Readit News logoReadit News
throw0101a · a year ago
Training for this was discontinued, but brought back in 2016:

* https://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-bac...

Now if only the US (and others) would get their act together and build out a backup system to GNSS. China, for example, has built out an eLoran system:

* https://rntfnd.org/2024/10/03/china-completes-national-elora...

An old USAF video explaining how the theory works (it assumes a geocentric worldview: the Earth is the centre of the universe (but it's not flat :)):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV1V9-nnaAs

madphilosopher · a year ago
The main principle of celestial navigation is pretty easy to visualize.

Pick a celestial body that's in your sky right now, like the Sun. At any given time, the Sun is directly over a single point on the globe (the GP, or Geographic Position). So if you measure the Sun as being directly over your head, you know where you are exactly on the globe, after consulting your clock and almanac.

But, if you measure the Sun at a non-overhead angle, then you and everyone else with that same measurement must be on a circle whose centre is the Sun's GP. (Visualize the circle as the edge of a flashlight beam being pointed directly downward at the GP.) The rest of celestial navigation is refinements to figure out where you are on that circle.

Onavo · a year ago
You can also do it at night using star charts (or as you call it, an "almanac"). That's how most of the digital celestial navigation solutions work, they use the positions of bright stars to determine a fix based on observatory data.

You can try it yourself here:

https://nova.astrometry.net/

nonrandomstring · a year ago
Might I differ on "easy", from second hand experience of watching my father go through his advanced yachtsmanship RYA Astro Navigation exams and cursing at trig functions? In practice its a lot of paper and compasses.
pbhjpbhj · a year ago
The USA who just threatened to invade a few NATO allies? People working with USA for the next few years seems pretty foolhardy. Surely everyone else in NATO needs to be getting together and building it defense system that exclude USA.
throw0101a · a year ago
For (e.g.) eLoran, each chain is independent of every other chain. So the network chain(s) run in the EU are not dependent on the chains in US/CA, are not dependent on the chains in Russia, or the Middle East:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGA-Atlantic_Loran.png

The chains run by Japan are not dependent on the chains run by South Korea, would not be dependent on chains run by AU or NZ:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NGA-Pacific_Loran.png

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#Limitations

India, China, and Pakistan could all run their own infrastructure:

* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loranstationscrkl.jp...

The only agreement being the technical standards (frequencies) and timing offset for near-by chains.

(And I'm Canadian.)

AceyMan · a year ago
It wasn't "the USA", it was our incoming president, who everyone knows speaks for no one but himself.
belter · a year ago
The USA technical infrastructure can be shutdown entirely any time EU wants. Hint: ASML Machines and Remote Disable...
scottLobster · a year ago
I'm pretty sure the threatened invasions are just distractions to change the conversation from the H1B debacle.

If for no other reason than Canada is a country a lot of Americans actually care about (many have relatives there), and without a formal declaration of war congress could step in at any time and declare the whole thing illegal, enabling the military to refuse orders relevant to the invasion.

But as an American who has been a little sick of Europe mooching off of our military overwatch (see various European nations running out of bombs during the Libya campaign), I'm all for an independent European military command with independent capacity. The Cold War is over, the Russian tank hordes that once threatened to roll across Western Europe haven't managed to roll halfway across Ukraine with even reluctant, intermittent, indirect western support. We don't need to be under some monolithic military command anymore, Europe does not (or at least should not) need US strategic overwatch to fend off Russia.

As for the "European militarization has historically led to world wars" argument, the UK, France, and Russia all have nukes. Germany could probably build a few in a long weekend if sufficiently motivated. We aren't going to see a WWI or WWII rematch unless the AI "revolution" actually turns out to be more than smoke and mirrors for dumb money and enables perfect missile defense or something.

So yeah, please get an ex-US NATO off the ground so we can focus on China.

piokoch · a year ago
This is very simplistic way of interpreting what Trump said. I would advice to read a bit about the significance of the GIUK (Greenland, Island, UK) in view of warming climate and growing importance of Arctics - melting ice might provide a much better and faster route for trade.

