[Boatanchors] LightSquared

[rbethman]

On 10/9/2012 9:00 AM, J. Forster wrote:
>> The Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, *IS* GPS based precision
>> navigation.
>>
>> It provides precise three dimensional location.  LORAN never did that.
>> LORAN is *dead*.
> Most people DON'T CARE about altitude. Pilots are a tiny minority of GPS
> users. And, for geometry reasons, GPS is far less acurate in altitude than
> Lat/Long.

So how many commercial aircraft are airborne at any given time? They 
have to stay within a narrow altitude while above 18000 feet. Go read 
the RNAV requirements!
>
> The decision to shut off LORAN-C is generally believed to be idiotic, and
> politically motivated. GPS is very vulnerable to jamming. GPS jammers are
> easily available for $25 that will kill GPS for >1 mile radius.
>
>> LightSquared is NOT nor EVER was GPS.
> Nobody ever said it was. Quit with the straw-man arguments.
No "straw-man arguments".

  By Drew P.

> Why, LORAN of course!  APN-9, anyone?  Should work as well as a
> LightSquared GPS.
>
> Drew

>
>> It interferes with GPS.  It is a
>> broadband wireless carrier.  Read as cell phones and the like.
>>
>> The DOT, (read FAA), and DoD have pitched a fit over the interference of
>> LightSquared with GPS and WAAS.  These combined systems, (WAAS is Wide
>> Area Augmentation System.  It provides an airport a very fine level of
>> additional GPS data allowing for Zero/Zero landing ability.)
>>
>> This gives pilots the ability to fly down below MDA and put the nose
>> wheel within 6" of the runway center-line.
>>
>> Some folks don't get it!  LightSquared's view is that GPS "looks into
>> their Bandwidth", not that it interferes with it.
>>
>> They are fighting the FCCs decision!
>>
>> Bob - N0DGN
> No practical, realizable filter has the kind of reaponse needed to
> separate the two, especially where the LightSquared is 60 to 120 dB
> stronger. Furthermore, a GPS receiver cannot tolerate much insertion loss.
>
> -John
>
> =================
>
>
Bob - N0DGN