NavList:

   

Reply

I've never thought that CN was a real world back up and do not need that for a 
rationale. For me it is an interesting hobby and  traditional skill. That is 
justification enough to keep it going. How many keen amateur astronomers are 
doing it for any practical purpose other than enjoyment? Sailing a yacht is 
not a very useful, efficient or necessary  mode of  transport. We do it for 
fun. Modern humans need to have fun to survive happily. That is my rationale. 
Trying to sell CN as a realistic back up to young navigators is unlikely to 
succeed. They don't believe it.(nor do I). Selling it as a great hobby and 
traditional skill set, like many over sailing activities , may well help keep 
it going. My kids love it. They also love fishing with rod and line. Not 
because they need to feed a survival family. Just for fun and the occasional 
fresh grilled bass! Have fun now, it is later than you think.
Francis

-----Original Message-----
From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of Brad Morris
Sent: 30 September 2018 23:46
To: francis@pharmout.co.uk
Subject: [NavList] Re: Susceptibility of GPS to CME, Rationale for CN?

David,

The Carrington Event of 1859 was the largest solar event in the last 500
years, according to one of the articles.  The next largest event was less
than 1/2 the magnitude.  Several other recent events were mentioned.  One
of those recent events produced an outage in GNSS lasting 10 minutes.

Your point regarding cloud cover does play very strongly into this
discussion.  Relying upon CN as a backup is only useful when it can provide
a fix.  I would further suggest the *duration* of the outage also may
preclude the use of CN as a backup.  If the event duration is less than the
time during which we can get an AM or PM fix, then CN didn't serve as a
backup.  Having an occluded sky permits the GNSS outage to last longer
before CN can be a backup.

While it would be fantastic to have an independent backup, nothing but CN
provides 100% world coverage.  eLoran isn't going to provide anywhere near
that level of global coverage. To your point, CN provides sporadic data,
orders of magnitude less frequent than GNSS.  Cloud cover impacts the
frequency.

My objective these past few weeks has been to find a rationale for CN.  I
have been poking at every possible cause I can think of to provide a case
for CN, looking for failure modes in the GNSS system.  This latest line of
questions with Dr. Langley has shown, to my opinion anyway, that we cannot
hang that rationale on a solar event.  Suggesting that a mariner prepare
and practice CN for a 'once in 500 year' event is a bridge too far.  The
more recent events provided in the recommended articles suggest that CN
will not be the backup, again, in my opinion.  Outages lasting 10 minutes
or providing small fix errors due to propagation delays will never provide
a reasonable rationale for CN.  In my view, solar events are a dead end.  I
was hoping Dr. Langley, with his far better understanding of the GNSS
system, would concur on those points.

I absolutely understand that rendering an opinion that CN is not a backup
for GNSS is heresy.  We are a CN group.  The statement is contrary to our
purpose.  If we wish to really preserve CN, then we need to come up with a
rationale that CN is a backup because ...[ *please fill in this blank* ].

As our group euphemistically 'ages out of the system', the count of
practitioners of CN will approach 0.  Of course, the mandated licensing
requirements will keep CN alive on life support, but these aren't
practitioners.  The bulk of them study to pass the exam, then put the book
away.

Brad













On Sun, Sep 30, 2018, 3:03 PM David Pike  wrote:

> *Brad you wrote: "Given your (meaning Dr. Langley's) knowledge of the GNSS
> system and its susceptibility to solar events, is celestial navigation a
> prudent backup to GPS navigation if a solar event occurs?" *
>
> Brad
>
> I don’t think you can suggest alternates to cover the extremely remote
> possibility of World wide temporary failure of all GNSS systems without
> first looking at the reliability of the suggested alternative itself.  In
> the case of CN, before even looking at accuracy, we need to look at
> availability.  For most people operating at the Earth’s surface, the
> probability of the sky being obscured by cloud (as it is for me right now)
> must be many orders greater than the possibility of GNSS being
> unavailable.  Don’t we read in the maritime classics of vessels standing
> into danger because of the Sun being obscured for days at a time?  The
> situation was different for aircraft flying above the troposphere where CN
> was available most of the time and in mid-ocean was of comparative accuracy
> with existing systems well into the 1980s.  Have an alternative to GNSS
> by all means, but choose one which will be viable to most users most of the
> time, not just in choice locations like the Arizona Desert or with star
> trackers which can work though cloud.  A good question to ask in this
> particular situation is how might e-Loran be affected by intense solar
> events?  DaveP
>
> 
> 
>


: 
http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx/Susceptibility-GPS-CME-Rationale-for-CN-Morris-sep-2018-g42945

   

Reply