The problem is who will control the entrance and exit to that route and GIKU is one of them. And here we are on the key problem: Denmark for years totally neglected building any security/military infrastructure on Greenland, which suddenly might become a crucial element of the World economy and trade.

Do you really want sadistic regimes like Russia or China to take control over key parts of the potential trade routes (80% of global trade goes through the sees and oceans)?

Whatever you think about Trump, he will be gone in 4 years, someone else can be elected if Trump/Vance fails to deliver. Do you think we can get rid of Putin and his dreams on conquests Europe that easily? Or Xi, who is speeding with extending military potential of China, including nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers? Try to guess why Xi is doing this.

erulabs · a year ago
The question was “Greenland and Panama” and the answer was “I wouldn’t rule anything out”. It requires a pretty hard squint to convert that into a threat “to invade a few NATO allies”. This sort of intentional misunderstanding of an exaggeration does so much more harm than good.

A western defense system that excludes the USA is naive at best.

dzhiurgis · a year ago
> Now if only the US (and others) would get their act together and build out a backup system to GNSS

They are moving towards quantum navigation (esp subs)

throw0101a · a year ago
> They are moving towards quantum navigation (esp subs)

How does that help the merchant marine that is part of the logistical supply chain? Are container ships going to get this quantum nav boxes too? The US pays airlines a retainer to be a reserve fleet [1]: will they get these boxes as well in case of emergency?

What happens to all the civilian infrastructure that need navigation and timing signals?

Considering only the "military" ramifications of GNSS disruption is myopic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet

dylan604 · a year ago
> Now if only the US (and others) would get their act together and build out a backup system to GNSS. China, for example, has built out an eLoran system:

What prevents other countries from using these other systems?

nayuki · a year ago
Encryption. For example, GPS's P(Y) code is encrypted and only for military use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
throw0101a · a year ago
> What prevents other countries from using these other systems?

Nothing.

Nothing also prevents other countries from using China's BeiDou GNSS or their eLoran network.

knifie_spoonie · a year ago
The US government can apparently turn off their GPS signals over certain parts of the world:

https://idstch.com/geopolitics/denial-gps-services-kargil-wa...

Almondsetat · a year ago
the Earth is the center of the universe, though, just like any other point in space
arter4 · a year ago
>As The American Practical Navigator (aka “Bowditch”) states, “No navigator should ever become completely dependent on electronic methods. The navigator who regularly navigates by blindly pushing buttons and reading the coordinates from ‘black boxes’ will not be prepared to use basic principles to improvise solutions in an emergency.”

I wonder if this mindset is also applied, for example, to the rest of the military. Does the Army regularly practice land navigation? I know they get at least one landnav class, but it is a perishable skill. If you don't practice, you'll soon forget about it.

I guess this could also be useful to civilians. Being able to do stuff without relying too much on electronics.

nradov · a year ago
Some Army units, particularly ground combat units, regularly practice land navigation with map and compass. I don't think they typically spend much time on celestial navigation beyond the basics of finding heading based on constellations. They're not usually carrying sextants.
i_am_proteus · a year ago
There's no real need for celestial navigation on land, the same way there's no need for celestial navigation in most coastal waters: if you can see lines of bearing to known landmarks/navigation markers, you can obtain a fix.
lupire · a year ago
Ships are far more isolated than land crews, and direction-finding is much harder at sea than on land. If you're part of an organization that cares where you are and wants you back, you are pretty easy to find your general location venture off on a land journey and get stuck. A single human might be hard to find under a rock or snow, but an army unit that wants to fund is easy to spot.
paganel · a year ago
The problem with getting lost as an army unit on land is that you might inadvertently get in your enemy's sights before anyone on your side might have had the chance to find you, and at that moment it is game over for said unit. There have been documented a few of these such cases in the war in Ukraine.
cromulent · a year ago
There is a lot of GPS jamming happening these days, especially in the Baltic around Kaliningrad. Makes a lot of sense.

