A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Robert VanderPol II
Date: 2018 Oct 1, 22:02 -0700
Why does it matter to you whether Kermit considers CN to be a backup to GNSS? Do we really need a unified group view on this? You seem to be stating your position as if we need universal agreement on this.
Kermit seems to get that the 1st thru 3rd backups are more GPSs. I certainly get it, but I still see CN being the backup to the backups. So why the need for everybody to agree that it's not a backup? It's not like him preparing to use CN is a backup is going to cost him his life or the lives of anybody else. The monetary cost is almost trivial. The effort to stay vaguely in practice is not onerous.
Is there a public relations reason to for us as a group to agree that CN is not a backup?
There are unlikely scenarios where the systems would go down and CN would be THE backup. The odds on any one of these scenarios occuring is believed to be low. The odds that one of them will occur is higher though still believed to be low. No matter how low the odds of these events they are not zero. The odds of somebody winning a lottery jackpot are low, winning twice is astronomically low, yet it has happened more than once. Why would you discourage someone from preparing for GNSS failure when the cost of preparation is low?
His and my feelings about this type of risks are different from yours. This is not a threat to your way of thinking, it's just different.