NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Dip-meter again
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2012 Apr 10, 16:25 -0400
From: Alexandre Eremenko
Date: 2012 Apr 10, 16:25 -0400
Gary, Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your "No" :-) Inertial system was also developed for submarine. But what I was discussing was the MISSLE GUIDANCE SYSTEM. Which according to Wikipedia was inertial. The submarine could use any navigation system, and I suppose inertial one was less accurate than Cel Nav. And that Transit was developed with the explicit purpose (or one of the purposes) to improve the missle submarine navigation. Again, I learn this from the Wikipedia article). So apparently inertial nav for a submarine, was not sufficient. Alex. On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gary LaPook wrote: > > No, the INS was for the submarine and came in, I believe, in the late '50s, for some reason 1957 sticks in my head. > > Also there were other electronic systems that provided accurate navigation. LORAN-A, since WW2, LORAN-C in the '70s, and OMEGA. > > gl > > --- On Tue, 4/10/12, Alexandre E Eremenkowrote: > > From: Alexandre E Eremenko > Subject: [NavList] Re: Dip-meter again > To: NavList@fer3.com > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 11:52 AM > > > Fred, > > I suppose that when speaking of "inertial nav" as a guidance system, > they mean the nav of the missile itself, not of the submarine. > > To use an inertiale nav in the missle one needs the position > of the starting point. This is what Sat nav was for. > > Now we see Shufeldt's report in new light:-) > The reaseach was made in 1957-1961 :-) > And then classified. > Exactly at the time when they developed the Polaris A-1 missile... > > When Transit became available, they declassified the Shufeldt report. > > So now we know what "Precision Cel nav" was really for:-) > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > : http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=118913 > > >