Re: Pulsar Nav accuracy

Indy schrieb:
> > Thinking about it, I doubt that this accuracy could be 
> > achieved with distant objects alone.
> > 
> > Problem is, we have to know the position of the objects 
> > in 3 dimensions and the measurement is unlikely to be very precise.
> > 
> Actually I think, given interstellar travel, we will be 
> able to nail the positions of other celestial objects 
> (pulsars, et al) down pretty darn accurately (okay, within 
> 1/10 ly ;-). Right now we are limited (see an earlier post
> in this thread) to approx 100 parsecs for parallax 
> measurements. 

I guess the 100 parsecs are the range at which measurements are 
possible, rather than the error in teh measures location ? 

> That's using a 2 AU baseline. 

Going to Pluto to do parallax measurements would certainly help :-)
Especially if you can do very-long baseline interferometry with Neptune 
or Uranus as the other receiver. 

> Once we start heading out to other star systems (e.g., Alpha 
Centauri,  
> Sirius, even Vega), our baseline is going to grow massively and we 
ought 
> to be able to extend the parallax measurements out pretty far. And 
pretty	
> accurately. 

You would have to know the distance between the sun and your other star 
quite accurately. Anay error there gets multiplied massively in 
parallax measurements. 

> but hey, that's what will keep us astronomers in business 
> 200 years from now! ;-)

I certainly see an use for the GZG Clarke class survey ships.
 
> - about enough to know in which star's system you are.
> 
> Which, for most purposes, is all you'd really need. You 
> can repoint your ship and zip in closer. :-)

Well, if you are doing multiple jumps through deep space...
Probably still better than dead reckoning (depending on you PSB, of 
course). 
 
Greetings