Re: Pulsar Nav accuracy

That tri-angulation just like you described works just fine in
land-navigation.  But that's (sort of) 2 dimensional.  

I think you'd need a 3rd pulsar (or other known point) to determine the
unknown point (your location).	Otherwise, you could just be anywhere
along the circumference of a circle which is the diameter of the
distance you are from the nearest pulsar... (or something like that,
insert Layman's disclaimer here).

That is, assuming that you're not using light-shift from movement, etc.
and just using the location of the pulsars relative to you.

--Flak

On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 14:08, Hal wrote:
> Hello Folks,
> 
> At present, we are using a 2 AU baseline for measurements of stars. 
Once 
> we start using the ships of FT to place automated telescopes in orbit 
> around the sun, we can expand the baseline easily enough.  Anyone care
to 
> figure out what the accuracy will be for determining where stars
*were* if 
> the baseline is now say, 40 AU's?
> 
> Also, how accurate does one's position have to be known to establish
where 
> you are precisely?  In other words, if I for what ever reason, jump to
some 
> unknown location in space, and I find at least 2 known pulsars -
wouldn't 
> that establish the rough ball park of where I was to the extent that I
at 
> least know which direction to jump back?
> 
>		     Hal

-- 

--Flak Magnet
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?