this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
171 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

64937 readers
4086 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Their achieved accuracy was +/- 1.5km and +/- 2m/s

Which is an improvement in of itself. That improves flying craft navigation to and from the moon into something significantly easier to automate and coordinate between multiple ships, more than ballistic dead reckoning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Better than ballistic dead reckoning, yes. I'm not sure whether it is better or worse than star trackers plus inertial navigation units at that time scale (INUs drift over time and need to be recalibrated every so often to fix that drift, but I really don't know how accurate star trackers are for position since I only use them for attitude measurement).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

is it really such a huge deal ? Afaik "ballistic dead rekoning" is really, really accurate and isnt difficult to automate (it's mostly math after all)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

For longer missions it helps to be able to re-calibrate, as with dead-reckoning, the errors cumulate