Jump to content

Talk:Satellite navigation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Article Is Misleading Regarding Implementation of Satellite Navigation Systems Around the World

[edit]

This article identifies only 2 [Satellite Navigation System]s around the world – [GPS] and [GLONASS]. Viewing the article [Wide Area Augmentation System] I noted that GPS covers, basically, North America. It seems to have spotty coverage of Canada according to the number of ground stations (reference and master) in relation to square miles. The only other fully functional satellite navigation system seems to be GLONASS, recently restored by Russia. Some indications are made that China, India, Europe, and Japan have systems under development, but years away from completion. That would mean places like Australia, South America, GB and Europe, most of Asia (including Japan)south of Russia have no satellite navigation system. There is even a map of GPS within the [Wide Area Argumentation System] article that seems to confirm the regional implementation of GPS to North America.

And yet, I know this is not true. I've seen articles discussing whether or not GPS systems purchased in the US will operate correctly in Australia and I have used my phone's GPS with a local SIM card in Europe.

A WP reader should not have to read beyond this article unequivocal information regarding the extent of implementation of satellite navigation systems.

PS: one of the linked articles has concentric rings around the Earth with radii distances measured in miles, kilometers, and "Mm" providing information of the kinds of satellites/systems orbiting at those distances – I can't even guess what what the Mm unit of measurement is and there is no diagram "legend" or other explanation.Da5id403 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. In terms of the purely technical standpoint, I believe that the only "global" systems are the GPS and GLONASS systems, where you can get coordinates anywhere on the Earth at any given time - all other systems are currently constrained to regional areas with 100% coverage all of the time. Though I haven't found any sources of information, I think a valuable stat to provide would be the percentage of global coverage where one can get a signal from the appropriate amount of satellites, at any given time (like if GPS/GLONASS are currently at >98% Earth coverage at any given time, if BeiDou is currently at 10% Earth coverage at any given time, and if Galileo is currently at 1% coverage at any given time). --99.250.141.178 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satellite navigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRNSS

[edit]

Since IRNSS is not a Global, and instead is rather a regional navigation system, does it belong in the GNSS comparison section on the page? It is already mentioned in the regional section, it would seem like it belongs only there, rather than both sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.118.205 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't a reason as it why should it be removed from the comparison. The article is about satellite navigation systems and since we do not have separate article on Global vs Regional this is a fine place to compare them. Please refrain from removing information without discussing this on the talk page first. The idea of wikipedia is to build consensus not POV pushing. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80:Please don't make same comparison since you have put Regional system of India in the GLOBAL section of the Navigation Systems, It is true that this section of wiki talks about Navigation Systems, in this section talks about Global and regional systems, every section has their correct list . BUT that doesn't means that you put Indian regional system together with global Systems ( Indian regional system is already quoted in the section of "Regional Systems"), that is why I have added the word "Global" in the list for not make confussion with people that read Wikipedia Because India regional Systems isn't equal with Global Systems, then you can agree or no, but is not correct that you try to put Indian regional system as a Global System and trying to forget and not respecting that this list describes and WARNS that is only for " Global Systems". However I agree to create another list with "regionals systems" that would be good for people that want to learn more from wikipedia about Global Systems and regional systems, put it all together , we are making only confusion and fake argumentations. --LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuigiPortaro29, First very important point, do not revert without reaching consensus. As far as I see there is no consensus on this topic since more then one editor has voiced an opinion other then the one you have. Please remember that these pages are written with consensus not unilateral decision making. Now, let's look at this page which talks about satellite navigation which can be both regional and global. Both those systems should be on this page since there is no separate page for either on Wikipedia. There is no arguing the fact that IRNSS is not a global systems but a regional one. My point here is to move the comparison of the systems to a separate section where it can be compared against all systems (global and regional). We can have a row in that table which clearly specifies what is global or regional to avoid confusion. But I think it is nice to have more systems to compare across since they use different kind of frequencies, orbits, and number of satellites. I want to reiterate again, this is not an attempt to equate IRNSS with any of the global systems but just have a comparison between all of them. If you disagree with this, please comment. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80: Well I'm always against vandalism and Since I saw that there here guys putting here in confrontation Indian regional system ahead of Galileo Global Navigation System in the list of Global Navigation System and not in accordance with instructions , it sound little Confusing as well very funny. the list here talks of Global Satellites and Important thing, they said and Warns " Please don't add Indian regional" , Because there always vandalism of Guys putting here India in the list. disregarding warnings, as if wikipedia was an Indian invention for their use. and yet I find that you do not respect that rule, they talk and specify that the list is for Global Systems, and if it is true that someone wants to make a serious and suitable Table for Wikipedia, First we have to put all systems in a table, adding all the regional systems (NOT JUST INDIA) or you want make fake progaganda pro India? I think it is not a good way for talk about a great country and not a good think for India, and when I say all regional systems, it means ALL! and also make a color for Global systems (expl. blue) and regional ones (yellow, or another color!) in this way we could do a job done very well, otherwise you will end up doing always what always happens on wikipedia ( vandalism pro Country / or I do not care what warnings says as in the case of the list of Global Navigation systems),I will not change the list that you have changed today But , waiting for a good agree and with a good suitable Table of Navigation System/ Global and regionals for Wikipedia. would be good in the table or future list, we separate the two Systems( Global and regionals) with colors and specifying the data of the satellites launching and the right date of operation. and Important Thing Specifying that they aren't equal. you and I know that they aren't equal , But people around the world no. Greetings Luigi. --LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuigiPortaro29 First, I think you have a misunderstanding on what constitutes as Wikipedia:Vandalism. There exists a fine but a definite difference between misrepresenting facts for malicious purposes/POV pushing and good faith edits. This article is about Satellite Navigation not "Global" Satellite Navigation thus a comparison can be made between all satellite navigation systems(global or regional). One can argue that the placement of the table was restrictive since it was under global and that should have been corrected by moving it to an independent section and making it very clear the extent of the system(both of these have now been done). Next, may I inquire who created this rule you speak of? Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment which is way to reach consensus(and on conclusion has to be respected by all editors) on any topic where 2 or more editors cannot reach an agreement. AFAIK, there as has been no RfC on this very discussion but there has been one on merging all Satellite Navigation systems into a single page. Third, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and so information is added incrementally. If you wish to add other regional systems to that table or make it more "colorful", you are free to do so but you cannot remove any existing information unless it is wrong/fabricated. Lastly, I have warned you before and do so again to stop looking at these discussions through prism of a single country. On Wikipedia, all of us are editors and have to work together responsibly and respectfully since this a community resource. At times editors do tend to add information about their country because they know about it more and care about it more which does not mean that they are trying to show others down or prove that their country is the best. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80: well my friend, I don't want to turn come back to talk always about who was the person that have put the Indian regional system in the list of Global systems. But it is always nice to remember that nobody here in the "talk Page" of Navigation System hasn't agreed to put Indian regional System together with Global systems, that is why someone had put this message in the list after repetitive acts of vandalism -"FOLLOWING TABLE IS FOR GLOBAL NAVIGATION SYSTEMS. PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE INDIAN IRNSS (NAVIC) AS IT IS LIMITED TO THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IN ITS COVERAGE." that is why then I have delete the Indian section, But you're right since the "Page" talks about Navigation Systems( Global and regionals) so instead to put a colour for the Global systems , would be constructive to put BeiDou,Galileo,GLONASS,GPS,NAVIC and QZSS of Japan, I will put the Systems in alphabetical order and I will delete the warning message to put Indian satellites together with the others Global systems, since this Page talks of Navigation System and not Global Systems.-- LuigiPortaro29 (talk)13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reopen this topic, if I may.
I want to ask why IRNSS is still on the very first paragraph, as a GNSS system, but then on the rest of the article, is considered as a regional one. I don't want to say it is either or, but I'd want some clarity on whether it is actually considered a GNSS or an RNSS, to avoid confusion for readers (such as myself).
I think it would be advisable to rewrite the (Top) section to do an early explainer of what the system is all about, but this is out of the scope of this discussion. Cyberrb25 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add diagram/image of coverage of various systems

