3 ms·
Define exactly what you mean by "a swarm of satellites"? Each satellite in a GPS style constellation (and I haven't looked into the details, but I believe that
by mandevil 3y ago
Define exactly what you mean by "a swarm of satellites"? Each satellite in a GPS style constellation (and I haven't looked into the details, but I believe that all of the major GPS competitors use the same technique- Galileo, GLONASS, Beidou) has its own atomic clock in space and really can only do satellite navigation stuff[1]. Generally speaking, in the medium altitude orbits preferred for this mission, 24 is minimum for world-wide network. Having some more of these specific, large satellites is good: it helps you have more of them in sight at any given moment anywhere in the world, which should give you better accuracy, though having them too close to each other doesn't really help that much, and it helps to have some in reserve so if there is a problem with one you can activate another and quickly fill the gap. According to wiki there are 31 GPS sats operational (plus four in orbit but on reserve), 31 (plus five in orbit but on reserve) Beidou, 23 operational Galileo, and 24 GLONASS operational. So you can see that all of the major operations are at about the same number of satellites for a traditional global satellite navigation system.
It might be possible to do a different technique and use a swarm of internet satellites: something like how the TRANSIT (aka NAVSAT) system could, in theory, provide navigation from satellite internet machines. In practice you'd need to know each member of the swarm's orbits very precisely to have sufficient accuracy with their Doppler shift, which means that you prefer station-keeping burns to be infrequent[2], and because they are in low orbit- lots of drag, so they need to regularly burn- that's harder to do (this is why the existing systems use medium orbits). Also, a TRANSIT style operation can't really give you turn-by-turn directions on your cellphone, it was about updating a very powerful submarine inertial guidance system with big honking mechanical gyroscopes every few days, the INS on your phone isn't nearly good enough to handle turn-by-turn directions with TRANSIT update rates.
1: Japan has their own Just Japan system, QZSS, which I have vague memories is different, but I don't remember enough to explain it.
2: The way these systems work, you can never really have more accuracy than you know the satellites location in space. In general, you want ground based systems to track and update orbital parameters after every satellite burn to get the necessary accuracy.
- Dalewyn 3y ago>1: Japan has their own Just Japan system, QZSS, which I have vague memories is different, but I don't remember enough to explain it. Japan's QZSS is complementary to America's GPS and also covers Australia and everywhere in-between due to its orbit. For generally practical purposes, it can be considered part of GPS. Any GPS receiver in range can receive its signals.
- mandevil 3y agoOn the receiver side, yeah. On the satellite side, I had vague memories they were weird when I wrote that. From some quick googling I think they are doing a trick with clock synchronization from ground stations to avoid needing an atomic clock in space, since over Japan and Australia they will always have LOS to a ground-station (which they can use in place of the atomic clock as the master time source for each satellite)[1]. At least, that's what the 2008 Ph.D thesis "Remote Synchronization Method for the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System: study of a novel satellite timekeeping system which does not require on-board atomic clocks"[2] suggests that they were doing. That was published before the QZSS system actually flew, so I still am not sure if they actually went that way or stuck with the conventional atomic-clocks-in-space approach. So maybe they are unique in not needing so much hardware in space, perhaps? 1: GPS, designed to deal with at least the opening stages of nuclear war, had as a design goal the ability to operate without ground stations at least for a while, and there are large swathes of the world that don't have suitable ground stations, so they had to go with the atomic-clocks-in-space route to provide global coverage. By focusing on just a small area and ignoring the 'must operate for several days during a nuclear war' case, QZSS maybe could get away with something cheaper. 2: https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/93862270-6598-4a9f-be97-db54ad62ef12/content https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/9386...