaris? If you only have the sun as a reference you will need a 2nd reference to know where you are. Magnetic north would be easily available. For celestial objects, The math is rather simple. It is the intersection of 2 circles. The refence between the two objects would resolve which intersection is the correct one. For magnetic north and 1 celestial object, the math is much more complex. Magnetic declination changes depending on where you are. You have to know roughly where you are before you start using it.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    You can see Polaris with the right equipment, meaning an eye adjusted to darkness, and a filter on your optics. It's always above the horizon in the Northern hemisphere, even during the day. (Same goes for the Southern cross in the Southern hemisphere.) Polaris is important because it doesn't move, relative to the rest of the sky rotating around it. You measure the angle from Polaris to geodetic "up" and that's the complimentary angle to your latitude. There is no complex math, just 90-x=y If you have the time in London, and can observe the sun at its peak (solar noon) then you have longitude (after converting hours to degrees, and keeping minutes and seconds). Or with an almanac, you can measure pretty much any known ID'd star or the sun at any time, and look up longitude from that. Reinventing the wheel isn't needed, it's been the same process for centuries.

beerandt 5y ago

You'd either need to know your starting location, or have a clock synced with a known observatory, (which in combination with an overhead observation, is just another way to determine your approximate starting location). You don't measure angle to the horizon, but angle from gravitational/geodetic "up", so you'd need probably a good leveling mechanism plus an inertial device, (if you want to be moving). And a reference to correct geodetic up to elliptical up (similar to a magnetic declination, but for gravity). But even military quality geodetic transits can only get your longitude +/-100yds, plus they weigh a few hundred pounds, need to be manually set up, leveled, and a person has to do the actual observation (click a button as a star passes through the crosshair). Granted this is decades old technology, (and I think actually used a electronic-mechanical computer) but I don't know that much has changed since then, at least in the unclassified world. I believe ships at sea doing it manually with a sextant or similar device are only going for accuracy in the magnitude of 1-10 nautical miles. So depending on what you're trying to do, it's questionable how much this might help you.

tzs 5y ago

> You still need an accurate clock even if you can use a view of the sky, right? Yup. In the 18th century figuring out a way to get accurate enough time at sea to allow accurate navigation was one of the most pressing problems for the various countries trying to establish themselves as major players in the New World. Whichever country figured it out first would gain a significant military and economic advantage for as long as they could keep it secret. An excellent book about this is "Longitude" by Dava Sobel [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)