Deleted Comment

cguess · a year ago
It's really funny to watch a bunch of people contradict the US Navy when it comes to navigation at sea. No, a cell phone isn't going to work in the middle of the Pacific and no, the US Navy doesn't use Google maps. Go get on an actual boat sometime and sail out of sight of land, you lose cell signal way before you're even over the horizon.
myself248 · a year ago
A cellphone's GPS only relies on the network for a quickstart. With no network, it takes longer to get the initial fix, but then works perfectly fine.
throw0101a · a year ago
> A cellphone's GPS only relies on the network for a quickstart.

The point is not to rely on GPS/GNSS:

* https://gpsjam.org

Tor3 · a year ago
Not always true. I have devices with GPS which not only relies on a network for getting ephemeris data for the satellites, but they can't function without it. In other words, they don't even try to get ephemeris data through the GPS signal. So, if there's no network, it doesn't work. One of my devices is even a tablet without a SIM card, it only has wifi.. so if I'm near a cafeteria with wifi I can get a fix, and keep it for a while, but without it it's totally stuck. Forever.

In any case, as others have said, in the ocean a cellphone is useless for navigation. At least use a standalone satellite navigator. And learn to use paper maps and a sextant, it's actually a lot of fun.

wakawaka28 · a year ago
Ships do use GPS and so do phones and other devices. What exactly are you trying to say?
rickcarlino · a year ago
Have there been any computer vision systems that can approximate celestial navigation using common sensors like a camera, An electronic compass, and a tilt sensor? Something like a computer vision based auto sextant. This is an idea I have thought about for a while but I have zero background in this area.
kragen · a year ago
Yes, starcams are standard equipment on satellites including Cubesats because they provide more precise attitude information than any other available sensor. There are numerous free-software packages for star tracking; a quick search finds https://github.com/spel-uchile/Star_Tracker. I don't know if there's, like, an Android app that will do the required sensor fusion to tell you where on Earth you are.
tgsovlerkhgsel · a year ago
I looked into it briefly, and while it may be easy at sea with a horizon reference, it becomes surprisingly hard without it (which also complicates testing). The article touches on this with the mention of the bubble sextant required at night, presumably because you can't see the horizon. You'd have the same problem over land.

The stars only give you the angle at which you're looking at the sky. If you know the angle to the center of the earth (or can relate the sky measurement to that) and the exact time, you know where you are, within the inaccuracy of your measurements. Being 1/60th of a degree (1 angular minute) off places you 1 nautical mile off.

A bubble sextant solves this by including a literal 2D bubble level. "When properly used, the bubble sextant gives good results, by which we mean an accuracy to within 5 miles." (https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1939/june/averagi...).

The obvious solution that immediately springs to mind is a tilt sensor/accelerometer. However, once you get to a useful accuracy, those start getting expensive - several hundred dollars for a 0.01 degree system, which would give you an error of about 1 km.

You'd then need a sufficiently rigid mount for everything, proper calibration (remember, some angle on your mount being 0.05 degrees off completely destroys all usefulness of your system!), and then a camera and a plate solver (software that turns a photo into sky coordinates) should give you a useful fix. I think you could build a system that gets you within a few nautical miles for about $1000 (parts, not labor).

gmueckl · a year ago
The closest unit I can think of right now was the SR-71's celestial navigation unit. I don't know how it worked internally, but it supposedly navigated the spy planes to targets across the globe before GPS existed.
nine_k · a year ago
A number of ICBMs used / uses a similar approach. In space, stars are always visible well, and terrestrial navigation aids may have been jammed or destroyed when ICBMs are put to use.
ttepasse · a year ago
From one SR-71 memoir I remember the factoid that sometimes the electromechanical star tracker was sensitive enough to catch stars in the daylight while the plane was still on the ground. Makes one wonder what is possible now with modern digital photographic sensors and processing power. And miniaturisation of course, the 60s celestial navigation unit was the size of a fridge.
bigfatkitten · a year ago
Many aircraft, mostly numbers had similar systems.
walrus01 · a year ago
I'm not aware of any specifically, but one of the instruments that can be used as a data point to further reduce error when navigating in a zero-GPS/zero-radio-signal environment is an INS. The very highest precision ones are quite classified and used on submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

Polizeiposaune · a year ago
Not exactly what you're looking for, but spacecraft can use optical star trackers which compare what they see to a catalogue of known stars to determine orientation.