[edit]

There are now many systems that have been replayed that provide coverage in different regions. It would be ice to have a map that shows the coverage of the various systems available. Somerandomuser (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Satellite navigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Satellite navigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning, navigation and timing

[edit]

Positioning, navigation and timing should be its own page and shouldn't redirect here; PNT involves more than satellite navigation (INS & Loran, for example, are non-satellite-based PNT technologies). --Alessandriana (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support creating a page on Positioning, navigation and timing that talks about those systems and links to this page. I don't see a redirect that is that specifically, but I may have missed it in the long list. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital station-keeping page-name conflict

[edit]

I guess it's one of those times where I know too much, but I have serious problems with the current page name "satellite navigation" because I know enough about the difficulties involved in orbital station-keeping to expect a dense article on that subject alone, in connection with the maintenance of satellite fleets.

For now, I settled on a "for" now hat.

For maneuvering satellites to maintain orbit and station, see orbital station-keeping.

If you want a two-word page title, it should be satellite geopositioning.

'Navigation' should not stand alone. 'Navigation system' is perfectly fine, however. To really get this right, it should be geonavigation system but now I'm splitting hairs.

You probably could concoct an astrobuck GNSS receiver for a lunar rover which used stray signals from the various Earth satellite systems o infer lunar positioning. Maybe enough of the downward-facing signal would bounce off the Earth atmosphere and out to the Moon. On a signal that weak, it might be hard to decode the ephemerides. But a small constellation of lunar rovers combining signals as a radio array could probably manage this feat. The Doppler shift will be extremely tiny, but you don't have an atmosphere to distort it (not unless you're mainly receiving upper atmospheric reflection). However, there are many satellite systems and surely after a few full orbital periods you'd be able to deduce something from which ones you've seen (mostly) and their precise fade-to-black cutoff timings as they swing around the Earth's dark side. Maybe after 24 hours, you'd be able to fix your lunar position to within 10 km or 100 km. Just guessing. It's such a bad way to invest $10 billion, nobody has yet attacked the first napkin.

So it strikes me as a rather Earth-centric system at this point. Hence geonavigation.

Another approach would be to have a small, technical parent page called satellite geolocation and to rename what remains of this page (probably 90%) to global navigation satellite system which is what people really expect to find here.

Just spit-balling as I'm passing through. I'm such a tumbleweed editor, I rarely return to the same page twice. — MaxEnt 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from satellite navigation device

[edit]

User:212.12.37.98 proposed in July 2021 to merge satellite navigation device into this article with no discussion. I am currently neutral on the idea. Artoria2e5 🌉 14:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing given that there was no case made when the templates were added in July and no support since then with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerabilities

[edit]

I removed this addition to the lead because it was uncited and did not summarise body content (per MOS:LEAD):

One set of critical vulnerabilities in satellite communications are the signals that govern positioning, navigation and timing (PNT). Failure to properly secure these transmissions could not only disrupt satellite networks but wreak havoc on a host of dependent systems as well.

The article currently says nothing about security or vulnerability to disruption. When cruise missiles etc are satellite guided, this seems an obvious risk. Can anyone add a section that might provide a home for the claim (with a citation of course)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satellite_navigation&oldid=1233728899"