arXiv blog

How to Use Pulsars for Interstellar Navigation

The signals from pulsars form a natural GPS system that could locate any object in the galaxy to within a meter.

kfc 05/27/2009

  • 16 Comments

The Global Position System has revolutionised navigation on Earth. It consists of a network of satellites that each broadcast a time signal. A receiver on Earth can then work out its position in three-dimensional space by comparing the arrival times of the signals from at least three satellites. But the system cannot help with navigation on an interplanetary scale or beyond.

Today, Bertolomé Coll at the Observatoire de Paris in France and a friend, Albert Tarantola, propose an interstellar GPS system that has the ability to determine the position of any point in the galaxy to within a metre.

Their idea is to tune in to the signals from four pulsars: 0751+1807 (3.5ms), 2322+2057 (4.8ms), 0711-6830 (5.5ms) and 1518+0205B (7.9ms), which each generate regular millisecond radio signals.

These form a rough tetrahedron centred on the Solar System.

Why four pulsars? Coll points out that on these scales relativity has to be taken into account when processing the signals and to do this, the protocol has to specify a position in space-time, which requires four signals.

Coll then defines the origin for this system of co-ordinates as 00:00 on 1 January 2001 at the focal point of the Interplanetary Scintillation Array, the radio telescope near Cambridge in the UK that first observed pulsars.

With the co-ordinate system established, any interplanetary spacecraft could then use the signals from these pulsars to determine its position in this co-ordinate system to within a few nanoseconds, which corresponds to about a metre.

Handy, and cheap too.

Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4121: Using Pulsars to Define Space-Time Coordinates

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

tulcod

6 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

GPS uses 4+ sats too

FYI, most implementations of GPS (and certainly your carnav system) use at least 4 satellites, too. If you want to get away with three, you'd need to know your position in the fourth dimension, time. And since clocks with long-term sub-millisecond precision are pretty expensive, a fourth satellite is needed. Note that most car nav systems set the minimum a bit higher to get a reasonable precision.

Reply

Danieleveld

28 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Re: GPS uses 4+ sats too

I believe the fourth satalite actually helps with the problem of time dilation by gravitational redshift, as well. But whatever, the point of the article is interesting.

Reply

usscod

1 Comment

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2009

Re: GPS uses 4+ sats too

I believe you will find that when dealing only with time signals (rather than specific time delays) you must have four such signals to locate yourself relative to the arrayed sources.  GPS can do it with three by assuming you are located on the surface of an idealized "Earth"  -- thus removing one degree of freedom from the equations.  If you also want to know your actual altitude you need the forth time signal.

Reply

raoulteeuwen

2 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Pulsars for earthbound nav?

Could the principle be used to replace current GPS-based navigation on earth?

Reply

oconnor0

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Re: Pulsars for earthbound nav?

No, you need to be able to see at least 4 satellites/pulsars at a time to be able to accurately navigate and the earth's rotation would often prevent this.

Reply

bildan

39 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Re: Pulsars for earthbound nav?

Terrestrial surface navigation would presumably need far more than 4 pulsars since one or more of them would be hidden behind the Earth. I wonder if there are enough suitable pulsars for continuous surface navigation.  If so, it would appear the Department of Defense has wasted a lot of money on satellites.

Reply

ncm

56 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2009

Re: Pulsars for earthbound nav?

If you want to carry a bouquet of radio telescopes in your back pocket... 

A spacecraft can use a phased array of antennae to pick up a bunch of pulsars at once.

Reply

Advertisement

doogie

1 Comment

  • 980 Days Ago
  • 05/29/2009

Re: Pulsars for earthbound nav?

Everybody seems a little confused. 

First off, this is not a new idea: http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JGCD/2006/PVJA13331.pdf

Also, X-Rays get absorbed by the atmosphere so occlusion is not the problem. 

GPS doesn't do you much good beyond GEO. 

Reply

jesusgarza

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Pioneer F Plaque

Isn't this what is etched on the Pioneer F plaque?

The radiating lines at left represents the positions of 14 pulsars, a cosmic source of radio energy, arranged to indicate our sun as the home star of our civilization.

from http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001623.html

Reply

wayneNtampa

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Re: Pioneer F Plaque

If there are 14 suitable pulsars, it would seem that the same system could be used for terrestrial navigation and perhaps we could have a little less 'future space junk'.

Reply

vanzandtj

21 Comments

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

limitations

The proposed system has two very important limitations compared to GPS. 

With GPS, you can turn on your receiver at any time and (when it syncs up) it will tell you your location and the time.  With their system, you had to have monitored the pulsars during your entire trip, so you know how many pulses have passed.  Looked at another way, you have to already know your location within a light-millisecond or so (~300 km) before you can use pulsar-based navigation to estimate your location within a few m.

Second, the GPS signal uses direct sequence spread spectrum, which lets you receive it even though it may be 1000 times quieter than the thermal noise.  You won't have that advantage with the pulsars, so you'll need a lot of antenna gain.

Reply

rodolfohermans

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

Re: limitations

Even if only relative position can be calculated it still sounds interesting. I agree with the point that the real problem is to know how complicated is to detect this signals with a small antenna.

If the implementation cost are small, could be nice to incorporate this concept into the next space probes to test the concept and probably help understanding  the Pioneer anomaly.

A question: Do pulsar's emission have any modulation over the main mode that may help to lock into the signal at a worse signal to noise ratio?

Cheers,
                RH

Reply

bill-tr

1 Comment

  • 982 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2009

correction and long-range considerations

This article says the 4-pulsar scheme would work for navigation "anywhere in the galaxy."

The paper says the scheme is for "anywhere in the Solar system or in the solar systems in this part of the Galaxy." (emphasis mine)

A practical limitation for use "anywhere" is implied by the paper: For observers at two locations A and B to share a common reference origin, something must first travel from A to B while recording or counting the pulsar signals. I think this is to establish the common time origin, since the pulsars are emitting clock ticks, not an absolute "this is the time" signal.

In-system, NTP (Network Time Protocol) might obviate the traveling timebase. (See Timekeeping in the Interplanetary Internet)

If there is a reliable time base function that can be measured at interstellar distance, such as a known monotonic decrease in pulsar frequency, perhaps measuring that function could sufficiently initialize a galaxy-wide coordinate system without shipping a moving timebase. This would be desirable in-system too, after humans are using local space.

Reply

ncm

56 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2009

Re: correction and long-range considerations

I think they are all slowing down gradually.

Reply

Advertisement

jmaximus9

86 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2009

Interstellar Navigation

For those in this thread dissecting why this system is inferior to GPS, you are overlooking one glaring point, the spacecraft. We can't even get to Mars and survive yet; let alone any Star Trekian fantasies. It may prove useful for deep space probes in the future, but for now it is more akin to debating if Kirk is better than Picard.

Reply

ncm

56 Comments

  • 981 Days Ago
  • 05/28/2009

Re: Interstellar Navigation

Hey, it's no contest!

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement