TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

America's 'Gold Standard' GPS Risks Falling Behind Rival Systems

25 点作者 julienchastang超过 1 年前

4 条评论

mike_d超过 1 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;MxmE7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;MxmE7</a>
Rebelgecko超过 1 年前
Article doesn&#x27;t make sense to me. It spends time on silly stats like # of total sats per GNSS constellation, without saying why we should care.<p>They complain that even with the new signals, GPS still transmits on the same OG frequency it always has, but doesn&#x27;t say why that&#x27;s bad (it can&#x27;t be <i>that</i> bad of a frequency since Galileo chose to use the same one)<p>IMO GPS is the gold standard because it&#x27;s reliable. There&#x27;s been accuracy issues and other glitches, but I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s been any global outages in the last 50 years. Hell, just having no outages in the last decade already puts it ahead of Galileo and GLONASS.
morninglight超过 1 年前
This is what we are using -<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sparkfun.com&#x2F;products&#x2F;23088" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sparkfun.com&#x2F;products&#x2F;23088</a><p>..
评论 #37886776 未加载
评论 #37888017 未加载
cvccvroomvroom超过 1 年前
Lol. Okay. This article is shit and wrong.<p>GPS has had readily achieved kinematic (while moving) accuracy 10 mm horizontally and 1000 mm vertically since 2000 with a base station or good WAAS, and good constellation coverage (flat land), even before Clinton turned off SA (because base stations defeated it).<p>Cell phones use tower+GNSS triangulation, so accuracy and precision varies with tower coverage and satellite positions of the constellations.<p>In the 2000&#x27;s, farm and industrial equipment could accurately calculate machine angle using 2 GPS antennas. It&#x27;s only improved since then as things changed.<p>Besides numeric peeing contests, there is nothing substantive in this article, just vague, ignorant, rhetorical FUD.