See, for instance:

https://www.rocketlabusa.com/space-systems/satellite-compone...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_tracker

Deleted Comment

cguess · a year ago
Yes, there's one mentioned in the article, STELLA. Here's a paper describing it https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999naos.symp..239K
tgsovlerkhgsel · a year ago
That's an amazing paper:

TL;DR star tracking is a thoroughly solved problem, the hard problem is finding "where is down" without looking at the horizon (which may not be visible). The solution to that is coupling into the ship's inertial navigation system, which still may drift up to an arcminute per hour, but if you feed the star tracker data back into the INS for corrections, it gets better.

Havoc · a year ago
Like others said SR71 etc.

Problem is those fly high enough that the sky is pretty dark and you can actually see stars.

That's not an assumption we can make for the avg plane

gertrunde · a year ago
Somewhat related - https://oceangloberace.com/

A round-the-world yacht race where modern technology is not permitted. (Where 'Modern' = pretty much anything that wasn't in common use in 1970's/1980's).

A fair few of the boats that have taken part had previously run the Whitbread Race in 80's.

GPS isn't permitted outside of emergency situations, and neither are mobile phones/computers (which are sealed in a bag by race organizers for the duration of each leg).

Celestial navigation is required iirc.

Other banned items include: - Carbon Fiber - Digital Music (Only cassette tapes permitted!)

_xerces_ · a year ago
Curious how navigation at night was not possible without expensive equipment, sounds like they were relying only on starts in the morning and evening? Are the measuring something like angle of those morning/evening stars or their set/rise times with respect to the sun?
UniverseHacker · a year ago
It is not true- the authors sound very inexperienced with celestial navigation. There are many ways including the lunar distance method to get a position at night with regular equipment. The math is more complex than a simple noon solar sighting, but it can be done with just a regular cheap plastic sextant and a watch.

It’s also no big deal to go 12 hours with no position. If you know your speed and heading you can accurately estimate your position much longer than that.

Overall, they also made it sound almost impossibly difficult for a large team of professionals, when solo and otherwise short handed recreational sailors have been reliably sailing around the world with celestial navigation for more than a century- through all possible conditions.

danielvf · a year ago
Note that they were staying roughly 2 miles within the actual track, while having the bulk of the work being done by a combo of officers and newbs that they had just trained. That's high accuracy standards for celestial nav, not even counting that this is most of other people's first time doing this in anger.
throw0101a · a year ago
> Curious how navigation at night was not possible without expensive equipment, sounds like they were relying only on starts in the morning and evening?

As a sibling comment notes, it is possible. There are tables for lunar distance:

* https://thenauticalalmanac.com/Lunar_Distance_Tables.html

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(navigation)

* https://www.starpath.com/resources2/brunner-lunars.pdf

The planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn can be used, as well as several dozen planets (lookup tables in an almanac)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_almanac

* https://thenauticalalmanac.com

Two US military videos explaining the theory (ground points/GP, circle of position, etc):

* USAF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV1V9-nnaAs

* Army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4DRBi66cOA

The USAF has a video because that's how planes used to do navigation outside of radio range—sextants on the ceiling of the cockpit:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7gAiI79nOY

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc3rAlCDf54

quercusa · a year ago
And just how expensive is a bubble sextant?
ianburrell · a year ago
I discovered that real Tamaya marine sextants are available on eBay for $100-150. They were 30x that new.

My understanding is that the sextants are coming from breaker yards in India where the sextants were left on ships and salvaged.

wrycoder · a year ago
I have one I paid $150 for. But bubble sextants are usually only used on aircraft.
doodaddy · a year ago
> CIC was to notify Lieutenant Commander Stanton if the Essex deviated more than 10 nautical miles (nm) from the planned track.

Pretty impressive! USS Essex would cover 10nm in about half an hour, so not much tolerance for going off-course.