ess (phil hunt) wrote:
Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning,
celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up.

Your LORAN system bites the dust when the curtain goes up.

No, because you use multiple transmitters, which aren't all switched
on at once, plus large numbers of fake transmitters there to be
targets for bombs. The transmitters can shift frequencies and use
short transmissions, to further reduce the probability of being
detected.

All of which increases the cost and complexity of your missile
guidance system. It has to; store *all* possible stations,be able to
determine which master/slave complex is currently active, and
determine which frequencies to use. Not easy, not easy at all.

(Setting aside the difficulties of setting up such a system.)

Automated celestial tracking/guidance is not the purview of the
amateur,

LORAN was around 40 years ago; therefore any country with
1960s-equivalent tech should be able to build one.

Nice dodge there, failing to address the issue of celestial
navigation.

And sorry, the assumption that anyone can easily do something that was
done forty years ago is invalid on it's face. A LORAN system requires
complex electronics, accurate surveying, guaranteed power, good sized
antenna... All non-trivial, none cheap, and none 'garage' compatible.

DR is a non-starter--again, you don't just hurl a few
missiles in the general direction of the bad guys and say, "Gee, that was
tough--time for a beer!"

Again, why would DR not work?

Because all navigation system accumulate inaccuracy as time-of-flight
increases. Without periodic updates, you are almost ensured of
failing to hit your target.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.