Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Is National Differential GPS Lost? 109

Nealix writes, "This article at GPSWorld reports that National Differential GPS (NDGPS) is endangered in the 2007 budget. This has ramifications for a variety of government programs such as the Intelligent Transportation System and Positive Train Control by the Department of Transportation. Blind people and robots also benefit from highly accurate GPS navigational capability provided by NDGPS, which appears to work better in the urban canyons. If NDGPS loses, the winner would appear to be the FAA-backed Wide Area Augmentation Service (WAAS). Of course, what would be really cool is to see more GPS sites around the country make DGPS data (RTCM) available over the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is National Differential GPS Lost?

Comments Filter:
  • by Jurisenpai ( 261790 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:32PM (#16046869) Homepage
    I personally *hate* using the NDGPS (beacon) real-time corrections. We only have two reference stations in my state and neither are worth a damn in my city. I work as for a major GPS company, and though we do sell beacon receivers quite briskly, I hate using them.

    I much prefer using WAAS for real-time, especially after the two new satellites are up and fully functional. I do post-process most of my data, however, so the CORS stations work just fine for my needs.
  • You jest about this, but I think this is a problem.
    The problem facing NDGPS today, in my opinion, is the lack of a 'killer app.' In other words it's a neat tool and serves hundreds (if not thousands) of people on a daily basis, but if it disappeared tomorrow, life would go on. Therefore, when it comes to cutting the budget during tight times, programs like NDGPS are prime targets.
    I disagree. The fact that you demand it have a "killer app" instead of clean functionality tells me that you lack sound judgement on this service. It's a service for locating yourself. We put green & blue information plaques by the sides of roads that tell you where you are. They're called 'road signs.' It probably costs more than $10 million a year to maintain them. I, for one, would like a public service that keeps me informed as to where I am.

    Now you're telling me that we can't afford to clip another $10 million off the Defense budget [wikipedia.org] and give it to this service (which may, arguably, help the coast guard in defending our shores)? Come on, we spend way more on military than any other country. It's good to maintain military superiority but do we really need it when you look at that chart? The next highest is China with maybe an 1/8th as much spending as we do. Give me a break!

    There's no way anyone can justify cutting the spending on this program given what we've invested in it and how useful it is. When you look at where the rest of our spending goes, $10 million is nothing. No one can complain that the cost versus potential utility of this thing isn't high enough.
  • by lohphat ( 521572 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:38PM (#16046919)
    Think about the implications if WAAS (and soon-to-arrive LAAS) is decommissioned -- the FAA has already issued WAAS-based LPV approach plates for IFR ops. Switching to another system would cause a huge momentum change in a critical sector of the safe operation of our airways.

    The FAA upset thousands of pilots when they pulled the plug on TIS (Traffic Information Service) when approach radars (ASR 9 to ASR11) were upgraded and their investment in TIS equipment was obviated -- the one they chose, ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) provides more data and is more scalable. Essentially instead of using radars and transponder return codes to figure out who's who, let the aircraft broadcast their position s constantly without having to wait for a radara sweep. But I digress.

    Same with these conflicting solutions -- one my be "better" in terms of feature set but the other has momentum. MP3 vs OGG anyone? Beta vs VHS?

    I'd rather have a standard augmented data-channel and ground based "satellites" to allow my portable GPS to function in the skyscraper canyons and provide local traffic and business lookups so that I don't need to subscribe to CD/DVD updates when the data could just be real-time.
  • by ronanbear ( 924575 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @04:31PM (#16047331)
    If it's only $10m then maybe the companies that sell GPS systems would pay for it themselves if they care that much about it. It's fair that companies wouldn't be able to fund GPS in its entirety but customers that want extra accuracy should be willing to pay for it.

    SA wasn't a big deal to yachtmen as it was accurate enough. It was a much bigger deal for car navigation systems (think parallel roads 50 yards apart and chaos at junctions).

    A few days after SA was turned off I went for a walk and the track of my walk showed that I walked down one side of the road and back the other. That's the difference it made and there are plenty of uses of GPS which don't require that (or more accuracy). Some (especially GPS based surveying) require far greater accuracy than even DGPS/WAAS can provide.

  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @04:34PM (#16047351) Journal
    Oh, please. I think Libertarians are completely goofy, but this is just too easy. As long as you're a Libertarian who believes in initiation of force to protect intellectual property laws. Of which there are tons. Personally, I don't see how they wrap their heads around that without them exploding, but it works for them.

    The problem, of course, is that the GPS broadcasts are a public good, so how do protect that, in order to charge for it? Encryption? If people get their hands on your device, they can break the encryption. It all boils down to giving a government enforced monopoly on using the broadcasts to the people who put the satellites up. Otherwise, the people putting up the satellites could never recoup their initial investments, as anyone could make a receiver and not have to pay the people putting them up.

    But as I mentioned, plenty of Libertarians can quite easily wrap their heads around the paradox of enforced ownership of intellectual property. It all comes from a very flexible definition of "initiation of force." Basically, any use of force a libertarian doesn't like is "initiation of force," while anything else is "retaliatory force" which is, of course, justified as YOUR NATURAL RIGHT!

    See, in order to troll successfully, you have to have an understanding, nay, even a love for that which you troll. You have to care enough about your subject to actually get inside and find out what makes 'em tick, what are their foibles, paradoxes and hot buttons.

    So, any Libertarians out there want to respond to a self proclaimed troll and tell me how you would do it without intellectual property protections? I mean, if you thought protection of real property took a lot of state sponsored violence, imagine how much state sponsored violence is necessary for the protection of imaginary property? Come on, you guys are smart, I mean, it's not like you just memorize your party dogma and can't answer simple questions that fall outside the bounds of official, party sponsored reasoning, is it?

    Happy Troll Tuesday!

    P.S. As much as I think the vast majority of Libertarians are goofy, I've had conversations with some here who are probably smart enough to figure out how to do this, so even if no one responds, that doesn't mean all libertarians are dogma spouting mouth breathers who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. Some would manage to deduce that ripping open the bag was not in fact initiation of force, as the bag was depriving them of their natural right not to be in a paper bag.
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @04:36PM (#16047376)
    Because thats what my Garmin GPS uses. It (and I) have never heard of NDGPS so I hope WAAS doesn't get phased out. given that it also makes sennse to have a single standard, it makes sense to me for NDGPS to go away.
  • Re:Of Course! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skroz ( 7870 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @05:28PM (#16047855) Homepage
    Sure, out in the middle of a cornfield in Kansas, you might not care about DGPS, but in that case you often have eight or ten satellites available and an accuracy of perhaps 15 feet. Not in the middle of the city.


    Not true. In the middl of a cornfield in Knasas, where farm machinery is uften automated and steered via GPS, extreme precision is critical. Non only that, but your sample rate is often much higher than the .5 to 1 Hz seen in most consumer GPS units.

    If your thresher (or whatever) is out in the field "threshing" you'll want to make sure that the individual rows it covers are even and as close together as possible. Too much overlap and you're wasting time and fuel. Without overlap you would miss "product."

  • Re:Article Unclear (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Isaac-1 ( 233099 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @06:43PM (#16048341)
    WAAS requires that geosync be visible from the GPS receiver there are many instances where this can be a problem, for one thing it generaly means the GPS antenna be mounted at the highest point on the vehicle (a potential problem with ships as by law lights must be mounted at their highest point) also terain and even trees, may be an issue for trucks, etc particularly in more northern states where geosync appears low on the horizon.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...