3 ms·
I read that sentence as not meaning that there are no future applications of INS, but that its unlikely that any future application will need to be more accurat
by simplicio 5y ago
I read that sentence as not meaning that there are no future applications of INS, but that its unlikely that any future application will need to be more accurate then the AIRS.
So its unlikely anyone will put $ into trying to improve on it, even if it continues to be used.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoThe article says AIRS accuracy was not necessary back in the eighties for many applications. It's important to note they mean drift over time. When you have at least some sort of external reference, drift is much less of a problem to compensate or correct for.
- rkangel 5y ago> What I was trying to say was that governments have continued to invest millions of dollars in improving INS in the years since the AIRS was developed. The drift you need for days/weeks/months of navigation in a submarine is much much better than what you need for a few minutes of missile flights.