GPS is expensive because it is a very slow communication channel - you need to communicate with three or four satellites for an extended duration at 50 bits per second.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Space in general gave us GPS - that's not specifically NASA, but it's investments in space.
There's more GPS in the phone in your pocket than on most of our 21st century airliners - that's frightening.
We're literally just beginning to learn how to use satellites to find sites. More and more people are realizing there's this incredible tool.
It's rare that you have a policy issue that can be solved by throwing more money at the problem, but the technology to make bus service more frequent and equip buses with GPS systems that provide real-time schedule updates to bus stops exists and operates in many parts of the world. We should be installing it in our major cities.
Specifically choose not to take a GPS. Just create a challenge. You can climb Everest or walk across Antarctica with minimal gear and still have that sense of adventure. But in terms of exploration, Google Earth has this world mapped down to the square foot.
To understand how quickly we're cooking the planet, we need good data. To have good data, we need good satellites.
We know that, relative to GPS, radar is not as accurate - we'd be seeing our planes' precise positions in 3-D, not just approximate locations every eight seconds.
Compounding the cost, most mapping software is processor-intense.
The Internet, the camera cellphone and the like have not only sped up the world's information uptake, but they have cheapened that which they capture.
Going from an error rate of 25 meters in GPS to 2.5 meters is huge. Going to 25 centimeters is going to matter just as much.
No opposing quotes found.