[time-nuts] Loran in the US

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <F5C81892-7EBD-4F57-8131-59D8EEE21330 at rtty.us>, Bob Camp writes:

>You still come back to what killer Loran-C in the first place -
>Who is going to use it?

No, I don't particularly think Loran-C is a "killer", but until recently
it was the only feasilble backup for fragile GNSS signals.

>Until somebody shuts down GPS in a big way, not a lot of drive for
>an alternative.

I agree, but that doesn't make it sensible thinking :-)

I think the LightSquared fiasco made some people realize how many
eggs they put in one basket, and I'm sure the Loran-C tests needs
to be seen in that context.

But that doesn't make them a good idea: Resurrecting LORAN-C now
will never make it an economical backup to GNSS.

Instead of insisting on keeping an on-air format optimised for
staring at 1950-vintage oscilloscopes, what we need is a VLF system,
in sub/low kW power-range, based on spread-spectrum technology, with a
data-channel so receivers don't have to have a hard coded list
of all transmitters.

That would make roll-out a matter not for governments, but for
airports, harbours and other interested parties, like for instance
DME.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.